B&W negs all need punch

[beemermark]

So 40+ year in the darkroom and with my newest house I don't have a darkroom. Not to be specific about film or developers (I use many in 35mm & 120) all most of of my scanned negatives need to use the "high light" function to get the desired contrast. I can't get my head around why this is necessary. Exposure is good, shadows are great, high lights are ugh.

 

[koraks]

Sounds like an issue in the digital part of the process, really. How do you scan your negatives (what equipment, software and configuration) and what do you do in terms of post-processing? Can you post some scans as they appear prior to doing any optimization in Photoshop etc?

 

[250swb]

So 40+ year in the darkroom and with my newest house I don't have a darkroom. Not to be specific about film or developers (I use many in 35mm & 120) all most of of my scanned negatives need to use the "high light" function to get the desired contrast. I can't get my head around why this is necessary. Exposure is good, shadows are great, high lights are ugh.

If you have a flatbed or dedicated film scanner the ideal scan should be a fairly flat low contrast scan that contains as much information as possible. You then have the ideal starting point for adjusting the brightness and contrast in post editing. Do not try to achieve a perfect image directly via the scanner, they simply do not have the dynamic range to cope with a typical well exposed negative (cue somebody with a Flextight chiming in with 'well in my experience...).

 

[albireo]

They simply do not have the dynamic range to cope with a typical well exposed negative (cue somebody with a Flextight chiming in with 'well in my experience...).

And they should chime in, and in big numbers, because you are offering incorrect information.

 

[koraks]

Do not try to achieve a perfect image directly via the scanner, they simply do not have the dynamic range to cope with a typical well exposed negative

Some low-end flatbed scanners may struggle with dense B&W negatives. But the commonly used flatbed scanners for film/negative scanning do just fine with a normally processed and exposed negative, and will even handle rather dense film quite well.

cue somebody with a Flextight chiming in with 'well in my experience...

Not sure what the connection is with a Flextight. Yes, I have one sitting here. What's up with it?

 

[Romanko]

Some low-end flatbed scanners may struggle with dense B&W negatives.

And even they might do OK when using new Silverfast 9 software with the multi-exposure feature.

With 40+ years in the darkroom your negatives are almost certainly well exposed and developed, and as @koraks suggested the problem might be in scanning. More details on your scanning technique are required. Are you scanning B&W or color? Are your scanner, monitor and printer calibrated?

 

[250swb]

And they should chime in, and in big numbers, because you are offering incorrect information.

What is incorrect exactly? Is it incorrect to say that an Epson or a Plustek don't have the same DR as a higher end scanner like a Flextight? So if the OP is using a 'cheaper' scanner they have to adapt how they make a scan to cope with a lower DR. Waiting to hear from you.

 

[250swb]

Not sure what the connection is with a Flextight. Yes, I have one sitting here. What's up with it?

Nothings up with it, just waiting for somebody to say the OP needs one.

 

[koraks]

Is it incorrect to say that an Epson or a Plustek don't have the same DR as a higher end scanner like a Flextight?

No, but it's most definitely wildly incorrect to suggest that an Epson or Plustek (which is not a flatbed*) will struggle with B&W negatives that print fine on a paper grade ranging from 5 to 00.

*Plustek does manufacture flatbed scanners, but their scanners intended for film scanning are not flatbeds.

So if the OP is using a 'cheaper' scanner they have to adapt how they make a scan to cope with a lower DR.

Probably not the issue. But let's see what kind of images OP gets from their digitization process, and what kind of hardware is required in the first place.

Nothings up with it, just waiting for somebody to say the OP needs one.

That would be silly.

This is a quick inversion of a flatbed scan (Epson 4990) from an 8x10 negative developed in ID62 for carbon printing. The highlights range up to 2.2 to 2.5logD on this negative. This is generously within the usable dynamic range of the scanner. Trying to print this negative on silver gelatin paper would fail miserably since even grade 00 would be too hard.

 

[albireo]

What is incorrect exactly? Is it incorrect to say that an Epson or a Plustek don't have the same DR as a higher end scanner like a Flextight?

Don't twist what you wrote. You wrote the following

Do not try to achieve a perfect image directly via the scanner, they simply do not have the dynamic range to cope with a typical well exposed negative

You made a blanket, incorrect statement about 'scanners' in general not about 'Epsons' or 'Plusteks'.

The dynamic range of the CCD of even a medium range Epson flatbed exceeds that of film. That is not surprising, because if I were an engineer working to design a popular, mass produced scanner and I worked for a well resourced Japanese corporation, I would do some research into film latitude before deciding on cost/benefit ratio and price point of the CCD line sensor I'd recommend to adopt for the scanner design.

The range of density on color negative film is approximately 5 stops. That of reversal film and B&W film is approximately 7 stops. The CCDs in many consumer scanners have a range of approximately 9 stops.

The issue of DR in a B&W negative (given the sub-forum where this thread is posted I'm assuming OP is interested in B&W negatives) is a non-issue when it comes to scanning, because, as you probably know, the negative is a non-linear information storage device as Zones I-III and Zones VIII-X are compressed wrt the reproduced scene. They are later to be expanded via projection on photographic paper or suitable re-linearisations done at scanning time.

As other commenters are correctly suggesting, the device is likely not the culprit here.

 

[relistan]

My Epson V550 does fine with densities up to 4+ (scanning B&W slides) using the Epson software. Don’t think the modern scanners are the issue. This thing is like 12 years old.

Anyway, as was said it’s almost certainly just needing to set the right white and black points. Possibly adjust contrast.

 

[ic-racer]

So 40+ year in the darkroom and with my newest house I don't have a darkroom. Not to be specific about film or developers (I use many in 35mm & 120) all most of of my scanned negatives need to use the "high light" function to get the desired contrast. I can't get my head around why this is necessary. Exposure is good, shadows are great, high lights are ugh.

This is the 100 % analog section so you will have to print them and report back.

 

[runswithsizzers]

...all most of of my scanned negatives need to use the "high light" function to get the desired contrast.

Where is this "high light" function? Is that something you see in your scanning software? Or something in some kind of image editing software you use after scanning? I assume you know that quite often most scanned images do need some additional refinements using some kind of post processing software.

 

[pentaxuser]

This is the 100 % analog section so you will have to print them and report back.

Good point and given the range of opinions expressed with a range that differs to an extent it might be sensible to apply a speed test and development test to this film It doesn't take a lot of film to do it but really requires being able to do prints of the negatives post processing in your case as you don't have a darkroom that accurately reflects the actual negative as it is

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

t it might be sensible to apply a speed test and development test to this film

There's no indication at this point that there's any problem with how the film has been processed.

This is the 100 % analog section so you will have to print them and report back.

It's fine to post examples here. If the problem turns out to be scanning related, we'll happily move the thread to the Scanning section.

 

[pentaxuser]

There's no indication at this point that there's any problem with how the film has been processed.

It was just that in the range of what he needs to do to get the "right" negatives that give him what he feels he is lacking there appear to be difference of opinion which I found a little confusing and I simply wondered on that basis if it might not be quicker and more accurate to do the standard speed and development tests after which the OP can say to hos own satisfaction that he has established the right film speed and development time for the particular camera , meter and film he uses

However if we have eliminated any and all problems with exposure and development then fine It appears that you may know best based on what appears to be a very definitive conclusion above

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

He's got 40 years' worth of perfectly printable negatives. They can be scanned just fine, too. There's no need to make things unnecessarily complicated by sending him back to square one.

It appears that you may know best based on what appears to be a very definitive conclusion above

Anyone with modest film scanning experience can confirm this 'very definitive conclusion', which really is just a bit of common sense.

 

[JerseyDoug]

If I were in the OP's position I would find an old negative that printed well in the darkroom on Grade 2 paper and then pursue the matter with the Hybrid forum folks confident that I was using a known good negative.

I follow the Photrio Hybrid forum and would be happy to share my experience scanning my good old darkroom negatives there.

 

[4season]

I try to scan my negatives such that the output is a good "fit" for the TIFF or JPEG output file. Color and b&w negatives are pretty low-contrast and unchallenging as far as the scanner hardware is concerned, but if you scan as such, it can be difficult to correct in post-processing, as you simply "run out of curve adjustment" and the tonal values won't separate nicely.

Transparencies are a different can 'o worms, and can put a scanner's Dmax capabilities to the test, but are otherwise pretty straightforward.

 

[pentaxuser]

He's got 40 years' worth of perfectly printable negatives. They can be scanned just fine, too. There's no need to make things unnecessarily complicated by sending him back to square one.


Anyone with modest film scanning experience can confirm this 'very definitive conclusion', which really is just a bit of common sense.

Fine If his problem is definitively and solely one of a lack of knowledge of scanning as the negatives are perfectly printable should this not be in the hybrid section as your reply to ic-racer seems to state. Except that you seem to have left open what the problem may be
Here's your quote "If the problem turns out to be scanning related, we'll happily move the thread to the Scanning section" .

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

If you go see a doctor with your arm in an unnatural angle, they'll say "pretty sure that's broken", but they still won't put a plaster cast around it before they've seen the xrays.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Why are you scanning to begin with?

 

[beemermark]

Seems a lot of people are over thinking a simple question. "High Lights" are that part of a scan corresponding to pure white or close to it. I'm scanning with an Epson V700 that I've used for at least 10 years. I use Picasa 3 to catalog. Way obsolete. I have Light Room for editing but Picasa is the fastest, easier way I've found to catalog and make simple editing choices. When I had a darkroom I used Kodak film almost exclusively for 35mm thru 4x5. Now I've gone to mostly Arista. I quite saving negatives a long time ago (once you get over 10,000 negatives you start to wonder what your doing). So I thought my base reference using Arista (vs Kodak) was not giving mee what I wanted.

I gave up trying to adjust to scans in the scanner software (something I forgot about). I just scan and make quick adjustments in Picasa. So the more informative posts have made me realize I'm not screwing up my developing (which is why I posted in the analog section) but simply a function of the scanner. I almost never have to adjust for the shadows but always have to move the "high lights" up one or two stops.

You can close the thread now.

 

[250swb]

Don't twist what you wrote. You wrote the following



You made a blanket, incorrect statement about 'scanners' in general not about 'Epsons' or 'Plusteks'.

Which is why I made the distinction by mentioning a high end scanner that has plenty of DR. The rest of your reply is fiction as well.

For your information and clarity this is the simplest quote I can find from the Silverfast web site

"The dynamic range of a scanner, also referred to as density range or contrast range, is a measurement for a scanner's capability to recognize contrast levels. Color negatives and slides consist of multiple film layers, which respond to light differently. Therefore, transparent originals achieve a high dynamic range when captured, which usually exceeds a scanner's capabilities."

 

[250swb]

No, but it's most definitely wildly incorrect to suggest that an Epson or Plustek (which is not a flatbed*) will struggle with B&W negatives that print fine on a paper grade ranging from 5 to 00.

*Plustek does manufacture flatbed scanners, but their scanners intended for film scanning are not flatbeds.

Well firstly I didn't suggest that a Plustek scanner was a flatbed, I simply mention two typical makes of scanner following on from previously mentioning flatbed bed scanners and dedicated film scanners, so why should you want to put words into my mouth?

With a negative you can use many techniques the scanner can't use, like dodging and burning of difficult areas or use different types of developer, but for the scanner the 'developer' can only be another type of software to see if that is better. And neither can the scanner know what the negative is supposed to represent or indeed know what type of image you want, so comparing the DR to paper grades is a fatuous comparison between a dumb machine and a person who already has an idea of what the image should represent. So in situations where the scanner isn't representing what you think it should you make sure there is no shadow or highlight clipping and take control by making a low contrast scan, and use Photoshop as your darkroom because there you can burn a difficult highlight, change the metaphorical 'grade of paper', etc. if you've not 'clipped' any information away in the scanning process.