Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

Since VC papers have become the predominate printing paper for most photographers who still print in the darkroom, many of the traditional demands on the photographer have faded into obscurity, or, at the very least, have assumed secondary importance. When graded printing papers dominated darkroom shelves, photographers had to learn to scale their negatives to their printing papers, and to adjust print contrast for between-grades, by the manipulation of exposure and print developers. A practical knowledge of sensitometry and basic chemistry was indispensable to serious photographers, and a wide range of testing and calibration procedures evolved to aid the photographer and darkroom worker. With the advent of VC papers, it was no longer necessary to precisely scale the negative to the printing paper, and processing for a roughly middle grade was more than adequate, since the paper could be very precisely scaled to the negative. I'm often surprised at the testing and calibration gymnastics performed by photographers who use roll film and print on VC paper, and can only assume these photographers are laboring under one or more misconceptions about the level of precision required by their materials, and how best to exploit the advantages they confer.
Hybrid film/digital workflows represent a similar shift in the demands on the processing film to be scanned for either digital printing, or making digital negatives for contact printing, and suggests new criteria for film developers. A film developer for film to be scanned should be optimized for producing the kinds of negatives that scanners are optimized to scan, or in other words, for maximum compatibility.

What kind of negatives do scanners like best?

Grainless
low contrast/ low-moderate density range
high resolution

And, while scanners don't care, photographers almost always prefer high film speed, long shelf life, economy, ease of use, and low toxicity, all other things being equal.

While there are developers commercially available that possess some of the characteristics listed above, none are optimized for the entire description, and other desirable characteristics could be added, such as: long tray life, compatibility with rotary processing, commonly available ingredients, etc.

I think we have within our membership the experience and expertise to narrow the many options to a few, high probability approaches to distilling something like an optimized developer for film to be scanned. I have a few ideas of my own, and more questions. I hope there is enough interest to generate some positive discussion and debate on the most likely approaches. I'll try to start the ball rolling by suggesting Pat Gainer's PC TEA, which I think satisfies most of the criteria, with the exception of the "grainless" one. It might be possible to use some variation of PC TEA as a two- part developer by diluting the concentrate with a sulfite solution. An even less toxic version might use glycol in the concentrate, and add a less toxic alkali to the B solution. In any case, I favor a simple, ascorbate/ phenidone concentrate made up in TEA or glycol, but I welcome alternative opinions, and I hope for many.

Xtol!

Ron,

Xtol does indeed meet many of the criteria I outlined, but not all of them. Xtol's shelf life and economy leave something to be desired, not to mention its formula is proprietary, which rules it out for me. On the other hand, the fact that Xtol is commercially available might be in its favor for some users. My point, and the point of this thread, is that there are improvements to be made, and I think we can find ways to make them. I think Xtol represents an excellent benchmark against which to compare alternatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr

When graded printing papers dominated darkroom shelves, photographers had to learn to scale their negatives to their printing papers, and to adjust print contrast for between-grades, by the manipulation of exposure and print developers. A practical knowledge of sensitometry and basic chemistry was indispensable to serious photographers, and a wide range of testing and calibration procedures evolved to aid the photographer and darkroom worker.

Hybrid film/digital workflows represent a similar shift in the demands on the processing film to be scanned for either digital printing, or making digital negatives for contact printing, and suggests new criteria for film developers.

A film developer for film to be scanned should be optimized for producing the kinds of negatives that scanners are optimized to scan, or in other words, for maximum compatibility.

What kind of negatives do scanners like best?

Grainless
low contrast/ low-moderate density range
high resolution

And, while scanners don't care, photographers almost always prefer high film speed, long shelf life, economy, ease of use, and low toxicity, all other things being equal.

While there are developers commercially available that possess some of the characteristics listed above, none are optimized for the entire description, and other desirable characteristics could be added, such as: long tray life, compatibility with rotary processing, commonly available ingredients, etc.

