The black & white transparency process and dr5 - who's used it/them? [Archive]

David A. Goldfarb

8-Feb-2004, 11:16

When they were in New York, I used them for R-printing, which they no longer do, but I also took some time to see some of the transparencies. He has a display of dr5 transparencies at the lab on a lightbox with all the different films they run. It's a beautiful process, but I didn't really have a need for B&W transparencies. Tri-X sheet film is great in dr5.

It's easier to print from negatives, if you print conventionally. The service would be most attractive, I think, to people who shoot mainly for magazines, books and advertising, where color transparencies are a common way of submitting work.

Why isn't it widely offered? I think the market is small, and the method is proprietary. They have their own system and don't seem to be trying to franchise it out.

Ralph Barker

8-Feb-2004, 14:07

I did some testing of the process with Tri-X a while back, John, and was quite pleased with the results. The range of tonality is quite nice - better, I think, than that of Agfa Scala. The appeal, as I see it, is if one plans to scan the resulting images and either use the scans directly, or print digitally. Note that there are two different dr5 process available: one that produces a goldish sepia tone, and one that is colder and neutral in tone.

As David G. mentioned, dr5 is a proprietary process, developed by David Wood, a photographer and chemistry wiz. Although he licensed the technology to a lab when he moved to New York a while back, I believe he has returned to Los Angeles and has taken over the processing. My guess is that the appeal of B&W transparencies, however good, is rather limited. As such, there probably isn't much market demand for wider implementation.

Greg Rust

8-Feb-2004, 14:11

John,

I have used it with HP5+. The results were excellent. The best results for this film are when it is rated at 800 to 1000. Even at 1600 it looks very good. I would rather shoot this film at 1600 and use the dr5 process that to push it in the normal way. But as a transparency, its not useable for printing the image. Although they scan very well. The sharpness is very impressive. So with the ability to have a great tonal range and very fine grain while shooting at 1000 or 1600, its very useful. Try it. Its worth it just to learn what else can be done with standard B&W film.

David A. Goldfarb

8-Feb-2004, 16:10

David Wood moved out to New York with his process and ran the lab here. I don't think there was any licensing involved.

He's a great person to talk to--very knowledgable about film and chemistry. Definitely discuss your film choices with him before going into it for best results. If you can't visit the lab and look at samples on his light table, the website has examples of how different films look in dr5. Film speed increases with the dr5 process and latitude is similar to color transparency film (about 4-5 stops).

In addition to Tri-X, I also liked the look of Fomapan T200 in dr5. It resembles something from the age of silent film. I think he developed the process from historic techniques used for reversal processing of cine film.

jarrod connerty

10-Feb-2004, 09:50

I use his service with fair regularity and am in general impressed by the process. Definitely pulls more dmax out of a film than if normally processed, and often does so without an adverse affect upon the exposure latitude. HP5+ @ EI 800 is quite nice and my most frequent choice, but I also dabble with Tech Pan, Delta 100 and TX/TXP. I've not tried to print the chromes with an internegative, instead preferring to have Slideprinter in Denver do a $30 drum scan and then make prints from that. I've also had Type-R prints done from the chromes just before that process bit the dust, and you're now reading the words of an admittedly staunch laggard who concedes that the Lightjets are unequivocally better. It is more certainly more expensive than developing the film yourself, but I just love gazing at chromes upon the lightbox, and for that pure joy I'll sacrifice some cash and conveniences.

John W. Randall

10-Feb-2004, 22:41

Thank you for all your responses. I just dropped off some 5X7 T-Max at dr5. I'll see the results of my efforts tomorrow. David Wood is still unpacking from the New York move - but has everything up and running nonetheless. He mentioned that some folks do Cibachromes using his transparencies.

I'm still thinking Lightjet from a drum scan would be a good alternative, though. $30.00 for a drum scan? What is the expected output size?

Thanks again, everyone. Best regards,

richardman

10-Feb-2015, 21:41

Which of course once again begs the question - wouldn't it be nice to have a "easy to use" all purpose reversal soup that we can use, without re-exposing the negs, or finding hard to get chemicals etc.

Corran

10-Feb-2015, 21:49

Actually I've been investigating home b&w reversal processes and I'm interested in trying it out. I found an article to do it with TMX with a sodium thiosulfate solution as a replacement for the color developer in a 3-bath E-6 process (so first developer -> sodium thiosulfate -> bleach).

I was going to make another thread about it sometime but maybe it applies here. Anyone done it? Or something similar?

richardman

11-Feb-2015, 00:48

There are a few threads at APUG and I am sure, in here too. People who knew the stuff seem to say "it's easy, my 3 year old can handle it," but then I look at the instructions and said, "hmm, seems to be a bit more complicated than mixing up a set of E-6 Tentenal..." If you try it, please report back (in a new thread). Since I do scanning, this approach has a lot of appeal to me. Thanks.

Emmanuel BIGLER

11-Feb-2015, 01:17

Hello from France

If I can add my 0,02 euro to the discussion, I have so far never used the services of DR5 mostly due to high potential transatlantic postage costs.

However I've had AGFA SCALA film (120 rolls, hence not quite on-topic here) processed on a regular basis by PhotoStudio 13 near Stuttgart in Germany.
Various sources of information tell me that PhotoStudio 13 is now offering B&W slide processing from a variety of B&W films available now, not only AGFA SCALA, for which the available stock is empty except in 135 rolls.
B&W reversal tests are reported (in German) here for a selection of B&W films distributed under the Rollei brand
http://www.aphog.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=18394

In the last century I have processed some B&W slides at home with the now defunct Tetenal kit.
One of the issues nowadays is the ban of Potassium Dichromate, once the standard chemical for the bleaching stage after 1-st development.
FOMA offers a replacement kit where Potassium Permanganate is used instead of dichromate. FOMA has a special B&W reversal film named FOMAPAN R-100, but it is available only in 135 rolls.

One of the readers and contributors of the French MF+LF forum galerie-photo, Claude Eichel, has extensively tested the classical dichromate-based reversal process up to the 8x10" film format.
He has summarised his experience in this article (in French)
http://www.galerie-photo.com/inversion-film-noir-blanc.html
but due to the ban of potassium dichromate, the recipes are now obsolete (and should in principle not be used for safety reasons).
However, the article mentions a list of web sites related to B&W reversal processing, hence it is interesting to follow what is going on today, B&W slides are not something from the past, one could even anticipate that the supply of color slide film will disappear faster than B&W slides!

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

Regarding experience I have with printing from B&W slides, I have basically used two methods
- scan of the B&W slide with a high-end scanner like an Imacon in order to extract the maximum densities properly, followed by a print on a DURST lambda machine. I do not mention attempts I made with an amateur-grade flatbed scanner, since the results are not satisfactory with respect to the quality of a projected B&W slide I have as a reference since I made my first B&W slides in 1978!

- [for 120 films only hence off-topic] scan on a Fuji Frontier machine and print with a B&W inkjet printer.
The Fuji Frontier does an excellent job, far better than an amateur-grade flatbed scanner, and due to the lower scanning costs, if you do not have access to a drum scanner or an IQsmart or an Imacon, you should give a try to the Fuji Frontier if you do not want to print a huge mural poster.

Stephen Collector

11-Feb-2015, 11:23

David Wood is now based in Denver, Colorado. He does lovely work! He can both process negs with his nitrogen burst processor and create the b&w transparencies. Highly recommended!

Tin Can

11-Feb-2015, 12:06

Not a lot additional from me, but a guy did HP5 11X14 reversal in my darkroom a couple years ago, with me assisting. Trial and error to get the process down. Traditional process with Potassium Dichromate. He wanted them for light box display.

We had usable ones pretty quickly, but I have not tried it since then and I believe he is no longer shooting 11x14.

The process was very easy once we realized that re-exposure times are the opposite of regular thinking, if that makes sense.

Makes me think of trying it with 14x17 Ektascan!

Corran

11-Feb-2015, 15:43

He wanted them for light box display.

Cool, did he do it? Any pictures of his lightbox?

Tin Can

11-Feb-2015, 16:43

Cool, did he do it? Any pictures of his lightbox?

He did it. But I have no pictures. They were his private property. I won't disclose his name either.

I know you guys all want pictures but some us are really against posting here or anywhere. You know why.

I also never post pictures of clients without a written model release.

Corran

11-Feb-2015, 16:59

I'm not interested in pictures of him, I want to see what the transparency looked like in a lightbox frame, and find out more info on his frame build.

Tin Can

11-Feb-2015, 17:14

I'm not interested in pictures of him, I want to see what the transparency looked like in a lightbox frame, and find out more info on his frame build.

Of course! We are talking about his images on the film! It was personal content. Not of him.

richardman

11-Feb-2015, 19:59

dr5 website has plenty of images to see. I think the best thing to do is to send a couple sheets to DR5 and see what they look like.

