Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/05/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 >> > >