I’ll try!
I will! The Foma filters will fit my enlarger, with some adjustments.
I’ll try!Instead of pushing it, what if you exposed a roll at ISO 200 and developed it at 200:1 for an hour?
I will! The Foma filters will fit my enlarger, with some adjustments.If you are using push development, and/or stand development, you absolutely need to have the ability to adjust the contrast of your prints - get those filters!
Even if you don't use those non-standard techniques, you will often/almost always need to adjust contrast.
Whether you realize it or not, your scans incorporate significant adjustments to contrast. Some may be "under the hood" automatic adjustments imposed by the scanning software, while others are adjustments done by yourself.
Whether you realize it or not, your scans incorporate significant adjustments to contrast. Some may be "under the hood" automatic adjustments imposed by the scanning software, while others are adjustments done by yourself.
I know of very, very few people who scan using a scanner and make use of a linear file.
I think that's probably because you're likely to be in a clique of people who are less familiar with scanning and more familiar with darkroom printing. I on the other hand, personally know nobody who prints their negative in the darkroom but do know of many people around me who scan raw linear and are in full control of their scanning workflow.
While it is true that some scanning software can be set to output a linear file, that isn't the case with every type of software - the Canon software that I use mostly with my Canon scanner being one that doesn't appear to give that option. I don't know if the software used by the OP offers that option.
I'm aware that I could use Vuescan to work that way, but when I've experimented with that and the Canon scanner, it did not produce better results for me.
More importantly though, if one is using scanning software to produce positive images from film negatives, any the most commonly used modes - the ones that tend to give users good looking images - are not set up that way. They apply to what might otherwise be a linear file an adjustment that is akin to the characteristic curve that darkroom photographic paper employs when one prints to it.
I know of very, very few people who scan using a scanner and make use of a linear file. The people I know who approach film digitization that way are using digital cameras.
I agree with you though, scanning requires skill, knowledge and familiarity with your tools. And that includes an understanding of what is happening when you click "preview" and then adjust the result to taste.
I mostly identify as male. When I'm not identifying as a kitchen utensil, carrier of heavy things, massager of feet, or light switch operator (yes, they do turn lights off as well as on).My photographic friends who might be most likely to use linear files if they still used a lot of film have moved on - they are the ones who use digital cameras and have great Photoshop skills.
Most of the people I know who do a lot of roll film scanning are using dedicated software and salvaged commercial scanners like Pakons.
Or they are scanning for the purpose of making digital negatives.
Given what I sense about the OP's experience with film, it seems pretty clear he/she is relying on the built in presets and curves in the scanning software employed. A "curve free" and "no automatic setting of black points, white points and gamma" approach to scanning would most likely be a complete change.
The two strips above, comparing the 60 minute strips to the 90 minute strips, were digitized using my phone with the strips next to eachother on a light table. When I said that the 90 minute negatives scanned "better", it was because they needed very little adjustment from the supposedly linear file created by the scanner. The 60 minute negatives required more adjustment. For reference, i attach one scan from each strip, with no adjustments done to either positive.
That dedicated scanner won't be set up to give you linear scans.
Unless you use software to defeat the "dedicated" part of the scanner, it will be set to give you scans with a response curve incorporated.
Much like photographic paper (and film) incorporates its own response curve.
It is the combination of the response curve incorporated into the film - as affected by the combination of your exposure and development choices - and the response curve set up for the software that gives you the final results
Any adjustments you add, will change how those curves interact and affect the result.
Has the OP mentioned what scanner and scanning software he is using?
The Plustek 8100 is a fine unit with a resolution of 3800 when scanned at 7200. Right up there with the Nikon Coolscan at 3900. I use Silverfast too. The interface is a little quirky, but it is not hard to learn.I have not. It’s a Plustek OpticFilm 8100. The software is SilverFast 8.
The Plustek 8100 is a fine unit with a resolution of 3800 when scanned at 7200. Right up there with the Nikon Coolscan at 3900. I use Silverfast too. The interface is a little quirky, but it is not hard to learn.
Yes, it has delivered above my expectations this far. Have you tried Silverfast 9?
I'm happy with the results I get from 8, but I'll test the demo version of 9 and see what the difference is.No. I didn't see a reason to upgrade.
Here. Three identical shots. -2 stops, box speed, and +2 stops. Deliberately high contrast scene, I exposed for the projected negative on the paper.Instead of pushing it, what if you exposed a roll at ISO 200 and developed it at 200:1 for an hour?
But it will be the same response curve for every scan, which means that different scans can be compared to each other.
So you're saying that the firmware in the scanner does things that can't be undone in the scanning software. That the image I get isn't actually a raw file, but an already processed file?Not really, or at least it isn't quite that simple.
The complicating factor being that the density differences and contrast differences between the negatives will place the images on different parts of the curve.
Which means the scans will require different amounts of adjustment to achieve relatively similar end results.
The flexibility is great - you can achieve acceptable to great results from a large variety of negatives. But that flexibility makes it difficult to objectively evaluate the negatives themselves!
So you're saying that the firmware in the scanner does things that can't be undone in the scanning software. That the image I get isn't actually a raw file, but an already processed file?
Thank you, those look great! You’re right, I do prefer the higher contrast oneThree versions of the same image here. All are from the same original scan of a film negative. The negative is metered normally - most likely using incident metering rated at box speed. It was also developed normally for that box speed, except I gave it a one stop "expansion" development, because the light was quite diffused that day. The negative has a full range of densities and looks "good" to the eye.
The first is similar to how a straight darkroom print appears - adjusted for normal contrast, and exposure referenced mainly to the mid-tones and (specular) highlights:
View attachment 344148
The second is adjusted digitally to increase contrast and deepen shadows - similar to the results obtained in the darkroom with a higher filter number. In the equivalent darkroom print I also did some judicious burning and dodging. I believe this is similar in at least some ways to the effects you appear to like from under-exposure and "push" development:
View attachment 344149
The final version looks most similar to my exhibition darkroom print. In order to take into account the intended toning, the exposure was adjusted slightly. I've also experimented with some localized bleaching with this one, although I'm not sure this scan reflects the results of that:
View attachment 344150
I show you this to help illustrate the fact that one can achieve a lot of the results you like at the end stage - either while darkroom printing, or digitally post-processing. IMHO it is better andf easier to do that with negatives that are better exposed and more conventionally processed.
By the way, these scans came from 6x4.5 T-Max negatives, and my Canon flatbed scanner was bought used for very little money. When I started using it, the results were really mediocre. But I got better at it.
You do understand that a film that requires a two stop push is two stops under-exposed? That means 1/4 of the light that the film was optimized for.
Push development helps rescue as much as you can, but under-exposure has a terrible effect on the quality of negatives. All it really does (mostly) is boost contrast for those parts of the image that are under-exposed, but have at least some density in the negative.
And then that contrast boost is made less effective by employing stand development.
Using Rodinal can compound the problem, because it results in less than optimum film "speed".
If you are trying to learn how to expose and both scan and print film, avoid push development, and avoid scan development. And if you are going to use Rodinal, rate your film at a lower EI - at least 1/3 of a stop lower, and accept the fact that Rodinal will give you Rodinal grain.
Once you have had regular success with that, you can consider experimenting with using higher EIs, push development, and stand development. You may find, however, that you will share my reaction - that the results from that combination are not to your liking.
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?