Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Scanning Tri-X

Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-09 by sandersm@aol.com

Mark Hahn asked about scanning Tri-X.

Mark, I have used two consumer scanners that handled Tri-X well.   If you're 
shooting 120 roll film, the Epson 2450/3170/3200 will do a good job, at least 
if you put the filmstrip directly onto the glass, emulsion side down (to avoid 
Newton rings).   It has a diffuse light source, that seems to yield pleasing 
results when scanning b+w negatives.   Many have panned it as a tool for 
scanning 35mm film, but as I scan 120 roll film and 4x5 sheets, I cannot speak to 
that from experience.

If you are willing to spend the extra money, the Microtek 120tf film scanner 
and its predecessor, the Polaroid 120 Sprintscan, both work really well with 
Tri-X and other b+w emulsions.   Again, people who understand the machines 
attribute their ability to handle b+w films to the nature of their light source.   
I have an Epson 3200 as well as the Microtek, and each has its strengths, but 
both handle Tri-X quite nicely.   I do not claim to be a pro, but if you 
visit my photographs at www.mcnew.net, all of them are scans of film from one or 
the other of these two machines (most of them with the Microtek), and most of 
them are shot onto Tri-X, developed mostly in HC-110.   

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-09 by Don

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a...
wrote:
> Mark Hahn asked about scanning Tri-X.
> 
> Mark, I have used two consumer scanners that handled Tri-X well.  
If you're 
> shooting 120 roll film, the Epson 2450/3170/3200 will do a good job,
at least 
> if you put the filmstrip directly onto the glass, emulsion side down
(to avoid 
> Newton rings).   It has a diffuse light source, that seems to yield
pleasing 
> results when scanning b+w negatives.   Many have panned it as a tool
for 
> scanning 35mm film, but as I scan 120 roll film and 4x5 sheets, I
cannot speak to 
> that from experience.
> 
Sanders,

Do you really just lay the negatives down on the scanner?  Not in the
holder?  wowo.  How do you keep the negatives flat?  I would like to
try that on my 2450 but I didn't think it possible...

Don Karner

Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-09 by sandersnyc

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Don" <elixirs4me@y...> 
wrote:

> 
> Do you really just lay the negatives down on the scanner?  Not in the
> holder?  wowo.  How do you keep the negatives flat?  I would like to
> try that on my 2450 but I didn't think it possible...
> 
> Don Karner

It is!  But you need to be clever about it.

If you look at the holders, you will notice a notch that runs along the top.  When the 
scanner sees the notch, it knows that the item being scanned is a transparency, not 
reflective media, and configures itself for transparency scanning.  So you have to use 
something to replicate the notch on the glass to make this work.

I do this several ways.  For scanning a frame of film, I took an 8x11 piece of matting 
board -- really, any similar material will do -- and cut out a notch at the top, and cut 
an opening the size of one film frame somewhere in the middle.  I then position the 
negative to be scanned on the glass, lay the board on top so the right negative frame 
appears in the cutout, close the lid and scan away.  You can cut the board so the 
opening's edges overlap the film's rebates (edges), or else you can cut it wide enough 
so that the rebates get scanned as well -- for an example of a full-frame scan, see 
this image of mine:

http://www.pbase.com/image/20916529
http://www.pbase.com/image/20920361

I also use the Epson flatbed to do rough scans of whole strips at a time, as a 
substitute for contact sheets.  I scan a strip at 600 dpi and that gives me plenty of 
detail for deciding which images to print and which to pass over.  For this, I have a 
thin strip of cardboard with the notch cut into it, that I position at the top of the 
scanner glass.  Then I just lay the strip on the glass, close the lid and scan it.  The 
strip won't be perfectly flat but even with moderate curl the scanner gives a good 
image of the negative, good enough at least for proofing purposes.  If the curl is 
excessive, I've been known to weigh the negative down with pennies at the edges -- 
not elegant, but it works.  Or, you can sleeve the negatives and scan through the 
sleeves.  Again, the image is more than adequate for proofing/reviewing a strip.

Finally, I sometimes shoot Polaroid 55 b+w negative film in 4x5 sheets.  Polaroid 55 
negatives are too big to fit in my Epson 4x5 film holder.  Again, I lay the negative 
directly onto the glass, and lay the Epson holder down on top of it, just as I do with 
the matting board on top of the 120 roll film negatives.  It works -- here are a couple 
of examples:

http://www.pbase.com/image/24159622
http://www.pbase.com/image/21566869

I've found that, for my 3200 at least, Tri-X and other b+w films behave better this 
way than in Epson's film holders.  If you do this, don't forget to flip the image in PS!

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net

Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-09 by Mark Hahn

Thanks!

Yeah, with 120 or 4x5" you aren't enlarging as much and it is ok.  I 
have a Epson 2450 and it is ok for 120, but quite good for 4x5".  I 
found that mine does terrible on the glass, in fact I have to shim 
the holder higher to get maximum sharpness out of the scanner (spent 
more than an hour experimenting)... they don't hold very tight 
tolerances on those machines I guess, but they are good for large 
format negs IMO... I would pan it for 35mm as well though.

I've been using a Minolta Scan Dual II for a long time and that is 
worthless for Tri-X, but even what I see from the highly regarded 
4000ppi Nikon doesn't blow me away either...

Nice photos on your site!  ...but looking closely the grain still 
doesn't look quite right to me... I think I am really picky:)

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a... 
wrote:
> Mark Hahn asked about scanning Tri-X.
> 
> Mark, I have used two consumer scanners that handled Tri-X well.   
If you're 
> shooting 120 roll film, the Epson 2450/3170/3200 will do a good 
job, at least 
> if you put the filmstrip directly onto the glass, emulsion side 
down (to avoid 
> Newton rings).   It has a diffuse light source, that seems to yield 
pleasing 
> results when scanning b+w negatives.   Many have panned it as a 
tool for 
> scanning 35mm film, but as I scan 120 roll film and 4x5 sheets, I 
cannot speak to 
> that from experience.
> 
> If you are willing to spend the extra money, the Microtek 120tf 
film scanner 
> and its predecessor, the Polaroid 120 Sprintscan, both work really 
well with 
> Tri-X and other b+w emulsions.   Again, people who understand the 
machines 
> attribute their ability to handle b+w films to the nature of their 
light source.   
> I have an Epson 3200 as well as the Microtek, and each has its 
strengths, but 
> both handle Tri-X quite nicely.   I do not claim to be a pro, but 
if you 
> visit my photographs at www.mcnew.net, all of them are scans of 
film from one or 
> the other of these two machines (most of them with the Microtek), 
and most of 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> them are shot onto Tri-X, developed mostly in HC-110.   
> 
> Sanders McNew
> www.mcnew.net
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-09 by Mark Hahn

I have seen this too, but it more because they are slightly out of 
focus and it blurs the grain a bit; then with post processing you can 
sharpen the image without resolving the grain.  It is a well know 
trick, but it isn't really what I am after.

mark

...
> I've found that, for my 3200 at least, Tri-X and other b+w films 
behave better this 
> way than in Epson's film holders.  If you do this, don't forget to 
flip the image in PS!
...

Epson 2450 - negs on glass [was:Re: Scanning Tri-X]

2004-01-09 by Mark Hahn

here's and article showing why your probably *don't* want to lay your 
negatives on the glass:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Epson_flatbeds.html#Focus_spacing

(see Focus and Spacing)

This made a big difference in the quality I get out of the scanner.

mark

...
> > Do you really just lay the negatives down on the scanner?  Not in 
the
> > holder?  wowo.  How do you keep the negatives flat?  I would like 
to
> > try that on my 2450 but I didn't think it possible...
...

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-09 by Daniel Staver

Tri-X is one of my favorite films for grain, so I was surprised to read
that it's no good for scanning. I guess everybody's tastes are
different... I've tried numerous films, and I keep coming back to Tri-X.

I usually rate it at 800 to get more speed and grain. We have about five
hours of weak daylight here in Norway at the moment, so I need all the
speed I can get...

I scan on the Minolta 5400 and find that it can resolve the grain
nicely.

On the front page of my site images 2-4 and 8-9 are Tri-X rated at 800.
Of course, it's kind of hard to tell what the grain is like because of
the JPEG compression.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-09 by Austin Franklin

> Tri-X is one of my favorite films for grain, so I was surprised to read
> that it's no good for scanning. I guess everybody's tastes are
> different... I've tried numerous films, and I keep coming back to Tri-X.
>
> I usually rate it at 800 to get more speed and grain. We have about five
> hours of weak daylight here in Norway at the moment, so I need all the
> speed I can get...
>
> I scan on the Minolta 5400 and find that it can resolve the grain
> nicely.
>
> On the front page of my site images 2-4 and 8-9 are Tri-X rated at 800.
> Of course, it's kind of hard to tell what the grain is like because of
> the JPEG compression.
>
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no

Hi Daniel,

For 35mm, if you like Tri-X, try Neopan 1600 developed in XTOL, 1:1 or even
1:3.  It's got very smooth tonality, and really quite reduced grain for that
speed.  I use Delta 3200 rated at 1600 for MF, same developer.

I do not like Tri-X in XTOL BTW...

Regards,

Austin

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-09 by Daniel Staver

> For 35mm, if you like Tri-X, try Neopan 1600 developed in 
> XTOL, 1:1 or even 1:3.  It's got very smooth tonality, and 
> really quite reduced grain for that speed.  I use Delta 3200 
> rated at 1600 for MF, same developer.

