Which BW film gives best results when scanned

[Bruce Watson]

Bruce, do you wet print anymore?

Haven't printed in the darkroom in years now. I like inkjet much better. But that's just me. Clearly there's a lot to be said for a traditional silver gelatin print.

[Lenny Eiger]

I have had the best results lately with Efke 25, Delta, TMax and TMY2 in Xtol 1:1 in a Jobo. I just did a whole series of tests with an associate. We found a very short amount of time from N-3 to N+2, basically from 6 to 8 mins development at 72F.

We found that the best neg was one where the top end density topped out at about 1.8-1.9. I don't have an issue with the highlights, or a Callier effect. We did find that when our development time exceeded 8:45, the grain shredded (got big) and it looked like HP 5, or Bergger. Grain that large exceeds the granularity of the dithering pattering and it doesn't work for me...

Settled on Delta, as its cheaper than TMax, just as good if not better, and TMY2 when a little extra speed was needed. Our times for Delta and TMY also matched, which is handy. My system includes a drum scanner, as most of you know. These scan sharp vs a consumer flatbed which scans blurry and needs to be sharpened. This might be a factor when scanning things that are grainy, the blurrier scan may be more amenable to dealing with larger grain. When sharpened, it likely would not add back grain.

I also print with a 6 channel b&w inkset I mix up from a 4-dilution Cone Piezotone base, which extends highlight definition all the way to the edge. As I told Bruce earlier, I think his experience of the Callier effect may have more to do with the transitions in the print environment than the scanner. The earlier numbers that Ergosoft (Studioprint RIP) gave out for dealing with light ink dilutions are incorrect, as they starve the crossover transitions, probably right where he was looking at the effect.

I hope this helps in some way...

Lenny

[Bruce Watson]

We found that the best neg was one where the top end density topped out at about 1.8-1.9. I don't have an issue with the highlights, or a Callier effect. We did find that when our development time exceeded 8:45, the grain shredded (got big) and it looked like HP 5, or Bergger. Grain that large exceeds the granularity of the dithering pattering and it doesn't work for me...

Settled on Delta, as its cheaper than TMax, just as good if not better, and TMY2 when a little extra speed was needed. Our times for Delta and TMY also matched, which is handy. My system includes a drum scanner, as most of you know. These scan sharp vs a consumer flatbed which scans blurry and needs to be sharpened. This might be a factor when scanning things that are grainy, the blurrier scan may be more amenable to dealing with larger grain. When sharpened, it likely would not add back grain.

I also print with a 6 channel b&w inkset I mix up from a 4-dilution Cone Piezotone base, which extends highlight definition all the way to the edge. As I told Bruce earlier, I think his experience of the Callier effect may have more to do with the transitions in the print environment than the scanner. The earlier numbers that Ergosoft (Studioprint RIP) gave out for dealing with light ink dilutions are incorrect, as they starve the crossover transitions, probably right where he was looking at the effect.

It was in interesting conversation. I'm still scratching my head about how we get such different results. Vive la différence! At least we're both trying!

There's no doubt that Callier Effect is real, and that the more silver density you have the more it scatters light, this just due to the fact that the silver isn't transparent. The light has to go somewhere when it's not allowed to continue in a straight line. The question isn't whether Callier Effect is there, the question is whether it matters to a scan. I'm pretty sure that it matters, but I'm willing to consider that it might be less of a factor for some scanners and workflows. And for that matter, some films may be better about it than others with a given scanner and workflow. I did my testing with 5x4 Tri-X and assumed it applied to all films. And you know what they say about assumptions... So, TMY-2 may show different results. Oh good, something else to test for, sigh...

OTOH, I'm fully concede that more inks are better than fewer inks in inkjet printing. Moving to the Cone K7s is still my plan, but in this economy it'll be awhile before plan becomes reality I'm afraid.

[Lenny Eiger]

It was in interesting conversation. I'm still scratching my head about how we get such different results. Vive la différence! At least we're both trying!

I think you are doing a lot better than just trying. It is weird that we get different results, but there are often so many factors that it is very easy to come to a conclusion based on partial testing. In fact, its necessary, as it is too time consuming to test everything.

This year, I have come to realize that the TGrained films do just fine with the right development technique where earlier I thought they were not good at all.

I appreciate the talent, stick-to-it-iveness and skill of some on the list (including you, Bruce) who are continuously helpful... and often ask questions - or answer some in a way - that makes me question my own assumptions and re-test until I get it right.

Lenny