Don,
Thank you!! But I must not be looking for what you're talking about. All I can see is what appears to be the curves or histagram adjusted to bring the uppermost and lowest values closer to near clipping... and perhaps a reshaping of the curve. Wouldn't this have an effect on local contrast as well?
Mike
You will find all the drum scanner owners can see very great differences between their machines and any flat bed.
I really like my Eppy 700 for anything up to 16x20 with a 4x5. Check out stuff for yourself if you can. An 8x10 is pretty big.
MikeOriginally Posted by Mike1234
The example is just that and all three are from a drum scan... and real microcontrast is a characteristic present on the negative which can be preserved with a good scan or lost in degrees - it's impossible to "put it back" digitally without some compromise - which is why my example may have confused instead of clarified. I was just trying to separate the term microcontrast from actuance.
If you think of a typical pictorialist image shot with a very low contrast lens, there may still be a full range of tones in the image from black to white, but the tonal transitions are all very smooth as a result of very low microcontrast. With a higher contrast lens, textures would become more evident due to higher microcontrast - drum scanners reslve the nuances of these tonal differentials much more clearly than consumer flatbeds do. And these subtle differences show up in prints.
I know Pengun has a flap everytime someone with a drum scanner who has actually compared it to something else posts their findings, but I'm not making it up - I test every piece of my imaging chain pretty extensively and I can assure, drum scanning is not my first love - I much prefer making images, but it does IMO, offer significant advantages over consumer grade flatbeds. Anyone who says it doesn't is simply too ignorant to know any better. I've also seen outstanding scans from professional grade flatbeds. If your images are "pictorialist" style, shot on negative films, a consumer flatbed is possibly a decent enough solution. If your images have a great depth of detail and texture and you want to translate them with maximum effect it probably won't cut it.
LOL nobody is making any new "prosumer" or "professional" scanners, ever. Perhaps Epson might have one last go round with a new model but it's been years since they introduced the 700-series.than buy one for a few thousand and have it become obsolete in a couple of years.
The best scanners use state-of-the-art 2001 technology. Professionals buy two or three of the same model so they can scrounge parts.
Trust in what Don says when it comes to image quality. Everything I have read by him rings real-world true.
Hi Don,
Okay... I guess I need to make some first-hand comparisons. I agree that once detail is lost it's gone forever and this is something I wish to avoid.
I'll be shooting on negative films and I might try a B&W direct positive process I saw in other posts... can't remember the very short name... but it looked promising. I'll be shooting for the most detail and acutance as is practicable.
When I was a younger lad I shot Agfapan 25 overexposed and underdeveloped in dilute (1:50 or 1:100) Rodinal and selenium toned to improve and extend the gamma curve. Prints were made on Ilford Gallery #2 or #3 (latter preferred) and exposure limited to prevent shadow blockage then they were selenium toned to deepen lowest values. Prints sparkled with detail... worked very well, IMHO. Acutance was superb to my eyes.
Mike
Don,
When drum scanning 8x10 film, do you see any significant differences in microcontrast rendition between color negative films and chromes? My local digilabs have historically made the argument that, for scenes with a contrast range that chrome film can handle, chromes will yield better microcontrast than color neg. (West Coast Imaging has even made the argument that Provia was superior to Astia for the same reason). I've always thought that the large film real estate of 8x10 minimized the significance of such concerns, allowing significant leeway in picking the best film for each application.
Yet when shooting that alpenglow right-before-sunrise scene, I can't help but wonder: should I not worry, be happy, and shoot color neg without a care in the world? Or will enduring the hassle of chrome film (ND grad filters, exposure bracketing, etc.) result in a positive image (and drum scan) with noticeably superior microcontrast?
Eric
I'm pretty convinced that chromes do offer a little more microcontrast than negative films and it's most visible in areas where it really helps - for example in clouds and in transitions from deep shadow areas. I do think that it's less of a factor on larger negatives, because you generally have more space to digitally adjust tonal values (to some extent) with a larger file of information because trying to introduce small tonal expansions does start degrading files fast. However, like yourself, I still shoot plenty of chromes especially in smaller formats, where I believe you get similar sharpness to the best negative films with less grain and better microcontrast. The downside is obviously very compressed dynamic range... If it's on the film, you can get it off with a good scan from any source, but if it's not there, you can't. That said, I always carry negative film for the times when a difficult scene arises where I have neither the time or I lack the enthusiasm for sorting out the DR of the shot with filters etc. Obviously on smaller formats, bracketing is far less of an issue than it is with 8x10 chromes too!
I made an image earlier this year which was shot on chrome (Velvia 100, which probably has higher microcontrast than any other film I've used) of a scene in very flat light which prints very well - the image is very reliant on microcontrast and I'm sure it would not have been as successful if I had shot it on 160VC, which would have been my substitute at the time.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks