[filmscanners] Re: Modern photography...

["" <scott@adrenaline.com>]

(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 films.

(8)  Scan at 16 bits (14 on my Coolscan V) and save to a TIFF. You can
average multiple scans using Vuescan to control noise in the shadows if need
be (typically, a little too thin a neg).  Dodging/burning with the masks
feature in
PictureWindow Pro is a real pleasure and very convenient, and of course
adjusting
contrast, sharpening and the like is easy using just about any photo
editor these
days.


(9) Anyway, give it whirl.  I think you might like it.  For MF, get the
best flatbed
you can, and a dedicated film scanner if possible (pricey).  I have a
buddy who
scans MF with a flatbed and Vuescan (inexpensive 3rd party software for
controlling many scanners) with good results.  I have another friend who
scans
Mamiya 7II chromes on an Artixscan with stunning results.

Pick up a cheap C86 and snag the MIS EZN or EZW (neutral or warm) inks.
Cheap
dedicated B&W solution with great archival results up to 8x10.  Or snag
a 2200 for
great color AND B&W (when you need a larger print) all in one printer.

A wet darkroom just isn't an option for me. It's been some hassle
weeding through
the hybrid analog+digital options and piecing it together, but I'm
pretty happy with the
process and results as they currently stand. Time to focus more again on
my own eye
and skills and less on the tools.

Scott


lists@lazygranch.com wrote:

>I find ink jet prints look a bit odd in the dark areas as there is more
>ink plopped on the page. I got a collection of print outs from late
>model consumer grade ink jets at CES, both piezo and whatever Canon uses
>(thermal or bubble as they say), and they just don't look as good as  a
>color photograph. I haven't seen any BW quads.
>
>I'd like to understand why you use Tri-X rather than more modern film
>like TMX. I'm not being critical here, rather I'd like to understand the
>reasoning behind your choice.
>Austin Franklin wrote:
>
>
>
>>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 listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body