Dear Group:
After checking my shuter speeds with my Calumet speed tester (speeds spot-on) and cross-checking my primary meter (Minolta IVF) with several other meters (all spot-on), I am at a loss to find the cause of over-dense negs. I'm using new Tri-X (TXP 320) exposed at 320 and developed normal in medium sized tanks. HP5 negs (EI400) were even denser. I develop in dark with SS film holders- agitation every 1 min (lift-rotate right/drain/re-imerse...wait a minute: then lift-rotate left/drain/re-emerse). Xtol stock @ 72F: 6.25 min (Kodak specs). I have done about 30 4X5's with my current gallon solution with only about +5% adjustment for depletion on last run. My facility is not able to bring solution down to 68F at this time. In archives, I noticed that HC110 B is popular.
In the past (13 years ago), I used old Tri-X/D76, N/N with good predictability and rersults. I was often surprised to discover that negatives that at first appeared too thin, printed the best. I proofed on Ilford multigrade and printed on Galerie or Insignia (8X10 contact prints- I still have not seen a printing technique that comes close to contact printing a good neg on these papers). I am now scanning (Epson 4990) and ink printing enlargements (Epson 4800), so I am wrestling with alot of stuff. I believe scanning/ink printing gives better results that traditional enlarging- that's why I would only contact print my 8X10's in the past. I was thinking of getting a densitometer, but it occured to me that I already may have a good one: the Epson 4990 scanner. Can I- is anyone using their scanners as densitometers? If so, do the programs have ability to give traditional densitometer values? I mostly use the scanner software that came with the Epson but I also have SilverFast Ai upgrade.
Is there a consensus on what density range works well for scanning when compared to traditional paper? For the time being, I'm going to try to shoot for the same range that worked well for traditional printing- my old negs that I am now able to enlarge digitally look good. Thanks, Kip.
Bookmarks