f64

[onnect17]

Lenny,
Please, forgive the unsolicited bad humor expressed by some members.
To the point, allow me to give some feedback.
I also think the apo-sironar-s are great lens, I would say excellent. It's a matter of preference which aperture you use. Me?, I stay no smaller than f/22 and use movements.
Now, regarding the scanning. I don't think it makes any sense to "convert" to B&W if the film is already monochromatic. Just pick one channel (perhaps green have the less amount of noise) and drop the rest. Do not use the autofocus, I always got better results using the manual way.
Also, you should try 510-pyro or pyrocat-hd. Both are sharper than xtol.

My two cents.

[Lenny Eiger]

Now, regarding the scanning. I don't think it makes any sense to "convert" to B&W if the film is already monochromatic. Just pick one channel (perhaps green have the less amount of noise) and drop the rest.

Why do you imagine I haven't tried every different way of converting to b&w? I look at each channel and decide if there is anything I want in it. Most of the time I choose only one channel, but often its a mix of blue and green. I have often just dropped everything but green. I'm not new to this.

As to the rudeness, I am aways happy to hear about another way of doing something. There's an endless amount to be learned and we can all miss the most obvious things. However, the pedantic tone is really too much. It should be a conversation like - hey, have you ever tried this... or you know, one of my favorite techniques is such and such, does that work for you -- instead of everyone assuming that if someone posts a message they need serious help.

Do not use the autofocus, I always got better results using the manual way.

Are you using a Premier? Always happy to trade techniques with another maniac. However, I must say, my scans are razor sharp. You can ask any one of my clients. (Or me, my most critical client.) Still, I'll give it a whirl... and see what happens.

Also, you should try 510-pyro or pyrocat-hd. Both are sharper than xtol.

I shot a few extra sheets specifically to test this. Sandy's agrees to develop a film test for me. I doubt there will be any improvement, this stuff is already amazingly sharp, and sharper than the printer can print, but who knows -we'll find out. Sandy gets back from Africa in a week or so, I have a box already packed to send him for a comparison.

Lenny

[Ed Richards]

For your next goad to the list, let us know how that comparison between 4x5 and 8x10 works out.:-)

[Lenny Eiger]

For your next goad to the list, let us know how that comparison between 4x5 and 8x10 works out.:-)

Ed,
If a few people want to send me an email with their contact info, I'd be happy to keep them updated. I won't be posting the results here.

Lenny

[Shen45]

Hi Lenny,

This has been a very interesting post -- for me

Out of curiosity I took your close up image and sharpened it [for the screen] using GIMP.

I am not a digital worker so ink printing is not in any way a consideration for me but the image I got considering yours is unsharpened in the posting is pretty good.

Thanks for posting as it does show a practical image and possibly what can be expected.

Can you post the two images again but sharpened to a level that might be acceptable?

Steve

[onnect17]

Lenny,
My only experience is with the Howtek d4000. It shares the basics of a drum scanner with the Premier, at 4000dpi max, using DPL.
I print 40x120s from 6x17 scanned at 4000ppi so I have to “milk” the negative. In my workflow the bottleneck could be the interpolation (not the printer) and QImage does a decent job. I do not use any sharpening and I doubt you would need it with the apo sironar s.
You said you scanned a B&W negative using the premier. If I understood correctly the information should be almost the same in the three channels. Except for noise and a little bit of contrast I can’t imagine any other difference. Also, 2666 dpi seems like a split 1/3 from 8000 dpi but I do not know the criteria used by Aztek to reach that resolution (dropping, average, interpolation, etc.) which could impact the final image.
The size of the pic with detail is around 1500x800. The corresponding fragment in the 8x10 should be around 4500x2300, so perhaps it lost some information during downsampling in PS. PS is not known for having the best interpolation algorithms.
Please let me know if I’m missing something.
Armando

[Lenny Eiger]

Hi Lenny,

This has been a very interesting post -- for me
Can you post the two images again but sharpened to a level that might be acceptable?
Steve

Steve,
I'm a little out of time today but I'll look at it again tomorrow. I think there's a problem in that this stuff is on computer screens, it's at a low resolution, etc. The scanner is looking in very close. The scan is a 2666 ppi and there are a lot of pixels. It does not need any sharpening. I usually do a .2 Radius at about 200-275. Printed, that image will be razor sharp. Hop on a plane and I'll be happy to show you... I was unaware the images would not be understood in their current form.

Lenny

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,
My only experience is with the Howtek d4000.
I print 40x120s from 6x17 scanned at 4000ppi so I have to “milk” the negative. In my workflow the bottleneck could be the interpolation (not the printer) and QImage does a decent job.

I haven't used QImage... so I can't really say. If they are 6x17's and not 6x7, then the 4000 would give you almost 90 inches at 300 dpi. It's not too far off. I am a little spoiled, I got the Premier to do the smaller film and its been sharper overall.

If I understood correctly the information should be almost the same in the three channels. Except for noise and a little bit of contrast I can’t imagine any other difference. Also, 2666 dpi seems like a split 1/3 from 8000 dpi but I do not know the criteria used by Aztek to reach that resolution (dropping, average, interpolation, etc.) which could impact the final image.
Please let me know if I’m missing something.
Armando

Well, sometimes it is identical in all three channels, but often it isn't. I use the 2666 because it gives me about 3 Gigs, which gets converted to 1 Gig when a single channel is chosen. Last month I made an 8000 ppi scan of an 8x10 for a guy who wanted to make a 25 foot wide print. It was 25 Gigs.... without any layers...

One is going to lose sharpness if you don't auto-track, or use the same number of pixels that matches the aperture. Roughly 4,000 six micron slices in an inch, or 2,000 13 micron slices. However,if you do auto-track, you won't have enough pixels and will end up interpolating, or simply having thing s be rough. I prefer to match to the grain and have the pixels I need. There are lots of trade-offs one way or the other...

Lenny

[onnect17]

25GB?
and I thought 2gb was a pain

[Noah A]

Thanks for sharing this Lenny. I think that the people who are saying this crop is soft have no idea what size print it actually represents or how good of a scan it really is.

(I'm sure the same people will tell you how good their V750 could do!)

I've found myself needing f/32 from time to time on 4x5 to get the DOF I need. Often movements alone can't handle what I need, since, for example, I often shoot in urban areas with tall buildings or lamposts in the foreground and tall things in the background.

In a perfect world we'd all be able to shoot at the optimum aperture. But your test shows that you can get great results stopped down.



I may notice a slight softening at f/32 with my 150 Apo Sironar S, but it's minor, and in any event it's less objectionable than it would be to have parts of a photograph out of focus.