Underexposed negatives make for better scans?

[Sylvester Graham]

I'm just recently cracking into a more digital workflow and am noticing something... It seems like my thinner negatives scan far better than I could imagine. I use PMK and usually I make sure to get plenty of shadow detail, resulting in a nice dense negative (for silver papers, not densities for platinum etc..).

But now those negatives I could have easily printed in the darkroom seem more troublesome to scan. With a little manipulation sure, they improve, but straight off the scanner I'm shocked at what thin negatives I can use to make good images... negatives I would never dream of printing on silver.

Is there a reason for this? Should I even bother with adding an extra stop just in case?

Right now I'm using possibly THE worst scanner ever, a UMAX Astra 2200. But it just so happens to have a 4X5 transparency scanner, so hey whatever. I have noticed this phenomenon on other scanners as well.

Thanks-
-Alex

[Bruce Watson]

Underexposure is never a good idea. Shadow detail is lost and can not be recovered. True for darkroom or for scanning.

If you ever think you are going to print the film in the darkroom, optimize for the darkroom. Good darkroom negatives should scan just fine.

If you are committed to scanning, less developement can be a good idea, particularly for B&W films. Lowers the Callier Effect, improves local contrast especially in the highlight (dense) regions. But don't over do it, you can loose tonal separation if you go too thin.

[pherold]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by looking 'good'? It is in the nature of film to respond erratically when it is overexposed. In other words, your over-exposed neg may take longer to scan because it is more dense, and the color may not scan the same as a normal or underexposed neg, but any graininess should be very small. An underexposed neg will scan quickly, the color should be very predictable, and due to the nature of digitizing the grain can be less than you'd expect. Still, it's never a good idea to have underexposed negs.

-Pat Herold
Chromix Tech Support

[Ron Marshall]

What Bruce said; expose normally, very slightly less development.

[Brian Ellis]

I stopped using any plus development when I moved from the traditional darkroom to digital printing. I reduced my normal development time by 10% and left the minus times alone. As others have said, you don't want to reduce exposure because you'll lose shadow detail but a little less development time, to reduce density in the highlights, can be a good idea when scanning.

[Alan Davenport]

I wouldn't say "underexposed" negs scan better, but it's a fact that many (perhaps most) scanners have an easier time with "thin" negatives.

[Lazybones]

Don't underexpose, and forget auto scanner settings. Scan for data, using the "Dmax" and "Dmin" areas to define the histogram input. Your scanner shouldn't have too much a problem with negative densities, when set manually. Where you'd usually see a problem is with the Dmax of transparency material, especially Velvia, etc. Anyway, there are slightly different methods which work best for transparencies, color neg, and black and white. Experiment a little. With negatives, you should get a flat looking scan. From there, make your adjustments such as levels, contrast, burn/dodge, etc.

[Lazybones]

Or not?

[Neal Shields]

I always add an extra stop and I gave up trying to scan 8x10 negatives.

It is far easier to make a contact print and scan that.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Neal,

Don't you lose dynamic range scanning from a print? From my understanding from reading quite a bit on this prints have a dmax of about 2.0 and film especially negs MUCH more.

Just for my FYI, when you underexpose a neg is it suppose to look pale or dark and dense on visual inspection after processing?

Thanks.