photogdave
Shops local
Having owned a Nikon scanner with an LED bulb and a Minolta with a fluorecent bulb, I find the LED picked up the grain more and I ended up scanning at a lower resolution setting. I've been happier with the results from the Minolta.
anselwannab
Well-known
I agree with the need for "thinner" negatives. When I started out scanning I would take a negative that looked great to the eye, but it would scan like crap. Some of my best scans are of night shots since they are so thin by neccesity.
I use a Scan Dual IV with the Minolta software. I scan my B&W Tmax as color positives and then mess with them in PSE. It seems the color positive setting is better at getting more of the range of tones, the B&W positive setting seems to clip the highs and lows.
Here is a Tmax400 shot with my CL/40 combo. The crop is from the center and is unsharpened.
Sorry for the dust!!
I use a Scan Dual IV with the Minolta software. I scan my B&W Tmax as color positives and then mess with them in PSE. It seems the color positive setting is better at getting more of the range of tones, the B&W positive setting seems to clip the highs and lows.
Here is a Tmax400 shot with my CL/40 combo. The crop is from the center and is unsharpened.
Sorry for the dust!!
Attachments
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I use a Scan Dual IV with the Minolta software. I scan my B&W Tmax as color positives and then mess with them in PSE. It seems the color positive setting is better at getting more of the range of tones, the B&W positive setting seems to clip the highs and lows.
I think the part about scanning as a colour positive to get better tonal range brfore converting tp B&W has a bit of truth in it.
Nikon Bob
I think the part about scanning as a colour positive to get better tonal range brfore converting tp B&W has a bit of truth in it.
Nikon Bob
anselwannab
Well-known
Nikon Bob,
I didn't realize you were quoting me. For a second I couldn't figure out if we both were sharing the same brain, or the server had spliced our messages!
Mark
I didn't realize you were quoting me. For a second I couldn't figure out if we both were sharing the same brain, or the server had spliced our messages!
Mark
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Sorry Mark I just wanted to use that section of your post and deleted the rest. I think next time I'll just use the whole quote instead. I still think you have something there and I scan my C41 B&W that way which seems to work out OK.
Nikon Bob
Nikon Bob
sf
Veteran
You know what? I like grain most of the time. Only time I don't is with landscapes.
And you don't want to be too digi-like do you?
And you don't want to be too digi-like do you?
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
shutterflower said:
That is thing, wanting or not wanting something is a personal choice and neither is wrong. Same goes for the so-called digi-like look. I really depends on what you and you alone want as a photographer.
Nikon Bob
T
tedwhite
Guest
I've been reading all of your posts, some of which are highly sophisticated and most informative, with a touch of sadness. I have used TriX, PlusX, and EFKE and Ilford black and white films most of my life. If developed properly - the right time and the right temperature - grain is not a problem, that is, as long as the negs are enlarged in a wet darkroom using a regular enlarger and either resin-coated or fiber-based papers. In fact you need grain to focuse the enlarger precisely (using a grain focuser).
It's when you leave the wet room and enter the digital room that creating decent images from film negatives becomes far more complex. Not a problem with images made with a DSLR, but very fiddly otherwise. I wouldn't mind paying out some bucks for a system (film neg scanner or flatbed) that I could rely upon to produce an 11/14 image as easily and as effortlessly as I can produce one in a darkroom using my old Simmons/Omega B22XL enlarger.
I wouldn't mind that one bit, as it's become somewhat of a chore mixing chemicals, setting up trays, fiddling with lights, opening and closing paper safes - and cleaning up after. But at least I know what I'm going to get (most of the time) as it's a process I can control. But, in the digital world, with its flatbed scanners, film scanners, ICE, Silverfast, Vuescan, photoshop 2.0, 6.0, to say nothing of cantakerous printers with a tendency toward ink nozzle's jamming randomly - I guess if I were a younger man and had grown up with this stuff it might be easier to master. In short, I find it immensely time-consuming and frustrating, as you've no doubt sensed by now.
As for sending B/W film off to some lab where what happens to it is beyond one's control, it's really quite simple to develop at home. All you need is a change bag, a stainless steel Nikkor tank or two, some reels, a darkroom thermometer, some sort of timer (used Graylabs are reasonable), D76, stop bath, fixer, a developing chart (can download one from Freestyle, or from their catalog), a small bottle of photoflo, a dust-free place to hang negs while they dry, and some negafiles.
And then, if you toss out ICE and reduce the DPI's during your scan, and you still get unacceptable graininess, then you'll know, at least, that it's not your negative's fault.
(sorry about carrying on so)
Ted
It's when you leave the wet room and enter the digital room that creating decent images from film negatives becomes far more complex. Not a problem with images made with a DSLR, but very fiddly otherwise. I wouldn't mind paying out some bucks for a system (film neg scanner or flatbed) that I could rely upon to produce an 11/14 image as easily and as effortlessly as I can produce one in a darkroom using my old Simmons/Omega B22XL enlarger.
I wouldn't mind that one bit, as it's become somewhat of a chore mixing chemicals, setting up trays, fiddling with lights, opening and closing paper safes - and cleaning up after. But at least I know what I'm going to get (most of the time) as it's a process I can control. But, in the digital world, with its flatbed scanners, film scanners, ICE, Silverfast, Vuescan, photoshop 2.0, 6.0, to say nothing of cantakerous printers with a tendency toward ink nozzle's jamming randomly - I guess if I were a younger man and had grown up with this stuff it might be easier to master. In short, I find it immensely time-consuming and frustrating, as you've no doubt sensed by now.
As for sending B/W film off to some lab where what happens to it is beyond one's control, it's really quite simple to develop at home. All you need is a change bag, a stainless steel Nikkor tank or two, some reels, a darkroom thermometer, some sort of timer (used Graylabs are reasonable), D76, stop bath, fixer, a developing chart (can download one from Freestyle, or from their catalog), a small bottle of photoflo, a dust-free place to hang negs while they dry, and some negafiles.
And then, if you toss out ICE and reduce the DPI's during your scan, and you still get unacceptable graininess, then you'll know, at least, that it's not your negative's fault.
(sorry about carrying on so)
Ted
leif e
-
One big load of great advice! Thanks!
One big load of great advice! Thanks!
I´ve been working on the problems myself as well since I posted my initial question. And I´ve had three more films back from the same lab. The scanner operator there suggested I try to scan my negs as positives (which I´ve also tried before) - and perhaps using non-T-grain film.
Actually, I think this lab needs to clean up it´s routines a bit. To many specks and dots on my negs to be coincidence. Even so, my results this time around are much better - and I did scan as 16 bit RGB posotives. This coincided with my first pics form my new Canon P, so I posted one of them. Thanks again for all the interesting input. This place is great!
leif e
One big load of great advice! Thanks!
I´ve been working on the problems myself as well since I posted my initial question. And I´ve had three more films back from the same lab. The scanner operator there suggested I try to scan my negs as positives (which I´ve also tried before) - and perhaps using non-T-grain film.
Actually, I think this lab needs to clean up it´s routines a bit. To many specks and dots on my negs to be coincidence. Even so, my results this time around are much better - and I did scan as 16 bit RGB posotives. This coincided with my first pics form my new Canon P, so I posted one of them. Thanks again for all the interesting input. This place is great!
leif e
