[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
Yuk! Carbon tet! We used to kill insects with it for general science class in the early 60's. Very deadly stuff. But I'm still here On 5/19/05 3:40 AM, "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arthur Entlich wrote: > >> OK, how about this... maybe the PEC is responsible ;-) > > I've never owned any, it's available but hard to find in UK. I've seldom > used anything other than a dry brush for dust, very occasionally a > microfibre cloth. I have some proprietary film cleaner which was reckoned > to be the best available before PEC12, but avoid it if possible as it > leaves a slightly smeary residue. It's only worth using for fingerprints > IME, and they're very rare. > >> What is that stuff really made from anyway? > > Probably mainly carbon tetrachloride, which is carcinogenic - at least > that's what the stuff I have includes. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
The US effectively banned TCE in the late 1970's. I figured I would just read the container and relay the ingredients, but they are not listed. http://www.photosol.com/msds_pec12.pdf The material safety sheet indicates the ingredients are a trade secret. Tony Sleep wrote: >Arthur Entlich wrote: > > > >>OK, how about this... maybe the PEC is responsible ;-) >> >> > >I've never owned any, it's available but hard to find in UK. I've seldom >used anything other than a dry brush for dust, very occasionally a >microfibre cloth. I have some proprietary film cleaner which was reckoned >to be the best available before PEC12, but avoid it if possible as it >leaves a slightly smeary residue. It's only worth using for fingerprints >IME, and they're very rare. > > > >>What is that stuff really made from anyway? >> >> > >Probably mainly carbon tetrachloride, which is carcinogenic - at least >that's what the stuff I have includes. > >Regards > >Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
wrote: > I think item 3 might be the culprit. Nice theory but the mould doesn't seem to show any preference for the film rebate, which is where handling has occurred. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
A-ha You may be onto something... 1) Mold can be found on all surfaces, but especially organic ones, like hands 2) Enlargers provide heat while in use, probably promoting mold growth 3) handled negs may end us with body oils on the edges which may encourage growth of mold 4) possibly just the removal and exposure to mold filled air may inoculate them 5) If you have a small collection of particularly cherished images, a special box with silica gel, or even maybe some type of mild fungicide may be appropriate. Art Tony Sleep wrote: > bob geoghegan wrote: > > >> Conditions are the big variable for mold I've been reviewing & >>scanning 300+ rolls of 25-year old Tri-X & HP5 negs that were well >>washed, >>stored in mostly good quality plastic pages, > > > Glassine pages in loose leaf binders here, in a steel storage cabinet > subject to normal UK indoor conditions. The vast majority of negs are > completey unaffected, the damn stuff seems to make a beeline for the only > few images I like. I almost wonder whether it is because they have > periodically been removed and used in the enlarger. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
We (Tony and I) live in somewhat similar climates. This area (Victoria BC, Canada), also referred to as "the wet coast" is a rain forest. Many Brits feel very at home here. Long soggy gray fall, winter and spring. Our home is not particularly dry, in fact, quite the opposite, a factor often pointed to when I mention how rarely my Epson printers develop head clogs. We do use a dehumidifier during winter months, and could supply distilled water to many from our one machine ;-) However, I have only very rarely had an mold growth on my negs (and I have many thousands of rolls) B&W, negs, slides, etc. It usually occurs, if it does, on those stored in glassine holders. Now, I accept that if mold is a problem it can do unrepairable damage to film, but that is one of the few things that can damage a silver B&W neg. I suggest anyone with this kind of problem consider: 1) open air storage (as suggested by others) 2) A dehumidifier to keep R.H. below 50% 3) a silica gel packed storage system Art Tony Sleep wrote: > wrote: > > >>My comment is based on the stability of silver versus dye. Is B&W more >>likely to get mold versus color transparency or negatives? > > > It's the gelatin that the mould likes, it doesn't care what the image is > formed from. I have plenty of examples of all types :( > > Regards > > Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
bob geoghegan wrote: > Conditions are the big variable for mold I've been reviewing & > scanning 300+ rolls of 25-year old Tri-X & HP5 negs that were well > washed, > stored in mostly good quality plastic pages, Glassine pages in loose leaf binders here, in a steel storage cabinet subject to normal UK indoor conditions. The vast majority of negs are completey unaffected, the damn stuff seems to make a beeline for the only few images I like. I almost wonder whether it is because they have periodically been removed and used in the enlarger. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
wrote: > My comment is based on the stability of silver versus dye. Is B&W more > likely to get mold versus color transparency or negatives? It's the gelatin that the mould likes, it doesn't care what the image is formed from. I have plenty of examples of all types :( Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
Yep. Conditions are the big variable for mold I've been reviewing & scanning 300+ rolls of 25-year old Tri-X & HP5 negs that were well washed, stored in mostly good quality plastic pages, but also bound in grade-school loose-leaf binders & subject to lots of variations in humidity & temperature in the (humid) North East U.S. over their life. No mold in sight. I'm guessing that there was an unplanned benefit from the open binders allowed some air circulation. Cold dry winters may also help. Maybe my teen-age efforts weren't so bad: http://home.comcast.net/~bob.geo/dhs/ Bob G At 04:43 PM 5/14/2005, you wrote: >All films independent of type will get mold if stored under the right >conditions. It is not the dye versus the silver that attracts it but the >gelatin base of the emulsions that mold and fungus grow on and eat. > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:15 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Modern photography... > > > > My comment is based on the stability of silver versus dye. > > Is B&W more likely to get mold versus color transparency or negatives? > > > > Tony Sleep wrote: > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >>There is nothing like B&W negatives for longevity. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >You think? I'm scanning negs from 20-30 years ago before > > it's too late. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > > message title or body > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 5/13/2005 > > > > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 5/13/2005 > > > > >Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe >filmscanners' >or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title >or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Modern photography...
All films independent of type will get mold if stored under the right conditions. It is not the dye versus the silver that attracts it but the gelatin base of the emulsions that mold and fungus grow on and eat. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 3:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Modern photography... > > My comment is based on the stability of silver versus dye. > Is B&W more likely to get mold versus color transparency or negatives? > > Tony Sleep wrote: > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>There is nothing like B&W negatives for longevity. > >> > >> > > > >You think? I'm scanning negs from 20-30 years ago before > it's too late. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 5/13/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.10 - Release Date: 5/13/2005 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
My comment is based on the stability of silver versus dye. Is B&W more likely to get mold versus color transparency or negatives? Tony Sleep wrote: > wrote: > > > >>There is nothing like B&W negatives for longevity. >> >> > >You think? I'm scanning negs from 20-30 years ago before it's too late. > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
Interesting comments. I also shoot B&W film, scan the negs and print on inkjet printers. I started out with a simple C84 (now a C86) and the MIS quadtone inks. Very simple, inexpensive and does a wonderful job on matte papers up to 8x10. I tend to print 5x7 on this printer though. I'm also just starting to experiment with B&W on a 2200 using the regular Epson UC inks and the inexpensive QuadTone RIP. So far results on EEM look quite good printed on the warmish side. I don't experiment with paper much, but use Matte Scrapbook on the C86 (great bargain for a smooth cotton rag paper up in 8x11 sheets). I'll have to try UltraSmooth or another paper similar to Matte Scrapbook on the 2200 to make larger prints. I'm comfortable with moderate grain, from the scanner's point of view, that is. I've only tried my Coolscan V, but I'm informed that it manages to magnify (mangle?) grain vs. some other scanners. But with HP5+ in HC-110 (H) - even at EI 800 with just one inversion every two minutes - I find can make a print pleasing to my eye. I soup it for thinner, flatter negs and I find this helps manage the grain (and the Coolscan's tendency to blow highlights). I have Vuescan, but find the interface frustrating. I use it for "special case" scans, as it seems to have an uncanny ability to produce a nice somewhat flat scan from most negatives. That said, I'm just now embarking on a "slower, finer grain film/scan" journey, in the interests of producing larger prints where the consequently magnified grain might not always add to the aesthetic. FP4+ looks fantastic in Rodinal, but it doesn't make the most of the film's somewhat finer grain structure. While still a non-solvent developer, Acutol 1:14 seems to produce a smoother (and very sharp) scan from this film than Rodinal. I'm also experimenting with Delta 100, which so far seems to produce pleasing tones of a more traditional look than TMX. I initially souped this in Acutol as well with good results, but am about to try HC-110 and a solvent developer, Clayton F76, as well. I guess I have a "thing" for PQ developers or something :-) I'm eager to see the F76 results on both FP4+ and Delta 100 - while somewhat obscure, F76 lovers seem to really like this soup. I find digital can produce wonderful black and white prints - sometimes. I find noise shots a big problem (I use a D70), even when the noise is not very apparent in the color imagine. Some monotone conversion just seem to accentuate the noise, and while grain can sometimes add to a picture's aesthetics, I rarely find that grain does. OTOH, some of my favorite B&W prints have been produced by digital capture means. Consistently smooth tonality (midtones) is a main attraction for me as well, although the limited dynamic range can make some shots difficult compared to B&W film and development control. I suppose we are blessed to live in an era of so many options for producing nice B&W prints. Scott Tony Sleep wrote: > wrote: > > > >>There is nothing like B&W negatives for longevity. >> >> > >You think? I'm scanning negs from 20-30 years ago before it's too late. >Mould is a big issue and a swine to try and fix. These were very well >processed and washed but ironically that encourages mould. OK, storage in a >humidity and temp controlled environment, with filtered atmosphere to keep >the spores away, would produce a different outcome, but acetate film base >is unstable anyhow. I don't seem to have that problem yet myself, but I >know of one photographer who has widespread vinegar-rot syndrome on negs of >similar age to my own. > >http://www.rit.edu/~661www1/sub_pages/acetguid.pdf > >So B&W film is in general no better than an inkjet of mediocre longevity, >or a CD carelessly stored. Shoot on Estar base and invest in a clean room >to do better. > >I've dispensed with wet printing a couple of years ago, after 30yrs of >fighting the materials. Cone Piezography produces a very different sort of >print, but likeable in its own terms and digital workflow has overwhelming >advantages and control (specially where mouldy negs are concerned). Besides >all of the bromides I really liked have either been discontinued or >sanitised to mediocrity for H&S reasons. There is simply nothing around >that comes close to, say, the original Agfa Record Rapid, stuffed as it was >with noxious Cobalt and God knows what. > >There are technologies for printing dig on bromide or Ciba for those who >can't accept inkjet aesthetics, eg http://www.owenboyd.com/index.html > >Personally I love the smooth tonality of dig, even for B&W. I mostly used >the finer grain films, TMax CN, Delta, XP1/2 anyhow, to escape grain. >Before those, I used solvent developers, or pushed ISO125 in 2-bath rather >than put up with the offensive mush. > >Regards > >Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'uns
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
wrote: > There is nothing like B&W negatives for longevity. You think? I'm scanning negs from 20-30 years ago before it's too late. Mould is a big issue and a swine to try and fix. These were very well processed and washed but ironically that encourages mould. OK, storage in a humidity and temp controlled environment, with filtered atmosphere to keep the spores away, would produce a different outcome, but acetate film base is unstable anyhow. I don't seem to have that problem yet myself, but I know of one photographer who has widespread vinegar-rot syndrome on negs of similar age to my own. http://www.rit.edu/~661www1/sub_pages/acetguid.pdf So B&W film is in general no better than an inkjet of mediocre longevity, or a CD carelessly stored. Shoot on Estar base and invest in a clean room to do better. I've dispensed with wet printing a couple of years ago, after 30yrs of fighting the materials. Cone Piezography produces a very different sort of print, but likeable in its own terms and digital workflow has overwhelming advantages and control (specially where mouldy negs are concerned). Besides all of the bromides I really liked have either been discontinued or sanitised to mediocrity for H&S reasons. There is simply nothing around that comes close to, say, the original Agfa Record Rapid, stuffed as it was with noxious Cobalt and God knows what. There are technologies for printing dig on bromide or Ciba for those who can't accept inkjet aesthetics, eg http://www.owenboyd.com/index.html Personally I love the smooth tonality of dig, even for B&W. I mostly used the finer grain films, TMax CN, Delta, XP1/2 anyhow, to escape grain. Before those, I used solvent developers, or pushed ISO125 in 2-bath rather than put up with the offensive mush. Regards Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
Ken McKaba wrote: > I have been out of touch with photography for a few years > and recently dusted off my old Rolleiflex 6x6 to find > myself in the digital age. I am trying to make sense of > how serious photography is done in the 21st century. > I've brought the issue up to various people and everyone > has a different opinion- I bet folks on this list will a > few new ones. > > I always loved shooting B&W in my old Rolleiflex- I like > the large square format. I do portraits, studio figure > stuff, landscapes, etc. I used to spend hours in the > darkroom and followed the Zone system to some extent. > > > -Should I shoot digital then use PhotoShop to make it > monochrome? I'll just answer this one. I've now gone fully digital. I obviously don't have the same requirements as you do and it is quite possible (even probable) that you can get better results going with film and filmscanners. But. In my experience (I held out with film and filmscanners until last summer) if you invest a little time with learning Photoshop and your digital camera of choice (I'd suggest a DSLR) you'll have tons of *fun* taking and processing pictures. I now take around between 20 and 200 pictures each and every day. 99.99% of those are rubbish, but I still have fun taking them and looking at them and learning a little every single day. The advantages I am sure you have heard before (instant gratification, low processing cost and so on). And they are real advantages. I don't want to criticise anyone here, but I think you should consider trying the all digital way and see if you like it. If you love taking pictures and can live with the fact that you probably can't get that last 5% of quality out of each of them, I think you'll be happy you did. Håkon -- We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Modern photography...
Hi lists, > That is interesting since SCSI is a simple thing to add to a PC, you > have to wonder why they went GPIB, which is a rather slow interface used > for electronic instruments. National Instruments more or less owns the > GPIB business. There is a very hidden form on their website where you > can turn in some old GPIB to get half price (last time I looked) on a > new one. I managed to find a 232 to GPIB converter on the surplus > market, so I never pursued the trade up route. SCSI was not mature on the PC back when the Leaf was developed, and every card used a different driver etc. GPIB was fast enough, as the limiting factor was the scan time, not the transfer time. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Modern photography...
Hi Alex, > Austin, I noticed you use Leafscan 45. I do. > So I begun to consider selling my leg and arm (and also my wife, car, > house and children) :-) for Nikon LS9000 till encountered people's > recommendation to go Leafscan 45 route instead. > What can you say about this one ? Can it still compete wuality-wise > with contemporary machines home-oriented such as Nikon LS9000 ? I am not sure. I primarily use it for B&W, and do little color with it. It is a three pass color scanner, so scanning times will be 3x as long. I scan medium format B&W at 4 minutes per scan (the secret is not using the default exposure time, but setting it to minimum...which is plenty for negatives...for slides, you want to use "optimum", so it's even a lot slower). > Is > using Leafscan 45 indeed as much bother as I suspect comparative to > desktop film scanners ? Probably less of a bother, if you understand setpoints and tonal curves. It has a very basic, but entirely capable user interface...and IMO, has everything you need...setpoints and tonal curves. > I suspect Leafscan is Mac only, am I wrong ? You are wrong. I use it with W2k. > I'm PC user. I don't shoot B&W (at least for now), neither planning on > that in forseable future. Then I might suggest a different scanner, especially if you are shooting slides. The advantage, for me, of the Leafscan is it is a true grayscale scanner, not an RGB scanner as all other scanners are, and I believe it gives exceptional B&W results. I also do not find any need to use USM, as everyone else seems to require. My scans are tack sharp: http://www.darkroom.com/Images/Mv03bCropw.jpg (not that you can see much from a web image...) > Any comments on it are appreciated (as well as any hints to Leafscan 45 > active user groups). Yahoo has an active Leafscan user's group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Leafscan/ Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
(1) Print digitally on matte papers with a matte black. The 2200 class of printers does a great job on a good matte paper (EEM or a cotton fiber paper). Good print longevity as well. For glossy, try a paper like Epson Semi-Gloss. Ideally, you'll want glop (Epson 1800) or a coating spray like print shield. I'm mostly a matte printer, but even without glop, I got some wonderful color prints on semi gloss with the 2200. (2) For B&W prints, quad ink sets work great as well. Not better/worse, but different. But the prints look great. Again, use a good matte paper. The cheap C86 with the MIS Quad ink set (carbon inks) works wonders very economically up to 8x10. Matte Scrapbook is a great bargain in a cotton fiber paper in sizes up to 8x10. You can also use a RIP with a 2200 using the Epson UC inks. QTR is available for only $50 and it does a remarkable job on a good variety of papers. Again, matte papers are your friend. No weird thick black + bronzing at all. Other RIPs can cost big $$$ (ImagePrint, for example). Lots more to say about RIPs (custom profiles for every ink/paper out there with work or $$$), but Google can fill you in. Doesn't have to be that complicated or expensive if you stick to the basics. Also again, good glossy results are available, but it's fussier and glop/print shield will come in handy. (3) BTW, both the MIS inks and the 2200 Epson UC are pigment inks. On a good paper, print longevity is very good (VERY good for carbon ink B&W). Most (all?) other manufacturers use dye inks. Nice glossy results, but rapid fading is typical (Google around for details. I think HP has made some progress with dye on its own papers). The Epsons give you a wide choice of papers, some better/different than Epson, some as good/better and more economical as well. Good options to have. Please check out the Yahoo group "Digital Black and White the Print." It's a very active group and there is *excellent* expertise available there on these matters. (4) I don't know about flat beds, but on my Coolscan V, Tri-X scans very well. Neopan 400 seemed to scan a little better, and my current mainstay, HP5+ scans well even at EI 800. Processing is important. I currently use HC-110 (H) for 9.5 minutes EI 400 or 13.5 minutes EI 800 and with gentle agitation. You need a relatively flat neg to get a good scan (generally speaking). A slight compensating development effect helps bring out shadow detail while keep highlight density under control. Oddly enought, this is the same development advice for 35mm shooting given in the classic Film Dev Cookbook. To paraphrase, minimum exposure to get good shadow detail and just enough highlight density to print well on a grade 3 paper. OTOH, if one is used to guess exposure, over cooking Tri-X in rodinal, getting "nice thick" negs and handling the rest during wet printing, scanning film (well) is going to be a challenge. (5) Of course, slow/medium speed films typically have finer grain. The trick (at least on a Coolscan type of "consumer" film scanner) is their steeper contrast curve. I've found dilute Rodinal 1:50 does a good job on FP4+. Doesn't make the most of FP4+ finer grain, but looks really lovely with gentle highlights and good tones. I've had good luck with HC110 (B), but the dev time is too short (5 minutes for my water/thermometer). Oddly, dilution (H) was not producing a flat FP4+ neg for me at a variety of different times. I was surprised, actually. I've been experimenting with Acutol and Clayton F76 and anticipate even more satisfactory results. (6) T grain vs. classic film usage is a variety of issues. Classic emulsions have a certain "look" (so do T grain films) and have darned good exposure lattitude compared to their T grain counterparts. Classic emulsions typically look pretty good in a wide variety of developers, and are more forgiving of slight variations in time and temperature during development. T-grain films typically have very steep contrast curves. I've been experimenting recently with Delta 100, one of the more somewhat forgiving T grain films and with a somewhat more classic look. Once I get exposure/dev/scan down just right, I plan to use it for certain applications (studio B&W portraiture in particular). I've tried Acutol 1:14 with somewhat encouraging results. For me the trick is to get good accutance (it's my style), finer grain than what I can get with FP4+, highlight control and consistent results. (7) The Coolscan has an LED light source, so it can accentuate or screw up grain sometimes (harder to describe than to see). Some scanners have a diffuse light source or a diffuser available to help when scanning silver emulsions. I'm on a spending moratorium right now, or I'd run out and buy the Minolta 35 and MF or a similar Artixscan film scanner right now :-) Oddly, there's also a quite inexpensive Minolta dedicated film scanner model (under $300?) with a diffuse light source available right now that should do a great job for B&W
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
Austin, I noticed you use Leafscan 45. I stepped up into meadium format (6x7) about a half year ago and then my main headache became the inability of quality scanning at my home convenience as I used to with my 35mm by Nikon IV ED. Flatbeds are out of question, I've tried a few of recent machines and also Heidelberg supposedly good "friendly-priced" flatbeds - great dissapoinment on 6x7 slide (most certain due to my addiction to the quality produced by a good film scanners). So I begun to consider selling my leg and arm (and also my wife, car, house and children) :-) for Nikon LS9000 till encountered people's recommendation to go Leafscan 45 route instead. What can you say about this one ? Can it still compete wuality-wise with contemporary machines home-oriented such as Nikon LS9000 ? Is using Leafscan 45 indeed as much bother as I suspect comparative to desktop film scanners ? I suspect Leafscan is Mac only, am I wrong ? I'm PC user. Any comments on it are appreciated (as well as any hints to Leafscan 45 active user groups). Regards, Alex --- Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ken, > > > -Is hours in the darkroom this still the best way to get > > fantastic B&W pics? > > Not in my opinion...read on... > > > -Should I shoot film then use a film scanner to > > manipulate and print? > > IMO, yes. > > > -Which film? > > For B&W, I shoot Tri-X and Plus-X. > > > -Should I shoot digital then use PhotoShop to make it > > monochrome? > > That, IMO, will not produce near as nice an image as film. > > > -Should I use the same approach for color pics? > > Not sure of the question...but I only have a strong opinion on B&W. > > > -Which is the best process to print a B&W digital pic? > > IMO, Piezography...or at least a quad-tone inkjet printer. > > > Is there an online service to do so? > > B&W, not sure. > > > -I just got the CanoScan 8400f flatbed scanner- will I be > > happy with the results? Should I cough-up another $200 > > and get the CanoScan 9950f or Epson 4870? > > No idea. > > The best B&W results I have seen, has been medium format (or larger) > Plus-X > developed in D-76 1:1, and Tri-X same development. Scanned (I use a > Leafscan 45) and printed using Piezography on an Epson 3000. The > results, > IMO, are better than I was ever able to achieve printing in the > darkroom, > and I had a lot of B&W darkroom experience. The ability to use > setpoints > and tonal curves of the scanned image gives me better images IMO. > > Regards, > > Austin > > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message > title or body > __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Modern photography...
Hi, > I find ink jet prints look a bit odd in the dark areas as there is more > ink plopped on the page. Have you seen a quad-tone/Piezography print, as opposed to a black-only inkjet print? > I haven't seen any BW quads. Then, I suggest you do ;-) > I'd like to understand why you use Tri-X rather than more modern film > like TMX. TMX is a "chunky" film IMO (as are all the "tab grain" films to me). Tri-X has a very nice tonal curve, and exceptional grain characteristics when exposed and developed (D-76 1:1) properly. It's a look I prefer. Neopan 1600 in XTOL actually has a look like Tri-X IMO. > I'm not being critical here, rather I'd like to understand the > reasoning behind your choice. No problem. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...
Ken McKaba wrote: >I have been out of touch with photography for a few years >and recently dusted off my old Rolleiflex 6x6 to find >myself in the digital age. I am trying to make sense of >how serious photography is done in the 21st century. >I've brought the issue up to various people and everyone >has a different opinion- I bet folks on this list will a >few new ones. > >I always loved shooting B&W in my old Rolleiflex- I like >the large square format. I do portraits, studio figure >stuff, landscapes, etc. I used to spend hours in the >darkroom and followed the Zone system to some extent. > >My questions: > >-Is hours in the darkroom this still the best way to get >fantastic B&W pics? > > Not necessarily. But a darkroom can help, like in developing your own film. >-Should I shoot film then use a film scanner to >manipulate and print? > > At this point in time, yes -- and certainly if you are going to use that old Rolleiflex. >-Which film? > > Depends what you're looking for. I tend to use Ilford Delta 100 and Delta 400, but I also like Bergger 200 which might be very nice in your Rolleiflex. >-Should I shoot digital then use PhotoShop to make it >monochrome? > > You can, but I don't think it will be as good as film (IMHO) and it looks, well, different. >-Should I use the same approach for color pics? > > I would. >-Which is the best process to print a B&W digital pic? >Is there an online service to do so? > > I think the Piezography quad tome system works really well. I am very happy with it. >-I just got the CanoScan 8400f flatbed scanner- will I be >happy with the results? Should I cough-up another $200 >and get the CanoScan 9950f or Epson 4870? > > I would definitely cough up the additional for the Epson. And get the newest Epson, the 4990, which replaces the 4870. The 4990's performance is "slightly" better than the 4870, but it is significantly faster and has a larger area to scan transparencies (slides and negatives). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Modern photography...
Hi Ken, > -Is hours in the darkroom this still the best way to get > fantastic B&W pics? Not in my opinion...read on... > -Should I shoot film then use a film scanner to > manipulate and print? IMO, yes. > -Which film? For B&W, I shoot Tri-X and Plus-X. > -Should I shoot digital then use PhotoShop to make it > monochrome? That, IMO, will not produce near as nice an image as film. > -Should I use the same approach for color pics? Not sure of the question...but I only have a strong opinion on B&W. > -Which is the best process to print a B&W digital pic? IMO, Piezography...or at least a quad-tone inkjet printer. > Is there an online service to do so? B&W, not sure. > -I just got the CanoScan 8400f flatbed scanner- will I be > happy with the results? Should I cough-up another $200 > and get the CanoScan 9950f or Epson 4870? No idea. The best B&W results I have seen, has been medium format (or larger) Plus-X developed in D-76 1:1, and Tri-X same development. Scanned (I use a Leafscan 45) and printed using Piezography on an Epson 3000. The results, IMO, are better than I was ever able to achieve printing in the darkroom, and I had a lot of B&W darkroom experience. The ability to use setpoints and tonal curves of the scanned image gives me better images IMO. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
