Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/05/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Oh absolutely! I bet it does a VERY good job and may be easier to use than some other options most of the time. I just hate reviews where they go all gushing on one aspect (sharpness) and proclaim a solution is the greatest thing since sliced bread. On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Ken Carney <kcarney1 at cox.net> wrote: > I just thought it was something to try, as in you don't really know until > you try... > > > > On 5/1/2014 7:31 PM, Richard Man wrote: > >> That so called test is missing a lot of points, e.g. dynamic range of the >> film vs. the 5DII sensor etc. >> >> >> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Ken Carney <kcarney1 at cox.net> wrote: >> >> Peter, >>> >>> The OKC Lug was having a somewhat similar discussion at our luncheon >>> meeting today. I am happy with digital b&w prints, but I can relate to >>> the >>> impulse to revert to film (for most of my darkroom years, I printed >>> platinum/palladium contact prints in preference to store-bought silver >>> paper). First, I would suggest that you develop your own film. I >>> wouldn't >>> leave the most important part of the process to someone else. You don't >>> need a full darkroom, just a place to load the reels and drop them into >>> the >>> developer tank and you can use the developer that you prefer. I have a >>> Nikon LS-4000 35mm film scanner that is OK, though as you note "16-bit" >>> over-sampled scans take a while. I am spoiled since they are not that >>> close to my 4x5 and 8x10 film scans. Here is an interesting approach I >>> may >>> try someday: >>> >>> http://www.addicted2light.com/2012/11/23/best-film-scanner- >>> canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-drum-scanner-vs-epson-v700/ >>> >>> Good luck and I hope this helps. >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> >>> On 5/1/2014 4:31 PM, Peter Klein 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 >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> // http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto