"Straight" RA4 and V700 Scan

[SeanEsopenko]

RA4 printed through a roller transport with Kodak chemicals using a Schneider Componon-S. It was a quick proof with very little colour balancing. No masking (pin registration system is on it's way). I had about 60 minutes to get the roller transport to temperature and bang out a couple proofs before it was clean up time. Never enough time!


Same image scanned with the V700. For some reason I have a heck of a time colour balancing film scans. I can balance a print in the darkroom quicker and with better success than what I get in photoshop. The above's with EpsonScan; I haven't tried this negative with VueScan yet.

I used a graduated filter turned on it's side to keep the fence from blowing out. It darkened the upper regions a bit in the sky area but overall it turned out pretty much as I had planned.

I'm waiting to back from the Alberta Foundation for the Arts to see whether I got a project grant or not. If I did I'll be making a whack-load of these for a body of work. If not I'll see if I can scrounge up the money myself and produce the body but without as much "pizaz" as originally planned.

[Peter De Smidt]

Here's a quick alternate version:

[Ken Lee]

"For some reason I have a heck of a time colour balancing film scans....I can balance a print in the darkroom quicker and with better success than what I get in photoshop."

Another of the many reasons that some of us stick with Black & White

[Justin Cormack]

Well on my screen (uncalibrated!) the Epson scan looks ok, might be an auto white balance setting perhaps, the garage door is very neutral white? The RA4 has a pink cast, while the third one has some more warmth... but I am with Ken or the B&W thing anyway...

[Ken Lee]

To put it in a positive way, when color is well-done, it can be really superb.

[Robert Hughes]

That's why Ken's the mod here! He's a consummate diplomat.

[jp]

When I do color film, I find it easier to scan the negative than than make a good color darkroom print. I've given up on color darkroom years ago.

Similar to Ken, I stick with B&W for film.

Hats off to ya for getting close with both darkroom and scanning.

[SeanEsopenko]

When I do color film, I find it easier to scan the negative than than make a good color darkroom print. I've given up on color darkroom years ago.

Similar to Ken, I stick with B&W for film.

Hats off to ya for getting close with both darkroom and scanning.

Thanks. I've invested a lot of effort & money into gathering up a colour darkroom. It's been a serious leap of faith but the investment is starting to pay off. The local people who were buying my B&W prints are taking an interest in my colour work because of the hand-made process. I guess in some cities the whole Inkjet VS Darkroom is a moot point for collectors but where I'm from people are a little old fashioned (aka: behind the times). I'd love to get myself a Phase One back with a Cambo WDS and digital lenses but it's completely out of my reach; selling prints wouldn't generate enough income to justify the expense.

The other day I enlarged the above image to 16x20, developing a crop on 8x10 paper. I then took the V700 scan and printed it at 8x10 on my R3000. On the monitor the V700 scan was just as sharp as the crop of the 16x20.

The inkjet of the crop couldn't resolve noisy textures as well as the darkroom print because of the dot pattern of the R3000. I had a hard time noticing it but my wife (with her eagle eyes) noticed it right away and didn't really like the inkjet. I think at a normal viewing distance behind framing glass it'd be hard to tell the difference. But when looking at a bare, unframed print the lack of gloss differential is very nice.

Any way it's printed it looks a HELL of a lot nicer than 13x19 inkjets from my Canon 5D, even with Zeiss glass. I think that's mostly due to having camera movements.