Scanning Film Speed Test/what's your favorite film testing method?

[Henry Ambrose]

I'm on my phone so this short--
What you want for scanning is a negative that conveys the scene information to your scanner via densities that fit within the capabilities of your scanner -- what your scanner can "see". If you send the scanner a neg that is too dense or one with range greater than the scanner you have lost that scene information.

The simple and easy version is to shoot HP5 at 250 or 320 in common developers and scan it.

The problem with your picture is a lighting problem, not a developing problem.

[sully75]

Thanks for all the advice. Peter...you know I used to be good at lighting. Just finishing nursing school and getting back into photography. I get it...to much contrast in the scene. I'm not sure what I was thinking about being able to hold everything together.

Personally I don't necessarily mind the highlights in the background, but I would have liked to have some detail in them so I could manipulate them a bit.

Brian...that sounds like a good idea. I'll keep it in mind. My plan is to only shoot HP5, at least for a year, so it might be worth the investment. Well...mostly only HP5.

Ken...I liked your article a lot. I'm going to give that a try.

Jay...yup. I get it.

Is there a used densitometer that's usually recomended to someone on a budget? Or is that a rich man's game? What about a step calibration thing for my scanner?

Thanks!

[Peter De Smidt]

I haven't looked in awhile, but good densitometers were available cheap on Ebay awhile ago. You're other option is to send test negatives to someone who'd read them for you. I could do that, as could many others. The View Camera Store offers this service for a small fee, as someone mentioned above.

Stouffer step wedges are available for a reasonable amount.

[Peter De Smidt]

How did you scan it? Are you sure you're not clipping highlight detail? Look at the negative on a light table with a loupe. Can you see any detail in the bright areas that you aren't getting in the scan?

[sully75]

Hi Peter,

I scanned it on an Epson 4870 with a better scanning rack.

I scanned it 2x with the same results. Right now I'm making it very grey to see if I can get something out of the highlights. Perhaps I can make a layer over it and burn the highlights in.

The negative is really thin in the specular highlights. There may be the tiniest hint of fog.

PS thanks for your offer regarding the negatives. If I get my act together I might take you up on that.

Thanks
Paul

[jp]

The negative should be dense in the highlights. I would bet the detail is there in the negative (depends on the film; I bet money it's there if you used TMY2.)

You just can't easily print or scan it. Look for Ken Lee's scanning tips. You could also do two scans, one of them of the highlights and use some HDR trickery to put the detail back in the highlights without badly messing up the tone of the image.

Your scene contains a high contrast woods scene with many bright spots and shadows. The subject is in the shadows and exposed properly. I think it's a well made photo. If you wanted to reduce the contrast at the time of exposure, you could wait for a cloud to go over, or use some creative lighting to weaken the depth of the shadows.

[sully75]

The negative should be dense in the highlights. I would bet the detail is there in the negative (depends on the film; I bet money it's there if you used TMY2.)

duh. yeah. not thin. dense. they are that. I'm working on doing two scans to see if I can pull in the highlights. I just want them to be a little less than pure white and fit in a little more organically with the rest of the picture.

[Peter De Smidt]

The real Achilles heel of consumer flatbeds is their ability to deal with high densities. Since development greatly effects the high densities, it's possible that you should develop a bit less in such a contrasty situation. A way to test this would be to get a 31 step 4x5" Stouffer step wedge and make some test scans. That way you could find out at what density your scanner loses good separation between tones. You could then set up your development and exposure such that you don't make areas where you want detail to dense for your scanner.

Another alternative would be to have someone with a more capable scanner scan the negative for you. I have a Cezanne scanner, and I'd be happy to scan your negative for the cost of postage. Drum scanners do even better than professional pre-press flatbeds with dense materials, but these scans can get expensive. Before springing for one, definitely check with a loupe to see if there's really detail in those areas.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for all the advice. Peter...you know I used to be good at lighting. Just finishing nursing school and getting back into photography. I get it...to much contrast in the scene. I'm not sure what I was thinking about being able to hold everything together.

Personally I don't necessarily mind the highlights in the background, but I would have liked to have some detail in them so I could manipulate them a bit.

Brian...that sounds like a good idea. I'll keep it in mind. My plan is to only shoot HP5, at least for a year, so it might be worth the investment. Well...mostly only HP5.

Ken...I liked your article a lot. I'm going to give that a try.

Jay...yup. I get it.

Is there a used densitometer that's usually recomended to someone on a budget? Or is that a rich man's game? What about a step calibration thing for my scanner?

Thanks!

I assume you're talking about a transmission densitometer since we're discussing zone system testing. I don't know about "usually recommended" but you can find plenty of used transmission densitometers on ebay for little money since the labs that formerly used them aren't around any more or have switched to digital.

I bought a Macbeth Somethingorother digital transmission densitometer for about $200 on ebay but it wasn't the smartest purchase I've ever made. I used it once for testing and never used it again. A combination transmission-reflection densitometer would be more versatile since the reflection side can be useful for things other than zone system testing, e.g. when printing digitally to measure the dMax of different ink/paper combinations or to build your own profiles. However, they cost more money than a straight transmission densitometer.

I don't know about a step calibration thing. I used a 21 step wedge in the darkroom but haven't found a need for one when scanning and printing digitally. Maybe someone who uses one could explain the benefit.

[Peter De Smidt]

The benefit is that you can figure out the response curve of your scanner, noise characteristics of the scanner at different densities, and you can also tell where specific settings cause clipping.