Scanning, Color Mangement and Photoshop...Diafine Developer and TX Part 2

Figital Revolution

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Pawlet, Verm
Format
35mm RF
The second part of my sage is now live on www.figitalrevolution.com. A direct link to the video is here:

LINK TO VIDEO

This is a pretty extensive discussion on scanning concepts for bw negatives (Diafine and TX) and considerations on color mangement and Photoshop tips to maximize your image file. I will be posting part 3 in a few days which will cover hand coating your own papers and alternative digital printing techniques.

I'd love to hear your comments!
Best-
Stephen Schaub
 

sanking

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
5,437
Location
Greenville,
Format
Large Format



Hi Stephen,

Thanks fo posting. I am looking forward to reading about your procddures and looking at the results.


Sandy King
 

donbga

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
3,053
Format
Large Format Pan
Hi Stephen,

Well my Diafine is here now and I've got to pickup some TX 400 120. Looks like I may need to get an X ND filter as well.

How did you determine your EI with the Diafine regimen you demonstrated in your video?

Looking forward to your next video segment.

Don Bryant
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

Figital Revolution

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Pawlet, Verm
Format
35mm RF

Don- to determine your EI is really easy (or at least my method was)...set up a shot that has a full tonal range and shoot it at 400-3200...process the film as I suggested in my post 1.5 and look at the negs. My tests (and I ran this test at least 10 times on different scenes with different tonalities and contrast ranges and I found around 1250 to 1600 to be the best. I am currently running filter tests for this combo and I have found that my yellow and yellow green are perfect at 1250 - my red 090 is also ok as well but I need to be just a bit more carefull to make sure my important shadow detail is exposed ok. I also ran many (and I mean many) scan tests and I am looking for a negative that can be fully expressed in a good clean scan on our Imacon...and as I said 1250 works for me. I keep a few ND filters in my bag but find that a 090 or my Yellow filter has enough of a factor that I seldom need my ND ( I tend to shoot late day) but I have it just in case!! Good luck and keep me posted.

Best-
Stephen Schaub
www.figitalrevolution.com
www.ystrap.com
www.thenopod.com
www.indianhillimageworks.com
 

sanking

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
5,437
Location
Greenville,
Format
Large Format
Stephen,

I am attaching an H&D curve of TRI-X in Diafine, developed exactly as per the instructions on your web site.

If I were to evaluate this film curve as I do any other film curve, irrespective of developer, these would be my observations.

1. The Average Gradient is about .49. This corresponds almost exactly to N or SBR 7 development.

2. With the process exposure scale set to log 1.05 the development instructions give almost a perfect negative for printing silver gelatin with a condenser enlarger.

3. EFS (effective film speed) by my standard of working would be 400, just a tad more than box speed of 320. Since Dmin is reached at Step 20, and is the same at Step 21 and B+F. So for Zone type work with sheet film I wold recommend an EFS of 400.

4. The curve is remarkably linear. After a small toe there is a very long straight line, unlike anything I have seen with TRI-X before. This is the most unique quality of this developer to me.

5. I am a bit surprised at the relatively high B+F of log 0.21 with this combination. And the TRI-X film is fresh.

6. Since this was a step wedge test I can not comment on sharpness. Will try to conduct some real world tests soon to evaluate this.

Sandy King





 
Last edited by a moderator:

sanking

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
5,437
Location
Greenville,
Format
Large Format
I am attaching an H&D curve of T-MAX 400 in Diafine, developed 4+4 as was TRI-X 320.

1. The Average Gradient is about 0.45 (was about .49 for TRI-X). This corresponds to about an SBR of 7.9 (was SBR 7 for TRI-X).

2. With the process exposure scale set to log 1.05 the development instructions give a low contrast negative for printing silver gelatin with a condenser enlarger. (was about normal for TRI-X).

3. EFS (effective film speed) by my standard of working would be 500.

4. The curve is very linear, typical of TMAX-400 curves.

5. B+F of log is fairly high, as it was with TRI-X. This tells me that the developer is reducing some silver crystals that were not exposed by light. If this were a normal developer I would attempt to adjust the formula by adding a restrainer, but for a two-bath formula I have no idea how this would work. And of course, for silver printing the high B+F is not much of a problem.

Sandy King
 
OP
OP

Figital Revolution

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Pawlet, Verm
Format
35mm RF
Fuji Acros 100 in Diafine for Scanning...The Testing Continues!!

I am almost done testing this combo and have come up with what I feel is a great processing technique to bring out all of the sharpness and tonality possible in this combo (Thank you Sandy for your input and for posting the curves for the other two diafine processed films). I have just posted an early results post on The Figital Revolution www.figitalrevolution.com or here is a direct link to the article:

http://figitalrevolution.com/2008/04/04/fuji-acros-100-in-diafine-developer/

Check out the crop...do you see the bent nail!!? The large file is around 8MB uncompressed so make sure you connection is jacked on espresso before downloading! I will be posting part 2 to this test on Monday or Tuesday with the specifics of the processing techniques...IT IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN SUGGESTED ON THE BOX!! Stay tuned!
 

Helen B

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
1,590
Location
Hell's Kitch
Format
Multi Format
Stephen,

I've also found Diafine to be a good developer for TMX (at EI 125) and Tri-X 400 (at EI 1250) that is destined for scanning. I prefer the similar DiLussol Vitesse, but that is difficult to get.

I'm puzzled by your statement that your printer gamut is smaller than sRGB. The gamut of my Epson 3800 with normal K3 inks exceeds Adobe RGB (1998) in some areas, never mind sRGB. Looking in ColorThink Pro, the overall volume of, say, Innova Fibaprint Glossy is a little less than sRGB (gamut volumes of about 840,000 vs 890,000) but there are many dark green-blues and light green-oranges in the print gamut that are well outside the sRGB gamut, and a little outside the Adobe RGB gamut.

Here are the envelopes of the three gamuts. The similar shapes are the Adobe and sRGB gamuts, and the odd one out is the printer gamut.

Dead Link Removed

The gamut at L* - 30

Dead Link Removed

The gamut at L* = 73

Dead Link Removed

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Helen
 
OP
OP

Figital Revolution

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Pawlet, Verm
Format
35mm RF
Helen- to clarify...the areas that concern me are always the difficult to produce colors....dark blues, good Reds and clean greens. Even in your best profile sRGB and Adobe 1998 are larger in these areas and it is this large difference that my testing has indicated is the problem. By making sure the two spaces are close in size and shape the issue of a hue angle shift is put to a mim. When I went from Beta RGB or Adobe RGB 1998 to sRGB I found the accuracy of my prints (esp in these difficult areas) to be spot on. The overall color was still perfect as your space comparison would indicate but the extremes were controlled. Also, as most monitors will only project sRGB it was natural to choose sRGB as it fits my color man completely.

I will be also posting Acros 100 in Diafine tomorrow.

Best-
Stephen Schaub
 
OP
OP

Figital Revolution

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Pawlet, Verm
Format
35mm RF
Helen- one more quick note: when I started using the sRGB method I was only printing on Matt papers like Crane MAX and lots of uncoated stocks and as such the compression or mapping from working space is much larger than it is from a paper like the Innova you mentioned. Most of my Matt profiles are around 550,00 g vol which is much smaller than Adobe 1998 but closer to sRGB and sRGB matches my monitor....you see my logic. It still holds true for the gloss papers where deep tones are present like Deep blue but is less of a concern.

Best-
Stephen Schaub
 

Helen B

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
1,590
Location
Hell's Kitch
Format
Multi Format
Stephen,

Thanks for the replies.

Using sRGB makes sense if the accuracy of the monitor-print match is a priority, but is it always so? For example, if I'm working on scanned Ektachromes I know that my monitor is not showing all the colours that are in the chrome, but some of them are still there and they will be shown in the print. The aim, in that case, is to match the print to the chrome, to the best of my ability.

Best,
Helen
 
OP
OP

Figital Revolution

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Pawlet, Verm
Format
35mm RF
My approach here at Indian Hill Imageworks requires monitor to print match everytime. If I was only printing on Glossy paper with the GV you mentioned I may use from time to time your suggestion but as we have over 100 papers in stock at IHIW that is just not an option. I would also worry (something I am very good at doing) that one of the colors I was not seeing would be something important to our client (always is) and as our printer prints 54" wide that error could be very costly. Just my approach...

Best-
Stephen Schaub
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…