with scanning, do we still need plus one and minus one development?

[Eric Brody]

I have been using standard zone system film development techniques (N+ and N-) based on the contrast range of the scene measured with a spotmeter for many years. In the years I printed in the darkroom this made perfect sense. I was trying to match the contrast of the negative with the contrast of the paper.

Now I scan my negatives and can apply fairly impressive contrast changes in Photoshop CS3 using curve techniques.

Do those of you who scan your negatives still use zone system development or do you just develop to a standard N development and do the contrast adjustments in Photoshop?

I realize there may be instances, eg N+2 or N-2 where it is still necessary to vary development but wonder if N-1 and N+1 are just as easily dealt with in Photoshop.

Eric

[Kirk Gittings]

There is some disagreement about this. What are you scanning on? I still do because I still also print traditionally and I think the discipline of controlling negative density and range is integral to the craft. For scanning on consume flatbeds, very dense negatives can make highlight separation difficult so IMO minus developments to control highlight density still makes allot of sense. Even a great scanner is challenged by blocked highlights or thin shadows.

[Ed Richards]

I use a consumer scanner, which means I need to keep the negative from building too much Dmax. My basic process is really more like N-1 than N. I then will do N - 2 or more for really extreme contrast, and occasionally an N. I use Tmax 100 with Xtol 1:3, which gives a very wide dynamic range. If I used a combo with less range I would need to do more zone controls.

[sanking]

There is some disagreement about this. What are you scanning on? I still do because I still also print traditionally and I think the discipline of controlling negative density and range is integral to the craft. For scanning on consume flatbeds, very dense negatives can make highlight separation difficult so IMO minus developments to control highlight density still makes allot of sense. Even a great scanner is challenged by blocked highlights or thin shadows.



I am of the same opinion as Kirk. I still do a lot of traditional printing with in-camera negatives (LF and ULF) so in my basic exposure and development routines with this size film I observe BTZS methodology for LF negatives (BTZS is just beyond Zone, but much alike).

For MF where I never intend to print directly from the negative I simply expose for the shadows and then either, 1) just let the lab develop the color negative film, or 2) develop the B&W negative film to a slightly lower than normal average gradient so that the negatives scan easily.


Sandy King

[Eric Brody]

Thanks Kirk et al,

I use a Microtek 1800f for 4x5, a Nikon 9000 for medium format, Photoshop CS3 and print with an Epson 3800 and currently, Hannemuhle Fine Art Pearl paper.

With development times for TMax 100 in Xtol that measure a zone VIII density of 1.2 above film base plus fog, I still find myself adding both general and local contrast to get prints that I and others consider decent. In the scanner software, Silverfast ai for the Microtek and Nikon Scan for the Nikon, I generally set just white and black points.

Eric

[Bruce Watson]

Like most things, it depends. If you are ever going to print the film in the darkroom, then by all means optimize the film for darkroom printing. It will scan just fine.

If you are only going to scan, and never print in the darkroom, you can optimize for scanning with a clear conscience. That's what I do. But I still use some of my old Zone System techniques. I still find my personal EI, and I still find my "normal" developing time. But my criteria are somewhat changed for my normal time.

What you'll find is that scanning B&W film involves the Callier Effect just as optical enlarging does. Reducing Callier Effect means reducing highlight density. How much reduction is right for you depends on your workflow and your scanner. What I've found works for me is a Zone VIII of around 1.0. In Zone System terms my N is about what darkroom printers would call N-1. Each individual will have to experiment to find out what "optimum" means for their own circumstances however, because this is clearly a case of YMMV.

But once I found my own EI and N development time, I do indeed simply expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may. Not making developing decisions in the field, and consequently not tracking each sheet's development treatment, is one of the big benefits of a scanning workflow IMHO.

My expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may workflow lets me spend more time on the art and less time on the craft. And for me, that's a good thing.

[Bruce Watson]

With development times for TMax 100 in Xtol that measure a zone VIII density of 1.2 above film base plus fog, I still find myself adding both general and local contrast to get prints that I and others consider decent.

What I've found is that by reducing development and therefore reducing density, I make less contrast adjustments in Photoshop. Counter intuitive, I know. It works because reducing density necessarily reduces Callier Effect. That is, it reduces light scatter in the highlights, which in turn increases local contrast in the highlights in the scanned image file. This results in less variation of local contrast across the image from shadows to highlights.

You don't have to believe anyone about this -- it's very easy to test it yourself and come to your own conclusions.

[Ed Richards]

One caveat for Bruce's advice - he using a drum scanner that can see into higher Dmax than my scanner or your Microtech. Hence my occasional use of N-2 because I cannot let highlights get as dense as Bruce can. Otherwise, I certainly use fewer changes in development than I would if I were doing chemical printing.

The scanner software shapes the curve itself, so the better your negative fits in the scanner's range, the better job it it will do, and the less you will have to do in photoshop.

[David Luttmann]

I use an Epson V700 for LF and for B&W (FP4 & Delta 100) I try to maintain contrast with N-1. Seems to be working out as I'm happy with the results....so far.

[Anupam]

You don't have to believe anyone about this -- it's very easy to test it yourself and come to your own conclusions.

I currently develop my film for a diffusion enlarger with zone IX as 1.35 for 'N'. I can test for this by printing the different zones and seeing if they come out as distinct shades from pure white to black.

Could you describe how I could arrive at something similar to this for scanning? How do I find out what density is optimal for zone IX on my scanner. I am guessing it would be a good bit lower than 1.35 but how do I test for it?

Thanks,
Anupam

[Don Hutton]

I try to maintain contrast with N-1.N-1 would reduce contrast rather than maintain it?

[Kirk Gittings]

IMO, One can let the highlights fall where they may as long as the scene is pretty much of normal contrast. That assumes one has tested their film speed and worked out normal developement. That may work always in NC. That would work most of the time anywhere pretty much. But for me on both landscape and particularly on architectural interiors in the SW I find myself doing more than -1 development on a fairly regular basis and so I always check and see where the highlights are going to fall so there are no surprises.

[sanking]

One caveat for Bruce's advice - he using a drum scanner that can see into higher Dmax than my scanner or your Microtech. Hence my occasional use of N-2 because I cannot let highlights get as dense as Bruce can. Otherwise, I certainly use fewer changes in development than I would if I were doing chemical printing.

The scanner software shapes the curve itself, so the better your negative fits in the scanner's range, the better job it it will do, and the less you will have to do in photoshop.


Frankly I don't believe that Dmax is a relevant issue unless you are talking about scanning transparencies. I develop 5X7 B&W negatives to a very high density range for printing with alternative processes and I have never had a problem in scanning these negatives with consumer flatbeds like the Epson 4990. Of course, if you over-expose or over-develop you may wind up with way more density than a consumer flatbed can handle, but if you practice good technique that should not happen often.

If I were developing B&W film only for scanning I would adopt a two-bath developer, expose for the shadows, and just process all filmks together for the same time.

Sandy King

[David Luttmann]

N-1 would reduce contrast rather than maintain it?

Sorry....I wasn't clear. In a high contrast scene, I use N-1 to maintain the detail....looks like I need another coffee.

[Bruce Watson]

One caveat for Bruce's advice - he using a drum scanner that can see into higher Dmax than my scanner or your Microtech. Hence my occasional use of N-2 because I cannot let highlights get as dense as Bruce can. Otherwise, I certainly use fewer changes in development than I would if I were doing chemical printing.

While it's true I'm using a drum scanner it's also true that my Dmax seldom (very, very seldom) exceeds 1.5 with a B&W negative. If a scanner, any scanner, has trouble with this level of density... is it really functioning properly? This is way lower density than I get from color negatives (160Portra routinely spikes up around 2.5 in the blue channel for me), and way lower than most color trannies where 3.0 is fairly routine.

I'll also say that one doesn't really want to abuse B&W materials. When one generates really high densities (I've experimented a bit just to find out), say over 2.0, you also generate some interesting and not very pretty artifacts. Not to mention a marked decrease in local contrast in the highlights due to my old nemesis Callier Effect.

So what Ed is saying is good -- keeping density down is a good thing. If you want to do the whole Zone System thing and really control highlight density there's no reason not to. I'm just saying that except in rare circumstances it's not necessary in a scanning-only workflow.

And just to be clear, I'm just saying what works for me. I'm not saying it's the right technique for anybody else to use. But it is something to think about because one of the benefits of scanning is that you don't have to tightly control highlight density like you did for darkroom printing.

[Neal Shields]

Somebody please strighten me out.

I understand that thin negatives scan better than dense ones and in fact have given up scanning B&W negatives at all and just make contact prints and scan them.

However, I wouldn't have thought how you use the zone system would be effected by if you did or didn't intend to scan.

I thought the whole idea was to compress or expand the contrast of the scene to make if fit the contrast range of the film.

If for example, you have a high contrast range scene and don't compress it to fit the film with exposure and development won't you eather have blocked shadows or blown out highlights or both? and if that is the case, no scanner in the world can put in detail that you didn't capture?

[Leonard Evens]

I think the situation is similar to conventional darkroom printing. The original point of the Zone System was to produce a negative which you could print on No 2 paper to get the result you wanted. If the scene were flat, that might require under exposing, relative to a normal scene, and over developing, in order to bring up contrast. If a scene were too contrasty to start, you would do the reverse. Of course, in operation, the Zone System used a more subtle approach which allowed you to determine the proper exposure, but the end was the same, to produce a negative with range fitting nicely on No 2. paper. Note though that just how it worked depended on how you intended to print. You would produce standard negatives for contact printing, for a diffuser elnlarger, and for a condenser enlarger.

On the other hand, you always had another choice. You could develop your engatives in the same way, making sure you recorded gradations you wanted to show, and then choosing a different grade of paper, or different filter for variable grade papers, to fit the results to the paper.

When working digitally, you can do the same thing. You can adjust exposure and development to produce a standard negative which is always scanned the same way, without any adjustments, or you always can develop your negatives the same way, and then adjusting by adjusting the the white and black points and the gamma digitally. You can do that in the scanning software or in your photoeditor.

In practice, I, like many others, do something in between. The greater flexibility provided through digital processing allows m to be a bit sloppier about getting the exposure and development just right. Modern scanners have more than enough range to handle the kinds of negatives we are likely to produce, so that is not usually a problem, and through use of the curves control, I can do things that are very difficult, if not impossible, with an enlarger.

There is the additional problem that any processing after the raw scan will tend to separate gradations and may produce "gaps" in the histogram. If you scan at 16 bits per channel, this is unlikely to be a problem and even at 8 bits per channel, it seldom creates problems. But ideally, the better you do in producing a good negative for scanning, the less digital processing will be necessary, and theoretically, at least, you will be better off.

One final warning. The RGB readings in your digital image don't correspond directly to densities as used in the Zone System. Scanning software may adjust these differently depending on the negative. If you want to sue densitometry as described in Zone System Manuals, you need to be able to read desnities themselves. Vuescan allows you to do this, as an option, and I find it useful. (I haven't checked Vuescan density readings directly with those from a transmission densitometer, but they seem plausible based on my past experience.) The same may not be true other scanning software packages, including those provided by the scanner manufacturer.

[Scott Kathe]

I thought the whole idea was to compress or expand the contrast of the scene to make if fit the contrast range of the film.


Neal,

I'm reading Bruce Barnbaum's 'The Art of Photography:
An Approach to Personal Expression' and if I understand it correctly we compress and expand on the film so we can print on paper. The contrast range of paper is the limiting factor, film can hold a lot more information than paper. If I remember correctly from the film example in the book the film held detail up to at least zone XIV.

I recommend the book very highly, it has pushed me up to where I finally understand the zone system-I think;) Actually I think a real spotmeter helped quite a bit too.

Scott

[Bruce Watson]

IMO, One can let the highlights fall where they may as long as the scene is pretty much of normal contrast. That assumes one has tested their film speed and worked out normal development. That may work always in NC. That would work most of the time anywhere pretty much. But for me on both landscape and particularly on architectural interiors in the SW I find myself doing more than -1 development on a fairly regular basis and so I always check and see where the highlights are going to fall so there are no surprises.

My method actually works well with scenes of pretty high contrast. Like this one of some passion flowers. (http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=flowers&img_num=2) This was made in my back yard (NC) in June, just after noon on a bright sunny day. According to my Pentax digital 1 degree spot meter, there's about 9 stops of information (texture) plus black and white for about 11 stops total. This is 5x4 160Portra, the lab did the normal C-41 process. It scanned easily and prints with full textural detail in those bright white petals (which is difficult to see from a JPEG on a monitor, but trust me the prints are nice).

The negative seems to be perfectly linear way out here, and exhibits no color shifting that I can find. The white petals are fairly dense but still not as dense as a tranny normally is. IIRC this one made it up to about 2.75 in the blue channel.

I've been doing this with B&W for a while now, five years maybe. Back in 2003 I made a photograph at Barker's Dam (http://www.achromaticarts.com/big_image.php?path=joshua&img_num=4) in Joshua Tree NP (Mojave desert, elevation about 1200m). Full sun on nearly white rocks. Lots of texture in the highlights. Full shadow detail. IIRC this one made it up to around 1.6 or so. This is Tri-X in XTOL 1:3 using a Jobo CPP-2 and a 3010 tank. It scanned nicely, and printed easily.

I'm just saying that my workflow works under some pretty harsh conditions. Is it for everyone? Clearly not. But it does answer the OP's original question, which is the point I was trying to make.

[Kirk Gittings]

I just trying o understand your position, on the one hand you seem to say that keeping highlight densities low is critical:

"What you'll find is that scanning B&W film involves the Callier Effect just as optical enlarging does. Reducing Callier Effect means reducing highlight density. How much reduction is right for you depends on your workflow and your scanner. What I've found works for me is a Zone VIII of around 1.0. In Zone System terms my N is about what darkroom printers would call N-1. Each individual will have to experiment to find out what "optimum" means for their own circumstances however, because this is clearly a case of YMMV."

on the other hand you seem to say it doesn't matter?

[Bruce Watson]

I'm just trying to understand your position, on the one hand you seem to say that keeping highlight densities low is critical:

"What you'll find is that scanning B&W film involves the Callier Effect just as optical enlarging does. Reducing Callier Effect means reducing highlight density. How much reduction is right for you depends on your workflow and your scanner. What I've found works for me is a Zone VIII of around 1.0. In Zone System terms my N is about what darkroom printers would call N-1. Each individual will have to experiment to find out what "optimum" means for their own circumstances however, because this is clearly a case of YMMV."

on the other hand you seem to say it doesn't matter?

I see where I've confused you (and undoubtedly others). I apologize for that. I'm not the strongest writer in this group by far -- if I were a good writer I wouldn't need photography so much!

The quick(er) answer:

... is that it's both. I reduce my "N" development time to reduce my average density across all my negatives. This promotes better scanning. Then, from this lower "base" I let the densities of individual negatives vary more (some individual negatives a lot more) than one would using the full Zone System. That is, I develop all the sheets to N, and don't use N+/- development controls anymore.

The longer answer:

What I'm trying to say is that it seems to me that there is a range of densities where B&W film performs well and scans well. In my experiments with my equipment this turns out to be densities below around 1.5-1.6 or so. And that was for Tri-X in XTOL 1:3 BTW. I suspect that different films will give somewhat different results.

Using this information what I found was that if I made a "normal" development time that would give me a Zone VIII density of around 1.0, I could then for all practical purposes use that N development time for every sheet. That's because even extreme subject brightness ranges (SBRs) result in maximum densities at or below the 1.5-1.6 level.

So instead of making developing decisions in the field, making and keeping notes in the field, marking and tracking sheets / film holders, and processing at different processing times in an effort to produce a consistent density range (Dmax - (fb + f)) as one would do for conventional darkroom work, I don't make any developing decisions in the field, my note keeping is minimized, I don't track sheets or film holders and I process everything the same.

What I get for this is a collection of negatives where density range varies considerably -- from a low of around 0.5 to a high of around 1.4.

I'll grant anyone that these negatives would be difficult to impossible to print in the darkroom. But they scan beautifully and make excellent prints on my inkjet printer.

The reason this works is the same reason the Zone System works for darkroom printing. What the Zone System does is translate the SBR in front of the camera to a density range on the negative that makes it easy to print in the darkroom. That is, the film is an intermediary between the large SBR of the scene, and the limited density range of the finished print. It is manipulation of the negative that lets you shoe-horn the SBR into the final print.

What I figured out is that what makes scanning different from darkroom printing is that this shoe-horning isn't necessary. The scanner converts whatever density range you set before it as input into its full digital range as output. This in turn is an exact match to the paper, by definition.

So that negative with a two stop range gets expanded to six stops in the print. And that negative with an eight stop range gets contracted to six stops in the print. By the scanning process.

The difference here is that for darkroom printing the photographer has to do the expansion and contraction by using developing controls in the darkroom to manipulate the density range of the film. When scanning the scanner does this work. The work still gets done -- it's just a question of where does it occur.

If you wanted to optimize to the maximum possible, you could of course use the full Zone System. That is, find the optimum density range for your workflow (just like you do for a condenser enlarger or a cold light head) and set up and use N+/- development to hit that density range every sheet.

But what I've found is that doing this does not noticeably improve the prints. There is very little (if any) gain in sharpness, graininess, tonality, smoothness of transitions, etc. I found the gains to be vanishingly small from using the full Zone System in my scanning workflow.

So I modified my workflow over time to the point where it became just "expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may." This is done from a reduced N development time -- in my case my N is what darkroom printers would consider N-1 or more. Without this some negatives would undoubtedly generate excessive density and wouldn't scan well.

I was and still am surprised at how amazingly well it works for me. Excellent results with a lot less work.

All I'm trying to do is answer the OPs question: if scanning, do you still have to do the full Zone System controls? My answer is no.

The "unasked question" is somewhat different: If scanning, is it desirable to do the full Zone System controls? That one I can't answer. It's too dependent on the individual's needs and workflow.

[sanking]

The question by the OP has been pretty thoroughly answered at this point. However, one more thought that may be of interest.

I think we pretty much agree here that if the work flow, beginning with film, is 100% scanning then the ideal is simply to expose to assure adequate shadow density and then develop to a lower than normal contrast. This will keep overall Dmax and density range down and the negative should scan well.

That being the case, I would suggest that a divided two-bath developer would be ideal. The way these work is this. You put the film in Bath A (the reducer) first and allow the emulsion to soak up the developing agent, but little or no actual development takes place. Then you transfer the negative to Bath B (the alkaline activator) and the film develops, but the degree of highlight development is limited because the develop will exhaust fairly quickly in these parts of the negative. Overdevelopment, for all practical purposes, is impossible with these method of development.

There are several advantages with this method compared to simply reducing time of development to get a lower average gradient.

1. EFS should be at least box speed with two-bath development, probably higher. Developing to a lower contrast with one-bath developers almost always results in lower EFS.

2. Most films will develop in two-part baths with a very long and linear straight line curve. TRI- 320, for example, which has a very long toe when processes in most developers, has a very straight line curve with two-bath developmet. This makes working on the image in Photoshop much easier because you don't have to pull the curve around as much.

3. Acutance is excellent with these developers because local exhaustion of the developer assures the creation of good adjacency effects.

There is some information about two-bath developers in Anchell and Troop's The Film Developing Cookbook, including a divided D-76 formula by David Vestal. You can also purchase a pre-mixed two-bath developer, Diafine, which gives interesting results. Some other developers that are shipped in two parts and then mixed to make working solutions can also be adapted to two-bath use. With very little experimentation I have managed to get some really outstanding results using Pyrocat-HD as a two-bath developer.

In any event, if you develop only to scan two-bath development offers quite a number of advantages over one-bath processing IMO.

Sandy King

[Eric Rose]

Some other developers that are shipped in two parts and then mixed to make working solutions can also be adapted to two-bath use. With very little experimentation I have managed to get some really outstanding results using Pyrocat-HD as a two-bath developer.
Sandy King


Sandy, care to share some additional information relating to this two bath PyroCat-HD technique??

Thanks,

Eric

[sanking]

Sandy, care to share some additional information relating to this two bath PyroCat-HD technique??

Thanks,

Eric


Hi Eric,

I have shared some preliminary work on APUG. Check out this thread.

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/48999-pyrocat-hd-different-films-same-tank.html


Sandy

[Ed Richards]

> 1. EFS should be at least box speed with two-bath development, probably higher. Developing to a lower contrast with one-bath developers almost always results in lower EFS.

At least with Tmax and Xtol 1:3 this is not the case. You get full rated speed over a wide range of development.

[sanking]

> 1. EFS should be at least box speed with two-bath development, probably higher. Developing to a lower contrast with one-bath developers almost always results in lower EFS.

At least with Tmax and Xtol 1:3 this is not the case. You get full rated speed over a wide range of development.

I assume you mean T-MAX films developed in Xtol 1:3?

You may be right and I for sure can not say you are wrong since I have never tested that combination. However, I have tested both T-MAX 100 and T-MAX 400 in Xtol 1:2 and the difference in EFS between developing to an average gradient of .35 and .70 is considerable. EFS is almost twice as much with T-MAX 100 and about 50% greater with T-MAX 400 when developing to the higher average gradient.

The above results were based based on slow, continuous type agitation. Generally you get more EFS with minimal agitation, least with continuous agitation.

BTW, I looked at some of the sample tests that Phil Davis did for the Winplotter program and his tests with Xtol 1:1 are similar to mine in that they show a significant increase in EFS comparing average gradient of .35 and .70.



Sandy

[Peter De Smidt]

As others have said, I find that fine-grained, low acutance, slightly low contrast negatives scan the best. That said, though, there is a tremendous amount of latitude. In the first place, most films, assuming they're not over developed, don't lose contrast in the higher densities until they are literally nuked with light, and most scanners can handle pretty high densities with negative film. In practice I do what Bruce does. That is aim for a normal zone VIII to be about 1 above film base plus fog. If the scene is too contrasty for this, I'd bracket exposures and combine scans. It'd only be where bracketing wouldn't work and the scene was excessively contrasty would I change from my scanning "N" development.

[sanking]

As others have said, I find that fine-grained, low acutance, slightly low contrast negatives scan the best. That said, though, there is a tremendous amount of latitude. In the first place, most films, assuming they're not over developed, don't lose contrast in the higher densities until they are literally nuked with light, and most scanners can handle pretty high densities with negative film. In practice I do what Bruce does. That is aim for a normal zone VIII to be about 1 above film base plus fog. If the scene is too contrasty for this, I'd bracket exposures and combine scans. It'd only be where bracketing wouldn't work and the scene was excessively contrasty would I change from my scanning "N" development.



Peter,

Did you really mean to say that "low acutance" negatives scan the best? If so, would you explain why you think this is so.

Sandy

[Daniel_Buck]

On a similar note, has anyone tried doing 'pre exposure' in very high contrast situations where shadow areas would go very very dark? Does this affect scanning much? I've been curious to try it sometime, but haven't yet (mostly because I've actually never done it before, only read about it).

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry to take exception but....as opposed to some here, I do not think that scanning film requires much less precision than it did traditionally. A negative that prints well traditionally will scan well (though I get better highlight detail if I work from a slightly underdeveloped negative). A negative that is difficult to print traditionally will be hard to scan and require much more computer time. Unless you enjoy spending allot of time in front of your computer fixing difficult negatives (like combining two exposures-if you use a consumer scanner you will find you can never get two scans exactly the same size because the step motors are not very precise which creates some issues in the overlay), IMO it is always easier to simply do what we have always done, control exposure and development to create a negative that is targeted to our process. IMO not much has changed in that regard. As a result of all my magazine and book work, I have been shooting film for scanning for a very long time and worked with some real masters of prepress scanning. What can be done with well exposed film vs. casually exposed film is oftentimes the difference between a great reproduction and a mediocre one. Since beginning to scan myself in house for my own exhibition prints, I have become even more convinced of this. At this point I have tons of experience trying to make decent exhibition prints from all kinds of negatives including many negatives that I printed traditionally for previous exhibits. I just don't see any substantial difference for a scanning workflow. The Zone System or BTZS is no less useful or effective as before. Just my two cents.

[Bruce Watson]

Sorry to take exception but....as opposed to some here, I do not think that scanning film requires much less precision than it did traditionally.

The joy of this forum is that people can come here and debate without it degenerating into a flame war. People can listen to both sides and make up their own minds. Hopefully such debate will spur people to do some experimentation with their individual workflows and find out what works for them.

For the record, I'm not advocating "less precision." I think that precision is what it's all about. If you don't hit your exposures correctly nothing will save your images. That's what "expose for the shadows" is all about. Going into the field without knowing your personal EI and processing without having tested for your personal N development time is too risky for me.


A negative that prints well traditionally will scan well (though I get better highlight detail if I work from a slightly underdeveloped negative).

I'm just trying to understand your position. On the one hand you seem to say that maintaining full Zone System controls and optimizing for the darkroom is critical. On the other hand you seem to be saying that under development is is the right thing to do.

Which do you mean?


A negative that is difficult to print traditionally will be hard to scan and require much more computer time. Unless you enjoy spending allot of time in front of your computer fixing difficult negatives (like combining two exposures-if you use a consumer scanner you will find you can never get two scans exactly the same size because the step motors are not very precise which creates some issues in the overlay), IMO it is always easier to simply do what we have always done, control exposure and development to create a negative that is targeted to our process. IMO not much has changed in that regard. As a result of all my magazine and book work, I have been shooting film for scanning for a very long time and worked with some real masters of prepress scanning.

I use my method because it lets me spend less time in front of the computer "fixing negatives." Using my method I've actually managed a number of negatives (all B&W) that resulted in the elusive "straight print" where I had to make no contrast corrections at all in Photoshop. They scan that well for me.

And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that scanning for pre-press and scanning for inkjet, lightjet, chromira output can be very different things because of the very different desired outputs.


What can be done with well exposed film vs. casually exposed film is oftentimes the difference between a great reproduction and a mediocre one. Since beginning to scan myself in house for my own exhibition prints, I have become even more convinced of this. At this point I have tons of experience trying to make decent exhibition prints from all kinds of negatives including many negatives that I printed traditionally for previous exhibits. I just don't see any substantial difference for a scanning workflow. The Zone System or BTZS is no less useful or effective as before. Just my two cents.

This is the issue that I have with your critique - my method is not casual. Not at all. I'm sorry I'm not articulate enough to explain it such that you understand that point. And I apologize to anyone else who reads this thread that comes away with that same impression.

That said, I've tried very hard to say that if one is ever going to print in the darkroom then one should optimize one's film for the darkroom and that it will scan fine. I've never said that one should not use full Zone System controls.

