ibcrewin
Ah looky looky
I had the idea of mixing some hc-110 (dil B) with a 1tsp of Sodium Sulfite (to make 1L). More for experimentation than anything else.
Well the negs came out looking good. Maybe a little dense for scanning but they might be great for a wet print. Which leads to my question; I know a negative can be thin and be saved by scanning, but can a dense negative be saved by wet printing when i'm getting poor results from scanning? I can see details in the negative that are getting blown out by the scan.
This is tmax 100 for 7.5 min.
Well the negs came out looking good. Maybe a little dense for scanning but they might be great for a wet print. Which leads to my question; I know a negative can be thin and be saved by scanning, but can a dense negative be saved by wet printing when i'm getting poor results from scanning? I can see details in the negative that are getting blown out by the scan.
This is tmax 100 for 7.5 min.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
very nice pix.
Sparrow
Veteran
I actually aim for a slightly dense neg for my d Image 5400 MkI as I seem to get less "noise" and better detail in the dark areas. Better prints than I got from wet printing, but that could just be me
ibcrewin
Ah looky looky
Thanks Ray! I had a few that I was really happy with when I looked at the negative, but were so bummed when I couldn't get them to scan well.
Sparrow.. Which scan software do you use? I'm scanning it straight from PS. I don't have Silverfast or Vuescan.
Sparrow.. Which scan software do you use? I'm scanning it straight from PS. I don't have Silverfast or Vuescan.
Sparrow
Veteran
I'm on viewscan, but iirc it was the same on the Minolta software I only switched when my new OS wouldn't run the Minolta version
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
To me wet-printing affords more control in both cases. If the frame looks blown-out on the scanner, I know that I can coax a lot of missing details using my enlarger.
In the case of thin negative, pre-flashing or split-filtering can save a print. Thick negative, just expose longer -- if the negative is *uniformly* dense, that is.
The hardest negative to print is the non-uniformly dense (high-contrast) one, with very little details on the highlights but with patches of very dense blacks. Which can sometimes be deceivingly beautiful to look at.
The above is the print, not a scan. I can get details out of the negative -- which has very high contrast. The scan of this negative does not even come close unless I compress the level until it becomes "muddy-grey."