best way to expose sheet film for digi negs

[Jarvman]

I'm going to be creating digital negs by first scanning 4x5 delta 100. Could anybody give me any tips on the best way to expose and develop the sheet film prior to scanning. Is there anything I need to know or should it just be devloped as standard? I've just begun playing round with expansion and contraction of negs through development before getting on the road of pt/pd printing and have been happy with what I'm getting. Should I just go with my gut and develop them how I think will best suit the scene if I were to print in normal silver black and white and worry about making adjustments later? :confused:

 

[donbga]

I'm going to be creating digital negs by first scanning 4x5 delta 100. Could anybody give me any tips on the best way to expose and develop the sheet film prior to scanning. Is there anything I need to know or should it just be devloped as standard? I've just begun playing round with expansion and contraction of negs through development before getting on the road of pt/pd printing and have been happy with what I'm getting. Should I just go with my gut and develop them how I think will best suit the scene if I were to print in normal silver black and white and worry about making adjustments later? :confused:

Generally speaking if your negatives print easily on a grade 2 paper then you should have no problem scanning your negatives. I beleive Sandy King has made some tests that suggest a contrast index of about .5 (or possibly a little lower, I can't recall his exact figure but it's in that neighgorhood) is a good target to shoot for if you need to put a number on it.

Don Bryant

 

[Bruce Watson]

If you are ever going to print the film in the darkroom, then what Don Bryant said.

If you are only going to scan, and never print in the darkroom, you can optimize for scanning. You do that by decreasing development a bit to make a less dense negative. You'll have to play with it some to get it right for your scanner and your workflow, but start somewhere around N-1 maybe.

The reason this works is Callier Effect. Callier Effect is the light scattering from the metallic silver. Callier Effect is directly proportional to density. More silver, more reflections. So to lessen Callier Effect in the highlights (dense areas) you decrease development time and therefore highlight density. This has the nice side effect of reducing graininess also since graininess is directly related to density too.

 

[PVia]

I would say to develop your negs as Don said, for Grade 2 - 2 1/2.

You never know what you'll be doing in the future. I started off with scanning less dense negs, and now I have a lot of negs that are very hard to print in silver, now that I have a darkroom. Fortunately, I can scan those older negs, get more contrast in PS, apply a curve and print a neg for pt/pd or any other process in QTR.

I'm looking forward to trying Ron's silver gelatin QTR profile with these flatter negs as well. Film to digital to digital neg to fiber paper...!

 

[lenny]

I would disagree with this. If one wants to be able to do work in the darkroom, then one is stuck with that. However, I believe the best scanning neg is twice as dense as the darkroom neg. Top end is at roughly 2.0 vs 1.0 in transmission density. I had been making negs like this for printing in platinum and I found that the same negs scanned wonderfully (I have a drum scanner).

I have great respect for both Don and Bruce's opinions but my experience varies on this one.

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[Bruce Watson]

I would disagree with this. If one wants to be able to do work in the darkroom, then one is stuck with that. However, I believe the best scanning neg is twice as dense as the darkroom neg. Top end is at roughly 2.0 vs 1.0 in transmission density. I had been making negs like this for printing in platinum and I found that the same negs scanned wonderfully (I have a drum scanner).

I have great respect for both Don and Bruce's opinions but my experience varies on this one.

Lenny
EigerStudios

I'm not saying Mr. Eiger is wrong. Different films, developers, workflows, scanners and software give different results. I've run experiments with 5x4 Tri-X where I ran my Dmax from around 1.0 up to around 3.0. Since I'm also drum scanning, it wasn't difficult to scan any of these. But the results varied quite a bit.

The problem is two fold I think. First, graininess is directly related to density. The more density you build, the more graininess you build, because it's the creating and overlapping of the silver that gives you the grain clumps that form the density. The physics is the physics; it's just how it works. If you are using really fine grained film, or you aren't going for big enlargements, perhaps this isn't such a big deal.

The second thing is Callier Effect. Callier Effect is also directly related to density, for the same reason. The more silver, the more light scatter. What this means to scanning is a decrease in local contrast in the most dense areas -- that is, highlight compression. One can compensate for this with a curve in Photoshop. To some degree anyway. And this, I think, is a big deal. It's a big deal to anyone scanning or enlarging in the darkroom. This is why the darkroom guys preach "only as much density as you need to print easily and no more." It applies to scanning too.

There is a third problem and that is that some films will start to show artifacts if "abused" the way I was abusing Tri-X for awhile. I was seeing "density halos" which looked sort of like ripples in a pond. They formed dense areas of the film that were adjacent to thin areas of the film. Perhaps a developer exhaustion problem, perhaps a development products problem. Since I was using continuous agitation (Jobo CPP-2, 3010 tank) I was surprised either way. And I'm sure that some films will do this and others won't. I'm just sayin'...

Once I got a handle on what the heck was actually going on with the film, particularly Callier Effect, I started testing film going the other way -- thinner than normal. What I found with Tri-X, and have repeated with TMY-2, is that less density is good for scanning. Especially with TMY-2, graininess drops to just about invisible at an 11x enlargement level (normal for my personal work, sufficient for a nice big 125 x 100 cm print). More importantly, I no longer have to do any decompression of my highlights in Photoshop, because at lower densities Callier Effect is much less noticeable.

Clearly, you have to optimize for your film (which will undoubtedly vary widely in how it responds), your developer, your workflow, your scanner and software, etc. This will require anyone who does it to personally do the testing. Just like doing Zone System testing to find your personal EI and "N +/-" development times. Gotta do the testing to know what works for you.

And just as clearly, if you are *ever* going to try to print in the darkroom, *only* optimize for the darkroom. It will scan just fine. You'll just make yourself miserable if you optimize for scanning then try to print in the darkroom.

 

[pellicle]

with respect to density

ICallier Effect is also directly related to density, for the same reason. The more silver, the more light scatter. What this means to scanning is a decrease in local contrast in the most dense areas -- that is, highlight compression. One can compensate for this with a curve in Photoshop. To some degree anyway. And this, I think, is a big deal. It's a big deal to anyone scanning or enlarging in the darkroom. This is why the darkroom guys preach "only as much density as you need to print easily and no more." It applies to scanning too.

I wonder how dependent this is on film? My film scanner is an Epson 3200 and my main black and white film is ADOX sheets. I just can't get it to be so dense as to fully occupy my scanner's range (in the dark area)

for example, this is a fully black sheet scanned.

yet even when photographing a lamp (including the bulb) I don't get that level of density.

however, when thinking about this (and writing this responce) I wonder if when I look at this in detail (below)

I have to ask if this 'luminesent glow' is the callier effect? If so then it suits this image but may be detracting for others. So perhaps some pulling of development is still warranted for the optimum on some scenes?

The problem as I see it then is that without access to a scanner which allows you to optimise the transmitted light levels along its optimum response scale you are getting an inferior result (like my epson).

Hmmm ...

 

[lenny]

Bruce,

I went to your page here: http://www.largeformatpro.com/examples_bw.html

and then created something at the same size.... as a comparison. It is just a test image, but prints beautifully. The little black square in the front of the image at mid bottom is the crop for the thing on the right, blown up to 100%.

It isn't very useful. On the film it's less than 1/4 of an inch (.17) , which would mean to print it at 4 inches tall would be a 16x enlargement, and that would be what it looks like at 13 feet or so... I think I have these numbers right...

So I added another image at the right which is what things would look like at 40 inches from this neg. I have to use a jpeg level of 8 or 9 (out of 100) so don't expect too much. There is a lot more there.

However, I see two things. 1) You and I likely print very differently. I don't want the kind of contrast you show here. This means that we likely have very different approaches to printing. That's an observation, not a value statement. 2) I think some of the grain contrast is the result of Phenidone. It's why I am still using Metol. Doing some tests this week and more on that later...

Film is Efke 25 and developer is D-23. Afternoon sunlight. I don't know if this post clarifies anything... but there it is...

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[Bruce Watson]

Yep. This is why I said "I'm not saying Mr. Eiger is wrong. Different films, developers, workflows, scanners and software give different results."

I realize we are on opposite sides of the spectrum. Nothing wrong with that. But I can only report on my testing with the film, developer, etc. that I use because that's all I've tested. So again, I'm not saying you are wrong. Not at all. I'm just saying what I've found.

TMY-2 is about as different from Efke 25 as films can be. My developer of choice is XTOL by the way. I use it at 1:3, in a Jobo CPP-2 and a 3010 tank.

 

[Bruce Watson]

I wonder how dependent this is on film? My film scanner is an Epson 3200 and my main black and white film is ADOX sheets. I just can't get it to be so dense as to fully occupy my scanner's range (in the dark area)

for example, this is a fully black sheet scanned.

Different films develop density in different ways. You'll never get a fully black sheet to fully occupy a scanner's full range. The histogram you show is about all you'll ever likely get.

yet even when photographing a lamp (including the bulb) I don't get that level of density.

You can if you develop long enough. Cook that film!

I have to ask if this 'luminesent glow' is the callier effect? If so then it suits this image but may be detracting for others. So perhaps some pulling of development is still warranted for the optimum on some scenes?

The problem as I see it then is that without access to a scanner which allows you to optimise the transmitted light levels along its optimum response scale you are getting an inferior result (like my epson).

I don't know how to answer that question. The glow you see there is I suspect mostly flare of one type or another. There is some Callier Effect, but I have no idea how much. Light sources are hard to quantify.

 

[lenny]

Yep. This is why I said "I'm not saying Mr. Eiger is wrong. Different films, developers, workflows, scanners and software give different results."

I hope you noticed that I didn't say you were wrong either. Every time iA get sure about something, someone comes along and has done something with a similar result using entirely different methods. It's also very hard to judge if one is not looking at actual prints.

It's too bad we live so far away....

TMY-2 is about as different from Efke 25 as films can be. My developer of choice is XTOL by the way. I use it at 1:3, in a Jobo CPP-2 and a 3010 tank.

I am still struggling to use modern film myself. It makes very little sense to me. I have a Jobo CPP-2 also and a Sidekick and also do tray dev sometimes... I am running more tests on it this week and will post back when I have results.

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I'm going to be creating digital negs by first scanning 4x5 delta 100. Could anybody give me any tips on the best way to expose and develop the sheet film prior to scanning.

aside from this discussion (and all the good points raised by others) perhaps my page here may help too.

The colour stuff at the bottom is still 'in progress'

 

[nze]

Well exposed and developed film will always give good result. Personally I prefer to use staining developer such as PMK , Pyrocat and so on which create less grain and more dye image.( easier to scan).

 

[donbga]

Hi



aside from this discussion (and all the good points raised by others) perhaps my page here may help too.

The colour stuff at the bottom is still 'in progress'

I think this is the most amazing article on exposure I've ever read.

Don Bryant

 

[pellicle]

Hi Don

I think this is the most amazing article on exposure I've ever read.

Don Bryant

well (assuming you're not pulling my leg) I guess that's as good an encouragement I've ever had to continue it

thanks

I've got to put together more of the C-41 then move into my examination of E-6 (I'll probably use Provia because I prefer its soft reactions compared to Velvia)

man, I wish I could get Kodachrome in 4x5

 

[pellicle]

Hi

the blog links in the sig

I tried a few ways to get at your blog, but found that I had to go to here http://thelivredunegnum.blogspot.com/ by copy and paste of the link (as it is munged in your signature).

I will run some through google translate as it seems like just where I want to go to next

thanks

 

[sanking]

A few of my thoughts on this.

As someone already noted, if you ever plan to print in the darkroom optimize your development to give the contrast needed for the process. If the negatives are well exposed and developed you should not have any trouble scanning them later, even with consumer type flatbed scanners. As Nze mentioned, use of a pyro staining developer will result in less grain than traditional developers assuming development to the same CI with both types.

If you never plan to print the negatives in the darkroom the great weight of professional opinion, and it matches my own experience, is that the best course of action is to develop your film to a fairly low contrast. A CI of about .50-55 is plenty in my opinion. Film developed to a low CI of .50-.55 will generally have better resolution/sharpness and finer grain than film developed to a CI of .75-85. Expose normally because both under and over-exposure are detrimental to best resolution. Don't over-develop because this will lead to more pronounced grain. These are facts of film development and are supported by any good book on processing, Grant Haist Modern Photograhic Processing for example. The facts apply equally to printing in the darkroom and scanning, though specific conditions may create a lot of variables.

Over-exposed negatives, and those developed to a very high contrast, do not offer any advantage in my experience to negatives exposed for the shadows and developed to a CI of .50-.55. Most of my negatives were developed for printing with carbon transfer and have a DR of up to log 2.0, very high contrast. I can scan them ok but they do not offer any advantage IMO over negatives developed to a lower CI. The ones developed to a lower CI scan better, have finer grain, and are every bit as sharp, and the effective printing tonal range can be just as long.

BTW, I published an article in a recent number of View Camera magazine (July/August 2008) on the use of two bath development for negatives that are meant to be scanned and never printed in the darkroom. It suggests a fairly simple technique for field exposure and development that eliminates most of the record keeping of Zone and BTZS type methods.

Sandy King

 

[Ben Altman]

I've got to put together more of the C-41 then move into my examination of E-6 (I'll probably use Provia because I prefer its soft reactions compared to Velvia)

man, I wish I could get Kodachrome in 4x5

Hi Pellicle,

Regarding E6, here's a trade secret from an old pro... try Fuji RTP or Kodak 64T (tungsten balanced E6 films). For daylight color balance shoot them through an 85B filter at 50 ASA. You will get about a stop more latitude than any daylight E6 film, and fewer of the strong color casts which are typical of Velvia in outdoor conditions - and thus more tractable scans. These films are not as forgiving as color negative, but still have that slide-film quality. These are the only color films I have used for 4x5 landscape work for some years now - and the more people using them, the longer they'll make the film...

Best, Ben

 

[lenny]

I think this is the most amazing article on exposure I've ever read.

Don Bryant

I read it. Just curious, what part was so impressive to you?

Lenny

 

[pellicle]

I read it. Just curious, what part was so impressive to you?

Lenny

I guess that's a slightly negative review then ;-)

 

[pellicle]

Sandy

BTW, I published an article in a recent number of View Camera magazine (July/August 2008) on the use of two bath development for negatives that are meant to be scanned and never printed in the darkroom. It suggests a fairly simple technique for field exposure and development that eliminates most of the record keeping of Zone and BTZS type methods.

Sandy King

I'll grab a copy of the VC magazine to have a peek (seem like a good reason to get it anyhow).

thanks for sharing your findings on contrast ranges. I'm interested in understanding the requirements of smooth tonal graduations in my images. So I'd thought that if I have a fuller representation of the scene in my negative then I'd have less issues with quantisation error on scans.

Perhaps my interest is in scenes with greater brightness ranges than that of the "koala" in my article test. I suspect that the part of the world you live in and where you photograph has some effects on this, as when I'm working in more equitroial regions (Australia and India) I've found that this makes the film "work harder". This is a complex subject and as I write too many issues are swimming around in my head.

I'll have to work at this later (when I can focus) so perhaps we can have this conversation on another thread

 

[pellicle]

Regarding E6, here's a trade secret from an old pro... try Fuji RTP or Kodak 64T (tungsten balanced E6 films). For daylight color balance shoot them through an 85B filter at 50 ASA. You will get about a stop more latitude than any daylight E6 film, and fewer of the strong color casts which are typical of Velvia in outdoor conditions

ok .. shall do ... have you tried Provia RDP-III? If your comparing to Velvia I think you'll find similar characteristics in that

 

[lenny]

I guess that's a slightly negative review then ;-)

I'm a very busy guy these days, but always want to pick up a little more info here and there. To be clear - I really didn't spend any real time analyzing what you said, and have no positive or negative comments to make about it...

Lenny

 

[sanking]

I want to be clear on the issue of negative contrast. My comments are based on my own experience and are not meant to suggest that anyone else is wrong. And primarily my recommendations are for people who will be scanning with lower end and middle of the road scanners, not the high end drum scanners used by Bruce and Lenny. I strongly believe that folks who work with consumer flatbeds are better off developing to a relatively low CI of .50-.55, which would be the equivalent in Zone speak of about N-1.

I am, however, intrigued by Lenny's belief that he can get better results with a drum scanner with negatives of relatively high contrast. This seems contrary to some of the basic principles of photographic exposure and development but Lenny is considered to be one of the better digital printers in the US so if it works for him there may be something to it. Then again, perhaps his drum scanner is just able to compensate for the problems inherent in high contrast negatives.

Unfortunately there are some things that can not be proven without a lot of comparison study so the only way to know for sure would be to do a careful study, taking two negatives of the same scene and developing them to different CI, one to about .50-55, the other to .75-85, and then having experts scan the two and make prints. My guess is that if did this with 35mm or MF film you would see some advantage in the print made from the low CI negative, but in LF of 4X5 or over it probably would not make much difference at all, assuming you have a scanner capable of capturing the high densities.

Sandy

Sandy

I'll grab a copy of the VC magazine to have a peek (seem like a good reason to get it anyhow).

thanks for sharing your findings on contrast ranges. I'm interested in understanding the requirements of smooth tonal graduations in my images. So I'd thought that if I have a fuller representation of the scene in my negative then I'd have less issues with quantisation error on scans.

 

[lenny]

I am, however, intrigued by Lenny's belief that he can get better results with a drum scanner with negatives of relatively high contrast. This seems contrary to some of the basic principles of photographic exposure and development but Lenny is considered to be one of the better digital printers in the US so if it works for him there may be something to it. Then again, perhaps his drum scanner is just able to compensate for the problems inherent in high contrast negatives.
Sandy

Someone has just sent me a neg to scan, using the same film and & dev that I use to develop mine, that is a lower contrast (silver looking) neg. I can do a fairly good comparison of this in the next couple of days.

If you like, we can pass back some criteria, things to look at etc. - and within some reason get an answer... or at least some answer for the type of scanner I am using...

Lenny