Scanners and stuff

[Duceman]

Deleted.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nice comparison. I also use Xtol-R. TMY sings at EI 250 for me.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

In my experience the only detectable difference between stock Xtol, 1:1 and Xtol-R was the characteristics of the grain, and only when pixel-peeping, and it wasn't really tangible, I just enjoy knowing it's there. (probably wouldn't even show up in flatbed scans)

Are you using drum scanners? What's your scanning set up? Also, would appreciate if you could show some examples of the difference in the characteristics of the grain in your scans. Thanks in advance.

@moderators: this type of thread will inevitably get into scanning related discussion and invite moderation. Should you not move the thread to appropriate forum so that the scanning related posts don't get deleted by you?

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

@Raghu Kuvempunagar yes, showing samples is always great, but also tricky (see below). Also, regarding the scanning type, that's another excellent point: the scanning device will probably have greater impact on the grain characteristics than Xtol-R vs 1:1.

Within last two years, I've been alternating between Fuji X-T3, to Plustek 120 Pro, then Canon 5D Mk4, and finally the Sony a7R IV, with several lenses and RAW converters and sharpening settings, so my grain patterns are all over the place! So, if you are OK with these incomparable samples:

• Xtol-R scanned with Sony a7r IV
• Stock Xtol scanned with Fuji X-T or Canon 5D IV, I don't remember

As you can see, camera resolutions and even scan sizes are quite different. But... the softness of stock Xtol grain compared to Xtol-R is visible. It probably will be more (or less!) pronounced if both images were scanned on the same device, but speaking from experience, I can tell you it's real.

Very useful! TFS.

Have you used pixel-shift high resolution mode on your Sony a7R IV for scanning film? Is it helpful?

 

[MattKing]

@moderators: this type of thread will inevitably get into scanning related discussion and invite moderation. Should you not move the thread to appropriate forum so that the scanning related posts don't get deleted by you?

I agree.
As this is a develop and scan test, rather than deleting interesting stuff, I'm moving it into a hybrid forum from the main, film and darkroom section.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

You are very kind. I am quite aware of the limited usefulness of comparing two scans made by drastically different equipment!
Speaking of pixel shift:

• For 35mm scanning this 61MP sensor is a massive overkill even without pixel shift. Zero difference.
• For 6x6 I use the 4-shot mode, which removes the need for Bayer interpolation. It provides a tangible bump in resolution, and I downsample to 5000x5000 anyway. [HP5+ example]
• The 16-shot mode which produces 240MP files is hard to use. It requires several seconds of absolutely zero-shake environment. My copy stand sits on a desk upstairs, and even my dog running downstairs causes strange grain artifacts on 30% of my scans done this way. Besides, I realistically do not have many (or any?) negatives that theoretically contain that much detail (low-ISO, tripod, stopped down, stationary subjects). Moreover, the Sigma macro lens I use will not deliver this much resolution outside the center anyway. But it's a nice to have option for that once-in-a-lifetime Velvia 50 masterpiece Normally, I stick to high quality 5000x5000px scans.

Useful information again! I recently got started with Nikon ES-2 digitizing adapter and Sony A6000. The adapter is rather flimsy but scanning with a digital camera is so much more easy compared to flatbed scanner. Even my 24 MP scans of 35mm slides and negatives reveal 'grain' quite clearly just like what I saw in your scans, so I was wondering if pixel-shift high resolution can add anything more. At least for 35mm film, pixel-shift is probably not worth the trouble, based on your experience.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Oddly @Duceman deleted OP which I thought had useful stuff for the interested.

 

[MattKing]

I too thought that the test was interesting.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Should this whole thread NOT be deleted then? I wish I saw what it was OP posted that he then figured was best deleted, leaving all participants hanging dry.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

My guess is he was turned off by the response and decided “never mind”.

In which case he could have just said so in follow up post

 

[Duceman]

Should this whole thread NOT be deleted then? I wish I saw what it was OP posted that he then figured was best deleted, leaving all participants hanging dry.

Whatever for? The remaining discussion is exclusively about scanners, and that's what I changed the title of this thread to when I deleted my OP. In that regard, I fail to understand how I've left you "hanging dry." The title of the thread refers to scanners, and that's what the discussion in the thread pertains to.

BTW, I first tried deleting the thread altogether, but there is no option to do so in the "thread tools" menu.

In which case he could have just said so in follow up post

For what purpose? There was no need for a follow-up as the discussion in this thread had devolved exclusively to scanners, which is what the title of this thread now refers to.

 

[Duceman]

I agree.
As this is a develop and scan test...

No, that it was decidedly not.

I put in a lot of time and effort to put the OP together, only to come back an hour after posting to see that it had immediately devolved into an esoteric circle jerk on scanning. Not only was such derailment condoned, but ratified by the moderator.

In the OP, I explained that I was having problems testing newly acquired cameras, and wanted to figure out if the problem was related to the cameras or the seasoned XTOL-R developer I had relatively recently begun using. To whittle down the variables and first focus on the XTOL-R developer, I shot two rolls of TMY through trusted equipment and developed one roll in a known-result XTOL 1:1 developer and the other in the XTOL-R. The only "scanning" involved was to show side-by-side identical shots developed in XTOL 1:1 and XTOL-R, wherein my conclusions were that because of only very subtle (if even noticeable) differences between the shots, the XTOL-R it would be my choice of developer moving forward because it not only could perform as well as XTOL 1:1, but the economic/environmental advantages pushed it over the top. How else was I supposed to visually show the results? Maybe use the below image? Clearly, the XTOL-R prevailed over XTOL 1:1. (face palm)

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I think you misread my post. It is odd to say the least to see thread and then comments that refer to nothing.

 

[Duceman]

The scanner comments were, at best, tangentially related to the OP, and really had nothing to do with it.

It is odd to say the least to see thread and then comments that refer to nothing.

That's what happens when threads get derailed from the get-go.

 

[Duceman]

… you seem irritated.

Geez, I wonder why. You referred to me as "dense" in another thread, and I put you on "ignore status" thereafter. Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent you from coming in and taking a huge dump in my thread.

Before the discussion switched to scanning, I did point out that your perceived differences between Xtol variants were caused by mismatched contrast (development times).

That's a non sequitur as it had nothing to do with the purpose of my testing. If that's what you want, go and do your own testing. The primary purpose of my testing was to determine if my seasoned batch of XTOL-R had gone bad; it hadn't. The secondary purpose of my testing was to see if XTOL-R would be a sufficient replacement of XTOL 1:1 for cost benefits. Clearly, it passed that test.

If you are indeed interested in Xtol-R benefits, I suggested to look at the grain structure.

Another non sequitur. NOWHERE in the OP did I even suggest that this was something I was even attempting to evaluate nor interested in. Please work on your reading comprehension.

Evaluating grain over the internet, unfortunately, involves scanning. Apparently that's not what you expected to hear.

Another non sequitur. I was not evaluating grain. I have absolutely no idea where you're even getting this. Did you write your response after throwing back one too many cocktails last night?

In fact, scanning gets in the way of everything.

How absurd. For the purposes of my OP, no, it does not. All I had to do was visually inspect the negatives with my light table and loupe, and come to my own conclusions for the purposes of testing. I really didn't need to do any scanning at all to conclude that my seasoned batch of XTOL-R was (a) good and (b) a sufficient replacement for XTOL 1:1. I only scanned them to visually confirm and share. The mistake I made was posting my results here.

Even if we were to look at strictly contrast differences, your original comment (quoting from memory) "these are straight scans, no adjustment" is of no use, because it wasn't true. Your scanning software performed numerous adjustments in auto-mode, and the difference between two images can be attributed to different algorithm outputs.

Whatever. You're now so deep into non sequiturs that I've lost count. I merely presented side-by-side comparisons to show that my seasoned XTOL-R WORKED!!! I made no comment as to grain/contrast or anything else! But you had to go and take this very simple concept of my OP and turn it on its head. (face palm)

…but to make these comparisons useful, one needs to normalize development times to a common contrast index and post linear positive scans ("raw" in Silverfast).

Why on earth would I go through all of that trouble when all I was trying to do was to see if (a) my seasoned XTOL-R developer wasn't ruined and (b) if it was sufficient enough to prefer over XTOL 1:1. This. Is. Not. Rocket. Science. My OP was not about getting into the minutiae on a micro level which developer outperformed the other.

That's also why folks here always request iPhone shots of negatives, instead of inverted & post-processed scans, when debugging development errors.

Get this through your head: There... Was... No... Development... Error... Period. Full stop. Were you drunk when you read my OP? Any problems I was having with the other newly acquired cameras were obviously related to those cameras, and had nothing whatsoever to do with my developing. That should have been more than obvious with a casual reading of my OP. Instead, you turned my thread into something entirely different.

 

[Duceman]

@Duceman if my comments made you feel bad, I apologize.

Now that's a classic passive/aggressive non-apology apology.

gthah

 

[MattKing]

Clearly I ought to have added a comment or two when I moved the thread. Either that, or sent a Private Message to Duceman inviting discussion when I moved the thread. I apologize for not doing that.
Any test like this is going to invite discussion about methodology. And any method that involves a scanner in the quite reasonable way that Duceman employed his is going to insert a bunch of scanning related, non-controllable variables into the test - which is why discussions are going to inevitably include scanning issues.
Our policy requires that scanning issue discussions ought to be moved to and continued in the hybrid part of the site.
The test that Duceman set out to do is a really interesting one, and I'd like to see the film development related parts discussed here. I think others would too.
I'm happy to suggest a couple of ways of eliminating (or at least greatly reducing) the scanning variables, so that the test could be more completely focused on the film developing itself.
But before I do so, I'd like to hear from Duceman about his preferences. Either here in this thread, or by private message.

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, I mean suggestions that would allow use of the negatives you already have - although I'd suggest a couple of further minor changes if you were to do this again.

 

[Duceman]

Clearly I ought to have added a comment or two when I moved the thread. Either that, or sent a Private Message to Duceman inviting discussion when I moved the thread. I apologize for not doing that.

Thank you for recognizing this.

Any test like this is going to invite discussion about methodology. And any method that involves a scanner in the quite reasonable way that Duceman employed his is going to insert a bunch of scanning related, non-controllable variables into the test - which is why discussions are going to inevitably include scanning issues.

To be quite honest, that's a forum/moderation issue. Prior to posting my OP, or even before performing my testing, I had searched and read many, many threads/posts on XTOL-R, most of them from this very forum going back well over a decade, and I don't recall a single post providing any images (scanned or otherwise) displaying differences between stock and seasoned XTOL. I'm beginning to understand why.

Our policy requires that scanning issue discussions ought to be moved to and continued in the hybrid part of the site.

That's a forum issue, not my issue. But I guess, at the end of the day, rules is rules.

The test that Duceman set out to do is a really interesting one, and I'd like to see the film development related parts discussed here. I think others would too.

My suggestion is that self-identified expert Old Gregg perform the testing and publish the results.

I'm happy to suggest a couple of ways of eliminating (or at least greatly reducing) the scanning variables, so that the test could be more completely focused on the film developing itself.

(sound of chuckling) Yeah, that's not gonna happen. The testing I performed was for my needs, not to meet arbitrary forum rules. If by publishing my testing, which had very little to do with scanning, is simply going to devolve into esoteric babble on scanning, then fine, I won't publish it. Someone else is free to do the testing themselves and publish in accordance with strict forum guidelines. However, I'm not about to go and perform additional work that has nothing at all to do with what I was trying to accomplish for myself, all to avoid the thread devolving into a scanning discussion, which had very, very little to do with my testing in the first place.

Lesson learned on my part. Once bitten, twice shy.

Now, let the esoteric discussion on scanning resume.

 

[MattKing]

Understood, but the suggestions I would make would have the personal benefit of giving you better information about the comparison between the developers, without adding (most of or all of) the variability that scanners and scanning software impose.
In either case - whether your comparisons include scanning variables or exclude them (mostly), the comparisons are interesting, so it would be great to see them here.
We would just put the different approaches in different parts of the site.
I'm not going to force anyone to look at their test materials in different ways just to meet the requirements here. The only thing I'll do is move a thread if the thread belongs in a different part of the site, because of the way it has evolved.
Feel free to start a conversation with me if you would like to hear my test evaluation suggestions. Or invite me to make them in this thread. Or do nothing, if you prefer.
I just think you can get more benefit out of the work you have already done, and would like to assist with that.