I think we have within our membership the experience and expertise to narrow the many options to a few, high probability approaches to distilling something like an optimized developer for film to be scanned. I have a few ideas of my own, and more questions. I hope there is enough interest to generate some positive discussion and debate on the most likely approaches. I'll try to start the ball rolling by suggesting Pat Gainer's PC TEA, which I think satisfies most of the criteria, with the exception of the "grainless" one. It might be possible to use some variation of PC TEA as a two- part developer by diluting the concentrate with a sulfite solution. An even less toxic version might use glycol in the concentrate, and add a less toxic alkali to the B solution. In any case, I favor a simple, ascorbate/ phenidone concentrate made up in TEA or glycol, but I welcome alternative opinions, and I hope for many.

---

The only developer I know of which has been specifically formulated for films to be scanned is Speedibrews Celer-Mono designed by Michael Maunders.

I agree that a hybrid work flow in which we develop film to scan, rather than print directly on silver papers or with some alternative process, obviates the need for the exposure and development controls used with the Zone and BTZS systems.

For scanning the best negatives are those that are developed to a fairly low contrast because most scanners, especially consumer flatbeds, have the least trouble with negatives of this type. And it turns out that developing film to a low CI also minimizes grain and optimizes detail, or resolution.

Do we need to be concerned with micro-contrast, which results from acutance or adjacency effects, when developing negatives for scanning? That depends on the scanning equipment. Adjacency effect lines are very small and capturing them requires a scanner with very high real resolution (at least 3600 spi or higher). Consumer flatbeds, even top ones like the Epsons V700/750 and the Microtek M1, don’t have enough real resolution to capture edge effects. So if you are scanning with this type of scanner there is no need IMO to develop for edge effects. However, if you are scanning at effective resolution of over 4000 spi it is possible to actually record the edge effect lines, and this can add a great deal of apparent sharpness to the print, which becomes even more enhanced with magnification. You can of course simulate the look with unsharp mask in Photoshop but the look of sharpness produced by real edge effects captured in a scan is different from the look produced by edge effects created in Photoshop. I suspect that the extra sharpness that can be seen in high resolution scans made with professional quality CCD and durm scanners is due to the capture of adjacency lines because over-sampling sometimes gives more sharpness than can be explained by the detail in the negative itself in terms of pure resolution.


You can develop to a low contrast with any normal B&W developer simply by reducing development time, but if you expose your film over a wide range of subject brightness range you will still need to take notes. For this reason I have come to the conclusion that the best developer for scanning is one that allows two-bath development. With two-bath development you just make sure to give enough exposure for the deepest shadows where detail is desired and the mechanics of development pretty much assures that the film will not be overdeveloped. There are plenty of two-bath developers out there but most I have tried, divided D23, divided D76, and Diafine, don’t produce edge effects. Not important, however, with consumer scanners because you cannot capture them anyway with this type of equipment.

Sandy King

This may sound silly, but... Some have found that consumer grade scanners deliver their best results out of the green sensor.

If we are considering an ideal film/developer combination for scanning, then perhaps a green image would be best.

hey jay!

according to some ( myself included )... caffenol C

http://caffenol.blogspot.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

This may sound silly, but... Some have found that consumer grade scanners deliver their best results out of the green sensor.

If we are considering an ideal film/developer combination for scanning, then perhaps a green image would be best.

---

XTOL is one of the "Greenest" developers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnanian

hey jay!

according to some ( myself included )... caffenol C

http://caffenol.blogspot.com/

---

Interesting. Do you use caffenol C for most of your development?

...Mike

i use caffenol C for pretty much everything ... 2+ years now ...
if i stand-develop i add about 100cc ansco 130 /1000cc caf C

the film scans ez and prints on paper ez too :)

- john

Thank you all for your very interesting and thoughtful contributions. I've been debating internally over staining v non-staining, single bath v two bath, and sharpness v grain minimization. Caffenol is indeed an interesting option, since it is both a staining developer, and a low-toxicity one, too. I haven't used it much because it's awful to work with, in my opinion; black and horrible-smelling, long development times, and I didn't get very consistent results from it, so I never considered it very seriously. I wonder if it is a tanning developer? It has other disadvantages, too, like shelf life. Still, interesting.

I don't have time to respond appropriately to all the great contributions now, but I'll tponder overnight and try to post again tomorrow. Thank you all!

Jay, my intuition tells me pyro negatives scan best.

Since most of my b&w work has been with T-Max films, I do find T-Max developer to work best. No experience with Xtol or Pyro.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

There are plenty of two-bath developers out there but most I have tried, divided D23, divided D76, and Diafine, don’t produce edge effects. Not important, however, with consumer scanners because you cannot capture them anyway with this type of equipment.

Sandy King

---

Sandy - may I ask which two-bath developer you would recommend to produce edge effects? Although I currently use a consumer HP scanner, I may now and then want to have an image drum-scanned.

Thanks,
Duane Gabel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dagabel

Sandy - may I ask which two-bath developer you would recommend to produce edge effects? Although I currently use a consumer HP scanner, I may now and then want to have an image drum-scanned.

Thanks,
Duane Gabel

---

Duane,

I use two-bath Pyrocat-MC, and am going to refer you to an earlier thread on the subject.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...bath+developer

Whether other two-part staining developers would also work and give the same acutance I don't know, but I believe that the key is the *poor* buffering of the carbonate accelerator, which causes very sudden local exhaustion. I suspect that two-part forumulas that use metaborate would not produce as much acutance with this method of development, but don't know this for a fact as my own testing of these procedures has been fairly limited.

Sandy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre Noble

Jay, my intuition tells me pyro negatives scan best.

---

Yes, but some Pyros may scan better than others. Well have to wait and see how this thread develops (Pun intended).

Intuition is "the apparent ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason."

May I contact you privately for some investment tips ? All I need is a few lottery numbers :)

I think Stoeckler's two-bath formula is an interesting candidate. Stoeckler's is simple, just metol and sulfite in the A bath, and borax in the B bath, and the sulfite can be adjusted to fine tune the grain/sharpness characteristics. A metol-only developer with very low sulfite content would be similar to Beutler's classic acutance developer (edge effects), and metol with high sulfite content would be similar to Kodak D23 (soft working, fine grain), with the full range between these two extremes possible by adjusting the sulfite content, and in the case of low sulfite, adjusting the pH of the A bath by the addition of a small amount of borax. I didn't use sulfite in my experiments with a metol/ ascorbate two-bath developer, but it seems to me the same principle would apply. I think a metol/ ascorbate/ sulfite developer with borax as alkali would be most similar in composition to Xtol. In my experiments, I added sodium ascorbate in place of sulfite to provide short term preservation of the A bath without adding sulfite, generally following Pat Gainer's line of thought, but I think I used enough ascorbate, to make a superadditive developer, which might not offer any real sharpness advantage over a metol/low sulfite developer like Beutler's.

I think what is wanted for scanning is a highly compensating developer. I think all two bath developers are essentially compensating, regardless of composition, but I want a good reason to make a developer more complicated by adding a secondary developing agent.

Andre-

In my experience, stained negatives do scan best, but I'm not experienced enough with non-staining developers to know if this holds true for non-stained negatives developed to moderately low contrast, or if so, to what degree. Does the practical difference in quality justify the use of a more toxic developer? I don't pretend to know the answer to this question, and I suspect there is no clear answer, but a range of conditions and preferences that favor one over the other.

I make something like an improved version of Pextral's two-bath catechol-only developer from my Hypercat concentrate. Hypercat is essentially a 10% solution of catechol in glycol, with a little ascorbic acid added to preserve the working solution and control non-image stain. 15-30ml of Hypercat in 300ml of water approximates Pextral's two bath, with a 1% solution of sodium hydroxide as the B bath. A 10% solution of sodium carbonate also works as the B bath, and might be more appropriate for film to be scanned.

Caffenol should be considered as an alternative to catechol or pyro based developers, if toxicity is important, and I think it is, in an ideal developer. Caffenol has a lot of disadvantages to be overcome before it resembles an ideal developer, but it also meets many of the criteria I set for an ideal developer for film to be scanned. I think hydroquinone or metol might represent compromises between coffee and pyro or catechol, since either will make a staining developer in absence of sulfite, and neither is as toxic as pyro or catechol.

Lots of questions! Thanks to all for posting!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Marshall

Yes, but some Pyros may scan better than others. Well have to wait and see how this thread develops (Pun intended).

---

Perhaps, but I have had very good success scanning both PMK and Pyrocat-HD negatives, which are quite different visually. This leads me to believe that all modern pyro formulas will give negatives than scan well. I think it would be very difficult to prove that one developer or another is clearly superior, perhaps even more difficult than it would be to clearly show the superiority of one developer over the other in printing in the darkroom. This is because the choice of scanner, and how it is used, is a wild card that throws even more variability into the equation than darkroom printing skills. I have had the opportunity to compare scans of some of my select LF negatives made with consumer flatbeds, high end professional flatbeds, and three different drum scanners. The results in terms of grain were remarkably different, much more so than I believe than than most people would imagine possible.

Sandy King

Sandy,

You make a very interesting point. The appearance or rendition of grain by scanners seems so much more variable than in darkroom printing, and I don't know enough about scanning hardware to account for these variabilities, or combat them. Julia scanned a roll of Ultrafine + MF film developed in GSD-10, and I was struck by the difference in the appearance of grain depending on the exposure given the various frames. It seemed a little more exposure produced a disproportionate increase in the appearance of grain, and I wonder if the scanner might have contributed, somehow. I'm very interested in the grain v sharpness relationship for film to be scanned. Excessive grain seems to be a bigger potential problem than relative sharpness. I was interested in your comments about the differences between sharpness enhanced by USM compared to sharpness enhanced by edge effects in the negative. How would you characterize these differences? Would you say the sharpness resulting from edge effects is so superior to that resulting from USM that the additional grain produced by the kinds of developers that produce edge effects represents an attractive compromise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr

Sandy,

You make a very interesting point. The appearance or rendition of grain by scanners seems so much more variable than in darkroom printing, and I don't know enough about scanning hardware to account for these variabilities, or combat them. Julia scanned a roll of Ultrafine + MF film developed in GSD-10, and I was struck by the difference in the appearance of grain depending on the exposure given the various frames. It seemed a little more exposure produced a disproportionate increase in the appearance of grain, and I wonder if the scanner might have contributed, somehow. I'm very interested in the grain v sharpness relationship for film to be scanned. Excessive grain seems to be a bigger potential problem than relative sharpness. I was interested in your comments about the differences between sharpness enhanced by USM compared to sharpness enhanced by edge effects in the negative. How would you characterize these differences? Would you say the sharpness resulting from edge effects is so superior to that resulting from USM that the additional grain produced by the kinds of developers that produce edge effects represents an attractive compromise?

---

Jay,

I believe about all we can do is set up a work flow that optimize results with our particular scanner, whatever it may be. Trying to compare results from one scanner to another, especially different types of scanners, where fluid mounting may or may not be used, opens up something of a pandora's box.

It seems to me that the sharpness resulting from edge effects, which can only be captured with a very high resolution (assuming they are pictorial and not grossly exaggerated), is superior in the sense that it comes with no down side in terms of distracting tones. When you apply edge effects with USM you get noise, which may then require despeckling, ete. Edge lines from adjacency effects do not have any negatives in terms of tonal values, unless they are over done for the degree of magnification.

BTW, I want to add that I have at home now a friend's FlexTight Precision II scanner and I just made a few comparison scans of the same negative that I had previously scanned with an EverSmart Pro and with a V700, using 6X12 cm negative that has a lot of fine detail. Top resolution of the Precision II is 3200 ppi with this format, same as the maximum resolution of my Eversmart Pro. A comparison of the two shows that both have about the same sharpness, but the scan made with the Eversmart is much smoother while the one with the Imacon has a lot of grain. I had sharpening turned off for the scan with the Eversmart, which is routine for my way of workflow. With the Imacon I can not tell if sharpening is on or off. If it can be turned off, which I assume is the case, the two scans would probably be closer in terms of grain. But even with sharpness turned on a scan with the Eversmart has much finer grain than what I am getting with the Imacon.

Sandy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnanian

hey jay!

according to some ( myself included )... caffenol C

http://caffenol.blogspot.com/

---

Thanks for this. I'm going to give it a try with Acros tonight. I find the claim(s) that Acros can be rated EI 25-1600 and developed for the same time, well, astonishing. Also, I find it unbelievable that the caffenol C is non toxic/environmentally friendly - anyone who has ever tasted instant coffee would concur:rolleyes:

Thanks Sandy.


I read recently a discussion in which Chris Jordan commented about scanning at TOO HIGH resolution, and made a case for limiting scan resolution to around 2000 dpi.

Quote:

---

Dave, I think some of my work might be pushing the envelope in terms of high resolution images from film. I shoot 8x10" originals and scan them at 2000 dpi (contrary to popular belief, using higher resolution doesn't provide any additional image information, just more grain), and that process produces files almost a gigabyte in size that have image details as small as one pixel. A few of my images are multiple 8x10's laced together; I have a couple of panoramic images that are composites of four 8x10's in a row-- the equivalent of an 8x40" film original. They are a nightmare to lace together in Photoshop, but the resulting prints have more detail than our eyes could see if we were there in person.

However, I think there is a limit to how useful that much image information can be; for my own work it matters because my images are all about small details, but for other kinds of work, too much information can actually reduce the emotional effect of the image. I've seen some very high resolution landscape photos recently, whose only interest is their extreme sharpness. My own reaction to a lot of that kind of work is, "amazingly sharp, but so what?"

---

Is it possible the differences you're seeing are the result of scanning at too high resolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr

Thanks Sandy.

I read recently a discussion in which Chris Jordan commented about scanning at TOO HIGH resolution, and made a case for limiting scan resolution to around 2000 dpi.

Is it possible the differences you're seeing are the result of scanning at too high resolution?

---

Jay,

The main point Chris Jordan is making, as I read what he writes, is that scanning 8X10 film at more than 2000 spi is a waste of time because film this size does not have more than 2000 spi of effective resolution. So if you were to scan it at 4000 spi you would just get larger files, with more grain, but no additional detail.

However, scanning 35mm and medium format is another matter because these formats, with some cameras, are capable of capturing much more detail (easily up to 4000-5000 spi), and scanning a medium format negative at 3200 spi is likely to leave some resolution on the table. How a scanner deals with grain is very specific to the mechanics of the scanner itself.

Basically, it is not so much a question of the fact that scanning at high resolution produces more grain than scanning at a lower resolution, which is generally true, but how do we minimize grain when scanning at high resolution.

Sandy

Quote:

---

I've seen some very high resolution landscape photos recently, whose only interest is their extreme sharpness. My own reaction to a lot of that kind of work is, "amazingly sharp, but so what?"

---

Reminds me of the last time I got a new set of glasses. Driving down the street I noticed every twig on every tree - I felt all that detail distracted me from my driving. "Oh look, there's a robin in that tree over there..." BEEP BEEP!!! - as I slid out of my lane.

Thanks Sandy. It's all a little confusing for me. An 8x10 sheet of film is the same material as a 35mm frame, just more of it, and so it doesn't make sense to me that one would be capable of much greater resolution than the other, except that the lenses for larger formats don't resolve as much detail. Still, it seems that scanning at or near the resolution of the grain would be consistent for any given film, whatever the format, since the size of the grain doesn't change with format. I'm sure this is a fundamental misunderstanding on my part.

It seems we're left to find a balance of fine grain and sharpness suitable to our tastes and preferences, just as in darkroom printing, and making large prints from small negatives imposes similar demands on either workflow. Maybe I've overestimated the utility of USM for allowing finer grain without sacrificing sharpness, and similarly, maybe I've overestimated the degree of contrast correction that is practical in editing. I have a lot to learn about scanning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr

Thanks Sandy. It's all a little confusing for me. An 8x10 sheet of film is the same material as a 35mm frame, just more of it, and so it doesn't make sense to me that one would be capable of much greater resolution than the other, except that the lenses for larger formats don't resolve as much detail. Still, it seems that scanning at or near the resolution of the grain would be consistent for any given film, whatever the format, since the size of the grain doesn't change with format. I'm sure this is a fundamental misunderstanding on my part.

