Re: Scanner comparisson page and drum scan limits?
Have you ever considered the possibility that the lack of smoothness might be due to the type of scanner you are using? Maybe you should experiment some with one of those inferior flatbeds? Could me that Premier is just looking too deeply into the film and finding things that were never meant to be found.Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger
Sandy
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
Hey Sandy, I think your on to something there. How about a SF plot where a film scanner looks so deeply into the film it can see future events.... Queue the Twilight Zone theme.
---
Well, I am from Earth, although I have been to Mars (PA) to answer some of the previous questions about what planet we (Lenny and I) are from. I won't speak for Lenny on that one.
The comment about the tone curve tool being 0 to 255 is because in 16-bit it's mapping 0 to 255 to 0 to 32768 (thanks to Tyler for point out PS uses 15bits of actual data, confirmed in a PS text I referenced). Therefore if one changes 124 to 125 then this is mapping to 15872 to 16000. One could counter and say "doesn't matter as it gets mapped to 8-bits eventually". If that's your workflow np for me.
One concern I have is the graph is so small when making the adjustments to the curve, it would be real nice if PS allowed one to stretch the window larger. Will I continue to use the curves tool - YES.
_ .. --
Tim
Nice idea but that isn't it. I think its just film real estate. But I also think its how I'm addressing the specific issues....
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
I think you're right that the issue you have is about film real estate. If you have a certain print size in mind e.g. 40x50" the grain structure of your 4x5" film going trough a 10-12x magnification while it's only 5-6x for an 8x10" sheet.
It depends on the film you're using but even on modern flat crystal emulsion films you can already perceive a loss in smoothness when enlarged ten times. The grain already interferes with the texture of your image.
Which type of film have you used for your comparisons so far?
-Dominique
[QUOTE=Tim Povlick;626767]
One concern I have is the graph is so small when making the adjustments to the curve, it would be real nice if PS allowed one to stretch the window larger. Will I continue to use the curves tool - YES.
_
Tim, get with some digital astronomers and import your pictures with their programs. They've been able to stretch for more then a decade. I guess to say stretch would be wrong, you can zoom in or out. :-)
With optical printing, I see a slight loss in quality in moving to more than a 4x enlargement with EI 100 film. Why would things be different digitally? (This is not to say that max quality always wins the day. Sometimes the impact of a bigger print more than makes up for a slight lessening of quality.)
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Dominique,
I am currently using Delta, and on occasion TMY-2 (for low light). It isn't the film, however, grain patterns or scanning sharp.
Here's my example: let's say you have a telephone pole in your image. It's one of those that has a seemingly endless number of shades of brown from the aging of its creosote coating (I presume they do this, or did, in the EU, and that you have these objects over there).
Let's also suggest that on a 4x5 piece of film you can take a square sample (crop) that will represent the width of this telephone pole and that with a 4x5 the width and height of this sample is .64 centimeters, or close to 1/4 of an inch.
Resolution is not the issue here. The edge of the pole will be sharp in all med-large formats, at least. However, if you compare the tonal reproduction capacity of this 4x5 vs the capacity of an 8x10, the larger film will reproduce the same square of the image in 2.54 centimeters, or a full square inch. There is far more tonal information in an inch of film vs a 1/4 of an inch.
I go over and over this in my mind. I think I am almost there, my next experiment should provide a path to see what exactly is and is not possible between the two formats with identical (both Rodenstock Apo-sironar-S lenses, both normal for the format, and matching film and development, with an appropriate subject that is tonally rich.
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
Lenny, maybe you're trying to make too big of prints from 4x5 for your quality requirements? A 8x10" print from a 4x5" negative ought to look the same in quality as a 16x20" print from 8x10" film.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I do print large, but its on rare occasions. Some images are quite dramatic and convincing when they get large and others just look silly - my opinion about my own work. That said, my target "image quality size" is 16x20.
So far, with 8x10 I can tell that the sun in the image is "summer sun" and I know that it is in the late afternoon. A long exposure at the ocean reveals tracks of spray that feel like it. Rocks are so textured you feel like you could touch them in the print. Those cues are important to me. I think 4x5 will do it, I'm getting older and would be much happier to carry around a little 4x5 on hiking trails (would be thrilled if the Mamiya 7 would do it... altho' while the lenses are extremely sharp they don't appear to have enough depth of field for me - 22 vs 45-64). I'm having to adjust my thinking to approach this. Good news is that the film and dev is working wonderfully.
Thanks for your suggestions, all.
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
well since my thinking is an easy target, perhaps you can help me complete it. So then, the curves tool is a sledge hammer with small film and not large?
Tyler
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks