There's a nice used x-rite on ebay for $100 presently. Probably could get one for less with a little searching. But I've found that the negative densities that we used to like for darkroom printing, developed via the proper proof method or others, aren't the same as the ones my scanner seems to like. The dense neg that used to give the rich tones in print now seems to block the highlights a bit on the scanner. Highlights in general, in the digital arena, seem to be a different animal.
John Youngblood
www.jyoungblood.com
True. If you are going to make a negative that will possibly be used on both silver and ink prints you have to be careful on the highlight placement and development-which is why I have gone over to tanning developers.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
This is a fascinating post, and I believe I want to try it. Does anybody have a good recommendation for a step-wedge? I'm not sure exactly which one I should buy. A link would be very helpful!
Thanks,
Robert
How about the Stouffer TP4x5-31? See: http://www.stouffer.net/Photo.htm#Tr...n%20Projection You can get it calibrated if you prefer.
“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
What does that mean you think?Originally Posted by Peter J. De Smidt
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Save yourself the hassle and purchase a used XRite 810 for about $200-$250 or less. Scanners are slow and DR limited and the tend not to be linear in the toe and shoulder.
Save yourself the hassle and purchase a used XRite 810 for about $200-$250 or less. Scanners are slow and DR limited and the tend not to be linear in the toe and shoulder.
I believe they might read all the densities of all their step wedges on lab-calibrated equipment, and when they have a sample that falls within "tighter" tolerances they print out the readings on the sleeve and call it "calibrated".
What it means to you is that instead of graphing step 3 as the nominal 0.35 you know the X-Axis for that step is really 0.34. You get smoother curves that more accurately reflect reality.
Something like that.
You can do practically the same thing by sending a non-calibrated version to a friend and ask them to write the readings they get. That would probably be close enough to be an improvement. As far as the differences between a calibrated test strip and one calibrated by a friend (to quote my favorite Todd-Zakia line) "The differences that do exist are so small they are not important to us."
Don, Rather than another piece of equipment, I was looking for some method with my 750 that I could do as I was doing my quicky proofing on the scanner.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Well this topic has been discussed on certain fora for years, especially in regard to producing digital inkjet negatives for contact printing. A scanner just seems like a natural contender. In the end if you need a densitometer then use a densitometer, it will serve you much better. I know Vuescan will spit out D-log values and perhaps certain versions of SilverFast may. You may be able to edge by with reflection densities but for film densities that's a different horse to ride.
A spectro may be a better all round choice for reflection measurements, though I don't own one so I can't really comment.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks