Underexposed negatives make for better scans?

**paulr** · 17-Jun-2007, 15:57

Yeah, slightly thin negs, but not underexposed. I find negs that print well on #3 paper scan effortlessly. They have miles of scannable dynamic range, and less grain.

I experimented with scanning from prints (including contact prints) but the amount of information and quality lost in the printing process is staggering. Scan straight from the source if there's any way you can.

**Ted Harris** · 17-Jun-2007, 16:07

Waht sort of prolems scanning 8x10? The size of the media shouldn't have any influence on how you scan.

**Ed Richards** · 17-Jun-2007, 16:35

I use Xtol 1:3 for Tmax to be scanned. Makes a very smooth negative, and gives good shadow detail even a full film speed. I use rotary develoment and reduce the Kodak time by about 25%. I will use more exposure and less develoment for scenes with extreme range.