Digital BW, The Print

Hello all,

I am a b&w landscape photographer who works with a Pentax 67.  I 
have been using Tmax 100 film in 120 size ever since I got into 
scanning my negatives.  I have gotten pretty good results, but am 
eager to try something else to see if I personally like the look 
better than TMax.  My question is this:

In your opinion, what is the best film to use in a medium format 
camera that is going to be scanned, worked in Photoshop CS, and then 
printed with MIS inks on an Epson 2200 printer?

Please answer with whatever you think.  I am open to all ideas about 
using any type of film (traditional, C-41 b&w, color transparency, 
color neg..ect). Being a landscape photographer, I obviously want a 
film that give superb contrast, detail, and sharpness.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions:

Always grateful for your knowledge.

Josh
www.joshscapes.com

I think the best is Technical Pan, but it's not made any more.  (I stuffed
my freezer with it when I heard it was going to be history.)

The other film I've used the most for landscapes is Tmax 100.  I,
unfortunately, developed it for sharpness for enlarging.  Now I wish I'd
developed it more for smooth grain.

As you can see, I think grain is much more of a problem than sharpness in
digital printing, assuming you have a good scanner.  When I have the C-41
B&W film in the camera and want a really smooth sky, I use a tripod and take
multiple shots.  Multi-sampling works in shooting just the way it works in
scanning.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> joshscapes
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 6:54 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] film for medium format scanning
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I am a b&w landscape photographer who works with a Pentax 67.  I
> have been using Tmax 100 film in 120 size ever since I got into
> scanning my negatives.  I have gotten pretty good results, but am
> eager to try something else to see if I personally like the look
> better than TMax.  My question is this:
> 
> In your opinion, what is the best film to use in a medium format
> camera that is going to be scanned, worked in Photoshop CS, and then
> printed with MIS inks on an Epson 2200 printer?
> 
> Please answer with whatever you think.  I am open to all ideas about
> using any type of film (traditional, C-41 b&w, color transparency,
> color neg..ect). Being a landscape photographer, I obviously want a
> film that give superb contrast, detail, and sharpness.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your suggestions:
> 
> Always grateful for your knowledge.
> 
> Josh
> www.joshscapes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

I,
> unfortunately, developed it for sharpness for enlarging.  Now I wish
> I'd
> developed it more for smooth grain.
>

Scanners like different things than enlargers.  They far prefer thin film to
dense, for instance- the opposite of the choice for enlarging. It may even be
that they prefer thin to "properly" exposed.  I have been out of shooting and
developing for a time, but have in mind revamping my development scheme to fit
scanning, not enlarging.

James Irelan

I personally like the chromo Ilford film XP2 and have used it for many years in 120, but 
others who've tried it on my recommendation have not liked it.
I'm hearing good things about the Efke films, particularly the 25, here-
http://www.jandcphotography.com/
I have yet to try them.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, james@r... wrote:

>
>   I,
> > unfortunately, developed it for sharpness for enlarging.  Now I wish
> > I'd
> > developed it more for smooth grain.
> >
> 
> Scanners like different things than enlargers.  They far prefer thin film to
> dense, for instance- the opposite of the choice for enlarging. It may even be
> that they prefer thin to "properly" exposed.  I have been out of shooting and
> developing for a time, but have in mind revamping my development scheme to fit
> scanning, not enlarging.
> 
> James Irelan
>

What about large format like 4x5. I've been using Tri-X so long I
haven't learned how to ask for anything else. It'definitely  not thin. 


John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@t...> wrote:
>
> I personally like the chromo Ilford film XP2 and have used it for
many years in 120, but 
> others who've tried it on my recommendation have not liked it.
> I'm hearing good things about the Efke films, particularly the 25, here-
> http://www.jandcphotography.com/
> I have yet to try them.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, james@r... wrote:
> >
> >   I,
> > > unfortunately, developed it for sharpness for enlarging.  Now I wish
> > > I'd
> > > developed it more for smooth grain.
> > >
> > 
> > Scanners like different things than enlargers.  They far prefer
thin film to
> > dense, for instance- the opposite of the choice for enlarging. It
may even be
> > that they prefer thin to "properly" exposed.  I have been out of
shooting and
> > developing for a time, but have in mind revamping my development
scheme to fit

> > scanning, not enlarging.
> > 
> > James Irelan
> >
>

You might give XP2 Super a try -- it has a very "smooth" look and 
scans nicely. Someone else mentioned Efke 25 -- it's great also. I 
have a number of 11x14s (produced the old-fashioned way) from 6x7cm 
Efke 25 on my wall. But for scanning purposes, it doesn't look a lot 
different than XP2 Super. Try them and see what you like. XP2 is a 
chromogenic film, so you can use ICE with it if your scanner supports it.

Good luck

Jordan

joshscapes wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I am a b&w landscape photographer who works with a Pentax 67.  I 
> have been using Tmax 100 film in 120 size ever since I got into 
> scanning my negatives.  I have gotten pretty good results, but am 
> eager to try something else to see if I personally like the look 
> better than TMax.  My question is this:
> 
> In your opinion, what is the best film to use in a medium format 
> camera that is going to be scanned, worked in Photoshop CS, and then 
> printed with MIS inks on an Epson 2200 printer?
> 
> Please answer with whatever you think.  I am open to all ideas about 
> using any type of film (traditional, C-41 b&w, color transparency, 
> color neg..ect). Being a landscape photographer, I obviously want a 
> film that give superb contrast, detail, and sharpness.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your suggestions:
> 
> Always grateful for your knowledge.
> 
> Josh
> www.joshscapes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

-- 


Jordan Wosnick
jwosnick@...

Josh -
For me, about 5 or 6 years ago, I stopped using any B&W film, and 
switched to Ektachrome for my 6X9 B&W landscapes (and most other things
that I plan to print.)  The choices for making wonderful conversions in 
Photo Shop are numerous, and since you can work on each color channel
separately, and also get a luminance channel if you need one, the 
control of the final tonalities IMO, go way beyond what black & white 
film can deliver.

Jeff Schewe has written some interesting material on this subject -  he 
talked about making each color channel into a layer, as well as 
converting the file to LAB and converting the luminance channel into a 
fourth layer, and of course, working in 16 bit until completion of the 
file. A lot of work, but worth it for the images that need it.  it used 
to be on his web site.

Clay Price

On Dec 14, 2005, "joshscapes" <joshrandall@...> wrote:

> have been using Tmax 100 film in 120 size ever since I got into
> scanning my negatives.  I have gotten pretty good results, but am
> eager to try something else to see if I personally like the look
> better than TMax.  My question is this:
>
> In your opinion, what is the best film to use in a medium format
> camera that is going to be scanned, worked in Photoshop CS, and then
> printed with MIS inks on an Epson 2200 printer?

Josh,

I work with almost identical hardware and subjects. In my case landscape and nature close-ups are printed from Kodak Portra 160 films (NC or VC) with a Pentax 67, scanned with a Minolta SM Pro, worked in Photoshop 6 and printed via either Epson 2200 with MIS 7600 inks (color or QTR B&Ws) or an 1160 with MIS FS-N quadtones.

I decided on Portra when a friend was setting up his scanning workflow and did some film tests to see what film gave him good scans. What impressed me was his test of film contrast range: he got 13 stops of contrast range with at least some detail from the Portra! Having been a transparency shooter for almost all of my previous years, working with 5 or 6 usable stops of contrast range, I felt like my landscape world had suddenly doubled opportunities for shooting. All of a sudden I was out shooting at mid-day, in full sun with dark rocks in shade and glaring wet sand in the same frame. A very liberating experience and I'd never go back.

I've also shot some B&W negatives (Tmax 100) and I found them harder to scan (dark dark areas of film are denser than color negs and that's hard to read with my scanner, so you lose detail in the highlights of a print). Maybe custom exposed and developed B&W tailored to your hardware/workflow would be as good or better, but then you won't have the option of making both B&W and color from the same frame.

Frank

______________________________________________________________

   From: "joshscapes" <joshrandall@...>
Subject: film for medium format scanning

Hello all,

I am a b&w landscape photographer who works with a Pentax 67.  I 
have been using Tmax 100 film in 120 size ever since I got into 
scanning my negatives.  I have gotten pretty good results, but am 
eager to try something else to see if I personally like the look 
better than TMax.  My question is this:

In your opinion, what is the best film to use in a medium format 
camera that is going to be scanned, worked in Photoshop CS, and then 
printed with MIS inks on an Epson 2200 printer?

Please answer with whatever you think.  I am open to all ideas about 
using any type of film (traditional, C-41 b&w, color transparency, 
color neg..ect). Being a landscape photographer, I obviously want a 
film that give superb contrast, detail, and sharpness.

Thanks in advance for your suggestions:

Always grateful for your knowledge.

Josh
www.joshscapes.com

>Maybe custom exposed and developed B&W tailored to your hardware/workflow would be as good or 
 >better, but then you won't have the option of making both B&W and 
color from the same frame.

Well, I can't do anything about the loss of doing color & bw from a 
single frame, but I very much have customized my development process for 
scanning.  There is a right exposure (or, rather, EI) for scanning - for 
me it's actually about 1/3 stop faster than when I was using a 
densitometer in class, ZS-style.  I still meter my shadows.

Develop to get the scan histogram stretched out as far as possible 
without pushing my zone VII-equivalent off the end.  I have found that 
getting a full tonal range across the entire historgram is far better 
than having it compressed and then stretching it back out in PS.

So I go for the thinnest neg in the shadows as possible with detail, but 
I go for just enough density to get the highlights right.  Any more 
density and it's tough to scan.  That's conventional wisdom, I guess.  I 
just like hearign myself talk :-).

Back to the original question...I actually like grain, so I use a lot of 
acutance developers.  But if you want smoothness, I'd recommend Efke 25 
or 50.  And there's nothing wrong with TMX, though I generally find that 
it needs a bit more acutance to really look right.  It tends to look 
soft without it.  There's a good thread at 
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ETnv

allan

-- 
http://allan.kaiyen.com
http://photos.kaiyen.com

I too use color neg for most work these days and for the same reasons. 
Even across various film sizes it works well. I am sitting right now
about 4 ft from a Quad 17x26" print from a 35mm color neg and it is,
in my estimation, quite literaly beautiful. Almost everything I do now
is either 120 color neg or 35mm color neg dependent on purpose and
what I can physically take with me for use. Even view camera use is
with a 120 roll film holder. It works and processing is nearly
universaly available while traveling. Not an insignificant thing today
given the security climate and x-ray potential.
The only difficulties inherent to smaller negs that I see are the
grain(dyecloud) issues that must be overcome with sizeable
enlargement. That is also doable. The modern color films have very
good resolution.

That said--No, I don't make claims it's as good as large format
anything, but then what is? And just how many images can be taken with
traditional large format? And how many actually would be? 

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Frank Kolwicz
<kolwicz@e...> wrote:
>
> Josh,
> 
> I work with almost identical hardware and subjects. In my case
landscape and nature close-ups are printed from Kodak Portra 160 films
(NC or VC) with a Pentax 67, scanned with a Minolta SM Pro, worked in
Photoshop 6 and printed via either Epson 2200 with MIS 7600 inks
(color or QTR B&Ws) or an 1160 with MIS FS-N quadtones.
> 
> I decided on Portra when a friend was setting up his scanning
workflow and did some film tests to see what film gave him good scans.
What impressed me was his test of film contrast range: he got 13 stops
of contrast range with at least some detail from the Portra! Having
been a transparency shooter for almost all of my previous years,
working with 5 or 6 usable stops of contrast range, I felt like my
landscape world had suddenly doubled opportunities for shooting. All
of a sudden I was out shooting at mid-day, in full sun with dark rocks
in shade and glaring wet sand in the same frame. A very liberating
experience and I'd never go back.
> 
> I've also shot some B&W negatives (Tmax 100) and I found them harder
to scan (dark dark areas of film are denser than color negs and that's
hard to read with my scanner, so you lose detail in the highlights of
a print). Maybe custom exposed and developed B&W tailored to your
hardware/workflow would be as good or better, but then you won't have
the option of making both B&W and color from the same frame.

> 
> Frank
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
>    From: "joshscapes" <joshrandall@j...>
> Subject: film for medium format scanning
>

I don't think scanners want "thin" negs, and it's certainly not right
to say enlargers prefered dense negs. The use of "dense" and "thin" 
suggests earlier negs were never optimal for the darkroom . 

Exposing/processing B&W film with basic N/N+/N- controls, one can
almost always print "properly" on one standard grade of one's standard
paper, and of course those negs scan well.

For me, darkroom practice didn't imply accident or exploration.
Scanning facilitates lots of new interpretations of images, but
because of early exposure to basics of Zone System (I never got deep
with it) my negs have almost always enlarged the way I intended, had
the tonal scale I needed, were rarely challenges in the darkroom. 

John Kelly


> Scanners like different things than enlargers.  They far prefer thin
film to
> dense, for instance- the opposite of the choice for enlarging. It
may even be
> that they prefer thin to "properly" exposed.  I have been out of
shooting and
> developing for a time, but have in mind revamping my development
scheme to fit

> scanning, not enlarging.
> 
> James Irelan
>

djon43 wrote:

>
> I don't think scanners want "thin" negs

Ah, but they do. I'm a drum scanner operator. I've run a long series of 
tests with my own work using 5x4 Tri-X. Optimum for my scanner turns out 
to be what you might call an N-1.5 negative.

There are a number of reasons for this. Not least is the collimated 
light and the resulting Callier effect. If you can get the amount of 
silver down, you decrease light scatter. That, by itself, argues for 
less density (thinner negs).

> , and it's certainly not right
> to say enlargers prefered dense negs. The use of "dense" and "thin"
> suggests earlier negs were never optimal for the darkroom .

They weren't really. That was why guys like Adams worked so hard on 
tools like the Zone System - to bring negatives closer to optimal for 
darkroom printing with the fixed paper grades of the day.

>
> Exposing/processing B&W film with basic N/N+/N- controls, one can
> almost always print "properly" on one standard grade of one's standard
> paper, and of course those negs scan well.

They do in deed scan well. If they were a bit thinner, they would scan 
even better however.

>
> For me, darkroom practice didn't imply accident or exploration.
> Scanning facilitates lots of new interpretations of images, but
> because of early exposure to basics of Zone System (I never got deep
> with it) my negs have almost always enlarged the way I intended, had
> the tonal scale I needed, were rarely challenges in the darkroom.
>
> John Kelly

You should have no difficulty scanning these negs.

I've always said that if you are going to use the negs for both darkroom 
and scanning, optimize for the darkroom only. But if you are only going 
to scan (that would be me) optimize for scanning which, for me and my 
drum scanner, turns out to be a bit thinner than for darkroom work.
--
Bruce Watson

I agree with all of that about thinner black and white negs working
much better. One client of mine always brings me pretty dense tri x
and t max medium format negs and they have always given me the most
trouble of anything I've worked with. 

John


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... wrote:
>
> djon43 wrote:
> 
> >
> > I don't think scanners want "thin" negs
> 
> Ah, but they do. I'm a drum scanner operator. I've run a long series of 
> tests with my own work using 5x4 Tri-X. Optimum for my scanner turns
out 
> to be what you might call an N-1.5 negative.
> 
> There are a number of reasons for this. Not least is the collimated 
> light and the resulting Callier effect. If you can get the amount of 
> silver down, you decrease light scatter. That, by itself, argues for 
> less density (thinner negs).
> 
> > , and it's certainly not right
> > to say enlargers prefered dense negs. The use of "dense" and "thin"
> > suggests earlier negs were never optimal for the darkroom .
> 
> They weren't really. That was why guys like Adams worked so hard on 
> tools like the Zone System - to bring negatives closer to optimal for 
> darkroom printing with the fixed paper grades of the day.
> 
> >
> > Exposing/processing B&W film with basic N/N+/N- controls, one can
> > almost always print "properly" on one standard grade of one's standard
> > paper, and of course those negs scan well.
> 
> They do in deed scan well. If they were a bit thinner, they would scan 
> even better however.
> 
> >
> > For me, darkroom practice didn't imply accident or exploration.
> > Scanning facilitates lots of new interpretations of images, but
> > because of early exposure to basics of Zone System (I never got deep
> > with it) my negs have almost always enlarged the way I intended, had
> > the tonal scale I needed, were rarely challenges in the darkroom.
> >
> > John Kelly
> 
> You should have no difficulty scanning these negs.
> 
> I've always said that if you are going to use the negs for both
darkroom 

> and scanning, optimize for the darkroom only. But if you are only going 
> to scan (that would be me) optimize for scanning which, for me and my 
> drum scanner, turns out to be a bit thinner than for darkroom work.
> --
> Bruce Watson
>

Bruce,
Does your 'thinner negs' experience for scanning only apply to drum 
scanners or does it apply for all scanners?  From what you say I guess 
it does, but can you clarify please.  I scan 5x4 100Tmax on a 4870 
flatbed and don't have anything to compare it with.  I could (and 
probably will) run some tests to try thinner negatives but as far as I 
can tell my scanning is giving me good scanning material.  But, I must 
say my negs are in general rather beefy.  My scanner has never failed to 
scan any of the dense neg highlights that I occasionally get but from 
what you say, maybe thinner would be sharper?
Steve Gledhill ----- http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/


hogarth@... wrote:

> djon43 wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think scanners want "thin" negs
>
> Ah, but they do. I'm a drum scanner operator. I've run a long series of
> tests with my own work using 5x4 Tri-X. Optimum for my scanner turns out
> to be what you might call an N-1.5 negative.
>
> There are a number of reasons for this. Not least is the collimated
> light and the resulting Callier effect. If you can get the amount of
> silver down, you decrease light scatter. That, by itself, argues for
> less density (thinner negs).
>
> > , and it's certainly not right
> > to say enlargers prefered dense negs. The use of "dense" and "thin"
> > suggests earlier negs were never optimal for the darkroom .
>
> They weren't really. That was why guys like Adams worked so hard on
> tools like the Zone System - to bring negatives closer to optimal for
> darkroom printing with the fixed paper grades of the day.
>
> >
> > Exposing/processing B&W film with basic N/N+/N- controls, one can
> > almost always print "properly" on one standard grade of one's standard
> > paper, and of course those negs scan well.
>
> They do in deed scan well. If they were a bit thinner, they would scan
> even better however.
>
> >
> > For me, darkroom practice didn't imply accident or exploration.
> > Scanning facilitates lots of new interpretations of images, but
> > because of early exposure to basics of Zone System (I never got deep
> > with it) my negs have almost always enlarged the way I intended, had
> > the tonal scale I needed, were rarely challenges in the darkroom.
> >
> > John Kelly
>
> You should have no difficulty scanning these negs.
>
> I've always said that if you are going to use the negs for both darkroom
> and scanning, optimize for the darkroom only. But if you are only going
> to scan (that would be me) optimize for scanning which, for me and my
> drum scanner, turns out to be a bit thinner than for darkroom work.
> --
> Bruce Watson


		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

Lite debate :-)

>  hogarth@s... wrote:
 
>> djon43 wrote:

> > I don't think scanners want "thin" negs
> 
> Ah, but they do. I'm a drum scanner operator. I've run a long series of 
> tests with my own work using 5x4 Tri-X. Optimum for my scanner turns
out 
> to be what you might call an N-1.5 negative.
> 
> There are a number of reasons for this. Not least is the collimated 
> light and the resulting Callier effect. If you can get the amount of 
> silver down, you decrease light scatter. That, by itself, argues for 
> less density (thinner negs).

Callier: interesting info. 

I'm pretty sure my negs would always have seemed "thin" to people who
didn't have much control over their exposure/processing (typically
they like "high contrast" images more than extended scale).

> > The use of "dense" and "thin"
> > suggests earlier negs were never optimal for the darkroom .
> 
> They weren't really. That was why guys like Adams worked so hard on 
> tools like the Zone System - to bring negatives closer to optimal for 
> darkroom printing with the fixed paper grades of the day.

You've made my point here: People unfamiliar with basics like Zone
System rarely made good negs, they simply got into utilitarian habits,
such as doing habitual darkroom work-arounds with negs that they now
think are too dense for scanning.

I continue to recommend Ansel's book, especially for 35-shooters like
I am now. It doesn't translate perfectly from sheet to roll, but the
comparison is instructive in itself.

> 
> >
> > Exposing/processing B&W film with basic N/N+/N- controls, one can
> > almost always print "properly" on one standard grade of one's standard
> > paper, and of course those negs scan well.
> 
> They do in deed scan well. If they were a bit thinner, they would scan 
> even better however.

 ...you've advocated N-1.5 whereas my typical roll film negs were N-1
 ...that's cutting things pretty fine  :-) 

> ...if you are only going 
> to scan (that would be me)....
> --
> Bruce Watson

Me too. John Kelly

Steve Gledhill wrote:

> Bruce,
> Does your 'thinner negs' experience for scanning only apply to drum
> scanners or does it apply for all scanners?  From what you say I guess
> it does, but can you clarify please.  

In theory it would also apply to CCD scanners. But I don't own the 
equipment to do the testing. Sorry.

> I scan 5x4 100Tmax on a 4870
> flatbed and don't have anything to compare it with.  I could (and
> probably will) run some tests to try thinner negatives but as far as I
> can tell my scanning is giving me good scanning material.  But, I must
> say my negs are in general rather beefy.  My scanner has never failed to
> scan any of the dense neg highlights that I occasionally get but from
> what you say, maybe thinner would be sharper?

Almost certainly, scanner or not. Density effects many properties, 
including graininess and perceived sharpness. As density goes down, 
graininess decreases and sharpness increases a bit. This is one of the 
reasons that slide film is perceived to be less grainy and sharper than 
negative film -- slide film has its maximum density in the shadows where 
it's difficult to see the grain, while it has its minimum density in the 
highlights that appear almost grainless and very sharp.

It's easy to run the tests if you are developing your own negs. After I 
found my EI and normal development time per the zone system, I started 
decreasing my development time about 30 seconds per batch. When 
scanning, I kept records of the resulting Dmax from the various 
negatives. I would also use Photoshop to isolate a section so that I 
could print a square about 30cm per side that was a section of what 
would have been a full size print (about 10x enlargement - around 125 x 
100 cm). It's really hard to judge graininess and sharpness from 
Photoshop. I find that prints are must easier to evaluate.

I could see graininess decrease and sharpness increase (just a bit) in 
the prints. I could also see that tonality and tonal transitions were 
not effected, and that the overall contrast of the image in the image 
file went up (most likely as density decreased, Callier effect also 
decreased, just like in the darkroom).

I got down to the point where I was starting to have to do a bit more 
work in Photoshop - tonality was starting to compress. From there I 
increased development a bit. It worked out to about N-1.5 for me, and 
the lowered development time did cost me about 1/3 stop of EI.

> Steve Gledhill ----- http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/

I'm not saying that this is the answer to Life, the Universe, and 
Everything. That would be 42 ;-)

But it is sound theory, and I have verified it in practice. To become 
accepted theory, many people will have to verify it in practice. To be 
discreditied, many people will have to try it and find that they can not 
verify it in practice. So... take an chance and try it. Or not. Because 
YMMV.

Why guess when you can know?
--
Bruce Watson

...you've advocated N-1.5 whereas my typical roll film negs were N-1

> ...that's cutting things pretty fine  :-)
>
> > ...if you are only going
> > to scan (that would be me)....
> > --

Ya. That's probably close enough that we'd have trouble seeing it if we 
didn't actually make the prints ourselves.

Since you are scanning, there is another side effect. Or more properly, 
a sacrilegeous perversion of the zone system. I know - beat me ;-) That 
is, once I found my optimum average development time, that's all I use. 
Everything gets that "N" development.

I just expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they 
may. Because this is what the scanner really does best - take whatever 
density range is on the film and fit it into the numerical range of it's 
output (for 8 bit, that would be 0-255). The scans are great. Life is 
simple - in the field I can concentrate on making the photograph and not 
have my thinking clouded by development issues. A little bit of freedom 
is a good thing!
--
Bruce Watson

Thanks Bruce.
I haven't really noticed that I'm not quite getting the sharpness I 
could as I rarely print anywhere near the limit of a 5x4 scanned at 
2400dpi.  But I'll do the tests (I do my own developing of 100Tmax 
(mostly in XTOL and mostly @ 1+2)) and see if I can get even more 
potential into my scanned files.
Steve Gledhill ----- http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/

hogarth@... wrote:

> Steve Gledhill wrote:
>
> > Bruce,
> > Does your 'thinner negs' experience for scanning only apply to drum
> > scanners or does it apply for all scanners?  From what you say I guess
> > it does, but can you clarify please. 
>
> In theory it would also apply to CCD scanners. But I don't own the
> equipment to do the testing. Sorry.
>
> > I scan 5x4 100Tmax on a 4870
> > flatbed and don't have anything to compare it with.  I could (and
> > probably will) run some tests to try thinner negatives but as far as I
> > can tell my scanning is giving me good scanning material.  But, I must
> > say my negs are in general rather beefy.  My scanner has never failed to
> > scan any of the dense neg highlights that I occasionally get but from
> > what you say, maybe thinner would be sharper?
>
> Almost certainly, scanner or not. Density effects many properties,
> including graininess and perceived sharpness. As density goes down,
> graininess decreases and sharpness increases a bit. This is one of the
> reasons that slide film is perceived to be less grainy and sharper than
> negative film -- slide film has its maximum density in the shadows where
> it's difficult to see the grain, while it has its minimum density in the
> highlights that appear almost grainless and very sharp.
>
> It's easy to run the tests if you are developing your own negs. After I
> found my EI and normal development time per the zone system, I started
> decreasing my development time about 30 seconds per batch. When
> scanning, I kept records of the resulting Dmax from the various
> negatives. I would also use Photoshop to isolate a section so that I
> could print a square about 30cm per side that was a section of what
> would have been a full size print (about 10x enlargement - around 125 x
> 100 cm). It's really hard to judge graininess and sharpness from
> Photoshop. I find that prints are must easier to evaluate.
>
> I could see graininess decrease and sharpness increase (just a bit) in
> the prints. I could also see that tonality and tonal transitions were
> not effected, and that the overall contrast of the image in the image
> file went up (most likely as density decreased, Callier effect also
> decreased, just like in the darkroom).
>
> I got down to the point where I was starting to have to do a bit more
> work in Photoshop - tonality was starting to compress. From there I
> increased development a bit. It worked out to about N-1.5 for me, and
> the lowered development time did cost me about 1/3 stop of EI.
>
> > Steve Gledhill ----- http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/
>
> I'm not saying that this is the answer to Life, the Universe, and
> Everything. That would be 42 ;-)
>
> But it is sound theory, and I have verified it in practice. To become
> accepted theory, many people will have to verify it in practice. To be
> discreditied, many people will have to try it and find that they can not
> verify it in practice. So... take an chance and try it. Or not. Because
> YMMV.
>
> Why guess when you can know?
> --
> Bruce Watson


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/

Steve Gledhill wrote:

> Thanks Bruce.
> I haven't really noticed that I'm not quite getting the sharpness I
> could as I rarely print anywhere near the limit of a 5x4 scanned at
> 2400dpi.  But I'll do the tests (I do my own developing of 100Tmax
> (mostly in XTOL and mostly @ 1+2)) and see if I can get even more
> potential into my scanned files.
> Steve Gledhill ----- http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/
>
You are already using a sharp film. The small increase in sharpness you 
get from decreasing your neg's Dmax a bit might be difficult to see, so 
don't be disappointed. I see it only if I really look for it, and I'm 
using 5x4 Tri-X, also in XTOL, but at 1:3, and I'm scanning at 11x 
enlargement (so I can do 10x prints with a little room for cropping if 
required) at 360ppi output - so just under 4000ppi scanner resolution.

Yours will be noticably sharper than mine, because 100Tmax is noticably 
sharper than Tri-X already. The little bit you might perceive from a 
thinner negative will just be icing on the cake.
--
Bruce Watson

> a sacrilegeous perversion of the zone system. I know - beat me ;-) 
once I found my optimum average development time, that's all I use. 
> Everything gets that "N" development.

... compensating developers especially enable that perversion, but
people who soup for contrasty prints on #2 are advised to look around
before they bend over, if they drop their bar of soap.

> 
> I just expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they 
> may. Because this is what the scanner really does best - take whatever 
> density range is on the film and fit it into the numerical range of
it's 

> output (for 8 bit, that would be 0-255).  
> --
> Bruce Watson
>

Pardon the interruption, but I can attest that my Canoscan 8400f
flatbed also prefers thin negatives. It can pull astonishing amounts
of detail out of what looked to my naked eye like clear areas on the
negative. On the other hand, nice full-toned-looking negatives will
give mediocre results and even blown highlights.

This makes no sense to me, since if scanner CCD's work like digicam
CCD's, I'd expect the opposite. I can make some "exposure" adjustments
with the driver controls, but, though I haven't made any study or
measurements, I believe I lose overall range when I compensate this
way. That seems to be what the histogram is telling me. I take that to
mean the controls are manipulating the data, not the optics.

When I learned to do darkroom printing after using the scanner for a
while, it seemed to me that enlargers "preferred" negative density
much closer to what my eye did.

I'm speaking of B&W film, 35mm, usually TriX or HP5.

Bob

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... wrote:

>
> Steve Gledhill wrote:
> 
> > Bruce,
> > Does your 'thinner negs' experience for scanning only apply to drum
> > scanners or does it apply for all scanners?  From what you say I guess
> > it does, but can you clarify please.  
>

Bruce,
> 
> Almost certainly, scanner or not. Density effects many properties, 
> including graininess and perceived sharpness. As density goes down, 
> graininess decreases and sharpness increases a bit. This is one of the 
> reasons that slide film is perceived to be less grainy and sharper than 
> negative film -- slide film has its maximum density in the shadows where 
> it's difficult to see the grain, while it has its minimum density in the 
> highlights that appear almost grainless and very sharp.

When you describe a "thin" negative, I presume you mean that the silver density is thin. This 
distinction is relevent when using staining developers such as Pyro and Pyrocat-HD. In such 
cases the negatives have always seemed "thin" to the eye but the CI of the negative as seen 
through processes that are U.V. sensative (e.g. platinum) is quite good.

In such negatives the stain part does not have grain.

All told, one can have negatives with quite good shadow detail, with excellent tonality, which 
in fact have quite good darkroom contrast but also scan well.

Jonathan

I recently switched to Kodak Plus-x (PXP) from Tmax 100 (I could not 
get a decent negative from the latter except by 
accident), ...developed at home in Rodinal, using an older 6x4.5cm 
Mamiya, and have been very pleased w/results for fine close-up detail 
shots. 

example: 
http://members.acmenet.net/~roth/images/hupmoble.jpg

I have about 30 such shots from that shoot, all came out like 
that...sharp and clean. However, in drab, drizzly grey light on the 
Oregon coast in October, it was a bit more tricky getting such results 
for landscape shots. I like this PXP for scanning, though, am using 
Epson 3170 flatbed, scanned at 3200 dpi. Hope that helps.
Best,
Mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mark_roth_505" 
<mark@m...> wrote:
>
> I recently switched to Kodak Plus-x (PXP) from Tmax 100 (I could 
not 
> get a decent negative from the latter except by 
> accident), ...developed at home in Rodinal, using an older 6x4.5cm 
> Mamiya, and have been very pleased w/results for fine close-up 
detail 
> shots. 
> 
> example: 
> http://members.acmenet.net/~roth/images/hupmoble.jpg
> 
> I have about 30 such shots from that shoot, all came out like 
> that...sharp and clean. However, in drab, drizzly grey light on 
the 
> Oregon coast in October, it was a bit more tricky getting such 
results 
> for landscape shots. I like this PXP for scanning, though, am 
using 
> Epson 3170 flatbed, scanned at 3200 dpi. Hope that helps.
> Best,
> Mark
>
Hi there,

I still use black and white film and recently started using Agfa 
Scala. This is a black and white slide film and although you have to 
be careful with the exposure the transparancies are incredible.

The thing about using this film is that I get the best of both 
worlds; old style slides that I can use on a projector and make 
incredible prints. In my case using Picture Windows Pro.

Yours Graham

english_works_gt wrote:
>
> I still use black and white film and recently started using Agfa 
> Scala. This is a black and white slide film and although you have to 
> be careful with the exposure the transparancies are incredible.
> 
> The thing about using this film is that I get the best of both 
> worlds; old style slides that I can use on a projector and make 
> incredible prints. In my case using Picture Windows Pro.

Don't get too attached to Scala! Given Agfa's recent demise, I 
wouldn't expect it to be available for too much longer.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jordan Wosnick 
<jwosnick@f...> wrote:

> 
> Don't get too attached to Scala! Given Agfa's recent demise, I 
> wouldn't expect it to be available for too much longer.
>
And don't get too attached to any one digital camera, lens, 
computer, ink, paper, color film, temperature in a day, clouds in 
the sky...ect.

What kind of a comment is that?  I'm sorry.  I don't mean to sound 
harsh or sarcastic (well maybe a little).  But in this day in age 
does someone really need to be told not to get too attached to any 
one form of shooting photographs when the field of photography is 
changing at a rapid pace.  It is available today, if Scala works for 
him today, then I say shoot the heck out of it and produce great 
images!  Isn't that what it is all about?  Not looking over your 
shoulder to see when your favorite film will be "no longer 
availabe."  I am kind of sick and tired of everyone who is shooting 
digital saying "another film bites the dust" and "soon you will have 
to switch to digital because there will be no b&w film left."  If 
anybody who made such comments understood simple economics they 
would understand that as long as there is a market for something, it 
WILL be produced....by someone.  Examples: record players.  When was 
the last time you listen to a record on a record player?  But you 
can still buy record players and records.  Why, because there is a 
market for them somewhere.  The point is, if people always tried to 
stay on the cusp of the next technological breakthrough, then we 
would have no more oil painters, no more charcoal drawings, no more 
wood carvers....and that would be a very drab and sad world.  If 
scala disappears then he'll find another source because there will 
always be another source.  He might have to pay more.  He might have 
to buy it from Timbuktu, but there will be a source for a similar 
product.  Why?   Because he is not the only one who likes and shoots 
Scala.  Just my thoughts.  Thanks for letting me get that off my 
chest.  Now back to scanning, e-mailing, and watching Gladiator on 
DVD. :-)

joshscapes wrote:

> And don't get too attached to any one digital camera, lens, 
> computer, ink, paper, color film, temperature in a day, clouds in 
> the sky...ect.
> 
> What kind of a comment is that?  I'm sorry.  I don't mean to sound 
> harsh or sarcastic (well maybe a little).  But in this day in age 
> does someone really need to be told not to get too attached to any 

Josh, I agree for the most part with the content of your e-mail. I 
myself don't even own a digital camera and sincerely hope that film 
remains available for a LONG time. I didn't intend to be provocative.

But AgfaPhoto (the film, paper and chemistry branch of Agfa that 
emerged after the parent company declared insolvency earlier this 
year) has indicated that it failed to find a buyer and is wrapping up 
operations at the end of 2005.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/10/19/afx2285533.html%3E

Long discussion here: http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20610

AgfaPhoto laid off all of its staff earlier this fall. I think a 
European company bought up its stock of B&W paper and some chemicals 
and is selling it until it's gone. There was also talk of Fuji buying 
up some of its materials and/or IP, and of a company buying the colour 
mini-lab part of the business, but I don't know if these deals 
materialized.

The 120-format B&W films were discontinued earlier this year. 
Production of all Agfa films and chemicals has ceased. That's why it's 
becoming difficult to find APX films and Rodinal, as fans buy up the 
stock everywhere. Lots of discussions of alternatives to these films 
and developers are currently underway on photo.net, APUG, etc.

Given the fact that Agfa is basically out of business, and that Scala 
requires a proprietary process, I think that settling on Scala now may 
not be a wise idea. There are alternatives for B&W slides, but they 
are generally not as convenient.

Jordan
www.photosensitive.ca

-- 


Jordan Wosnick
jwosnick@...

I just did a job this week that was scanned 16 bit greyscale from
about 12 - 35mm Scala frames that were perfectly exposed. They drum
scanned beautifully (as underexposed frames do not) and these are
going to make some really beautuful inkjet prints. The tonal
distribution is unique and I love it. It is sad that this material is
going the way of the buggy whip, but that's life. 

During Christmas I am going to be shooting black and white with an RZ
67 and drum scanning (I don't trust taking my 4x5 on the airplane to
Louisiana). Does anyone have any suggestions of which brand of the
chromeginic black and white film to use? I never thought I'd see the
day that I would abandon tri-x but now is the time. I was going to go
with the Ilford XP because I have some familiarity with it, but
someone recently had great results with Fuji and suggested it... does
it matter? I may go to 44"x60" with these, which I have easily done
with Provia film from the same scanner. I'm thinking 100-320 iso.

John 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jordan Wosnick
<jwosnick@f...> wrote:

>
> 
> joshscapes wrote:
> 
> > And don't get too attached to any one digital camera, lens, 
> > computer, ink, paper, color film, temperature in a day, clouds in 
> > the sky...ect.
> > 
> > What kind of a comment is that?  I'm sorry.  I don't mean to sound 
> > harsh or sarcastic (well maybe a little).  But in this day in age 
> > does someone really need to be told not to get too attached to any 
> 
> Josh, I agree for the most part with the content of your e-mail. I 
> myself don't even own a digital camera and sincerely hope that film 
> remains available for a LONG time. I didn't intend to be provocative.
> 
> But AgfaPhoto (the film, paper and chemistry branch of Agfa that 
> emerged after the parent company declared insolvency earlier this 
> year) has indicated that it failed to find a buyer and is wrapping up 
> operations at the end of 2005.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/10/19/afx2285533.html%3E
> 
> Long discussion here: http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20610
> 
> AgfaPhoto laid off all of its staff earlier this fall. I think a 
> European company bought up its stock of B&W paper and some chemicals 
> and is selling it until it's gone. There was also talk of Fuji buying 
> up some of its materials and/or IP, and of a company buying the colour 
> mini-lab part of the business, but I don't know if these deals 
> materialized.
> 
> The 120-format B&W films were discontinued earlier this year. 
> Production of all Agfa films and chemicals has ceased. That's why it's 
> becoming difficult to find APX films and Rodinal, as fans buy up the 
> stock everywhere. Lots of discussions of alternatives to these films 
> and developers are currently underway on photo.net, APUG, etc.
> 
> Given the fact that Agfa is basically out of business, and that Scala 
> requires a proprietary process, I think that settling on Scala now may 
> not be a wise idea. There are alternatives for B&W slides, but they 
> are generally not as convenient.
> 
> Jordan
> www.photosensitive.ca
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Jordan Wosnick
> jwosnick@f...
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" 
<deanwork2003@y...> wrote:

> During Christmas I am going to be shooting black and white with an 
RZ
> 67 and drum scanning (I don't trust taking my 4x5 on the airplane to
> Louisiana). Does anyone have any suggestions of which brand of the
> chromeginic black and white film to use? I never thought I'd see the
> day that I would abandon tri-x but now is the time. I was going to 
go
> with the Ilford XP because I have some familiarity with it, but
> someone recently had great results with Fuji and suggested it... 
does
> it matter? I may go to 44"x60" with these, which I have easily done
> with Provia film from the same scanner. I'm thinking 100-320 iso.
> 
> John 
> 
> 


Can't help you with specifics, but think about other films that can 
be reversal processed to provide positive images. If you search for 
SCALA developing, you should find a link to a place in the UK that 
makes a couple of kits to do this, or just send it off to dr5. As I 
recall, there were several films with a clear base that were said to 
work well, but I don't remember the specifics. Might be worth taking 
at least one roll for an experiment for the (limited?) future.

Check out the link below for reversal processing of
many films which seem as if they would be a good
alternative to Scala. I haven't actually tried the
lab, but the examples and technical data, and
knowledge of the creator of this process are
impressive. Some of the films available seem as if
they may be an alternative to Agfapan 25 my old
favorite for 120 in my TLR Rollei and Pentax 6x7, may
it RIP along with Tech Pan.

Michael Vendrell


http://www.dr5.com/main.html

--- Jordan Wosnick <jwosnick@...> wrote:

> 
> joshscapes wrote:
> 
> > And don't get too attached to any one digital
> camera, lens, 
> > computer, ink, paper, color film, temperature in a
> day, clouds in 
> > the sky...ect.
> > 
> > What kind of a comment is that?  I'm sorry.  I
> don't mean to sound 
> > harsh or sarcastic (well maybe a little).  But in
> this day in age 
> > does someone really need to be told not to get too
> attached to any 
> 
> Josh, I agree for the most part with the content of
> your e-mail. I 
> myself don't even own a digital camera and sincerely
> hope that film 
> remains available for a LONG time. I didn't intend
> to be provocative.
> 
> But AgfaPhoto (the film, paper and chemistry branch
> of Agfa that 
> emerged after the parent company declared insolvency
> earlier this 
> year) has indicated that it failed to find a buyer
> and is wrapping up 
> operations at the end of 2005.
> 
>
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/10/19/afx2285533.html%3E
> 
> Long discussion here:
> http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20610
> 
> AgfaPhoto laid off all of its staff earlier this
> fall. I think a 
> European company bought up its stock of B&W paper
> and some chemicals 
> and is selling it until it's gone. There was also
> talk of Fuji buying 
> up some of its materials and/or IP, and of a company
> buying the colour 
> mini-lab part of the business, but I don't know if
> these deals 
> materialized.
> 
> The 120-format B&W films were discontinued earlier
> this year. 
> Production of all Agfa films and chemicals has
> ceased. That's why it's 
> becoming difficult to find APX films and Rodinal, as
> fans buy up the 
> stock everywhere. Lots of discussions of
> alternatives to these films 
> and developers are currently underway on photo.net,
> APUG, etc.
> 
> Given the fact that Agfa is basically out of
> business, and that Scala 
> requires a proprietary process, I think that
> settling on Scala now may 
> not be a wise idea. There are alternatives for B&W
> slides, but they 
> are generally not as convenient.
> 
> Jordan
> www.photosensitive.ca
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Jordan Wosnick
> jwosnick@...
> 


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

> ... Does anyone have any suggestions of which brand of the
> chromeginic black and white film to use? 

On several occasions -- all more than 2 years ago -- I tested these films,
and the Kodak version always ended up on top in terms of grain and
resolution.

>... does it matter?

Probably not that much; they seem to be close.

While Kodak's older version (T400CN) is what I use for my high speed B&W,
I'm not a fan of these films unless the speed or commercial processing is
needed.     


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks Paul,

I know you shoot a lot more black and white than I do these days.

However, from my experience the CN type emulsions do well with drum
scanning if you scan them just like they are color neg films.

Ironically, just about everything I've scanned in the last couple of
years has been traditional black and white emulsions like T Max and
Tri X. I want to give the multiple layer films a try this time around.

John




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > ... Does anyone have any suggestions of which brand of the
> > chromeginic black and white film to use? 
> 
> On several occasions -- all more than 2 years ago -- I tested these
films,
> and the Kodak version always ended up on top in terms of grain and
> resolution.
> 
> >... does it matter?
> 
> Probably not that much; they seem to be close.
> 
> While Kodak's older version (T400CN) is what I use for my high speed
B&W,
> I'm not a fan of these films unless the speed or commercial
processing is

> needed.     
> 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

John,

> 
> ... from my experience the CN type emulsions do well with drum
> scanning if you scan them just like they are color neg films.

Perhaps my Nikon 8000 scans differently, but I find the color technology
doesn't have the sharp edges of silver films.  

One reason I prefer silver films for my landscapes is that the dye cloud
technology gets smoother as the exposure increases, whereas the silver films
are better at the thinner end of the range.  With my liking of heavily
filtered, dark skies, the chromogenic films end up putting their worst
performance in the plain dark skies where I need the best performance for
smoothness.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > ... Does anyone have any suggestions of which brand of the
> > > chromeginic black and white film to use?
> >
> > On several occasions -- all more than 2 years ago -- I tested these
> films,
> > and the Kodak version always ended up on top in terms of grain and
> > resolution.
> >
> > >... does it matter?
> >
> > Probably not that much; they seem to be close.
> >
> > While Kodak's older version (T400CN) is what I use for my high speed
> B&W,
> > I'm not a fan of these films unless the speed or commercial
> processing is
> > needed.
> >
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 Links
> 
> 
> 
>

John,

I seem to remember that Fuji's chromogenic B&W film is either made by 
or in partnership with Ilford.

Jordan

john dean wrote:
> I just did a job this week that was scanned 16 bit greyscale from
> about 12 - 35mm Scala frames that were perfectly exposed. They drum
> scanned beautifully (as underexposed frames do not) and these are
> going to make some really beautuful inkjet prints. The tonal
> distribution is unique and I love it. It is sad that this material is
> going the way of the buggy whip, but that's life. 
> 
> During Christmas I am going to be shooting black and white with an RZ
> 67 and drum scanning (I don't trust taking my 4x5 on the airplane to
> Louisiana). Does anyone have any suggestions of which brand of the
> chromeginic black and white film to use? I never thought I'd see the
> day that I would abandon tri-x but now is the time. I was going to go
> with the Ilford XP because I have some familiarity with it, but
> someone recently had great results with Fuji and suggested it... does
> it matter? I may go to 44"x60" with these, which I have easily done
> with Provia film from the same scanner. I'm thinking 100-320 iso.
> 
> John 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Jordan Wosnick
> <jwosnick@f...> wrote:
>>
>> joshscapes wrote:
>>
>>> And don't get too attached to any one digital camera, lens, 
>>> computer, ink, paper, color film, temperature in a day, clouds in 
>>> the sky...ect.
>>>
>>> What kind of a comment is that?  I'm sorry.  I don't mean to sound 
>>> harsh or sarcastic (well maybe a little).  But in this day in age 
>>> does someone really need to be told not to get too attached to any 
>> Josh, I agree for the most part with the content of your e-mail. I 
>> myself don't even own a digital camera and sincerely hope that film 
>> remains available for a LONG time. I didn't intend to be provocative.
>>
>> But AgfaPhoto (the film, paper and chemistry branch of Agfa that 
>> emerged after the parent company declared insolvency earlier this 
>> year) has indicated that it failed to find a buyer and is wrapping up 
>> operations at the end of 2005.
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/10/19/afx2285533.html%3E
>>
>> Long discussion here: http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20610
>>
>> AgfaPhoto laid off all of its staff earlier this fall. I think a 
>> European company bought up its stock of B&W paper and some chemicals 
>> and is selling it until it's gone. There was also talk of Fuji buying 
>> up some of its materials and/or IP, and of a company buying the colour 
>> mini-lab part of the business, but I don't know if these deals 
>> materialized.
>>
>> The 120-format B&W films were discontinued earlier this year. 
>> Production of all Agfa films and chemicals has ceased. That's why it's 
>> becoming difficult to find APX films and Rodinal, as fans buy up the 
>> stock everywhere. Lots of discussions of alternatives to these films 
>> and developers are currently underway on photo.net, APUG, etc.
>>
>> Given the fact that Agfa is basically out of business, and that Scala 
>> requires a proprietary process, I think that settling on Scala now may 
>> not be a wise idea. There are alternatives for B&W slides, but they 
>> are generally not as convenient.
>>
>> Jordan
>> www.photosensitive.ca
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>
>> Jordan Wosnick
>> jwosnick@f...
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 

-- 


Jordan Wosnick
jwosnick@...

Reversal processing of B&W neg films to positives is pretty well known 
-- I've done it myself with a number of films. DR5 has been in 
operation for a number of years -- he has basically developed a highly 
optimized, proprietary process for B&W reversal-processing. I haven't 
heard of anyone *not* liking the results. The lab is located in 
Denver, CO. I personally haven't tried it because the cost of shipping 
the film there, having it processed, and returned would be prohibitive 
for me.

I've summarized B&W slide options on a webpage...
http://www.photosensitive.ca/BWslides.shtml

Jordan



Michael Vendrell wrote:
> Check out the link below for reversal processing of
> many films which seem as if they would be a good
> alternative to Scala. I haven't actually tried the
> lab, but the examples and technical data, and
> knowledge of the creator of this process are
> impressive. Some of the films available seem as if
> they may be an alternative to Agfapan 25 my old
> favorite for 120 in my TLR Rollei and Pentax 6x7, may
> it RIP along with Tech Pan.
> 
> Michael Vendrell
> 
> 
> http://www.dr5.com/main.html
> 
> --- Jordan Wosnick <jwosnick@...> wrote:
> 
>> joshscapes wrote:
>>
>>> And don't get too attached to any one digital
>> camera, lens, 
>>> computer, ink, paper, color film, temperature in a
>> day, clouds in 
>>> the sky...ect.
>>>
>>> What kind of a comment is that?  I'm sorry.  I
>> don't mean to sound 
>>> harsh or sarcastic (well maybe a little).  But in
>> this day in age 
>>> does someone really need to be told not to get too
>> attached to any 
>>
>> Josh, I agree for the most part with the content of
>> your e-mail. I 
>> myself don't even own a digital camera and sincerely
>> hope that film 
>> remains available for a LONG time. I didn't intend
>> to be provocative.
>>
>> But AgfaPhoto (the film, paper and chemistry branch
>> of Agfa that 
>> emerged after the parent company declared insolvency
>> earlier this 
>> year) has indicated that it failed to find a buyer
>> and is wrapping up 
>> operations at the end of 2005.
>>
>>
> http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/10/19/afx2285533.html%3E
>> Long discussion here:
>> http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20610
>>
>> AgfaPhoto laid off all of its staff earlier this
>> fall. I think a 
>> European company bought up its stock of B&W paper
>> and some chemicals 
>> and is selling it until it's gone. There was also
>> talk of Fuji buying 
>> up some of its materials and/or IP, and of a company
>> buying the colour 
>> mini-lab part of the business, but I don't know if
>> these deals 
>> materialized.
>>
>> The 120-format B&W films were discontinued earlier
>> this year. 
>> Production of all Agfa films and chemicals has
>> ceased. That's why it's 
>> becoming difficult to find APX films and Rodinal, as
>> fans buy up the 
>> stock everywhere. Lots of discussions of
>> alternatives to these films 
>> and developers are currently underway on photo.net,
>> APUG, etc.
>>
>> Given the fact that Agfa is basically out of
>> business, and that Scala 
>> requires a proprietary process, I think that
>> settling on Scala now may 
>> not be a wise idea. There are alternatives for B&W
>> slides, but they 
>> are generally not as convenient.
>>
>> Jordan
>> www.photosensitive.ca
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>
>> Jordan Wosnick
>> jwosnick@...
>>
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

-- 


Jordan Wosnick
jwosnick@...

Thanks Paul,

I appreciate that because I know you are out in the field a lot with
this type of work.

Personally I am also more interested in subtle and sharp shadow detail
also in my work and I typically achieve good exposures for the high-end.

I guess what I am going to do on this trip is to shoot half and half
and directly compare what I'm getting. I'm not too worried about any
grain since I'll be shooting 6x7 and when I come back 4x5.

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
>
> John,
> 
> > 
> > ... from my experience the CN type emulsions do well with drum
> > scanning if you scan them just like they are color neg films.
> 
> Perhaps my Nikon 8000 scans differently, but I find the color technology
> doesn't have the sharp edges of silver films.  
> 
> One reason I prefer silver films for my landscapes is that the dye cloud
> technology gets smoother as the exposure increases, whereas the
silver films
> are better at the thinner end of the range.  With my liking of heavily
> filtered, dark skies, the chromogenic films end up putting their worst
> performance in the plain dark skies where I need the best
performance for
> smoothness.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> > <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > ... Does anyone have any suggestions of which brand of the
> > > > chromeginic black and white film to use?
> > >
> > > On several occasions -- all more than 2 years ago -- I tested these
> > films,
> > > and the Kodak version always ended up on top in terms of grain and
> > > resolution.
> > >
> > > >... does it matter?
> > >
> > > Probably not that much; they seem to be close.
> > >
> > > While Kodak's older version (T400CN) is what I use for my high speed
> > B&W,
> > > I'm not a fan of these films unless the speed or commercial
> > processing is
> > > needed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > www.PaulRoark.com
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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 Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>

Hello, I've been lurking around here for awhile, soaking up all info  
I'm able to absorb, but most of it is way over my level:-)
I've been happy printing with both C86 with EZ inks and Epson 2100,  
but today I picked up a nice, used 4000. But I have trouble to in the  
page set up.
I have a roll with Premium Semi Gloss, but when I'm trying to print,  
my only options printer settings are Paper Tray or manual feed.
Anybody know how to get the roll paper to show up in the menu?

I've also installed the QTR, and it has the roll paper option, but  
when I try to print, the result is very light, not at all the great  
results I got with the 2100...

The last question for tonite, has anybody come up with a trick on how  
to clean/emtpy the maintain tank?


thanks in advance,
danny

(I'm on Mac G5 Dual 2,7, OSX 10.4.4 and printing from PS CS2)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Danny Twang 
<dannyt@...> wrote:
>
> 
> The last question for tonite, has anybody come up with a trick on 
how  
> to clean/emtpy the maintain tank?
> 

Yes, there are instructions posted around, I'll have to find the links 
for that later. Or you can buy a large format ink chip reset tool, and 
use that to reset the chip, then pack with just about anything that can 
absorb the ink. I like common cleaning sponges in my 9500.

Thanks Greg!

Will the SK168-II Chip Resetter I use for the C86 work? It look like  
the same pattern on the chip?
I did manage to figure out how to find the setting for roll paper....

regards,
danny

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Danny Twang
> <dannyt@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The last question for tonite, has anybody come up with a trick on
> how
> > to clean/emtpy the maintain tank?
> >
>
> Yes, there are instructions posted around, I'll have to find the links
> for that later. Or you can buy a large format ink chip reset tool, and
> use that to reset the chip, then pack with just about anything that  
> can
> absorb the ink. I like common cleaning sponges in my 9500.
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Danny Twang 
<dannyt@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Greg!
> 
> Will the SK168-II Chip Resetter I use for the C86 work? It look 
like  
> the same pattern on the chip?
> I did manage to figure out how to find the setting for roll 
paper....
> 


I think you will need the SK188 tool.

Here might be the 4000 reset procedure:
http://www.inkjetart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25&highlight=tank+reset
Scroll down to the bottom. The reset tool is safer since you can't 
change the wrong thing and mess up your printer. I suggest having a 
backup on hand as the chips do sometimes go bad during the reset.

Somewhere on this list you will find instructions for for resetting
the Epson 4000 Maintenance Tank with the control panel.  I believe you
turn off the  printer and then while holding down the left, up, and
down arrows simultaneously, turn the printer back on.  You will be
presented with a different menu in the control panel.  With a little
searching you will find a reset for the MT.

Jim

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:

>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Danny Twang 
> <dannyt@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Greg!
> > 
> > Will the SK168-II Chip Resetter I use for the C86 work? It look 
> like  
> > the same pattern on the chip?
> > I did manage to figure out how to find the setting for roll 
> paper....
> > 
> 
> 
> I think you will need the SK188 tool.
> 
> Here might be the 4000 reset procedure:
> http://www.inkjetart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25&highlight=tank+reset
> Scroll down to the bottom. The reset tool is safer since you can't 
> change the wrong thing and mess up your printer. I suggest having a 
> backup on hand as the chips do sometimes go bad during the reset.
>

Thanks Greg, that did the trick!

danny


> Here might be the 4000 reset procedure:
> http://www.inkjetart.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25&highlight=tank+reset
> Scroll down to the bottom. The reset tool is safer since you can't
> change the wrong thing and mess up your printer. I suggest having a
> backup on hand as the chips do sometimes go bad during the reset.


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