What DMax for scanning ?

[kubilai]

...Which DMax for scanning ?

My Tetenal developping sheet gives developping times according to DMax wanted :
- Beta 0.55 for enlargers with condensor
- Beta 0.70 for enlargers with diffusor (colour head)
Then for scanning, what would be the best ?

Thanks for all advices

 

[Ronald M]

Use the suggested times for condenser. Do a test with 6 exposures, 12" of film. If the highlights block, cut the time more.

The best scans will be at 50% box speed and cut the time 20% from standard time or the time that print best with a condenser enlarger. You will get lots of nice shadows and no blown highlights. Some films scan better than others, Tri X being the best. I can`t get Plus X to scan worth beans, but it prints nicely.

Photoshop will increase contrast nicely, but it is hard to get rid of it just like a darkroom.

I have occasions to HDR a neg and you do it with two or more scans . some favoring shadows, some favoring the highlights. It works, but is a pain.

I have dye dodged a neg or two for scanning, Put red dye on the deep shadows so you can more aggressively add scan density. All the old darkroom tricks work ok.

 

[venchka]

... I can`t get Plus X to scan worth beans, but it prints nicely.

Funny. My Plus-X negs., old & new, scan beautifully. I love Plus-X. Too bad I didn't load the freezer before it died.

Wayne

 

[kubilai]

Thanks for answer. I enjoy more and more B&W and hope I will improve.

 

[sevo]

It really depends on the scanner. Drum scanners as well as many 35mm slide scanners (notably those with LED illumination) effectively have a point light source and hence need development to the same or even lower gamma than given for condenser enlargers. Just about any other scanner has diffused illumination.

Besides, there is the matter of electronics. Some scanners (with insufficient exposure control) have issues coping with a large contrast range, others (with insufficient bit depth) can't cope with the small differences between steps implicit in low gradation.

In general I'd recommend going with a lower (for condenser) contrast - quality scanners of every type are either optimized or can at the very least cope with that, while there are high quality scanners that will fail over high contrast. And low resolving office/home flatbeds won't deliver that much better results even when given higher contrast negatives, so there is not really that much sense in optimizing for them.

 

[x-ray]

Do a test with both developments. It would be a pretty bad scanner that you have to cut your ISO in half and reduce development. In most cases a normal contrast neg of about .70 will scan quite well.

Suggestion, always scan in 16 bit if you have the option. Less information is lost when editing. When finished editing convert to 8 bit. Always work in tif or photoshop files and save in those formats as a master file. LZW compression is ok if you want smaller files. Never edit jpg files. Jpg files are heavily compressed and have a great deal of loss when editing. Loss shows up as black vertical lines in the histogram. The more of the the closer you get to posterizing the image.ost data can never be recovered.

A good film processed to print on a grade 2 paper with a condensor enlarger will scan just fine on a good scanner.

 

[Roger Hicks]

...Which DMax for scanning ?

My Tetenal developping sheet gives developping times according to DMax wanted :
- Beta 0.55 for enlargers with condensor
- Beta 0.70 for enlargers with diffusor (colour head)
Then for scanning, what would be the best ?

Thanks for all advices

Those are contrast (gamma) figures, not Dmax. The lower contrast will give a lower Dmax for a given exposure.

For scanning with most scanners , you don't want high densities, so don't overexpose (DON'T cut the ISO in half) and don't over-develop -- but equally, don't listen to those who tell you to under-develop.

As with wet printing, the only way to get the very best is via personal experiment. Bracket a whole film's worth of exposures, one over, one under, for a dozen different exposures; develop as for condenser; and see what works best.

Better still, wet print.

Cheers,

R.

 

[John Bragg]

I have been pleased with scans from film developed for condenser use. Since qetting my scanner I have not made any massive changes as I fully intend wet printing the same negatives when circumatances allow.