Film Recommendations for Exceptional Detail

[Loris Medici]

BTW, the "negatives" *I* shoot are ment to contain all the information I want to present in the final work, in highest possible quality (in terms of DR / tonality / grain / sharpness / acutance / resolution and such), in the most convenient format/data-set. (In other words; readily / easily transformable to the final product w/o too much [or as little as possible] hassle - according to the visualization I have done while shooting. Or, suitable to transform for multiple purposes.) Nothing more...

What is the best (both in terms of aesthetic and technique) as the final product depends on too much parameters - which most are highly "subjective". I already stated my "objective" view. (I'm a pretty good silver printer BTW; I don't claim to be a master but I'm certainly satisfied from what I can get, and I'm not an easily satisfied person at all...)

Regards,
Loris.

 

[sanking]

Who-ho! That's really discouraging; I was thinking to purchase that scanner to be able to get good quality scans of negatives from a Bessa III.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V700/page_8.htm

In this review above they tell that V700 is able to match results from a Nikon 4000dpi dedicated film scanner. Perhaps their Nikon have problems? (Or dedicated film scanners are the same; much lower practical resolution than stated hardware resolution...) Or your criteria is pretty strict... Which one?

Anyway, my intended print size is ~12.4x15.3" (31.5x39cm) which makes 5.6x enlargement, and V700 still fits the requirement, except for its excessive price. (Compared to its performance, I'd pay that price - USD 900 for a brand new one in my area - w/o complaints for a true 3200dpi scanner...

Sandy, which scanner would I go for if I wanted true 8-9x enlargement?

Thanks & regards,
Loris.

Loris,

Anyone who would claim that the V700 or 750 give results equivalent to a Nikon LS 9000 simply ran a bad or incomplete test. The V700 has a maximum resolution of about 2300 ppi, and to get this you must first figure out the plane of best focus by testing. I suspect that the tester simply did not push the limits of the two scanners far enough because if you go to magnification beyond about 6X you should clearly see the difference in image quality

My standards are the same for all scanners. I have a high resolution chrome on glass resolution target that is capable of discriminating up to about 230 lp/mm, which is well beyond the capacity of any scanner, even very high end drum scanners.

Unfortunately there is no inexpensive scanner out there that will allow you get take maximum advantage of the high resolution of the Bessa III. For this you will need a scanner at least as good as the Nikon LS 9000, or perhaps its predecessor the Nikon 8000. An Imacon or drum scanner would be even better.

Sandy

 

[donbga]

Who-ho! That's really discouraging; I was thinking to purchase that scanner to be able to get good quality scans of negatives from a Bessa III.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V700/page_8.htm

In this review above they tell that V700 is able to match results from a Nikon 4000dpi dedicated film scanner. Perhaps their Nikon have problems? (Or dedicated film scanners are the same; much lower practical resolution than stated hardware resolution...) Or your criteria is pretty strict... Which one?

Anyway, my intended print size is ~12.4x15.3" (31.5x39cm) which makes 5.6x enlargement, and V700 still fits the requirement, except for its excessive price. (Compared to its performance, I'd pay that price - USD 900 for a brand new one in my area - w/o complaints for a true 3200dpi scanner...

Sandy, which scanner would I go for if I wanted true 8-9x enlargement?

Thanks & regards,
Loris.

Loris,

Look for a Polaroid SprintScan 120. It's an excellent scanner for MF film. You maybe able to find one for a few hundred dollars. I have one and I'm very pleased with it. The SprintScan 120 will hold it's own against the Nikon 9000 and Minolta 5400.

Don

 

[pschwart]

The Sprintscan was a rebadged Microtek Artixscan 120. The Microtek scanner was available until recently. You will also want the glass holder which was sold separately. Vuescan may be the best choice for a driver.
.

Loris,

Look for a Polaroid SprintScan 120. It's an excellent scanner for MF film. You maybe able to find one for a few hundred dollars. I have one and I'm very pleased with it. The SprintScan 120 will hold it's own against the Nikon 9000 and Minolta 5400.

Don

 

[sanking]

BTW, the "negatives" *I* shoot are ment to contain all the information I want to present in the final work, in highest possible quality (in terms of DR / tonality / grain / sharpness / acutance / resolution and such), in the most convenient format/data-set. (In other words; readily / easily transformable to the final product w/o too much [or as little as possible] hassle - according to the visualization I have done while shooting. Or, suitable to transform for multiple purposes.) Nothing more...

What is the best (both in terms of aesthetic and technique) as the final product depends on too much parameters - which most are highly "subjective". I already stated my "objective" view. (I'm a pretty good silver printer BTW; I don't claim to be a master but I'm certainly satisfied from what I can get, and I'm not an easily satisfied person at all...)

Regards,
Loris.

Loris,

All photographers have different goals and I try to avoid specifying specific tools unless those goals are narrowly defined. One does not need a high quality scanner to make prints that are aesthetically pleasing. However, when the goal is a print that captures all of the information in the original negative it is necessary to discuss the absolute potential of the devices used to scan the negative.

I think that way too often our discussions stray because of the tendency to attempt to address both aesthetic and technical issues as if they run on parallel tracks, and that is unfortunately often not the case.

Sandy King

 

[donbga]

The Sprintscan was a rebadged Microtek Artixscan 120. The Microtek scanner was available until recently. You will also want the glass holder which was sold separately. Vuescan may be the best choice for a driver.
.

Yes that is correct. the SprintScan is a Microtek scanner. One thing to note however is that the Microtek drivers will not work with the SprintScan 120 and the Polaroid drivers will not work with Microtek branded scanners.

The glass holder is an absolute must have but maybe difficult to source, so it's probably best to look for a scanner that comes with the glass holder.

Don

 

[pschwart]

Loris,

All photographers have different goals and I try to avoid specifying specific tools unless those goals are narrowly defined. One does not need a high quality scanner to make prints that are aesthetically pleasing. However, when the goal is a print that captures all of the information in the original negative it is necessary to discuss the absolute potential of the devices used to scan the negative.

I think that way too often our discussions stray because of the tendency to attempt to address both aesthetic and technical issues as if they run on parallel tracks, and that is unfortunately often not the case.

Sandy King

This is right on the money. I have made beautiful prints using some pretty low-end hardware. I usually recommend folks try the cheaper stuff if it's available before deciding they need to spend a pile of cash acquiring the Ultimate. I could upgrade my Nikon 9000 to a drum scanner or an Imacon, but my small prints would not benefit sufficiently to justify the move.

 

[sanking]

Yes that is correct. the SprintScan is a Microtek scanner. One thing to note however is that the Microtek drivers will not work with the SprintScan 120 and the Polaroid drivers will not work with Microtek branded scanners.

The glass holder is an absolute must have but maybe difficult to source, so it's probably best to look for a scanner that comes with the glass holder.

Don

BTW, there is a Microtek 120 for sale on ebay right now.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Microtek-ArtixS...emQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item35a4ecf407


Sandy King

 

[Loris Medici]

Thanks much. I found that pretty dubious too that's why I wanted to confirm...

Loris,

Anyone who would claim that the V700 or 750 give results equivalent to a Nikon LS 9000 simply ran a bad or incomplete test. The V700 has a maximum resolution of about 2300 ppi, and to get this you must first figure out the plane of best focus by testing. I suspect that the tester simply did not push the limits of the two scanners far enough because if you go to magnification beyond about 6X you should clearly see the difference in image quality
...

 

[Loris Medici]

Hi Sandy,

Agree completely. My message was addresed to those who seem to know exactly what a B&W negative is ment to be used for...

I happen to have at least 4-5 images (own) in my "top ten" list made with inferior instruments / materials and/or technique. (Some sample categories: pinhole, gum dichromate print from plain paper negatives, image from a lousy Lubitel 2, image from a Yashica 124g with a heavily fungus infected taking lens...)

Regards,
Loris.

Loris,

All photographers have different goals and I try to avoid specifying specific tools unless those goals are narrowly defined. One does not need a high quality scanner to make prints that are aesthetically pleasing. However, when the goal is a print that captures all of the information in the original negative it is necessary to discuss the absolute potential of the devices used to scan the negative.

I think that way too often our discussions stray because of the tendency to attempt to address both aesthetic and technical issues as if they run on parallel tracks, and that is unfortunately often not the case.

Sandy King

 

[Carl1]

For B&W go with Technical Pan and develop with either Technidol liquid i.e. low contrast or D-19 and vary development time to obtain the desired contrats. For Color Ektar 100 for color negs and I like Astia for the overall natural look if you like punchier go with Velvia. In the end drum scan it or all you upstream efforts will be compromised to some degree.

www.mondragonfineart.com

 

[donbga]

For B&W go with Technical Pan and develop with either Technidol liquid i.e. low contrast or D-19 and vary development time to obtain the desired contrats. For Color Ektar 100 for color negs and I like Astia for the overall natural look if you like punchier go with Velvia. In the end drum scan it or all you upstream efforts will be compromised to some degree.

Dead Link Removed

Only problem is Tech Pan is no longer made and there are better films to replace it know.

Don

 

[ahbrown73]

atp and td-3?

I would like to use Rollei ATP or Adox CMS and have been looking for a developer for them. Last week I emailed Photographer's Formulary to see if they had any information about using their TD-3 developer (it was designed for TP) with either of these two films. They replied that they had no information as to this combination.

Years ago I used TD-3 with TP with very good results. Before buying the TD-3, I thought I would ask if any one has tried it and what they thought.

Anyone remember using C41 developer with TP? Worked pretty well.

First post as I just found you. Thanks in advance.

Alan

 

[dr5chrome]

..as maybe some have mentioned, the best detail will be obtained by the processing of the film 90% of the time.

regards.

I have recently become a bit obsessed with turning out the sharpest most detailed images and I would like to get peoples views about film use, specifically B&W.

For this work I will be shooting with an XPan and usually a 45mm lens but sometimes a 90mm. Typically the camera is tripod mounted and the subject matter is landscapes, often of mountains or rock formations with lots of detail. I don't do my own developing but use a lab that takes reasonable care. I then scan the images using a Minolta 5400 before output.

What I am looking for are recommendations of readily available (and resonably priced) films that exhibit very fine grain structure and exceptional sharpness for use in my Landscape work. I have been shooting with Ilford Delta 100 and whilst I like it, I am sure there is better given my requirements and workflow.

Many thanks