Drum Scanners - which film?

[Ben R]

Hi,

I'm looking to shoot B&W iso 100 film (LF of course) for a specific project. The results will be processed normally by a pro lab. Now I know B&W exposing/developing/printing is a black art that takes a lifetime to master but I don't have a lifetime to spare on it. There was a beautiful quote made on an ancient post here by (I think) Ted Harris that Amatuers see the beauty in the process, pro's are only interested in the final product.

With that in mind and considering these negs will only be used for a digital workflow, can I ask the drum scanners here what B&W film they prefer for scanning and how they prefer it exposed? I know a thinner neg is better for commercial scanners but I'm wondering what the pro drum scanners prefer. My goal is maximum resolution (Prints will be 40X50" from 4X5 which is almost 8X10" territory I'm given to understand) and minimum grain but with the maximum amount of detail held in the highlights. The subject is architecture but I want to be able to hold the skies contrast wise.

Yes I could spend a fortune and considerable time (that I don't really have) on trying several combinations but I think it would make more sense to ask the people who will be having to get the most out of the neg, which type of neg they can get the most out of in the first place.

Many thanks,

[Ted Harris]

Ben, a lot of it depends on the scanner operator in terms of which negative willwork best for him/her and the scanner they are using. My personal preference when scanning on my Cezanne is a normal neg or one that is just may half a stop underexposed. Given your consraints I would bracket and let the operator of the scanner decide which to use. Before I ran my own scanner I used to do exactly that.

As for film, when we started doing the scanner comparison that is aprt of the LF Home Page we originally were doing a B&W scan as well as the color you see there. Unfortunately, the negative got lost somewhere in the mail after a few scans and we haven't done it again. I shot the original image for the B&W scan and shot it on Tri X, TMax 100 and Fuji Acros. Several of us evaluated the negatives strictly in terms of our tests and we all agreed that the choice was between the TMax and the Acros. Basically, we all liked the Acros better in terms of smoothness of thetonality, grain structure,etc. but decided that for the purposes of our test TMax would work better. For purposes of your end goal of a very large print I would stick with Acros because it will give you better grain structure than TMax 100. You could go to Tri X but, again, I would worry about the grain ... you are making a very large print.

And for a small commercial announcement. See my PM about scanning your work.

[Ben R]

Can you get Acros in non ready loads? Acros is almost impossible to get this side of the pond anyway though I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

So when metering you meter for the midtones not the shadows then? That should give a pretty nomal result rather than metering the shadows which is what I'd planned.

[Michael Mutmansky]

NOT underexposed, underdeveloped. I would actually overexpose a bit (a stop) if you want to do this best. Then, underdevelop a slight bit.

I would consider Acros developed in a high sharpness developer like rodinal or FX-39. That will probably produce the highest sharpness in the negative, at the expense of a little more grain.

The other option is to develop for smoothness in grain (probably an actuance geared staining developer) It won't be as sharp, but the difference could be made up with sharpening in PS. At least, the difference could be made to be perceived to be made up, as it won't actually produce higher sharpness. It will produce a smoother looking image, grain-wise, however.

If you're unsure, shotgun the thing, and hold duplicates of the negative for development in another developer.

In the end, the scanner operator is going to need to have a very clear understanding of what you want, because otherwise, you may loose detail in the endpoints that are actually in the film. That would not be a good thing.

FX-39 seems to go a little flat in the highlights, which should help hold the detail, but if you have real subtle highlights in the image, they may appear a bit flat. That can be made up with curves somewhat, as long as the detail is not obscured into the general film gain in the region.

---Michael

[Baxter Bradford]

Whilst I scan on a Flextight rather than a drum scanner, I've found that Acros in Pyrocat HD takes some beating. However a lab may not be willing to use Pyro type developers.

Acros in QL has that annoying hole in the corner which you'll need to account for when framing, or be prepared to clone.

[Kirk Gittings]

NOT underexposed, underdeveloped. I would actually overexpose a bit (a stop) if you want to do this best. Then, underdevelop a slight bit.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes!

[Bruce Watson]

...I ask the drum scanners here what B&W film they prefer for scanning and how they prefer it exposed? ...My goal is maximum resolution (Prints will be 40X50" from 4X5 which is almost 8X10" territory I'm given to understand) and minimum grain but with the maximum amount of detail held in the highlights.

I've done exactly what you propose on a number of occasions. That is, made prints around 50 x 40 inches from drum scanned 5x4 B&W (and color negative) film. Bear in mind that what you are asking for is only around an 11x enlargement (10x with another bit for cropping). Most any modern film will do fine.

What I'd do in your place is use your favorite film (whatever you are most comfortable with), give it an extra 1/3 stop exposure, and have your lab pull process by one stop. Then drum scan to an 11x enlargement at a final output resolution of 300 ppi, 16 bits.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Why? I my experience that's all you really need to make "nose-sharp" grainless big prints. Read on for a more in-depth explanation.

I've been using 5x4 Tri-X that I develop in XTOL 1:3. I develop my negatives to be fairly thin, around N-1 or N-1.5. To be clear, I'm still exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights. I'm just developing a little less and therefore holding down the highlight density some. What this does is decrease the Callier Effect that you get from the collimated light in drum scanning, resulting in better local contrast in the highlights.

These I drum scan on my ColorGetter 3 Pro. I scan them for 11x enlargement and 300 dpi output resolution, 16 bit of course. This results in files that are around 350MB in size. I find that the vast majority of files need little work in Photoshop. I usually trim the levels a bit because I tend to be conservative with the scan, then apply a little overall contrast curve -- often that's it.

These I have printed on an Epson 9600 using Cone's PiezoTone grayscale inks, usually on a good medium-smooth canvas, which is then stretched over stretcher bars. The finished prints show no grain and excellent sharpness. From 12 inches away. They really are nose-sharp.

In my experiments with 100 Tmax in XTOL 1:3 I found that you could get finer grain and some added sharpness. But I couldn't really see it in the final print, which is the point, yes?

The reason for this is the scanning and printing process. To capture the extra detail from the film you have to scan at an even higher resolution creating a very large and unwieldy file. You can make the file 50x40 inches at an output of 360ppi (Epson's "native" resolution), but in the final print it's very difficult to see the difference (even using a very smooth paper like Hahnemuhle Photo Rag). I've done plenty of experiments printing sections out of full size 50 x 40 inch prints to find out what the reality is. I found that it's very difficult for me to see the difference between a scan made at 360 ppi and 300ppi (and I know what I'm looking for). It's considerably easier to see the difference between 300 ppi and 240 ppi.

Anyway, I've done nearly a dozen prints the size you are interested in by using the technique described above. Yet clearly YMMV.

[Ted Harris]

Yeah,yeah,yeah ...... I goofed and wrote it backwards. Thanks Michael and Kirk.

Ben, as far as ACROS goes the answer is yes but I think you have to buy it from Japan.

[Ben R]

Anyone got any ideas as to where from? Or should I be lazy and cheap and fall back on TMAX?

*edit*Just found out that Badger Graphic sell Acros loose sheets, that may be worth it as I shouldn't be charged import or VAT on such a small amount to the UK, I have to check what they will charge for shipping.

[James Walker]

Ben,

I've ordered Acros in QL from Robert White it the past, but I notice it's not listed on their site now - may be worth a call in any case. Looks like teamwork have it though? http://www.teamworkphoto.com/fujifilm.html

Good luck,

James

[Ted Harris]

You can get Acros direct from Japan from megaperls http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/ and sometimes from Badger Graphics.

[Ben R]

I suppose it's stupid to try and economise on sheets of film (and a quickload holder) when I will be spending a fortune or two on drum scanning and printing?

It is pretty expensive in comparison to sheet film though...

[Ted Harris]

Ben, first you shouldn't be paying a fortune on the scans and prints .... figure no moe than $60 each for a scan (you can get em for way less but not necessarily done with any attention to the finer details) .... the print shouldn't go over that either if you do some shopping since you are staying within the range of several standard wide format printers.

[Ben R]

The scan I can do in the US at the prices you mention, printing will be here in the UK so I can stand over the guy and make sure I get what I want, figure about £45+ for an inkjet that size on hahnemuhle FAP (I've tried the printing using Durst/lightjet, etc, B&W's just don't work on colour paper, too muddy too flat too light cast!). After framing I'll have spent a good £250 per photograph for exhibition so my point was that it seems silly to economise on £1.50 extra per sheet for quickloads though I'm still tempted to do it!

[Bruce Watson]

... an inkjet that size on hahnemuhle FAP (I've tried the printing using Durst/lightjet, etc, B&W's just don't work on colour paper, too muddy too flat too light cast!). After framing I'll have spent a good £250 per photograph for exhibition...

Two things. First, there are B&W RA-4 papers that work well with a LightJet printer. Kodak makes one. Good contrast, not flat or muddy. But... the image is dyes (not silver), and it's a RC paper, just like any other C-print. There is also the new Harmon fiber based Lightjet paper that is processed like standard (think Dektol, selenium toning, all that) darkroom papers. The image is silver, not dyes. At least one pro lab in England is using this new FB paper. Pricey though.

Second, it is almost certainly cheaper for you to make display prints that size on canvas. Just the cost alone of a piece of glazing material (OP-C plastic, glass) that size is huge. That, and glazing material that size is quite heavy. Matting is also a problem because you exceed the range of normally available matte board sizes.

A canvas print stretched over bars using a "gallery wrap" (staples on the back, not the sides) can be displayed quite tastefully without a frame. The print itself should be varnished to protect it from UV light and sticky little hands. Very light, easy to handle, and quite a nice presentation.

But... it doesn't look at all like a "traditional" photograph. But prints that size don't look like traditional photographs anyway.

Just a thought if you are trying to save some money. You can always talk to your framer and get some specific estimates before you commit to printing.

[Brian Ellis]

"My personal preference when scanning on my Cezanne is a normal neg or one that is just may half a stop underexposed."

Why? I can understand trying to tame the highlights for scanning but it would seem that underexposure isn't the way to do that, better to develop at N - 1 or so than to underexpose and risk losing shadow detail. Am I missing something?

[Ben R]

The kodak paper is the one I was talking about, it's certainly better than crystal archive but still doesn't look like a silver print in a way that a good inkjet can (or at least comes much closer). I have three B&W prints up in an exhibition starting tomorrow, 2 are printed using a lightjet on the kodak, one is printed on a Canon 8000ipf on kodak paper, the difference is astounding.

I want to sell photographs not canvas I'm afraid, to be honest canvas is so good at hiding resolution shortcomings that I would have been able to use my 5D for canvas prints that size, I will be in fact to sell to the tourist market. The idea of the LF was to make large prints with incredible detail for a slightly higher level of client than the mass produced tourist trade.

[Ted Harris]

Brian, you caught my tired brain working backwards (as did Michael and Kirk) .... you are absolutely correct. I meant 1/2 stopover ....... duhhhhhhhh. Too much going on here :). The thought here being that a very slightly thinner negative works a bit better.