What I have said is that scanning is not darkroom printing, and understanding the differences can lead one to modify one's personal use of the Zone System for a scanning only workflow. And I've explained as best I can how I have done just that.

Finally, what's nice about this discussion is that anyone reading it is free to do some experimentation and find out for themselves, using their own equipment and processing, what really works for them individually. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to blindly agree with either side when it's so easy to find out what really works for each of us.

[Kirk Gittings]

Bruce I was summarizing my position as an end to my participation in this thread, because a few posters here seem to be suggesting otherwise, most recently Peter. I actually was not thinking of your contributions. I thought you had explained your position well. And yes, with the Zone System I can precisely target underdevelopment (what are you thinking.....of course I can do that with the Zone System? I do it every week?).

[sanking]

For the record, I'm not advocating "less precision." I think that precision is what it's all about. If you don't hit your exposures correctly nothing will save your images. That's what "expose for the shadows" is all about. Going into the field without knowing your personal EI and processing without having tested for your personal N development time is too risky for me.




I am not advocating "less precision". In fact, I believe it possible to make a case that one can actually get "more, not less precision" with two-bath methods of development, if one is exposing and developing solely for the purpose of scanning.

This would not be my work flow for LF and ULF work because there I am always anticipating printing some of the negatives with traditional wet process methods of alternative printing. However, for many people, who never plan to print a negative in the darkroom, their development should be optimized for scanning.

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry guys, Sandy & Bruce, I should have been more specific about what posts I was referring too., not you guys.

If anyone is interested. The workshop that Ted and I teach on scanning and digital workflow will be at Foto3 in Fort Collins, Colorado; in Columbus, Ohio at MPEX in June; at Freestyle in Hollywood in September; and working with Calumet either on the west coast or Chicago (or perhaps both) at a time and location as yet undetermined. Email us for more info. These schedules have been reworked a few times to take into account both Ted and my physical problems, but we are both on the mend and future dates will be firm. Thanks all.

[Peter De Smidt]

Peter,

Did you really mean to say that "low acutance" negatives scan the best? If so, would you explain why you think this is so.

Sandy

Hi Sandy,

A while ago I ran some brief tests using a Canon flatbed and a Nikon V. (Didn't have the Cezanne then.) I compared 35mm TMX developed in Xtol Straight, Xtol 1+3, both with Jobo at the lowest speed agitation, and also TMX developed in FX-1 with minimal agitation. With optical printing, the FX-1 negatives have tons of edge effects, in fact a little too much for printing full frame on an 8x10 piece of paper.

Back to scanning, the negatives developed in Xtol straight gave the finest grain and lowest edge effects, scanning at the highest resolution of both scanners. These scanned the best, with the smallest scanner grain gain and the highest resolution. The FX-1 images looked the worse. My theory is that resolving the knife edges of increased and decreased density of edge effects requires better resolving power than either of those scanners could manage.

So perhaps higher resolution scanners could handle this, and I didn't test stained negatives, which might change things a little. Finally, don't various forms of masking in effect increase edge effects and the appearance of sharpness? If so, I'd rather start with a higher resolving negative with finer grain and sharpen to taste in PS.

Regards,
Peter

[Peter De Smidt]

What can be done with well exposed film vs. casually exposed film is oftentimes the difference between a great reproduction and a mediocre one.

Expose casually? From other comments you've made, I take it that this is aimed at me? If so, I guess I'll just muddle along making mediocre prints.

Your attack is hard to understand, though. I'm basically advocating the same thing as Bruce did, except I added a few more provisos, such as exposing two sheets... But yet your comments weren't directed at him.

Moreover, Sandy says he regularly scans film developed high enough to print traditionally using regular alternative processes, but yet your attack is not meant to apply to him, even though my negative densities never approach the densities he uses, and those higher densities inevitably entail larger grain and lower resolving power. But apparently you don't want to imply that he gets mediocre results. Just me, I guess.

Signing off from this discussion.

-Peter