[Leica] Scanning Tri-X

[pklein at threshinc.com (Peter Klein)]

I've embarked on an experiment to see whether I want to shoot B&W film 
again.  The "Nurse" picture I recently posted was the beginning of that 
experiment.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563 at N04/13892553280/>

Here are a few things I've noticed while "recalibrating" 
myself--otherwise known as "how the heck did I do this back in '06?"

Here's a side by side of the same Tri-X shot, scanned at 4000 dpi (left) 
and 2000 dpi (right). The negative was developed in Xtol 1:2 by 
Moonphoto, a good B&W lab a few miles from my home.  The scanner is a 
Canon FS-4000, running under VueScan.  Click the double rectangle above 
the picture to see it full size.
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/album170/GrainAliasTriX4Kvs2Kdpi.JPG.html>

The 4000 dpi scan is shown at 50%, 2000 dpi picture at 100%, so the 
image magnification is equal.  Note that the 2000 dpi scan appears to 
have a bit coarser grain due to aliasing.  But remember, this is with 
the negs magnified quite a bit.  If I view the whole frame at a 
reasonable screen size, the difference hardly matters. In fact, some 
available light pictures might appear slightly sharper at 2000 dpi due 
to slight added texture.

A few more things.  My scanner has a "multiple exposure" feature, which 
can get into dense areas of a picture.  It was very helpful for 
Kodachrome slides, even though it takes much longer.  But it's pointless 
for this type of picture.  It can help with overexposed negatives, or 
very high-contrast shots.  Similarly, the multipass feature (take 
several scans and average them) may be helpful for underexposed or very 
low-contrast pictures, but again, it's not necessary on reasonably 
normal negatives.

Why did I bother doing this?  Time. Here are scan times for the various 
options:

4000 dpi, single exposure    2:50
4000 dpi, multi exposure     7:15
2000 dpi, single exposure    0:55

The next thing I'll try is using the lab's own 2000 dpi scans. Another 
lab near my ex-employer did 2000 dpi scans that I didn't like, too 
contrasty and worse aliasing than shown in my examples above.  If this 
lab's 2000 dpi 16-bit TIFF scans are as good as mine, I might as well 
use them for casual stuff, and save my own 4000 dpi scans for the really 
good shots, especially those I want to print.

Another thing I'm going to try is to see how much worse my Epson V730 
flatbed scanner is at this. The V730 is probably faster for the lower 
resolution scans, but the question is whether I'd be happy with those 
scans for casual screen-size posts, vs. my 2000 dpi scans or the lab's.

As an aside, both my horribly out-of date Leica M8 and my Olympus E-M5 
are much better, technically, that Tri-X ISO for ISO.  More detail, 
sharper, blah blah blah. But that's not why I'm trying B&W film again.  
This experiment is about look, feel, texture, and tonality.  Time will 
tell whether it's something I want to stay with, or just an exercise in 
misplaced nostalgia.

Thanks to Ken Norton on the Olympus list for his recent post that got me 
started:
<http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/msg19437.html>

--Peter