Flat negatives with Rodinal

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

It's perfectly suited to setting preliminary endpoints, though. The idea that people need to post process and acrhive 16 bit files to get a picture that looks good out of a camera is incorrect. Tri X in Rodinal looks so good it's pretty hard to screw it up.

Scanning is not using an image "out of camera" even with a nice film like Tri-X. You have to post process scans and yes, you must scan at 16bit. Every single person, no exceptions, who I've seen refusing to do these things produces flat, lifeless, crappy scans.

 

[Ranchu]

No. That's an aesthetic choice you make for your pictures that you have elevated to the level of a universal truth for others. People make different aesthetic choices, and your opinion is only that. I'm sure you know this.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

No. That's an aesthetic choice you make for your pictures that you have elevated to the level of a universal truth for others. People make different aesthetic choices, and your opinion is only that. I'm sure you know this.

Its a technical issue, not an aesthetic one. I'm sorry you can't understand it, but it doesn't make what I said any less true. Film scanners are made to scan the wider density range of a transparency. When scanning a negative, the results will be very flat due to the much smaller density range of a neg. Negatives can record a much larger subject brightness range than transparencies, but they record it on the film in a lower density range than a transparency. These are not up for debate, they're basic mathematics.

 

[Ranchu]

I understand it fine, but none of that makes the case that adding contrast is a requirement for all pictures, or that it must be added to a certain level. Those are aesthetic choices you're making. You're just citing a bunch of facts and using that to imply that your aesthetic choices are the correct ones, because there are facts around.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I understand it fine, but none of that makes the case that adding contrast is a requirement for all pictures, or that it must be added to a certain level. Those are aesthetic choices you're making. You're just citing a bunch of facts and using that to imply that your aesthetic choices are the correct ones, because there are facts around.

No, you obviously don't understand. The scanner scans at LOWER contrast than the actual image on the film. I cannot simplify it anymore than that. Print the negative in the darkroom on grade 2 paper (that's normal contrast BW paper for readers who have never wet printed). Then scan that neg. The scan will be much flatter than the darkroom print. The reasons for that are technical, not aesthetic, and are not up for debate. I can't help you if you're mind is closed to learning.

 

[Ranchu]

No problem. I find it a very limited approach, that's all. Look at Lens Work for example, everyone's been spotmetering their asses off, burning and dodging for maximum detail. They all wind up with identical looking prints. Because they followed all the approved motions, pointing the camera was all that's left to them.

 

[Highway 61]

No. That's an aesthetic choice you make for your pictures that you have elevated to the level of a universal truth for others. People make different aesthetic choices, and your opinion is only that. I'm sure you know this.

Aesthetics have nothing to do with binary data.

When you scan at 8bits, each color layer is sampled on a 2E8 levels scale.
When you scan at 16bits, each color layer is sampled on a 2E16 levels scale.

First case, you have 256 levels of luminance between the black and the white.
Second case, you have 65536 levels of luminance between the black and the white.

So if you scan as Tiff 16bits you have a file which is a digital representation of the negative sampled on 65536 luminance levels per channel and with no compression, which means, no encoding data removed and the full maximum of headroom to tweak the file using a proper and powerful imaging software.

If you scan as Jpeg 8bits you have a file which is a digital representation of the negative sampled on 256 luminance levels per channel and with some compression applied already (some encoding data removed off the file so that it's lighter).

Take a glass, fill it with vodka.
Take a similar one, fill it with a quarter of vodka, three quarters of tap water.
When looked at, the glasses look the same. Do their content taste the same ?

Now, got it, and where the "limited approach is" ?

 

[Ranchu]

It's two different topics, Highway. The scanner will scan at 12 bits, set the endpoints and gamma in 12 bit, and throw out the extra bits to make 8 bit jpegs. No combing. The limited approach in that case is that you wind up sitting on your ass dicking around with giant files on expensive computers loaded with rented software (at least I do).

 

[Highway 61]

It's two different topics, Highway. The scanner will scan at 12 bits, set the endpoints and gamma in 12 bit, and throw out the extra bits to make 8 bit jpegs. No combing. This is not complicated stuff.

In this case, yes.

Some scanners will scan in 16bits or 14bits if you chose Tiff only. Chosing 8bits would make them automatically generate Jpeg files.

About Tri-X looking so good in Rodinal, this would be a third different topic... 😀

 

[Ranchu]

In this case, yes.

Some scanners will scan in 16bits or 14bits if you chose Tiff only. Chosing 8bits would make them automatically generate Jpeg files.

About Tri-X looking so good in Rodinal, this would be a third different topic... 😀

True enough.

😉

 

[Highway 61]

I have to add : any post-processing adjustment must be done on the 16bits file. The conversion from 16bits to 8bits must be the last mouseclick before saving the file.

For instance, some versions of PhotoShop Elements won't allow you to use some tools in 16bits and you must switch to 8bits before using them - not good.

 

[userid0]

Hi guys,

I didn't want to kick of a discussion about personal aesthetics but rather have a generic view on the quality of my negatives and the process of scanning these.

Thanks again for all the answers you all gave me. I learned a lot and will try to put the new information into action.

Cheers,
Walter