hi jay
to be honest i usually go the other way with my film.
i scan some of my coffee-stuff ... it isn't tooo thin,
but most of it i process so it is nearly bulletproof and print it.
- john
hi jay
to be honest i usually go the other way with my film.
i scan some of my coffee-stuff ... it isn't tooo thin,
but most of it i process so it is nearly bulletproof and print it.
- john
From the scanner point of view, the image should probably be red. Less diffraction and the silicon photo diode or CCD in the scanner has its highest sensitivity in the red, actually at about 900nm. So maybe a near infrared image is best. That's odd.
I'd vote for a neutral colored image.
my picture blog
ejwoodbury.blogspot.com
Thanks John. I've never been very satisfied with my scans of dense negatives. I have made some satisfying prints from very dense negatives in my darkroom, despite all the factors that conspire against a dense negative, and though I've only seen your work online, it seems you know how to make the most of your negatives, whatever their character.
Eric,
Maybe I'm confused (okay, I'm definitely confused), but when I think of scanning as an analog to printing, it seems to me the image density should be made up of what the scanner is LEAST sensitive to, just as image stain relates to printing paper. If the scanner is most sensitive to red, that seems to argue in favor of green density. It's entirely possible that I misunderstand the principles involved. In any case, it's good to see you posting.
XTOL is my best compromise and in my work it will be because I print still most B&W analog and very seldom digital!
And yes its the developer I know the best anyway, semse for my also very important!
Its by the way my magic bullet;--))))
Armin
Mr. Lee, my intuition can't help you with your state's lottery numbers, but intuitively speaking, here are some mutual funds I fancy:
Janus Mid Cap Value
Janus Overseas
Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock
Fidelity Convertible Securities
Oakmark Equity and Income
Vanguard Inflation Protected Securities
And realestate advice:
If you live in California, rent until the San Andreas fault shifts sometime in the next 20 years. And for the rest of the country, rent for the next 5 to 10 years, and invest the savings in the above named funds. If you are fairly young and live in New England, watch for the plunging value of homes as the home owning population ages from migration, retirement to southern states, and death creating an unabsorbed surplus of supply.
There you go Mr. Lee. Please remit my advisory fee of $20,000 as soon as possible. Thank you.
Hi Mr. King--sorry I'm late to the party, came across this thread and a question came to mind. In your experience, do different film formats benefit from unique scan resolutions as a general rule?
I have chatted with a few folks at some of the scanning companies online. They agree that a large format negative has inherently more resolution than a smaller negative, and scanning at an overly high resolution creates massive files that fail to yield any better image quality. I was also told in some cases, overscanning may introduce technical errors that could degrade the image quality and/or corrupt the file itself. Their judgement was scan 4 x 5 and up in the 2000PPI range; MF around 2400-3600, depending on film format, scanner, tech, etc.; and 3600 + for 35mm, 126, 110, and so forth.
Of interest was the notion that images made with pinholes and other lomographic gear, tended to benefit more from scans made at the low end of the spectrum for the film format used.
Any thoughts you care to share, mon frere? (Sorry about that...)
Kevin M.
hi mike
sorry i missed this
YUP
most of my film has been processed in caffenol for the past 10, maybe 11 years.
i've used straight caffenol c ( measured with tablespoons and instant coffee )
and eventually i put a little ansco 130 in it ( now i put a little dektol in it instead )
and then i bought a bunch of robusta beans ( green ) and i roast the coffee myself.
i like the results i get better than instant ... maybe i am bias ?
these days i split process most if not all my film. i mix a batch of dektol 1:8ish and
instead of processing it for 8-9 mins in that .. i develop it for 4 mins in that, and then
4 mins in the caffenol c with a tiny bit of dektol mixed in ... works like a charm.
YMMV
have fun !
Is XTOL still the benchmark for most of you?
I am looking for a developer that is of low toxicity (XTOL or better), comes as a liquid concentrate (don't like mixing from powder due to health reasons) and works great with a rotary processor (CPPx) and Ilford's FP4+/HP5. It should be a developer that possesses a certain formulation/manufacturing robustness and QC in order to allow for a single characterisation to be applicable for multiple batches.
I focused on XTOL for the last years. Unfortunately, I find its preparation somewhat cumbersome, its need for short development times at 1:1 for FP4+ (I had to dilute it to 1:3 to ensure development repeatability) and I still have issues with streaks on denser areas from time to time. I don't care for low contrast negatives as long as DMAX < 2.5.
What are your recommendations?
Bookmarks