Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/05/01

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

Subject: [Leica] Scanning Tri-X
From: richard at (Richard Man)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 17:31:22 -0700
References: <>

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> 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:
> 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.
>> < 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.
>> <
>> 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:
>> <>
>> --Peter
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See for more information
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

// richard <>

In reply to: Message from kcarney1 at (Ken Carney) ([Leica] Scanning Tri-X)