It seems we're left to find a balance of fine grain and sharpness suitable to our tastes and preferences, just as in darkroom printing, and making large prints from small negatives imposes similar demands on either workflow. Maybe I've overestimated the utility of USM for allowing finer grain without sacrificing sharpness, and similarly, maybe I've overestimated the degree of contrast correction that is practical in editing. I have a lot to learn about scanning.

---

Just comparing formats there are several reasons why resolution is generally lower with LF than MF and 35mm. There is less precision in the film plane, LF lenses are made more for coverage then resolution, LF lenses are more often used at apertures where diffraction limits sharpness, movements shift part of the image outside of the circle of best definition, etc.

Scanning can be a fairly complicated matter, as can image processing in Photoshop. If you look at the Scan Hi-End forum you will find people using mostly high end flatbeds and drum scanners who know a lot more than most of use here on this forum, but they also disagree about optimum scanning resolution and many other things related to scanning. It is not that someone is necessarily wrong, only that people are speaking from their own experiences.

Sandy

Years back, a software colleague of mine worked on scanners used in aerial surveillance. When installed, they were mounted in heavy concrete to eliminate vibration. Made in limited numbers for the military, these scanners were very very expensive.

Lenses with big coverage like we use in LF, with resolving power equivalent to top-performing 35mm and MF lenses probably exist - but civilians will probably never see them, and couldn't afford to purchase any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric James

Thanks for this. I'm going to give it a try with Acros tonight. I find the claim(s) that Acros can be rated EI 25-1600 and developed for the same time, well, astonishing. Also, I find it unbelievable that the caffenol C is non toxic/environmentally friendly - anyone who has ever tasted instant coffee would concur:rolleyes:

---

robusta = for film
arabica = for you

John,

I've seen some claims for Caffenol regarding extreme exposure latitude, which I suspect is more relevant to scanning than darkroom printing. Indeed, I've been amazed by the detail scanning can extract from very thin negatives I could never print in my darkroom. However, my thin negatives seem to suffer from high noise levels, and I wonder how this problem is managed by others with more scanning expertise.

It seems to me, film speed, like most things, is relative, and film speed for film to be scanned is determined by a different set of criteria than film to be printed in a darkroom. Does anyone know of a practical density threshold for scanning, or, like so many other characteristics, is it dependent on scanner type?

hi jay

to be honest i usually go the other way with my film.
i scan some of my coffee-stuff ... it isn't tooo thin,
but most of it i process so it is nearly bulletproof and print it.

- john

From the scanner point of view, the image should probably be red. Less diffraction and the silicon photo diode or CCD in the scanner has its highest sensitivity in the red, actually at about 900nm. So maybe a near infrared image is best. That's odd.

I'd vote for a neutral colored image.

Thanks John. I've never been very satisfied with my scans of dense negatives. I have made some satisfying prints from very dense negatives in my darkroom, despite all the factors that conspire against a dense negative, and though I've only seen your work online, it seems you know how to make the most of your negatives, whatever their character.

Eric,

Maybe I'm confused (okay, I'm definitely confused), but when I think of scanning as an analog to printing, it seems to me the image density should be made up of what the scanner is LEAST sensitive to, just as image stain relates to printing paper. If the scanner is most sensitive to red, that seems to argue in favor of green density. It's entirely possible that I misunderstand the principles involved. In any case, it's good to see you posting.

XTOL is my best compromise and in my work it will be because I print still most B&W analog and very seldom digital!
And yes its the developer I know the best anyway, semse for my also very important!
Its by the way my magic bullet;--))))

Armin

Mr. Lee, my intuition can't help you with your state's lottery numbers, but intuitively speaking, here are some mutual funds I fancy:

Janus Mid Cap Value
Janus Overseas
Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock
Fidelity Convertible Securities
Oakmark Equity and Income
Vanguard Inflation Protected Securities

And realestate advice:

If you live in California, rent until the San Andreas fault shifts sometime in the next 20 years. And for the rest of the country, rent for the next 5 to 10 years, and invest the savings in the above named funds. If you are fairly young and live in New England, watch for the plunging value of homes as the home owning population ages from migration, retirement to southern states, and death creating an unabsorbed surplus of supply.

There you go Mr. Lee. Please remit my advisory fee of $20,000 as soon as possible. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

Jay,

The main point Chris Jordan is making, as I read what he writes, is that scanning 8X10 film at more than 2000 spi is a waste of time because film this size does not have more than 2000 spi of effective resolution. So if you were to scan it at 4000 spi you would just get larger files, with more grain, but no additional detail.

However, scanning 35mm and medium format is another matter because these formats, with some cameras, are capable of capturing much more detail (easily up to 4000-5000 spi), and scanning a medium format negative at 3200 spi is likely to leave some resolution on the table. How a scanner deals with grain is very specific to the mechanics of the scanner itself.

Basically, it is not so much a question of the fact that scanning at high resolution produces more grain than scanning at a lower resolution, which is generally true, but how do we minimize grain when scanning at high resolution.

Sandy

---

Hi Mr. King--sorry I'm late to the party, came across this thread and a question came to mind. In your experience, do different film formats benefit from unique scan resolutions as a general rule?

I have chatted with a few folks at some of the scanning companies online. They agree that a large format negative has inherently more resolution than a smaller negative, and scanning at an overly high resolution creates massive files that fail to yield any better image quality. I was also told in some cases, overscanning may introduce technical errors that could degrade the image quality and/or corrupt the file itself. Their judgement was scan 4 x 5 and up in the 2000PPI range; MF around 2400-3600, depending on film format, scanner, tech, etc.; and 3600 + for 35mm, 126, 110, and so forth.

Of interest was the notion that images made with pinholes and other lomographic gear, tended to benefit more from scans made at the low end of the spectrum for the film format used.

Any thoughts you care to share, mon frere? (Sorry about that...) :rolleyes:

Kevin M.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Anderson

Interesting. Do you use caffenol C for most of your development?

...Mike

---

hi mike
sorry i missed this
YUP :)
most of my film has been processed in caffenol for the past 10, maybe 11 years.
i've used straight caffenol c ( measured with tablespoons and instant coffee )
and eventually i put a little ansco 130 in it ( now i put a little dektol in it instead )
and then i bought a bunch of robusta beans ( green ) and i roast the coffee myself.
i like the results i get better than instant ... maybe i am bias ? :)
these days i split process most if not all my film. i mix a batch of dektol 1:8ish and
instead of processing it for 8-9 mins in that .. i develop it for 4 mins in that, and then
4 mins in the caffenol c with a tiny bit of dektol mixed in ... works like a charm.

YMMV

have fun !

Is XTOL still the benchmark for most of you?

I am looking for a developer that is of low toxicity (XTOL or better), comes as a liquid concentrate (don't like mixing from powder due to health reasons) and works great with a rotary processor (CPPx) and Ilford's FP4+/HP5. It should be a developer that possesses a certain formulation/manufacturing robustness and QC in order to allow for a single characterisation to be applicable for multiple batches.

I focused on XTOL for the last years. Unfortunately, I find its preparation somewhat cumbersome, its need for short development times at 1:1 for FP4+ (I had to dilute it to 1:3 to ensure development repeatability) and I still have issues with streaks on denser areas from time to time. I don't care for low contrast negatives as long as DMAX < 2.5.

What are your recommendations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andre Noble

Mr. Lee, my intuition can't help you with your state's lottery numbers, but intuitively speaking, here are some mutual funds I fancy:

Janus Mid Cap Value
Janus Overseas
Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock
Fidelity Convertible Securities
Oakmark Equity and Income
Vanguard Inflation Protected Securities

---

at the seven year mark, did you break even?