Kirk Gittings

11-Feb-2015, 20:03

I saw these at a photo trade show a decade or more ago. They were quite beautiful but I never figured out what I needed them for?

Light Guru

11-Feb-2015, 20:39

I never figured out what I needed them for?

Yea being as we shoot large format here unless your going to use the large format positive as the final display medium it just seems like a unneeded extra cost.

Corran

11-Feb-2015, 20:54

large format positive as the final display medium

That's what I'm curious about. Which of course LF is uniquely suited for, as opposed to smaller negatives.

Richard - true enough, but I'm over paying big bucks to labs when I can do things myself. But dr5 is supposedly a proprietary thing. Anyway, I'll have to order some thiosulfate and try it myself, and report back, maybe...

Doug Herta

11-Feb-2015, 21:06

I used to do this process quite a bit 5-10 years ago. The technique is not difficult, but I found it hard to get consistent results. The basic develop, bleach, clear, 2nd exposure, 2nd development, fix is pretty well covered here:

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061291034093.pdf

If I remember correctly, dr5 has a proprietary process that uses a chemical reversal process instead of re-exposing the film to light and has profiled the process to different films. I think this is where some of the inconsistency comes in (consistent intensity and timing of the light exposure) and where dr5 will give consistently good results rather than the hit-or-miss I have experienced. If there is interest, we could start a new thread with recipes and techniques and even show off some reversal slides from the process.

Kirk Gittings

11-Feb-2015, 21:09

Yea being as we shoot large format here unless your going to use the large format positive as the final display medium it just seems like a unneeded extra cost.

Hmmmm yep, don't really feel the need for a transparent final display medium.

Will Frostmill

11-Feb-2015, 21:11

Pardon me if this is too basic a question, but why not contact print or enlarge onto high contrast sheet film?

Paul Cunningham

11-Feb-2015, 21:45

I just sent out two frames (4x5) of FP4+ to dr5. Looking forward to seeing them soon, there is nothing like a good slide.

Kirk Gittings

11-Feb-2015, 21:53

Curious as to whY? What are you going to use it for? With no burning/dodging or contrast control?

Paul Cunningham

11-Feb-2015, 21:58

It's a duplicate, and I'm curious. I will scan; I'm interested to know if the dynamic range is significantly different. If it doesn't pan out then it's no big deal. I still have so much to learn that everything's interesting and exciting.
The direct appeal of transparencies is unmatched by any negative or paper print, at least for me.

Kirk Gittings

11-Feb-2015, 22:15

Got it. While I agree that transparencies are beautiful (I have some 15k color in storage) and these are too, they have no use to me anymore except scanned and in b&w I don't see any advantage over scanning the a neg.

Taija71A

11-Feb-2015, 22:26

I just sent out two frames (4x5) of FP4+ to dr5. Looking forward to seeing them soon, there is nothing like a good slide.

Curious as to whY? What are you going to use it for?
___

Paul has a very good point!

Once, you get used to seeing a 4x5 or larger B&W Slide/Transparency... They become pretty 'Addictive'. (*Notice I did not say 'Inexpensive'). ;)
--
Kirk, they of course may... Not be 'suitable' for the type of Photography that you do or your present needs.

But 'say'... In a Studio (Controlled) Environment or for 'Fine Art' Images and some Alternative Processes -- They are beautiful and definitely come 'Into their Own!'

... With no burning/dodging or contrast control?
___

There actually is a large amount of 'Contrast Control'.

Depending...

1). On the Film chosen...

and

2). The ISO that is selected...

The 'scope' of potential Dynamic Range's that are achievable... Is 'Leaps and Bounds' above, what you will ever see on a Print. (*If so desired).
--
For starters... Please feel free to read the following:

Why do I need a B&W transparency?
What makes dr5 better?

http://www.dr5.com/faq.html

--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

Kirk Gittings

11-Feb-2015, 22:28

Tim I know all about their product and have seen a lot of the results as I visited their booth at a few VC conferences many years ago and spoke to them at length and yes they are beautiful and I considered having some made, but frankly in the end I simply couldn't see a use for them. The thing about scanning being better from a transparency over a neg is overblown sales hype. I have had thousands of color transparencies, color negs and b&w negs both done by me personally and done professionally over the years so I know of what I speak. Plus I don't want just one contrast on an image but different contrasts in different areas.

Taija71A

11-Feb-2015, 22:38

No problem Kirk. Understood in full...
(*I see that both Paul and yourself have since 'chimed' in... While I was putting my original post together). :)

richardman

11-Feb-2015, 23:14

Again, it's about choices and options. If one does not see the values of paying for DR5, or even the general idea of B&W positive, then don't do it.

If other people want to pay the $, or spend the time, what harm is there? There is no need for convincing arguments or otherwise. Positive *might* have better scanning resolution, it certainly looks cool. but who cares? If it doesn't speak to you, what's the point of asking? No one will provide a sound enough argument if you are not interested.

It's like the (soon) 51 Megapixel Canon shooters asking why is anyone bothering shooting medium format data back, or large format film, or vice versa for that matter. Or the Drum Scan people that laugh at Epson scanner users, but not seeing that they are the laughing stock of the "it must be optically enlarged purists," whom of course are trumped by the "contact prints or nothing else" crowd.

Choice is good, that means people can pick and choose what appeals to them.

Domingo A. Siliceo

12-Feb-2015, 01:12

I'm doing reversal process over Foma 100 (normal film, not 'R') in 4x5. I do not scan them because I do not own an scanner, but a friend of mine (Antonio, the man in the image) digitalized this sheet (not my best, but you can have an idea)

https://i0.wp.com/postalesdeayer.es/Diapos/antonio_vizcainos.jpg

IMHO, it's not a simple process because the several variables you should handle: what ISO, what first developer, how much time you first develop, bleacher proportion components (don't trust Ilford at all), how much time you expose for the second time, what second developer... and don't forget to fix with hardener.

My recommendation is to play with 120 rolls modifying exposure criterion and even cutting in two the roll and processing with different developer/time parameters before trying to process 4x5 or bigger sheets.

Process is long (it takes one hour and a half for six sheets) and you get easily tired, but whe you get results, slides are beautifuuuuuuuuul.

Taija71A

12-Feb-2015, 18:04

... Plus I don't want just one contrast on an image but different contrasts in different areas.

If dr5 doesn't suit your needs... Which current 'Film and Development' Process -- Gives you different contrasts in different areas? ;)

Kirk Gittings

12-Feb-2015, 18:10

"Once, you get used to seeing a 4x5 or larger B&W Slide/Transparency... They become pretty 'Addictive'. (*Notice I did not say 'Inexpensive').
--
Kirk, they of course may... Not be 'suitable' for the type of Photography that you do or your present needs.

But 'say'... In a Studio (Controlled) Environment or for 'Fine Art' Images and some Alternative Processes -- They are beautiful and definitely come 'Into their Own!'"
Its called the final print. I have no use for a transparency no matter how beautiful as the final representation.

lfpf

12-Feb-2015, 18:26

The firm 'dr5' in Los Angeles offers a "Black and white transparency process from standard black and white film." Have any of you folks used dr5 and/or the process that leads to a black and white transparency? It seems like a sensible thing to do. Is there a downside to printing from a black and white transparency as a result of using this process?

If it is indeed "the cat's meow", why don't more processing labs offer it?

Best regards,
Try it. Results are stunning. The reversal process develops the unbleached smaller grains and is well worth the effort. Useful? Maybe. Good lookin'? Yes, very.

Taija71A

12-Feb-2015, 18:34

Its called the final print. I have no use for a transparency no matter how beautiful as the final representation.

You can definitely make 'Final Prints'... From dr5 B&W Slide/Transparencies.
Whether or not... The process is of use to you -- Doesn't change the 'Merits' for it!

Kirk Gittings

12-Feb-2015, 18:48

What merits? That is what I have been asking since my first post here. I don't get it-so what do you believe I could make a better final print from a B&W transparency than I could from a negative (I don't think so)? Or a better scan from a b&w transparency than a negative (that is a total myth that has been long since debunked)?

Taija71A

12-Feb-2015, 19:14

What merits?

If you are sincerely interested in discussing the 'merits' of dr5...
Please feel free to PM myself -- And I will 'happily' discuss them with you.

Thank-you!

That is what I have been asking since my first post here. I don't get it.

Perhaps, some further research on your part...
Or study/consideration of the DR5 Web Site -- Is still in order?
--
As previously stated... Depending on the Film chosen and the ISO that is selected...
The potential for an increased 'Dynamic Range' on Film -- Is indeed possible.

Who... Would not want to start -- With such a 'High' Dynamic Range?

... so what do you believe I could make a better final print from a B&W transparency than I could from a negative (I don't think so)? Or a better scan from a b&w transparency than a negative (that is a total myth that has been long since debunked)?

Yes.

In some Instances/Circumstances/Situations... I actually do believe that you could get a better 'Final Print'. :)

However... If you already believe that this is a 'Total Myth' and that it has long since been debunked -- 'So be it'.
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

Kodachrome25

12-Feb-2015, 19:16

I have had ilfochrome prints in 40x40 made from 120 Techpan negs souped in Dr5.....man, talk about utterly spectacular!

Lenny Eiger

12-Feb-2015, 20:05

Oren Grad

12-Feb-2015, 20:19

As previously stated... Depending on the Film chosen and the ISO that is selected...
The potential for an increased 'Dynamic Range' on Film -- Is indeed possible.

What do you mean by this: ability to capture a longer subject brightness range, or ability to achieve a longer density range in the processed film?

Taija71A

12-Feb-2015, 20:27

What do you mean by this: ability to capture a longer subject brightness range, or ability to achieve a longer density range in the processed film?
__

Please see... 'What makes dr5 better?'

http://www.dr5.com/faq.html

Thank-you!
_________

Kirk Gittings

12-Feb-2015, 20:41

You know many years ago there was a hot debate about what was better scanning color negs or transparenies. Conventional old school wisdom said scanners were designed for transparencies and better results came therefore from them-which I believed till I ran into this guy: http://www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning_color_negative_film.htm. As a result I ran side by side tests with a number of highly recommended high end scanner operators around the country and found it was BS. The ones who thought tranies scanned better simply had not worked out a proper workflow for negs. That claim is history.

Taija71A

12-Feb-2015, 20:50

http://www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning_color_negative_film.htm

Hmmm... Fantastic site that is (NOT)!
Comparing Velvia 100 to NPS 160... Is like comparing 'Apples to Oranges'.

Did we honestly ever think... That the results would be any different? :(
--
BTW... Were we not speaking about the .dr5 B&W Developing Process -- In this thread?
Thank-you!
______

Corran

12-Feb-2015, 20:56

The ones who thought tranies scanned better simply had not worked out a proper workflow for negs. That claim is history.

Yes - but of course one might still prefer the look of a transparency film over negative film. Depending on their tastes, workflow, and visualization.

Only speaking color here - but I prefer transparency generally, even if it can get me in trouble with the contrast. But when I nail the exposure in good light - no negative film comes close, for me.

Not that any of this has anything to do with dr5...

Kirk Gittings

12-Feb-2015, 21:02

Hmmm... Fantastic site that is (NOT)!
Comparing Velvia 100 to NPS 160... Is like comparing 'Apples to Oranges'.

Did we honestly ever think... That the results would be any different?

http://www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning_color_negative_film.htm

Never mind. I thought i was having a discussion but instead I'm just butting heads with preconceived notions.

Taija71A

12-Feb-2015, 21:22

Never mind. I thought i was having a discussion but instead I'm just butting heads with preconceived notions.
__

Speaking of 'preconceived' notions?

I saw these at a photo trade show a decade or more ago. They were quite beautiful but I never figured out what I needed them for?

Hmmmm yep, don't really feel the need for a transparent final display medium.

... and in b&w I don't see any advantage over scanning the a neg.
__

Question:

Have you tried dr5 recently and done a 'Meaningful' comparison with your 4x5 FP4 Plus?
If not... That too is okay (*.dr5 is obviously then... Just not for you).
--
No problem...

As per this 'Thread' (Since 2004)... Many other users on this Forum -- Are 'Very Satisfied' with the dr5 Process! :)
--

Cheers!
_________

bob carnie

16-Feb-2015, 08:15

I scan negatives and positives here from many sources. Using different scanners.

I can honestly say negative scans are every bit as easy and ultimately print quality as positives.

I believe Kirks statements to be true here.

You know many years ago there was a hot debate about what was better scanning color negs or transparenies. Conventional old school wisdom said scanners were designed for transparencies and better results came therefore from them-which I believed till I ran into this guy: http://www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning_color_negative_film.htm. As a result I ran side by side tests with a number of highly recommended high end scanner operators around the country and found it was BS. The ones who thought tranies scanned better simply had not worked out a proper workflow for negs. That claim is history.

Taija71A

16-Feb-2015, 08:52

I hate to do this, I like those guys at dr5. However, I have had no luck scanning images from the reversal process on my drum scanner... The ones I tried didn't work at all.... highlights were off the charts...

I scan negatives and positives here from many sources. Using different scanners.
__

Hello Bob and Lenny!

As the Forum 'Resident' Drum Scanning experts :) , I was just wondering...
What is the Maximum D.R. for your Drum Scans with dr5?

Previously, I was always very happy with dr5 (4x5) Flextight X5 Scans...
And was never limited -- By highlights 'Being off of the Charts'.
--
If you so choose... A simple one word answer is all that is required.
(4.0 , 4.3 , 4.6). *You get the idea of course!

Just curious... Thank-you!
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

bob carnie

16-Feb-2015, 09:09

I have never had issues with David Woods process, didn't say that , in fact I have not seen one of his trans go through here for years.

I did concur with Kirk that I have no issues with negative scans.

bob carnie

16-Feb-2015, 09:14

I scan a lot but I am not sure if I have Lenny's experience or Bruce Watsons experience and some others who I have not mentioned but they know who they are.

I do print almost all that I scan so I come at this conversation from the printed result of a scan angle.. I do not offer a scanning for others service at this point, I have done this but generally I am scanning for my printing clients.

Taija71A

16-Feb-2015, 09:26

Bob... Thank-you for your very prompt Message Replies. Greatly appreciated!
NP... Understood in full. Have a fantastic day!

Paul Cunningham

21-Feb-2015, 17:13

Just got back two frames from dr5. I shot dupes on FP4+, one set was stand developed Rodinal 1+100, the other sent to dr5. I'll scan and post for comparison. Initial take on the two from dr5, one looks fantastic and the other washed out (over exposed). I'll post more today or tomorrow.

Lenny Eiger

22-Feb-2015, 13:21

__

Hello Bob and Lenny!

If you so choose... A simple one word answer is all that is required.

Just curious... Thank-you!
--
Best regards,

One can get very excited about having a scanner, and think you own the world (or the density range). It's the same thing as a Photo 101 student learning the zone system for the first time and thinking they can handle an indoor scene with a bright window in the middle. You simply can't. Not during mid-day, at least, and not without merging two scans, or whatever.

A couple of years ago I took a trip and returned with some shots taken with my Mamiya 7. I over developed one of the rolls, a little problem with not recording the type of light properly on the outside of the roll with a pencil. Something that should have been developed for very bright light was developed for N. I've also taken another 30 seconds or so off my times. Long and short of this is that the film was quite contrasty. I scanned it a number of times, attempting to bring things down to normal, without clipping. I tried and tried but could not make a print with one of the images that was in a normal print range for me...

If you print contrasty, you can do what you want. Some folks like Lith film. It's all good. However, one would be silly to assume that you can overdevelop your film and make a non-contrasty print. Making a great scan starts with a great negative, rich and delicious.

For me the secret is in separating the midtones. There is an angle of the characteristic curve that has the right height for the steps (between mini-zones) being smooth. Of course it varies a little, however, if you exceed that by a large amount it isn't really possible to bring it back. It's more forgiving on the developing-with-too-little-contrast side

I don't like to exceed 1.5 for the top end density. There are a lot of scanner operators that prefer 1.0 or 1.2 for a max density. Everyone works a little differently...

Lenny

Taija71A

22-Feb-2015, 16:44

... I don't like to exceed 1.5 for the top end density. There are a lot of scanner operators that prefer 1.0 or 1.2 for a max density. Everyone works a little differently.

Lenny... Thank-you for taking the time to provide your very 'informative' and detailed response.
Understood in full.

Greatly appreciated!
--
Best regards,

-Tim.
_________

Paul Cunningham

26-Feb-2015, 16:35

So it turns out to be pretty difficult to do a standardized comparison, but I will pass these observations on.

These images were scanned on default settings with VueScan and an Microtek ArtixScan 1800f. The scanner is calibrated to a target. The dr5 image was scanned as a transparency, which resulted in a strong green cast and was converted to b/w with Lightroom using default settings. Undoubtedly settings could be optimized for either type of film, but I tried to hold this as a constant by using the same settings for both were possible.

The first image shows the base scans side by side (Lightroom).
http://www.verycunning.com/img/s6/v137/p187434498-5.jpg

The second image shows an area of dark shadows at 1:1.
http://www.verycunning.com/img/s5/v119/p474747221-5.jpg

The third image shows the clipped values for each image (composite image not screenshot).
http://www.verycunning.com/img/s10/v109/p80998216-5.jpg

The next images show the histogram for the base scans (screenshot). Again, optimizations would be possible.
http://www.verycunning.com/img/s6/v136/p122641657-5.jpg

Based on this single sample, my preliminary and personal conclusion: use dr5 if you want or need a transparency. If you will be scanning, there may be little to gain with dr5.