Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2010-03-16 by Lew Schwartz
Is there any hope? I'm a bw film photographer who needs to learn to scan properly & then move into Photoshop & start printing. Every book I find is about color or converting digital to bw with a zillion things I don't believe I have to know. So are there on line or print resources that can lead me sanely from my negs (which I'm not about to give up) to a decent digital print? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2010-03-16 by Dave
On Mar 15, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote: > Is there any hope? > Sure. Get a copy of this book - it'll get you started: Mastering Digital Black & White: A Photographer's Guide to High Quality Black-and-White Imaging and Printing (Digital Process and Print) by Amadou Diallo http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Digital-Black-Black-White/dp/1598633759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268714427&sr=8-1 All best, Dave http://davereichertphoto.com/
2010-03-16 by Dave
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:44 PM, Dave wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote: > > > Is there any hope? > > > > Sure. Get a copy of this book - it'll get you started: > > Mastering Digital Black & White: A Photographer's Guide to High > Quality Black-and-White Imaging and Printing (Digital Process and > Print) by Amadou Diallo > > http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Digital-Black-Black-White/dp/1598633759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268714427&sr=8-1 > > > An added note - there's not much at all about scanning, but the book's a good overview of the process after the scan is made. Good luck! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2010-03-16 by asp.artist
Also, Hybridphoto.com --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Dave <cowcreekroad@...> wrote:
> > > On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:44 PM, Dave wrote: > > > > > On Mar 15, 2010, at 9:43 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote: > > > > > Is there any hope? > > > > > > > Sure. Get a copy of this book - it'll get you started: > > > > Mastering Digital Black & White: A Photographer's Guide to High > > Quality Black-and-White Imaging and Printing (Digital Process and > > Print) by Amadou Diallo > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Digital-Black-Black-White/dp/1598633759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268714427&sr=8-1 > > > > > > > > > An added note - there's not much at all about scanning, but the book's > a good overview of the process after the scan is made. > > Good luck! > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
2010-03-16 by pr_roark
Lew Schwartz <lew1716@...> wrote: > > ... to scan properly What film sizes do you use? For me, probably the best single investment I made in digital was the Nikon 8000 medium format film scanner. Someday I'll get around to re-scanning all the images I used a flatbed for, but that's a lot of lost time. > then move into Photoshop Yes, it's worth paying your dues to get the real thing. > start printing. Lots of options there, and this is the place to learn about them. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2010-03-16 by Jason Randolph
>Is there any hope? I'm a bw film photographer who needs to learn to scan >properly & then move into Photoshop & start printing. Every book I find is >about color or converting digital to bw with a zillion things I don't >believe I have to know. So are there on line or print resources that can >lead me sanely from my negs (which I'm not about to give up) to a decent >digital print? Check out "From Camera to Print" at www.luminous-landscape.com. It's a multiple-hour tutorial that steps you through taking your images from the camera and making fine art matted and framed prints. There is a chapter dedicated specifically to scanning negatives. Definitely worth the money for the tutorial. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2010-03-16 by Lew
I shoot mostly 35mm, some mf, and an even smaller amount of view camera formats. I already have the same scanner. A perverse thought I keep having is that it might be possible to bleach the silver out of a neg & redevelop with something that can be scanned easily. Has anyone done this? A few of my scans are really terrible.
-----Original Message----- From: "pr_roark" <roark.paul@...> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:42:49 To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Beginners questions Lew Schwartz <lew1716@...> wrote: > > ... to scan properly What film sizes do you use? For me, probably the best single investment I made in digital was the Nikon 8000 medium format film scanner. Someday I'll get around to re-scanning all the images I used a flatbed for, but that's a lot of lost time. > then move into Photoshop Yes, it's worth paying your dues to get the real thing. > start printing. Lots of options there, and this is the place to learn about them. Paul www.PaulRoark.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2010-03-16 by Lew
Will do. Thanks.