It's funny you should recommend that now, since I've just gone through
ten rolls of Neopan 1600 after reading about it on the Photo.net forums.
I develop it in DD-X 1:4 and rate it at 640-1200. I think it's a little
contrasty at 1600. 

The flowers on my homepage were shot handheld in the middle of the
night, with only a streetlight for lightning, and rated at 1600:
http://daniel.staver.no/content/view/full/2/offset/6/

This one is rated at 640:
http://daniel.staver.no/content/view/full/2/offset/0/

It's the finest grained high speed film I've tried, better than many 400
iso films even.

I still like Tri-X a lot though...

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-11 by Alan Zinn

At 06:02 AM 1/9/04 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a...
>wrote:
> > Mark Hahn asked about scanning Tri-X.
> >
> > Mark, I have used two consumer scanners that handled Tri-X well.
>If you're
> > shooting 120 roll film, the Epson 2450/3170/3200 will do a good job,
>at least
> > if you put the filmstrip directly onto the glass, emulsion side down
>(to avoid
> > Newton rings).   It has a diffuse light source, that seems to yield
>pleasing
> > results when scanning b+w negatives.   Many have panned it as a tool
>for
> > scanning 35mm film, but as I scan 120 roll film and 4x5 sheets, I
>cannot speak to
> > that from experience.
> >
>Sanders,
>
>Do you really just lay the negatives down on the scanner?  Not in the
>holder?  wowo.  How do you keep the negatives flat?  I would like to
>try that on my 2450 but I didn't think it possible...
>
>Don Karner

Don,

Have a look at this: http://www.panoramacamera.us/m_2450test.html  I use AN 
glass.  I, agree, the Epson2400, 3200 with SilverFast have no problem with TX.

AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-11 by Alan Zinn

At 08:03 AM 1/9/04 +0100, you wrote:
>Tri-X is one of my favorite films for grain, so I was surprised to read
>that it's no good for scanning. I guess everybody's tastes are
>different... I've tried numerous films, and I keep coming back to Tri-X.
>
>I usually rate it at 800 to get more speed and grain. We have about five
>hours of weak daylight here in Norway at the moment, so I need all the
>speed I can get...
>
>I scan on the Minolta 5400 and find that it can resolve the grain
>nicely.
>
>On the front page of my site images 2-4 and 8-9 are Tri-X rated at 800.
>Of course, it's kind of hard to tell what the grain is like because of
>the JPEG compression.
>
>--
>Daniel Staver
>http://daniel.staver.no

Daniel,

Part of the photographic art is exploiting the aesthetic nuances of the 
equipment and materials. It blows my mind to hear of workers trying to 
overcome TX grain, or now in the digital age, trying to create the "look" 
of TX grain with digital cams.

Your web page and photographs are wonderful.

AZ


Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

[Digital BW] Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-12 by Don

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alan Zinn
<AZinn@n...> wrote:
> At 06:02 AM 1/9/04 +0000, you wrote:
> >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a...
> >wrote:
> > > Mark Hahn asked about scanning Tri-X.
> > >
>
> >
> >Do you really just lay the negatives down on the scanner?  Not in the
> >holder?  wowo.  How do you keep the negatives flat?  I would like to
> >try that on my 2450 but I didn't think it possible...
> >
> >Don Karner
> 
> Don,
> 
> Have a look at this: http://www.panoramacamera.us/m_2450test.html  I
use AN 
> glass.  I, agree, the Epson2400, 3200 with SilverFast have no
problem with TX.
> 
> AZ
Thanks Alan.  So let me get this right, the negative goes flat down on
the glass and the AN glass holds it down.  Correct?  thanks for all
your help. Can't wait to try this myself.  Do you do anything to trick
the scanner into knowing it is a transparency?

Don K.

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-12 by Alan Zinn

At 04:33 PM 1/12/04 +0000, you wrote:
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alan Zinn
><AZinn@n...> wrote:
> > At 06:02 AM 1/9/04 +0000, you wrote:
> > >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a...
> > >wrote:
> > > > Mark Hahn asked about scanning Tri-X.
> > > >
> >
> > >
> > >Do you really just lay the negatives down on the scanner?  Not in the
> > >holder?  wowo.  How do you keep the negatives flat?  I would like to
> > >try that on my 2450 but I didn't think it possible...
> > >
> > >Don Karner
> >
> > Don,
> >
> > Have a look at this: http://www.panoramacamera.us/m_2450test.html  I
>use AN
> > glass.  I, agree, the Epson2400, 3200 with SilverFast have no
>problem with TX.
> >
> > AZ
>Thanks Alan.  So let me get this right, the negative goes flat down on
>the glass and the AN glass holds it down.  Correct?  thanks for all
>your help. Can't wait to try this myself.  Do you do anything to trick
>the scanner into knowing it is a transparency?
>
>Don K.
>

Don,

I just toggle Negative and Transparency in the scanner program 
(SilverFast). Put the glossy side of the film up. With a Gepe or similar AN 
glass slide mount you can test the system with one piece of the glass held 
down with tape.

AZ
Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us

[Digital BW] Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-13 by Mark Hahn

for many of us "old-timers" (really, I'm not *that* old;) 35mm Tri-x 
in D-67 just gave a "special" look that we came to love... then we 
have drifted into the digital darkroom for one reason or another (for 
me it was a severe aquired sensitivity to photochemicals).  If we 
were currently using higher resolution scanners and printers there is 
no reason that we can't reproduce Tri-X images by digital means, we 
just need a high enough capture resolution to scan it off the film 
and then print resolution to get it back out.  When you use a scanner 
that has too low a resolution to actually capture the film grain you 
do not end up with a "Tri-X photograph."  Each pixel is going to be 
an average of a bunch of grain clumps and the resulting image will 
have a look of "Tri-X being scanned at XXXppi," which may be 
desirable to some people, but will not look like a traditional print 
from Tri-X.  As I've said before, it isn't an issue for large 
negatives becuase they don't have to be enlarged so much and you 
can't see the effect so clearly, but for 35mm you definitely can.

Well, anyway... if I could still work in a darkroom I would be 
shooting lots of 35mm Tri-X and if I could digitally scan and print 
it to my satisfaction I would be shooting a lot of it as well...

mark

...
> Part of the photographic art is exploiting the aesthetic nuances of 
the 
> equipment and materials. It blows my mind to hear of workers trying 
to 
> overcome TX grain, or now in the digital age, trying to create 
the "look" 
> of TX grain with digital cams.
...

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Scanning Tri-X

2004-01-13 by Truman Prevatt

Hey, watch who you're calling an "old timer" ;-) I mostly do 4x5 now, 
but it's all TriX.  I scan it with an Epson 2450 and find that the final 
prints (1280) still maintain that TriX look we all fell in love with 
when we so young and foolish. I tried the new modern stuff - TMax and 
Delta but found something missing - I still craved for what I had seen 
in my misspent youth - something only TriX could deliver. Now I have 
that in the digital darkroom.

Truman

Mark Hahn wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> for many of us "old-timers" (really, I'm not *that* old;) 35mm Tri-x
> in D-67 just gave a "special" look that we came to love... then we
> have drifted into the digital darkroom for one reason or another (for
> me it was a severe aquired sensitivity to photochemicals).  If we
> were currently using higher resolution scanners and printers there is
> no reason that we can't reproduce Tri-X images by digital means, we
> just need a high enough capture resolution to scan it off the film
> and then print resolution to get it back out.  When you use a scanner
> that has too low a resolution to actually capture the film grain you
> do not end up with a "Tri-X photograph."  Each pixel is going to be
> an average of a bunch of grain clumps and the resulting image will
> have a look of "Tri-X being scanned at XXXppi," which may be
> desirable to some people, but will not look like a traditional print
> from Tri-X.  As I've said before, it isn't an issue for large
> negatives becuase they don't have to be enlarged so much and you
> can't see the effect so clearly, but for 35mm you definitely can.
>
> Well, anyway... if I could still work in a darkroom I would be
> shooting lots of 35mm Tri-X and if I could digitally scan and print
> it to my satisfaction I would be shooting a lot of it as well...
>
> mark
>
> .

pixelization and banding...

2004-01-14 by Allan Chen

>I know this is a topic much discussed, esp. in the more distant past, but 
>I wasn't able to find answers through a search without having to wade 
>through a very large number of irrelevant posts.  Sorry.

I printed a photo yesterday using the UT (1) inks on EEM, and had rather 
severe banding and what looks like pixelization.  The only thing I did kind 
of weird to this file was that I reset the middle-gray point to get a more 
neutral and contrasty print.  The original negative is Delta 3200 @ 3200, 
and with all the base fog it's pretty muddy and low contrast.  Even after 
tweaking the contrast I still wasn't happy with the whites, so I just did 
the little "click to set grey" thing on a levels layer and ended up with 
something that looked a lot better on screen.  However, the histogram is 
rather ugly now - there are a lot of gaps.

Does a file like this, with a gap-filled histogram (sorry, not sure if 
there's a better term), cause this blotchy output?

just wondering.  I'll mess around with settings tonight.
allan


---------------------
Technology Projects Manager
Academic Computing and the Office of Accessible Education
Stanford University
voice - 650-996-0546
fax  -   650-725-4685

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.