Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    Re: Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr View Post
    Sandy,

    You make a very interesting point. The appearance or rendition of grain by scanners seems so much more variable than in darkroom printing, and I don't know enough about scanning hardware to account for these variabilities, or combat them. Julia scanned a roll of Ultrafine + MF film developed in GSD-10, and I was struck by the difference in the appearance of grain depending on the exposure given the various frames. It seemed a little more exposure produced a disproportionate increase in the appearance of grain, and I wonder if the scanner might have contributed, somehow. I'm very interested in the grain v sharpness relationship for film to be scanned. Excessive grain seems to be a bigger potential problem than relative sharpness. I was interested in your comments about the differences between sharpness enhanced by USM compared to sharpness enhanced by edge effects in the negative. How would you characterize these differences? Would you say the sharpness resulting from edge effects is so superior to that resulting from USM that the additional grain produced by the kinds of developers that produce edge effects represents an attractive compromise?

    Jay,

    I believe about all we can do is set up a work flow that optimize results with our particular scanner, whatever it may be. Trying to compare results from one scanner to another, especially different types of scanners, where fluid mounting may or may not be used, opens up something of a pandora's box.

    It seems to me that the sharpness resulting from edge effects, which can only be captured with a very high resolution (assuming they are pictorial and not grossly exaggerated), is superior in the sense that it comes with no down side in terms of distracting tones. When you apply edge effects with USM you get noise, which may then require despeckling, ete. Edge lines from adjacency effects do not have any negatives in terms of tonal values, unless they are over done for the degree of magnification.

    BTW, I want to add that I have at home now a friend's FlexTight Precision II scanner and I just made a few comparison scans of the same negative that I had previously scanned with an EverSmart Pro and with a V700, using 6X12 cm negative that has a lot of fine detail. Top resolution of the Precision II is 3200 ppi with this format, same as the maximum resolution of my Eversmart Pro. A comparison of the two shows that both have about the same sharpness, but the scan made with the Eversmart is much smoother while the one with the Imacon has a lot of grain. I had sharpening turned off for the scan with the Eversmart, which is routine for my way of workflow. With the Imacon I can not tell if sharpening is on or off. If it can be turned off, which I assume is the case, the two scans would probably be closer in terms of grain. But even with sharpness turned on a scan with the Eversmart has much finer grain than what I am getting with the Imacon.

    Sandy
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    913

    Wink Re: Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    hey jay!

    according to some ( myself included )... caffenol C

    http://caffenol.blogspot.com/
    Thanks for this. I'm going to give it a try with Acros tonight. I find the claim(s) that Acros can be rated EI 25-1600 and developed for the same time, well, astonishing. Also, I find it unbelievable that the caffenol C is non toxic/environmentally friendly - anyone who has ever tasted instant coffee would concur

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    3,020

    Re: Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

    Thanks Sandy.


    I read recently a discussion in which Chris Jordan commented about scanning at TOO HIGH resolution, and made a case for limiting scan resolution to around 2000 dpi.

    Dave, I think some of my work might be pushing the envelope in terms of high resolution images from film. I shoot 8x10" originals and scan them at 2000 dpi (contrary to popular belief, using higher resolution doesn't provide any additional image information, just more grain), and that process produces files almost a gigabyte in size that have image details as small as one pixel. A few of my images are multiple 8x10's laced together; I have a couple of panoramic images that are composites of four 8x10's in a row-- the equivalent of an 8x40" film original. They are a nightmare to lace together in Photoshop, but the resulting prints have more detail than our eyes could see if we were there in person.

    However, I think there is a limit to how useful that much image information can be; for my own work it matters because my images are all about small details, but for other kinds of work, too much information can actually reduce the emotional effect of the image. I've seen some very high resolution landscape photos recently, whose only interest is their extreme sharpness. My own reaction to a lot of that kind of work is, "amazingly sharp, but so what?"
    Is it possible the differences you're seeing are the result of scanning at too high resolution?

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    Re: Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr View Post
    Thanks Sandy.

    I read recently a discussion in which Chris Jordan commented about scanning at TOO HIGH resolution, and made a case for limiting scan resolution to around 2000 dpi.

    Is it possible the differences you're seeing are the result of scanning at too high resolution?
    Jay,

    The main point Chris Jordan is making, as I read what he writes, is that scanning 8X10 film at more than 2000 spi is a waste of time because film this size does not have more than 2000 spi of effective resolution. So if you were to scan it at 4000 spi you would just get larger files, with more grain, but no additional detail.

    However, scanning 35mm and medium format is another matter because these formats, with some cameras, are capable of capturing much more detail (easily up to 4000-5000 spi), and scanning a medium format negative at 3200 spi is likely to leave some resolution on the table. How a scanner deals with grain is very specific to the mechanics of the scanner itself.

    Basically, it is not so much a question of the fact that scanning at high resolution produces more grain than scanning at a lower resolution, which is generally true, but how do we minimize grain when scanning at high resolution.

    Sandy
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    1,261

    Re: Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

    I've seen some very high resolution landscape photos recently, whose only interest is their extreme sharpness. My own reaction to a lot of that kind of work is, "amazingly sharp, but so what?"
    Reminds me of the last time I got a new set of glasses. Driving down the street I noticed every twig on every tree - I felt all that detail distracted me from my driving. "Oh look, there's a robin in that tree over there..." BEEP BEEP!!! - as I slid out of my lane.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    3,020

    Re: Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

    Thanks Sandy. It's all a little confusing for me. An 8x10 sheet of film is the same material as a 35mm frame, just more of it, and so it doesn't make sense to me that one would be capable of much greater resolution than the other, except that the lenses for larger formats don't resolve as much detail. Still, it seems that scanning at or near the resolution of the grain would be consistent for any given film, whatever the format, since the size of the grain doesn't change with format. I'm sure this is a fundamental misunderstanding on my part.

    It seems we're left to find a balance of fine grain and sharpness suitable to our tastes and preferences, just as in darkroom printing, and making large prints from small negatives imposes similar demands on either workflow. Maybe I've overestimated the utility of USM for allowing finer grain without sacrificing sharpness, and similarly, maybe I've overestimated the degree of contrast correction that is practical in editing. I have a lot to learn about scanning.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,505

    Re: Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr View Post
    Thanks Sandy. It's all a little confusing for me. An 8x10 sheet of film is the same material as a 35mm frame, just more of it, and so it doesn't make sense to me that one would be capable of much greater resolution than the other, except that the lenses for larger formats don't resolve as much detail. Still, it seems that scanning at or near the resolution of the grain would be consistent for any given film, whatever the format, since the size of the grain doesn't change with format. I'm sure this is a fundamental misunderstanding on my part.

    It seems we're left to find a balance of fine grain and sharpness suitable to our tastes and preferences, just as in darkroom printing, and making large prints from small negatives imposes similar demands on either workflow. Maybe I've overestimated the utility of USM for allowing finer grain without sacrificing sharpness, and similarly, maybe I've overestimated the degree of contrast correction that is practical in editing. I have a lot to learn about scanning.

    Just comparing formats there are several reasons why resolution is generally lower with LF than MF and 35mm. There is less precision in the film plane, LF lenses are made more for coverage then resolution, LF lenses are more often used at apertures where diffraction limits sharpness, movements shift part of the image outside of the circle of best definition, etc.

    Scanning can be a fairly complicated matter, as can image processing in Photoshop. If you look at the Scan Hi-End forum you will find people using mostly high end flatbeds and drum scanners who know a lot more than most of use here on this forum, but they also disagree about optimum scanning resolution and many other things related to scanning. It is not that someone is necessarily wrong, only that people are speaking from their own experiences.

    Sandy
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Re: Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

    Years back, a software colleague of mine worked on scanners used in aerial surveillance. When installed, they were mounted in heavy concrete to eliminate vibration. Made in limited numbers for the military, these scanners were very very expensive.

    Lenses with big coverage like we use in LF, with resolving power equivalent to top-performing 35mm and MF lenses probably exist - but civilians will probably never see them, and couldn't afford to purchase any.

  9. #29
    multiplex
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    local
    Posts
    5,345

    Re: Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric James View Post
    Thanks for this. I'm going to give it a try with Acros tonight. I find the claim(s) that Acros can be rated EI 25-1600 and developed for the same time, well, astonishing. Also, I find it unbelievable that the caffenol C is non toxic/environmentally friendly - anyone who has ever tasted instant coffee would concur
    robusta = for film
    arabica = for you

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    3,020

    Re: Ideal Developer for Film to be Scanned

    John,

    I've seen some claims for Caffenol regarding extreme exposure latitude, which I suspect is more relevant to scanning than darkroom printing. Indeed, I've been amazed by the detail scanning can extract from very thin negatives I could never print in my darkroom. However, my thin negatives seem to suffer from high noise levels, and I wonder how this problem is managed by others with more scanning expertise.

    It seems to me, film speed, like most things, is relative, and film speed for film to be scanned is determined by a different set of criteria than film to be printed in a darkroom. Does anyone know of a practical density threshold for scanning, or, like so many other characteristics, is it dependent on scanner type?

Similar Threads

  1. Ideal film/developer-drum scanning B&W Landscapes
    By Jack Brady in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 23-Mar-2010, 12:08
  2. Ideal Developer for Delta 100
    By brian steinberger in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-Jul-2006, 18:43
  3. Old Formulas : Film
    By Paul Fitzgerald in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19-Mar-2005, 21:31
  4. Developer shelf life
    By Neal Shields in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 22-Jul-2004, 09:43
  5. Developer Quantity
    By Ron Bose in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 27-Apr-2004, 10:49

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
  •