Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/05/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> // http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto