Digital BW, The Print

Hi there,

I am returning to 4x5 photography after a long absence and will 
develop Tmax-100 sheets in small tanks with D-76/T-max fixer. I will 
scan my negs on an Epson 3200 flatbed scanner (capture with 
SilverFast as 16-bit grayscale) and then work with the images in 
Photoshop, printing eventually with the ultratone inkset for the 
Epson 2200.

I would like advice on doing some testing to determine my best 
exposure index and development times. I do not have access to a 
densitometer. The rough outlines of my plan are to make 9 exposures 
of the Kodak Color Separation Guide and Grey Scale (Q-13).  I will 
make 3 exposures each at three different EI's – say 50, 100 and 150. 
I will then develop each series of low, medium and high EI's at 3 
different development times, starting from some base time then adding 
or subtracting 30% development time. (My normal agitation pattern is 
5 seconds every 30 seconds, where I lift my negative holder out tilt 
left, then right 45 degrees, and replace the negative holder back in 
the small tank). 

On a different, but related, note I am interested in ensuring that my 
critical plane of focus really is at the ground glass, so I am 
interested in suggestions on what kind of other targets I should add 
to my test scene to evaluate this.

Back to my basic question of EI and development time testing, one of 
my problems is I am not sure what to look for in the resulting scans –
 if I understand correctly the other posts I've read I should be 
aiming for thin negatives and not care about contrast as I can add 
all the contrast I want in Photoshop. For me this means I should tend 
towards a higher EI (I used to use 65 when printing from my negs), 
and perhaps shorter development times. Another more specific question 
I have is whether I would be better advised developing longer in a 
1:1 dilution of D-76, or shorter with full strength developer.

Any and all comments on a testing process/approach that will help me 
nail down EI and development times very gratefully appreciated.

David Meddings

Cross posted to large format photography forum and photo.net

I think vuescan will work as a basic densitometer - I kept a post on how to
do  it, but can't find it now...

tim a


PS - I was just going to suggest the LF list as well - but your post just
turned up there as well... - hunt the archives/recent posts there. There
have been some post recently on developing for scanning LF

David - I'm sure there are many on this list with more expertise in scanning
who will answer your post, but I thought I would add a few thoughts:  Your
description of what you plan to do in exposure and development of the film
suggests that you have awareness of the zone system and the experiments you
need to do in order to determine the best exposure index and development
technique for conventional printing from negatives.

If you're going to be scanning the film, you'll need to make sure that you
also eliminate all but one variable at a time in the testing at the scanning
stage of your experiments in order to get decent information.  In the same
way that you needed a different exposure time and development for printing
with a cold light enlarger head than you might for another light source, you
may need different combinations for your scanner than I might for mine.
You'll also need to decide what to do at the scanning stage - i.e., will you
set the gamma and black/white points manually or use an auto setting?  If
you're going to all this trouble, I certainly wouldn't count on doing more
than you need to in Photoshop - get the best negative that you can to start
with.

If you have access to digital files of step wedges that you've printed in
your system before, you might want to use the info palette in Photoshop to
see the densities of the different dark steps in terms of K value.  You
could then get a sense of what the film density needed to be in that area in
the pre-scan stage.  Once you determined the exposure index that you needed
in order to achieve the proper density in the film's shadow areas, you could
then see what you needed to do in terms of development to see where the
middle and high values needed to go to avoid blocked highlights.  Then if
you really want to torture yourself, you could try different developers to
see which one gave you the combination of grain and sharpness that worked
best with your scanner;)

David,
Check out  


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

David,
Check out The View Camera Store. Fred Newman of the View Camera Store, offers 
just what you are looking for. Fred and Dennis are really great, and have a 
great system worked out for large format shooters. 
Steve Burger


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

I second Steve's recommendation on Fred Newman.  Fred is a wonderful instructor and teaches the BTZS method by Phil Davis.  I took a workshop over a year ago and my negatives are great..All the information is in the negative with a raw scan.

Also, I took a photoshop workshop with Steve..Steve is also a great instructor and resource on photoshop.
 
Good luck
Ross

sburger104@... wrote:
David,
Check out The View Camera Store. Fred Newman of the View Camera Store, offers 
just what you are looking for. Fred and Dennis are really great, and have a 
great system worked out for large format shooters. 
Steve Burger


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



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
  
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

One thing I've noticed in scanning in general, is that scanners vastly 
prefer underdeveloped film to overdeveloped.  If you've been used to 
making bulletproof negs for blasting in the darkroom, you'll be very 
disappointed when you try to scan them.  I have gotten perfectly usable 
images from wrongly-exposed chromes (forgot to change the ISO or 
something), where there appeared to be virtually nothing on the film.  
To my amazement, the scanner scanned the film quite well!  Conversely, 
I've had some negs that looked great on the light table, and would have 
printed fine in an enlarger, that the scanner scanned ok but not as 
well as expected.  So, if you're setting up to test carefully, don't be 
surprised if the scanner likes negs that are thinner than you would 
normally make.

James Irelan

>One thing I've noticed in scanning in general, is that scanners vastly
>prefer underdeveloped film to overdeveloped.  If you've been used to
>making bulletproof negs for blasting in the darkroom, you'll be very
>disappointed when you try to scan them.  I have gotten perfectly usable
>images from wrongly-exposed chromes (forgot to change the ISO or
>something), where there appeared to be virtually nothing on the film.
>To my amazement, the scanner scanned the film quite well!  Conversely,
>I've had some negs that looked great on the light table, and would have
>printed fine in an enlarger, that the scanner scanned ok but not as
>well as expected.  So, if you're setting up to test carefully, don't be
>surprised if the scanner likes negs that are thinner than you would
>normally make.

Amen to that. My scanner is an inexpensive Minolta Dimage IV, and it is
capable of extracting astonishing amounts of good-looking image from the
merest hints of density in a negative. Conversely, it yields nasty
blocky-looking tones from higher-density areas. Since I'm partial to
shooting in low light, this suits me fine!

-- Nick

NICHOLAS HARTMANN
Technical and scientific translator
(414) 271-4890
nh@...
http://www.nhartmann.com

Ross,
Great to hear from you and thanks for the kind words. I have recently 
purchased an Epson 2200 with The MIS UT7 Inks. At first all of my prints were lacking 
punch. They were real close but just needed some punch. The trick for me was 
to use an unsharp mask setting that adds some punch to the image without 
actually sharpening the image. I still sharpen the image. Here's my workflow:
I start out by selecting the midtones (select/Color Range) and instead of 
sample colors, I choose the midtones. I then feather the selection about 5 
pixels. Then I choose the unsharp mask. The settings are: Amount 20 Radius 60 
Threshold 0. I then go back to Color Range and select the shadows, feather the 
selection 5 pixels and apply the same unsharp mask settings (20/60/0). I started 
out applying these settings to the whole image, but I didn't like what it did to 
the highlights. I then make a Levels or curves adjustment layer. This 
technique has made my prints come to life. Sometimes I will make a selection of an 
area that could use some more punch and apply the unsharp mask settings (I call 
it defog) to just that local area. The prints are exceptional. What I like 
most about this printer setup is the many different image tones that can be 
achieved. Paul's curves allow three different sepia tones (some of the best sepia I 
have seen) as well as dead neutral, cool, and what he calls Carbon. I like 
them all. An Inkjet printer with a continuous ink system is not for everybody. 
But I've never had so much fun utilizing all the tweeks that are capable with 
this system. I apologize for the long post, but The last thing I want to say is 
I belong to a lot of forums, but this one is by far the best. Thanks to 
everyone who contributes.

Steve Burger 


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

Thanks to everyone who has responded on my questions, which really 
bridge both film processing and scanning areas. I'll do my best to 
set up a test scene and plow through this.


Thanks again all,

Dave Meddings

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Nicholas 
Hartmann <POLYGLOT@E...> wrote:
> >One thing I've noticed in scanning in general, is that scanners 
vastly
> >prefer underdeveloped film to overdeveloped.  If you've been used 
to
> >making bulletproof negs for blasting in the darkroom, you'll be 
very
> >disappointed when you try to scan them.  I have gotten perfectly 
usable
> >images from wrongly-exposed chromes (forgot to change the ISO or
> >something), where there appeared to be virtually nothing on the 
film.
> >To my amazement, the scanner scanned the film quite well!  
Conversely,
> >I've had some negs that looked great on the light table, and would 
have
> >printed fine in an enlarger, that the scanner scanned ok but not as
> >well as expected.  So, if you're setting up to test carefully, 
don't be
> >surprised if the scanner likes negs that are thinner than you would
> >normally make.
> 
> Amen to that. My scanner is an inexpensive Minolta Dimage IV, and 
it is
> capable of extracting astonishing amounts of good-looking image 
from the
> merest hints of density in a negative. Conversely, it yields nasty
> blocky-looking tones from higher-density areas. Since I'm partial to
> shooting in low light, this suits me fine!

I think this depends on the scanner. I think that shooting for the 
widest range of tones in a negative or chrome is best. If most of 
your information is in a very narrow range of either very faint or 
very dense tones then you will end up with a blotchy tonality in the 
scan.

You will have fewer tones (a smaller part of the scanners full 
dynamic range) to spread over the full range of the resultant scan. 
The more you push those tones (the wider you have to push those end 
points on the histogram) the more you amplify the noise along with it.

The good thing about overexposing negatives is that you will always 
have information in there (it is very hard to go to black black) 
whereas if you underexpose it is possible to get nothing but the 
noise of the base material/scanner. But the ability to pull out 
information from those black areas depends on your scanner. A drum 
scanner is very nice for this but a cheap flatbed might not be able 
to pull anything out.

With chromes (slides), I would not overexpose or underexpose 
intentionally since they are made to be contrasty and therefore have 
a very narrow exposure latitude (not forgiving). Most of you are 
probably well aware of this but I thought I would mention it just in 
case. (the original post mentioned faint chromes which is never 
something you would want to shoot for)

-MikeH

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mh" <mh@t...> wrote:
...The good thing about overexposing negatives is that you will always
have information in there (it is very hard to go to black black)
whereas if you underexpose it is possible to get nothing but the
noise of the base material/scanner.
> 
> -MikeH

My experience has been just the opposite with a Nikon Coolscan V.
Sometimes there is unintentional overexposure followed by normal
development and the scanned images have little contrast with
grain/noise being very present. 

Cheers,
André

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Andre" 
<am1000@v...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mh" <mh@t...> 
wrote:
> ...The good thing about overexposing negatives is that you will 
always
> have information in there (it is very hard to go to black black)
> whereas if you underexpose it is possible to get nothing but the
> noise of the base material/scanner.
> > 
> > -MikeH
> 
> My experience has been just the opposite with a Nikon Coolscan V.
> Sometimes there is unintentional overexposure followed by normal
> development and the scanned images have little contrast with
> grain/noise being very present. 
> 
> Cheers,
> André

My statement above was in regards to information in the negative, not 
in the scan (well, ideally in the scan I guess). The problem you 
encountered was probably a case like what I talked about: most of the 
information in the negative was in a compressed, dense, range and 
your scanner had to spread (I know that is not standard terminology) 
those tones out more than normal. This results in more noise and less 
contrast.

Contrast is a problem and a tricky issue. The natural contrast of B&W 
film is a somewhat unique thing and if the exposure or development is 
off it can mess with that. The complications arise when a lower 
contrast negative results in a lower tonal range scan. When you try 
and bring back that contrast in Photoshop, the image will look kinda 
posterized (contrasty but still flat tonally) and just not quite 
right. I have to go in and adjust contrast locally in these cases.

But a less contrasty negative is usually a good thing because you 
will be able to capture detail in the shadows and the highlights 
(neither will be "clipped") but if it goes too far then you will end 
up with limited tonality.

To me, making sure that there is complete information on the negative 
and in the scan is the most important part (in the raw scanning 
stage) but sometimes this philosophy will hurt the overall look and 
require extra work in Photoshop. So it might not work in a time-is-
money environment. Another reason why paying someone to scan your 
personal work is not always a good idea (but now I am getting back to 
a topic I just talked about in the scan-hi-end group and not this one)

I'll stop rambling now,

-m