Digital BW, The Print

Bob,

You wrote>

>I'd like to ask Paul Roark about his input techniques: as I remember,
>he used to enlarge a medium format negative onto a species of
>high-contrast copy film, and then use a very modest flatbed to bring
>the image up in PShop. That always struck me as a cheap and elegant
>solution to film input, and judging by the work on his site, a very
>successful one as well. However, it does require the photographer
>to keep a corner of his wet darkroom in play. Paul, I gather you've
>now moved to a film scanner; can you comment on the qualitative
>changes it's brought to your work?

Yes, I used internegatives until recently for my display-print files.  At
first I had just an HP 4c.  Now I have an Epson Expression 1600 Pro with the
transparency adapter.  I would enlarge MF negatives to 8x10 or 5x7, using a
very good enlarging lens and glass carrier (fabricated out of Gepe slide
glass).  And, of course, the enlarger was carefully aligned before I'd make
an internegative.

The 8x10 film was Kodak's 7302, which is a very fine grain, slow,
blue-sensitive film that can be used under normal B&W safelights.  I'd tray
develop it in Xtol, full-strength at room temperature for 4 to 6 minutes,
depending on the contrast level I wanted.  The gamma was about 1, plus or
minus, depending on the time.  So, the resulting negative could easily be
fit into the flatbed's limited dynamic range.  Being a regular silver
negative, it would lay flat on the flatbed glass, emulsion down, with no
Newton rings.

I found that even the old HP 4c at 400 dpi produced tremendous resolution
and sharpness from this method.  The 4c's problem was noise.  The Epson is,
of course, better, especially in the noise department.

I now have a Nikon 8000.  It will pull about 80 lp/mm off a test slide (not
a real-world film) on the horizontal bars, and about 60 lp/mm off the
vertical bars. (I think the difference relates to the light source and the
direction in which it is really collimated.)  80 lp/mm is about the
theoretical limit for 4000 dpi as I understand it.  The internegative method
with the Epson can pull about 90 lp/mm off the test film.

So, the internegative method actually beats the Nikon 8000 in pure lp/mm off
a test slide.  In real world negatives that have already experienced the
contrast-reducing effects of the MTF of the lens and film, both systems see
about 50 - 60 lp/mm.  That is, when I take a photo of a test target, the
film may see over 100 lp/mm, but the finest detail is too low-contrast to be
picked up by either scanning method.

Aside from resolution, the Nikon 8000 wins the pure image-quality contest
due to its much lower flare.  However, I have detected film popping.  So I
just received a glass carrier, which I have yet to try.

The Nikon wins more significantly in the productivity department.  With the
flatbed, I'd do low-contrast, direct scans first to see what I liked.
However, what I like usually takes so much time to work up that I felt I was
wasting my time on the low-contrast scans.  Yet, I didn't want to go through
the internegative-making process for all the images that I wanted to work on
a little just to see if they were worth going further with.

So, bottom line, the Nikon 8000 is important to me more for its productivity
advantages than for its image quality advantages.

I'm early in the process of learning the Nikon, but so far what I've seen is
very impressive.  I can go from negative to print on the wall in far less
time than before, and this is my real goal.

I hope this helps you evaluate the pluses and minuses of the method's I've
used.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

Thanks for posting your workflow on the internegatives. Very useful information. I have put the post in the Files section for future reference.

Martin
  (snip)

  Yes, I used internegatives until recently for my display-print files.  At
  first I had just an HP 4c.  Now I have an Epson Expression 1600 Pro with the
  transparency adapter.  I would enlarge MF negatives to 8x10 or 5x7, using a
  very good enlarging lens and glass carrier (fabricated out of Gepe slide
  glass).  And, of course, the enlarger was carefully aligned before I'd make
  an internegative.

  The 8x10 film was Kodak's 7302, which is a very fine grain, slow,
  blue-sensitive film that can be used under normal B&W safelights.  I'd tray
  develop it in Xtol, full-strength at room temperature for 4 to 6 minutes,
  depending on the contrast level I wanted.  The gamma was about 1, plus or
  minus, depending on the time.  So, the resulting negative could easily be
  fit into the flatbed's limited dynamic range.  Being a regular silver
  negative, it would lay flat on the flatbed glass, emulsion down, with no
  Newton rings.

  I found that even the old HP 4c at 400 dpi produced tremendous resolution
  and sharpness from this method.  The 4c's problem was noise.  The Epson is,
  of course, better, especially in the noise department.

  (Snip)


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