Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,955

    Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes

    Jack, I hand roll a Jobo 3010 using D76 1:1. At 68 degrees, 50 revolutions per minute, normal development is 8 minutes. I then scan on an Epson 4990. I only print up to 16x20.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    973

    Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes

    Jack,

    I use Tmax 100 for B&W drum scanning applications, due to its small, tight grain and sensitivity to development variations (which I like for Zone System work). I have tried Acros but it tends to be a bit contrasty in Xtol developer (used by my B&W processing lab, I don't do processing myself), otherwise it would also be an excellent choice. In theory Delta 100 should be another option, as it is similar to Tmax.

  3. #13
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes

    " Developing to a low contrast will ultimately INCREASE the apparent grain and noise effects in the image by extrapolating the data outward in the digital realm, which may cause the subtle noise artifacts to become more prominant."

    This may partially explain a phenomena that I experience also. That phenomena is: if I scan a normal negative at a tonal range that is in the ballpark of what I know I want in the final print (when I know I will want allot of midtone contrast in the final print) rather than a low contrast generic flat scan . I get less noise by sampling at the desired tone than appying a steep curve to a tonally flat file in PS. This is especially true when I want to add allot of drama to a sky. If I appy a steep curve to a snapshot that I am going to use to burn in with, oftentimes I get huge noise increases in the transitional tone areas that have been "extrapolated outward" by the steep curve.

    Does that make any sense?
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  4. #14
    Ted Harris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,465

    Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes

    Jack,

    You've got good information for people who do it. Fromt he technical side pay particular to Michael. Also, Kirk has lots of good info and you will find useful stuff at Paul Butzi's website.

  5. #15
    Scott Schroeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Austin,TX
    Posts
    1,576

    Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes

    Kirk,
    I find your evaluation very interesting. Ironically, this something I have been trying to pin down a solution for. I shoot Ilford Delta 100 and Acros 100 and develop by Jobo with pyro. If I understand you correctly, you are saying it is better to adjust contrast in the scan (or close to your final vision) than in PS. Let's say a dramatic sky with puffy thounder clouds. By applying the contrast during scanning, you are avoiding the artifacts (noise) that start to show if you burn too much?

    This is quite interesting. Anyone else have something to add to this?
    Thanks

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    973

    Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes

    " Developing to a low contrast will ultimately INCREASE the apparent grain and noise effects in the image by extrapolating the data outward in the digital realm, which may cause the subtle noise artifacts to become more prominant."

    I've seen this too when having Piezography prints done. I initially processed my film for low contrast to record as much shadow detail as possible, but found that later adding contrast digitally (through curves or sharpening) sometimes resulted in a weird effect where the print came out looking like a charcoal painting rather than a photograph. I can only assume this was the B&W version of posterization (where excessive digital manipulation results in loss of tonal separation and detail). There's no substitute for having your negative as close as possible to your desired look, so that the need for digital manipulation is minimized.

  7. #17

    Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes

    Kirk,

    Yes, it does. That is part of the reason that I believe it is important to get is reasonably close to right in the scan, and not leave it to PS manipulation later on. Every manipulation to the file after it's creation destroys data in some manner, with the exception of some basic rotaional transpositions and other minor things like that.

    Curves, Levels, color adjustments, etc. all ultimately are destroying data that was in the original file, which is why it is so important that the manipulations are made as Levels adjustments, and are not applied directly to the background.

    In the case of Curves, as you have suggested, the adjustment of the midtones causes a seperation in the steps somewhere in the curve, and a compression of the steps in another part of the curve. When the seperation is drastic enough, it will cause an increase in the apparent 'grain' that is visible. In this case, I mean noise more than grain, but it does ultimately come off looking like digital grain.

    This is partially exacerbated by the fact that most people consider a digital file to be a continuum, rather than a stepped data source. Further, PS is apparently not truely 16 bit, it actualy operates at 15 bits. Even more, most B&W files don't have anywhere near the theoretical number of possible levels of gray in them, most have much fewer than 1/2 and high bit files (16 bit) may often have 1/3 or 1/4.

    Additionally, the problems most easily crop up in areas where there is a discontunity in the tonal structure of the file, because this is where a large step is already being made in the data.

    This can be made worse if the source file is a general scan to cover the entire density range (the raw scan output approach), because then the useful data does not cover the entire range of the image file, and if there were possibility for some interpolated data within the useful data set, it was thrown out in favor of capturing useless data beyond the image density range.

    Suddenly, 16 bit doesn't sound like too much, does it? Image how careful you have to be when scaning at 8 bit? My drum scanner has a 12 bit output, and writes a 16 bit file so it is useable in PS, but it only has 12 bits of true data in it. Because of the fine control over the input data, I am able to easily produce good scans that require only minor adjustments to the fie, and these types of scanning artifact problems do not show their head too much. I still have to be careful in open sky areas, though.

    Jack,

    The Epson 4800 is a 17" printer, correct? With 4x5 film, you will need to scan at about 1750ppi to get a 17x21" print from a slightly cropped negative at 360dpi. If this is the limit of your printing capability, then you may want to reconsider the resolution you are getting in your scans.

    ---Michael

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    44

    Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes

    I just took a break from CS2 working on an image that I scanned - 2 1/4 B&W scanned at 8K with 8 aperature. Had to get away from the image! Came over to my PC and started reading the replys.



    I too am finding that if I scan a negative for low contrast/flat look from the scanner, when I take the image into CS2 I have to do a lot of "rebuilding" of the contrast with Curves.

    Amazing the timing of Kirk's and Michael's comments!

    The image I'm working on right now was taken in 1982 on Cape Cod - it's of an old boat bow on the sand with nice clouds in the sky. Scanned flat as someone has recently told me to scan that way and do all of you manipulation in CS2.

    Working with it in CS2 and trying to get the sky right is introducing all kinds of digital noise!

    I'll rescan the neg in a couple of days and go for the "finished look" with DPL Pro, then bring over to CS2 and see if I get the same digital noise.

    I'm betting I won't.

    This mornings work is putting merit to Michaels comments!

    Michael - yes, the Epson 4800 does up to 17" wide. What I'm doing is scanning and working at the resolution of the largest print I think I'll ever do - that would be on the 9800 when it is released. Now, I'm pumping 999 resolution to the 4800 when I print and getting fairly good looking results ( I still have not standardized on an archival paper - I like the traditional glossy look but just purchased a sample pack of the Red River papers to test. I just tried the Hahnenuhle Photo Rag, Smooth Surface, and did not like it.)

    Thanks for the dialog - I'm learning a lot and appreciate the input!
    Jack

  9. #19
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes

    Thank you for that Michael. I have found that to be true in practice but could never explain to anyone why it was.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,697

    Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes

    Sory to dispaly my ignorance but I have a couple questions about some of the above responses:

    Kirk said: "I get less noise by sampling at the desired tone. . . "
    What does it mean to "sample at the desired tone" and how do you do it?

    Michael said:

    ". . . which is why it is so important that the manipulations are made as Levels adjustments, and are not applied directly to the background. "
    Do you mean it's important to apply Levels on a New AdjustmentLayer? If not then I don't understand what you're saying.

    Michael also said:

    "Additionally, the problems most easily crop up in areas where there is a discontunity in the tonal structure of the file . . . "
    What's a "disconinuity in the tonal structure?" Do you mean an abrupt contrast change, e.g. a silhouetted tree against a bright sky?

    " My drum scanner has a 12 bit output, and writes a 16 bit file so it is useable in PS, but it only has 12 bits of true data in it."
    How does one go about determining this kind of thing? Is it peculiar to drum scanners or can it be determined with a flatbed?

    Thanks for the question and responses, they've been very helpful except for the things above that I need some help with.
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

Similar Threads

  1. Drum scanning in India
    By QT Luong in forum Resources
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 24-Jan-2005, 07:44
  2. Developer Drum Sources
    By John Z. in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 23-Dec-2004, 14:14
  3. Drum Scanning in Orlando
    By Nic Benton in forum Resources
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28-Jan-2001, 00:41
  4. Best LF negative film for drum scanning?
    By Bill Glickman in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 8-Nov-2000, 10:36
  5. A drum developer?
    By Jeff Hall in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-Aug-2000, 12:59

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •