Some images: https://efbeo.blog/2017/06/13/2452/ Pancro 120 @250 iso, x-tol 1+1, 20°C, 20'. Epson V700. Today, I printed a scene with a contrast of 8 stops with the Durst 805 splitgrade. Workable...
My first essays... The film has a 'blanco' of 0,20 density versus FP4+. What is the reason? X-tol works well with T-max 400, so no no problem of the developer.
Why are you scanning? The grain is horrible!
Mindless and provoking question (imo) - maybe he likes to share his results ... ?
Indeed, I prefer also printing in the darkroom. For what it's worth: some thoughts and images about the combination: https://efbeo.blog/2017/06/16/first-impression-pancro-x-tol/ This w-e I wil give it a try with ID-11. Kind regards FredI will always prefer an (self -) enlarged / printed negative ...
But this is not what I'm talking about. What about those photographs in our galleries - what about those in various threads ? All crap ??
Much better Macfred! @400iso?
I cannot believe how many people are scanning conventional B&W negatives, oblivious to the fact that the results look like crap. I do not understand this, at all.
An image is only an image, when it is printed (in the darkroom);Some of us don't have darkrooms.
Some of us don't have darkrooms.
In the mean time I did 2 test. 1) Pancro @ 400 iso and x-tol. 'For me': this combo doesn't work at all. The grain is terrifying. So, I don't show the results of the testfilm. 2) The second testfilm: Pancro @ 400 iso in ID-11 1+1 17' at 20°C: one 120 film, 10 images. The results you can find on my blog. There was no post-processing. I'm disapointed about the grain and the sharpness. 'For me' there are much better films on the market (like FP4+, Acros, Tmax100 and Tmax 400, Tri-x. Pancro is too much marketing. It's a pity that I must say it.
Just for what it's worth. Kind regards fred
https://efbeo.blog/2017/06/16/pancro-and-id-11/
I cannot believe how many people are scanning conventional B&W negatives, oblivious to the fact that the results look like crap. I do not understand this, at all.
How else can we show our results here? I don't understand your comment, at all.
Andrew doesn't do standard prints - all his final prints are in various Alternative processes, like Carbon prints, which often don't scan well.Print the negatives on paper, then scan the print.
Why are you scanning? The grain is horrible!
I cannot believe how many people are scanning conventional B&W negatives, oblivious to the fact that the results look like crap. I do not understand this, at all.
Print the negatives on paper, then scan the print.
In my opinion, scanning is as much a difficult craft as printing in the darkroom (and way less fun).
Indeed, it is. And there is more: even if you make a good scan, you are not sure how the beholder would see it on another device (mostly no device is calibrated) ...
... So an image is only an image when it is printed (and shown under good light conditions).
I cannot believe how many people are scanning conventional B&W negatives, oblivious to the fact that the results look like crap. I do not understand this, at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?