Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-16-2010, 05:29 PM   #16
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
...[*]Subject range can be huge...probably up to 20 stops

...14+ stops on the negative sounds great, but you still have to cook it down at some point. It is almost better to use darkroom development technique to bring the subject range down to a more workable 9 or 10 stops.
Steve
This is exactly what I'm saying. By using special developing techniques(2-bath compensating), you are in essence tone mapping the SBR into the range of the negative. Like N-1, N-2, N+2 etc.. If the scene has 3-4 stops it gets roughly mapped to the proper range, but if your SBR exceeds the films ability, it gets compressed down to the film's range. Then if the film exceeds your monitor, the values get compressed/expanded to your display's contrast range... and then the prints range.

I may be wrong, but I tend to only think of stops when talking about the scene. After that it is density, or RGB values.

@ Ben
I agree many scanner manufacturers lie. Big time! However, if the scanner has a real range of 3.0+ it should be getting the stuff off of a negative. Positive film... no way!

---------- Post added 06-16-2010 at 07:42 PM ----------

BTW guys. This would make a great article/thread in the new forum. "Devoloping, density, scanning, and prints. Where are we now in the digital age?" Examples of how different developers and techniques affect digital results and how they compare to negatives that would be considered ideal/good for printing optically.

Steve... you've been on a roll lately! How 'bout it? I may give it a shot too, but with a 3 year old and another little one coming soon, I may not be able to get to it... or do it justice. Not to mention, I don't have the faintest about what an ideal negative should look like for analog prints.


Last edited by Vertex Ninja; 06-16-2010 at 05:54 PM.
06-22-2010, 01:20 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote

...deltaD (should be the Greek letter delta, but no idea, how to type that...) = Dynamic Range, the scanner can reproduce...
Ben
If your HTTP client is HTML 4.0 compliant, all you need to do is type in the HTML Decimal Code For Greek Symbol: Δ (= & #916; with no space between & and #)
06-22-2010, 01:34 PM   #18
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,528
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
An indicator for this might be, that Silverfast and Vuescan both include Multiscanning features and that in my experience these produce very visibly wider contrast ranges than any single scan pass.


The conclusion is, that a scanner needs multiple expsoures to cover the whole range and than automatically merges these exposures to an DRI image.

Snipping some things out of there.

I'm not as good with all the computer terms and how HDR deals with its given tasks as such, but I suppose my question here is: why not? This sounds like a very valid way to go about things, to my half-compy-translation-literate ears, assuming the scanner is mechanically-precise enough to stay aligned for each pass, or... I guess why not have it basically do two scans at once and make the two exposures electronically-sorted....

Also, that's a great idea for a thread, Vertex.

I'd be reluctant to expose or develop specifically to scan: frankly, I'd rather print the way I want the old fashioned way and scan *that,* but this'd be really useful conversation: I've always preferred to have my negs rather on the dense-ish-and-contrasty side, which is clearly not what my scanner would most like to be coping with, apparently.
06-22-2010, 01:44 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
That's true. And AA developped the zone system from out of his LF experience. Working with that on roll film is a pain - I never did. I know some people do that, by marking film parts with stickers for different developping times etc. But I really think a 35mm neg is not worth that much effort. That's probably a purely personal thing, though.

Ben
The easiest way to do that with MF is to have a camera with changeable backs (like a Hasseblad) and devote the roll of film to a N-1, N-2 etc. And you don't have to shoot up the entire roll either - just develop it anyway. And if you want a resemblance to N+1 for flatter negatives without actually adjusting exposure and developing longer, you can use Farmer's Reducer after developing the negative as noted in AA's book, The Negative.

06-22-2010, 02:39 PM   #20
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
The easiest way to do that with MF is to have a camera with changeable backs (like a Hasseblad) and devote the roll of film to a N-1, N-2 etc. And you don't have to shoot up the entire roll either - just develop it anyway. And if you want a resemblance to N+1 for flatter negatives without actually adjusting exposure and developing longer, you can use Farmer's Reducer after developing the negative as noted in AA's book, The Negative.
I use Farmer's only on prints - it is a hard to control fomula… Ofcourse the Zone System is possible with smaller formats - I just don't use it for that. If I invest the brain work I go for LF right away. After all the ZS and lab work is time consuming anyway.

Ben
06-22-2010, 03:36 PM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
I use Farmer's only on prints - it is a hard to control fomula… Ofcourse the Zone System is possible with smaller formats - I just don't use it for that. If I invest the brain work I go for LF right away. After all the ZS and lab work is time consuming anyway.

Ben
You can use Selenium toner on negatives too. AA has a zone/density plot in his book on a tested film. It expanded the density similar to a N+1.

Yeah, to do it right, it takes a lot of work to establish your N-1, N+1 times. But you can get most of the way there and good enough with a fraction of the work by using some published times for the film/developer you're using done by someone else as a starting point or just add/subtract 10, 15, 20%, etc from your normal times, add/subtract 1/3 or 1/2 stop from the metered exposure and trial and error it as you go. So what if you didn't actually move a zone a full stop in value down/up but something like say 80% of the way there. You're still practicing the concept and benefiting from it.

I'd say if you're using someones published times and their normal time consistently results in a good print on grade 2 paper, you can be confident their expansion/compression times will be good enough for you too.

Last edited by tuco; 06-22-2010 at 04:14 PM. Reason: Add some clarity
06-22-2010, 06:39 PM   #22
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
QuoteOriginally posted by Vertex Ninja Quote
...
I agree many scanner manufacturers lie. Big time! However, if the scanner has a real range of 3.0+ it should be getting the stuff off of a negative. Positive film... no way!...
Quoting myself here. My scanner has an option to read film density and I recently checked the d-range of some Pyrocat HD developed Neopan 400. The film was shot at 200 in very contrasty full sun and developed 2-bath. I feel the concentration was a bit strong, because the negatives have a bit more density in the highlights than I would normally consider ideal for scanning. Even still, the negatives top out at 1.6d in the blue(due to the pyro stain) and 1.4-1.5d in the red and green. Specular highlights were 1.6+, but never exceeding 2.0d. So if my math is correct that's no more than 7 stops of film density; the scene had more than that, but I do not have actual numbers. In this case, the scanner only needed 2.0-2.5 d-range to get everything off. For comparison, some Astia, the lowest contrast slide film to my knowledge, was showing 2.6d+ in the space between frames.

Edit: Here are a couple from the roll mentioned above. Link


---------- Post added 06-22-2010 at 09:02 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
....
Also, that's a great idea for a thread, Vertex.

I'd be reluctant to expose or develop specifically to scan: frankly, I'd rather print the way I want the old fashioned way and scan *that,* but this'd be really useful conversation: I've always preferred to have my negs rather on the dense-ish-and-contrasty side, which is clearly not what my scanner would most like to be coping with, apparently.
I really want to do it, I just need to come up with a good way to do it justice. Shooting 4x5 would probably be the easiest way, but I don't have a way to develop 4x5 at the moment and only have one horseman 6x9 back. I suppose it wouldn't be bad to waste some film for testing purposes, but I'd like to shoot multiple scenes and develop multiple ways. This would waste quite a few rolls.

Edit: I suppose it can't really be considered a waste if something useful comes from it!

A while back I did a test between Pyrocat and HC110 with 35mm. I counted sprocket holes in the changing bag and cut the roll so that I could use different developers. I'd rather not do that again! There was also an article a few years ago in View Camera magazine about using 2 bath developers for scanning purposes. I'll post a link if I come across the .pdf again. I think it would be nice to find a method that produces negatives that consistently scan well, but also print well for those that do both.

Last edited by Vertex Ninja; 06-22-2010 at 10:53 PM.
06-22-2010, 08:30 PM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,611
Okay, so all this talk about scanner density got me to try a setting I've never really did before. I rescanned this shot with VueScan on my 9000ED with:
  • 4000dpi
  • Number of Samples 16 (max)
  • Fine Mode Checked
  • Multi Exposure Checked

It took one forever and two eternities to finish! I did my usual adjustments and I can't say it was worth the wait. But while editing I zoomed in and I could not see any grain in the sky with this 100TMX. That is a first. This shot was compressed using Gordon Hutchings development times. I've used his times for some 15 years now and have always had good prints on #2 fixed-grade fiber paper.


Hasselblad 500C/M, Zeiss Distagon CB T* 60mm f3.5, Kodak 100TMX, PMK Pyro, Pentax O2 orange filter, Pentax Spotmeter V



Last edited by tuco; 06-23-2010 at 03:35 AM. Reason: Add info
06-22-2010, 09:32 PM   #24
Inactive Account




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 652
Tuco, you are such a ridiculously good Photog!... forget density!

My guess is that the multi-sample averaged the scanner noise. I wish my scanner could multisample. Did you notice any difference in highlight detail or just less noise/grain?
06-22-2010, 10:52 PM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,611
Thanks, Vertex. I think it is the Number Of Samples set to max reduces the grain noise according to the manual. But I don't think I'll be doing multi exposure ever again with samples set to 16 unless it is a really, really good shot I want to maximize. Highlights look about the same if not a touch better. The sun is more defined as a sphere than the previous one which feathered more.
06-23-2010, 02:50 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
Thanks, Vertex. I think it is the Number Of Samples set to max reduces the grain noise according to the manual. But I don't think I'll be doing multi exposure ever again with samples set to 16 unless it is a really, really good shot I want to maximize. Highlights look about the same if not a touch better. The sun is more defined as a sphere than the previous one which feathered more.
I made a series of test runs with Vuescan some time ago. I found, that usually 4 scan passes would yield everything I wished for and that 8 passes was enough for more demanding slides. Everything beyond that would not give better quality, just strain my patience...

Ben
06-23-2010, 03:37 AM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
... I found, that usually 4 scan passes would yield everything I wished for and that 8 passes was enough for more demanding slides. Everything beyond that would not give better quality, just strain my patience...

Ben
That's for sure. It truly taxed my patience too.
06-23-2010, 08:54 PM   #28
Veteran Member
lbenac's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Burnaby, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,313
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
I made a series of test runs with Vuescan some time ago. I found, that usually 4 scan passes would yield everything I wished for and that 8 passes was enough for more demanding slides. Everything beyond that would not give better quality, just strain my patience...

Ben

I had the same results. I usually leave it at 6 samples as my default for the Minolta Elite (135) and 3 samples for the Epson (MF).

Cheers,

Luc
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
coolscan, film, negatives, photography, scanner
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
advice to new scanner dstar Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 4 09-15-2009 04:37 AM
Film scanner recommendations, anyone? heatherslightbox Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 51 04-10-2009 05:07 AM
Film/negative scanner leadbelly Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 8 09-15-2008 08:55 PM
Advice needed for a new scanner please. KungPOW Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 3 08-05-2008 09:20 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:56 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top