[Leica] Scanning Tri-X

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

Just two quick thoughts the multi scan thing is a for sure thing you'd not
want to just let it run through once. I set it for as high a number as I
have time for and if its key image I make time. As in I take a walk around
the block.
Also what comes out of the scanner no matter how much you've fine tuned it
is not set at stone. Its not a final product!. You then have to tweak it
just like any image which came out of your camera.

Also scanning is a thing that your 100th scan is going to look better than
your 50th. Its a continual learning process. Your first scans are going to
be rough and later on next year you'd be wanting to re scan them with
everything you've learned about the whole thing.


On 5/1/14 5:31 PM, "Peter A. Klein" <pklein at threshinc.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information




-- 
Mark William Rabiner
Photographer
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/