Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: I don't like slide film for scanning

  1. #61

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    298

    Re: I don't like slide film for scanning

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    Yes, but in 35mm I bracket if a doubt, in LF I shot and develop the same for the two sheets in a holder, to have a backup, also I use film toe to compress shadows like I want, so to me LF it's a way more challenging process.

    I've shot a lot of 35mm, and I'm a LF learner, but I find LF a lot more demanding, in special if the LF effort has to be worth compared to MF...
    Or just expose up off the toe & print the shadows down as low as you dare on something like Fomatone. Age-old technique & it works much better than ex post facto assumptions of how people exposed negatives in the past - in large format especially, the tendency was not towards underexposure!

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2,634

    Re: I don't like slide film for scanning

    I find that hybrid processing is convenient, fexible and easy, but a great wet result is another war. Now I try to learn the Karsh way in what I may be able, and this involves (imho) also mastering toe usage.

    I guess that mastering toe usage was more important for graded paper... but simply it's a resource I want to learn well.

  3. #63
    Steven Ruttenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    1,051

    Re: I don't like slide film for scanning

    I want to learn how to make a scene we see, not only fit the film, but fit the final process. Each has its own limitations and so one of the links becomes the limiting factor in what one can do.

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    298

    Re: I don't like slide film for scanning

    Quote Originally Posted by Pere Casals View Post
    I find that hybrid processing is convenient, fexible and easy, but a great wet result is another war. Now I try to learn the Karsh way in what I may be able, and this involves (imho) also mastering toe usage.

    I guess that mastering toe usage was more important for graded paper... but simply it's a resource I want to learn well.
    A lot of the problems people come up against that makes wet printing 'difficult' is understanding the impact of the paper toe & average gradient relative to the film toe etc. Easier to see than explain by printing the same negative on to a range of different papers, aiming to make the best possible print you can on each. The tendency of many photographers to underexpose & over process can make printing much trickier than it needs to be.

    Karsh's process was more about contrast (& creative) control by lighting than development or exposure - he used Kodak's Super Panchro Press Type-B for a lot of his well known images which (according to the available datasheets) had a softer toe & I can't see him risking underexposed negatives of important subjects - shadows with good exposure are always easier to print down than trying to open up underexposed ones.

  5. #65
    Steven Ruttenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    1,051

    Re: I don't like slide film for scanning

    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    A lot of the problems people come up against that makes wet printing 'difficult' is understanding the impact of the paper toe & average gradient relative to the film toe etc. Easier to see than explain by printing the same negative on to a range of different papers, aiming to make the best possible print you can on each. The tendency of many photographers to underexpose & over process can make printing much trickier than it needs to be.

    Karsh's process was more about contrast (& creative) control by lighting than development or exposure - he used Kodak's Super Panchro Press Type-B for a lot of his well known images which (according to the available datasheets) had a softer toe & I can't see him risking underexposed negatives of important subjects - shadows with good exposure are always easier to print down than trying to open up underexposed ones.
    I am not printing yet, but find this to be true regardless of final destination. Although, it is a bit tricky in digital world to rescue a highlight. It seems with film there is a conundrum, how to expose/develop to get a negative or positive that can readily be reproduced by any means for a final image.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    298

    Re: I don't like slide film for scanning

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Ruttenberg View Post
    I am not printing yet, but find this to be true regardless of final destination. Although, it is a bit tricky in digital world to rescue a highlight. It seems with film there is a conundrum, how to expose/develop to get a negative or positive that can readily be reproduced by any means for a final image.
    It's less of a conundrum than it can seem - getting genuinely unprintably dense highlights on neg film is actually pretty difficult - the hardware limitations of consumer scanners are another matter! Making an actually easy to print negative is slightly different - but not hard to do. Essentially, expose the negative up to where the shadows give you the options you want when printing (depending on what & how you meter, the box speed should be regarded only as a starting point for your own exposure index) & adjust development time to place highlight density on the grade of your choice - then it should give you plenty of print/ scan options - compromising a negative for the Dmax of a cheap scanner is a bad idea.

    The biggest problem is that we are dealing with the legacy of a massive consumer/ professional divide in terms of the quality/ abilities of certain production equipment & no one has yet managed to come up with a solution that closes the gap at an acceptable quality/ price point.

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    2,634

    Re: I don't like slide film for scanning

    Quote Originally Posted by interneg View Post
    Karsh's process .... I can't see him risking underexposed negatives of important subjects - shadows with good exposure are always easier to print down than trying to open up underexposed ones.
    I was teached in this forum about Karsh toe usage. Often he placed hair, clothes, chairs (etc) in the film toe. This is documented in the 150,000 negatives he shot.


    This important subject has clothes well in the toe:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	loengard_john_191_1987_433117_displaysize.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	223.0 KB 
ID:	185323

    I guess that in the Pre VC popularization era it was worth compressing shadows in the film toe.

    We can compress shadows in the film toe or in the paper shoulder (or in Ps )... but since VC was popular we have new tools for shadows, like split burning with an arbitrary grade.

    Anyway I feel fascinated from the way Karsh worked the toe, so I try to learn a bit that way.

Similar Threads

  1. Scanning color negatives/slide film - Vuescan
    By appletree in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 15-May-2015, 05:38
  2. Bulk 35mm slide scanning (Nikon 9000)
    By Ron Marshall in forum Resources
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22-Feb-2013, 16:50
  3. Silverfast Slide scanning help ?
    By Northern in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 6-Jan-2011, 11:27
  4. Massive Slide Scanning
    By Dave Schneidr in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 17-Jun-2001, 19:49

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •