Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/05/17

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Scanning silver halide films - which one scans best? - OT
From: pklein at 2alpha.net (Peter Klein)
Date: Mon May 17 22:21:39 2004

Is it possible that many of the people who have B&W scan issues are running 
~2000 dpi scanners?  I used to run one, and it was fine for color.  For 
Tri-X, it gave me grain that was bigger than on the negative.  Evidently 
Tri-X grain + 2000 dpi pixels = Aliasing City.

Chromagenic films scan smoother because the dye clouds are, er, cloudy, as 
opposed to discrete crystals with clearly defined edges.

The problem with B&W scanning is when you have a pixel that is a certain 
size, and grains that are near that size, but a little smaller or a little 
bigger, bad things can happen.  You can switch film, sure.  But you can 
also mess with exposure and development a bit and see if that gets the 
pixels and the crystals more compatible with each other.  A little more 
light and/or a little less time in the soup can help.  Or a kinder, gentler 
soup.

FWIW, Tri-X and Xtol scans fine for me at 4000 dpi.  The grain in the scan 
looks similar to the grain in the film when looked at with a high-power 
magnifier.  Now, if you have religious objections to grain, then use 
chromagenic, and expose at EI 250 or 200.  But avoid shadowy scenes, or Mr. 
Grain will return.

--Peter



At 06:24 PM 5/17/04 -0700, B. D. wrote:
>Again, I just don't get all the whining about scanning and film
>types...Tri-X, Fuji Acros, Delta 3200 -throw it in the neg holder and
>scan it....period.



Replies: Reply from jls at runbox.com (Jeffery Smith) ([Leica] Scanning silver halide films - which one scans best? - OT)
Reply from n.wajsman at chello.nl (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] Scanning silver halide films - which one scans best? - OT)