-----Original Message----- From: Jason Randolph <jason.s.randolph@...> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:20:29 To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Beginners questions >Is there any hope? I'm a bw film photographer who needs to learn to scan >properly & then move into Photoshop & start printing. Every book I find is >about color or converting digital to bw with a zillion things I don't >believe I have to know. So are there on line or print resources that can >lead me sanely from my negs (which I'm not about to give up) to a decent >digital print? Check out "From Camera to Print" at www.luminous-landscape.com. It's a multiple-hour tutorial that steps you through taking your images from the camera and making fine art matted and framed prints. There is a chapter dedicated specifically to scanning negatives. Definitely worth the money for the tutorial. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2010-03-16 by pr_roark
"Lew" <lew1716@...> wrote: > > ... I already have the [Nikon 8000 medium format film scanner]... The main thing I find needed for that scanner and its driver are to scan the B&W negative as a grayscale positive. That way you can avoid clipping the ends via the histogram adjustment. I also scan with no grain reduction and also with grain reduction if there is a plain sky. It's easy to combine the 2 in PS if the negative has not been moved (or even if it has with CS4's align layers). I do also find the glass carrier is needed for some negatives. I suppose the best is to use fluid, but I have not gone that far. I do notice that if the recommended Photo Flo was use, Newton's rings might show up. I suspect it's the glycol in the Photo Flo. Half the normal amount of some other wetting agent would be recommended. > A perverse thought I keep having is that it might be possible to bleach the silver out of a neg & redevelop with something that can be scanned easily. I went to Tech Pan to avoid the grain problems. Digital does show grain, and it is a problem with my older Tmax 100 MF negatives. If I ever go back to Tmax 100 (not likely) I'd look at a staining developer system, but I doubt it'd be worth the negatives -- so to speak. Even with it's grain, I prefer my Tmax 100 negs to the T400 CN negs I have. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2010-03-16 by Lew
The main & perhaps impossible problem I face is years & years of Tri-X & HP5 in D76 & related soups.
-----Original Message----- From: "pr_roark" <roark.paul@...> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:37:28 To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Beginners questions "Lew" <lew1716@...> wrote: > > ... I already have the [Nikon 8000 medium format film scanner]... The main thing I find needed for that scanner and its driver are to scan the B&W negative as a grayscale positive. That way you can avoid clipping the ends via the histogram adjustment. I also scan with no grain reduction and also with grain reduction if there is a plain sky. It's easy to combine the 2 in PS if the negative has not been moved (or even if it has with CS4's align layers). I do also find the glass carrier is needed for some negatives. I suppose the best is to use fluid, but I have not gone that far. I do notice that if the recommended Photo Flo was use, Newton's rings might show up. I suspect it's the glycol in the Photo Flo. Half the normal amount of some other wetting agent would be recommended. > A perverse thought I keep having is that it might be possible to bleach the silver out of a neg & redevelop with something that can be scanned easily. I went to Tech Pan to avoid the grain problems. Digital does show grain, and it is a problem with my older Tmax 100 MF negatives. If I ever go back to Tmax 100 (not likely) I'd look at a staining developer system, but I doubt it'd be worth the negatives -- so to speak. Even with it's grain, I prefer my Tmax 100 negs to the T400 CN negs I have. Paul www.PaulRoark.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2010-03-16 by Dave
If you've shot mostly 35, why not embrace the grain rather than fight it? IMO, grain is what makes 35mm, 35mm. On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Lew wrote: > The main & perhaps impossible problem I face is years & years of Tri- > X & HP5 in D76 & related soups. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2010-03-16 by pr_roark
"Lew" <lew1716@...> wrote: > > The main & perhaps impossible problem I face is years & years of Tri-X & HP5 in D76 & related soups. I don't think you'll find any magic in any of the books that takes care of that. I find applying various noise-type filters to a duplicate layer below the main one and then selectively erasing the parts that need softening in the top layer is about as good as it gets in terms of lessening the grain. Of course, with plain "blue" skies you can use gradients to replace most of the original grainy sky. Very careful selection of the sky is one of the more labor intensive parts of working up a landscape image that has that type of problem. Paul www.PaulRoark.com
2010-03-16 by Lew
Yes, but the grain and/or noise introduced by the scan seems to be way more noticeable than in a wet print from the same negative. Also, I'm not interested in re interpreting my negs. I want the inkjet prints to look as much like the wet prints as possible.
-----Original Message----- From: Dave <cowcreekroad@...> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:21:49 To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Beginners questions If you've shot mostly 35, why not embrace the grain rather than fight it? IMO, grain is what makes 35mm, 35mm. On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Lew wrote: > The main & perhaps impossible problem I face is years & years of Tri- > X & HP5 in D76 & related soups. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2010-03-16 by Dana Myers
On 3/16/2010 11:21 AM, Dave wrote: > > If you've shot mostly 35, why not embrace the grain rather than fight > it? > IMO, grain is what makes 35mm, 35mm. > I'll take that a step further and say that, for me, the distinctive look of a capture on silver is something reproduce accurately throughout scanning and printing. Every one has their own desire, though; for decades, many shot on silver because that's all there was but really wanted the smooth grainless look of digital :-) Dana K6JQ > > On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Lew wrote: > > > The main & perhaps impossible problem I face is years & years of Tri- > > X & HP5 in D76 & related soups. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2010-03-16 by David Kachel
On Mar 16, 2010, at 1:46 PM, Lew wrote: > Yes, but the grain and/or noise introduced by the scan seems to be way more noticeable than in a wet print from the same negative. Also, I'm not interested in re interpreting my negs. I want the inkjet prints to look as much like the wet prints as possible. Scan one full paper size larger than the maximum size you will print, and at double the dpi you intend to use. Then downsize the image and dpi before printing and you will minimize the grain. As for getting from digital what you got from analog, that is a lot like a new cello player trying to get the sounds he used to get with a violin; perhaps possible, but not very fruitful. David Kachel [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2010-03-16 by Dave
Indeed, the grain is more noticeable in a scanned image. I suspect it has something to do with the directional nature of a scanner's light source. If you're used to printing with a diffusion head, you'll have a difficult time reproducing the same effect from a scan. It's a little easier if you worked with a condenser head, and it's a walk in the park if your normal mode of printing was with a point light source... As Paul said, there are ways of minimizing grain, but there's no simple solution. It's going to take a lot of experimentation. I've spent a lot of time trying to get some negatives to scan with less grain, and in some cases I've not been able to pull it off. In large part, my success or failure has been dependent on the subject matter. On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Lew wrote: > Yes, but the grain and/or noise introduced by the scan seems to be > way more noticeable than in a wet print from the same negative. > Also, I'm not interested in re interpreting my negs. I want the > inkjet prints to look as much like the wet prints as possible. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2010-03-16 by Mark Savoia
Then flatbed scan the print. Mark http://www.stillrivereditions.com
On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Lew wrote: > I want the inkjet prints to look as much like the wet prints as > possible.
2010-03-16 by Sam McCandless
I have a lot of small-format B&W prints (w/o neg's) to re-print and am thinking about getting an Epson V700 or V750-M flatbed both for those prints and also for my 35mm slides and negatives (which I also print in relatively small formats). -- Sam
On Mar 16, 2010, at 12:17 PM, Mark Savoia wrote: > Then flatbed scan the print. > > Mark > http://www.stillrivereditions.com > > On Mar 16, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Lew wrote: > >> I want the inkjet prints to look as much like the wet prints as >> possible.
2010-03-19 by Keith
> A perverse thought I keep having is that it might be possible to bleach the silver out of a neg & redevelop with something that can be scanned easily. Has anyone done this? A few of my scans are really terrible.< In order to do Palladium prints from some of my 10x8 negs without having to make another higher contrast negative, I have used a rehalogising bleach, and then re-developed in a Pyrocatechol based developer. This is a staining developer but much cheaper to make up than a Pyro based one. I would however test it on a negative that is not important. Try Googling "Sandy King" he has a formula on his site. Keith Dugdale.