mgd711
Medium Format Baby!!
I thought tanning/staining developers made a film harder to scan?
Arjay
Time Traveller
That's the first time I hear this type of comment. Can you specify in what way scannng is becoming harder?
Is the claim of finer grain structure and higher acutance incorrect with Prescysol EF?
Last edited:
mgd711
Medium Format Baby!!
I’m not saying that is the case... but from what I’ve been told and read, dark, dense negatives (and therefore negatives developed in staining developers) are much harder to scan.
I’m hoping somebody else more knowledgeable will set me straight on this.
As for Prescysol EF I’ve never heard of it before (limited experience) so can’t comment on it.
I’m hoping somebody else more knowledgeable will set me straight on this.
As for Prescysol EF I’ve never heard of it before (limited experience) so can’t comment on it.
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
I can't believe no one has offered as simple a solution as: limit your post scanning manipulations to Levels and Profiles. If your negs are flat, you'll need to bump up contrast in post processing via curves or contrast adjustments. These serve to greatly exaggerate grain. Create a sharp negative with a touch more contrast than for wet printing and you're better off when your final output is via scanning. Finally, poor sharpening protocols also make a mockery of any attempts made earlier on in the chain, to reduce grain.
Chris101
summicronia
Actually staining developers make it harder to darkroom print, especially with multi-contrast papers, since the color of the light affects contrast. AfaIk, stained negatives scan just fine (look at BW400CN, as an extreme. Or coffee developed negs.)
jke
Well-known
You can have a film-developer combination that has a finer grain structure and higher acutance but doesn't scan well. Think of all the Tri-X combinations that result in lovely silver prints out of a darkroom. A lot of those negatives would show really ugly grain when scanned. The problem is that many developer/film characteristics were worked out for the darkroom, not for the scanner.
Scanning uses a geometric array to register what is largely a fluid and random structure. Think of looking at a photo with a window screen set over it. Some photos might be less affected than others in terms of image quality based on how the elements of the image interact with the geometry of the screen's mesh, even if you were using a very fine screen. So how the grain interacts with the geometry of the scanner's CCD has more to do with what the grain will look like than how that negative prints in a darkroom (software fills in the spaces the CCD doesn't "see" which also helps to create grain problems if the grain geometry leads the software to increase grain size rather than merely reproduce it.)
I have been scanning images for nearly 10 years now, and the only way I have found to deal with grain is through the adjustment of my developing technique - not just what developer or film I use but how I handle the film and developer as well. The variables that seem to make the biggest difference, regardless of film or developer, are temperature and agitation.
Last edited:
mackigator
Well-known
2nd the neatimage recommendation - do the grain reduction in post.
But that is very grainy - question your dev process to see where you can tweak it. Less agitation, perhaps?
But that is very grainy - question your dev process to see where you can tweak it. Less agitation, perhaps?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Arjay, I notice you have never mentioned prints. Are you actually finding the grain in your prints objectionable? Or, are you speculating based on looking at scans at 100% magnification on a monitor? There can be a big difference. The JPG you posted looks about like iso 400 film normally does when pixel peeping but makes good prints.
Also, you mention +1 1/3 EV compensation. Is it possible that your metering technique is giving you dense negs? I can meter that scene of a bike against a snow background by 3 methods but none of them involve dialing in EV compensation for an auto metering exposure. That would be just a WAG for me. But maybe you know how to do that and get accurate exposures. I have found that slightly thin negs scan better and show less grain.
not_in_good_order
Well-known
Film has grain, it is an unavoidable part of the medium. Looking at the scan at this magnification is not useful for getting an idea of what a print will look like. Tri X is a grainy film, but I don't think anyone ever looked at one of Salgado's images and said, "Terrible! Look at all that grain!"
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
Arjay
Time Traveller
Thank you for your reply, Bob.
You caught me here. I haven't printed any of my newly developed films yet. And since I do not have a wet lab with an optical enlarger, would printing the digital file yield comparable results to having them printed optically from my negatives?
The 1 1/3 EV compensation was just a guesstimate. I had been using my Hexar RF in AE mode, and I know it is measuring with a center-weighted characteristic. Maybe I can indeed improve my metering in such cases.
You're speaking of three measurement methods you might use. Could you please elaborate a little more?
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
1) sunny 16 with some adjustment for cloud cover if appropriate
2) reflective reading off the palm of my hand with built in camera meter
3) incident reading with a hand held meter.
Any of those would give you a suggested starting point that you would apply some human intelligence for adjust for the brightness of the snow / fact that detail is in the shadows (a contradiction).
B&W film does have incredible latitude and many methods will get you in the ballpark for a printable neg. But I still believe that applying some intelligent thought (even subconsciously) is key.