Ultrafine Xtreme 100 in DK-50, Rodinal, PC-TEA, WD2H+, Pyrocat-MC, Thornton's 2-bath

[JW PHOTO]

The blur in shot C is motion-blur. Notice that horizontals are blurred and verticals are fairly sharp. On horizontals, the blur is uneven (look at the branches), which looks just like motion-blur to me.

Mark Overton

Mark,
Trust me, it's not motion-blur, but I did rescan both the PC-TEA negatives and the Pyrocat-MC negatives. I don't have time at the moment to post the scans, but will later on. I recalibrated the scanner on each set and came away with some surprising results. More like what I expected the negatives to look like in the first place. John W

 

[JW PHOTO]

These are the rescans and I did tweak the curves black point up to match the drop-off point on the histogram. This added slightly more contrast and apparent grain, but looks pretty good for sharpness. I also recalibrated the Nikon LS8000 on each set of the negatives. I'm starting to wonder what happened on the first scan????? Did I put the negatives in the carrier upside down(don't think so since the numbers on the door look right)? Or not close it properly? Is my scanner going bonkers??? I just don't get it, but it doesn't matter since the rescans look more like what I expect from both developers.

 

[rco3]

Paul: 8" x 300 dpi x 10" x 300 dpi is 7.2 MP, not 3 MP. 3 MP will almost cover a 5x7 print at 300 dpi.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Paul: 8" x 300 dpi x 10" x 300 dpi is 7.2 MP, not 3 MP. 3 MP will almost cover a 5x7 print at 300 dpi.

We're both wrong! I think....... Appreciate you checking up on my math. And there's the matter of image ratio's.

Traditional digital image ratio is 4:3. Yes, I know, things are changing, but let's start there.

OK, a typical 4:3 ratio 3mp sensor will be 1560x2080 pixels. Short dimension, using 250dpi, perfectly decent "photo quality" still, would give a 6.24" measurement. So, yes, I've been wrong. And for a very long time!

At 5mp, that goes to 7.68, almost there!

At 8mp, it's up to 9.8 inches.

With a 4:3 ratio, and an 8" short side, the same dpi will hold to 10.6."

But the fact remains the megapixel wars are idiotic. To look at on a phone or an online service? That's where 95% of them end up, all 24mp!

I remember reading that a modern fine grain film may be approximated to 35mps, although consumer lenses are the choke point at some 24mp equivalency. Take that all with a grain of salt, and let's get back to hypo!

 

[j_landecker]

Those scans look better! Looks like the scanner's focus was out of whack for whatever reason...

 

[JW PHOTO]

Those scans look better! Looks like the scanner's focus was out of whack for whatever reason...

Yes, more like what I would expect from Pyrocat-MC as I've never been disappointed in it's ability to render a sharper than average negative. That's what made me rescan I just couldn't believe those original scans. That, and the fact that I pulled them out of their classine holders and really looked at them close on a light table. I guess I'm going to have to check this scanner out every time from now on. Live and learn! John W

 

[ic-racer]

What was the purpose of the test? What are you testing? What is the result?

 

[JW PHOTO]

What was the purpose of the test? What are you testing? What is the result?

I had bought a bulk roll of Ultrafine Xtreme 100 and just wanted to see how it reacted with the different developers I had on hand. Also, there was a thread on Kodak DK-50 developer elsewhere here on the forum and I had a gallon of that mixed up from about a month ago. Just thought the Xtreme 100 and DK-50 would be interesting. Now I can do my own film speed/developer test with the two developers I have decided on using with the Xtreme 100. I'm also using some Xtreme 100 in 120 and plan on applying some of the results to process the 120 film too. I guess it's all about curiosity and trying a new product. The results are that I like this film in WD2H+ developer, but also want to play more with the DK-50. The Kodak DK-50 is cheap to make and seems to give results similar to, but slightly better than Rodinal. Oh, and it's fun to play with different film/developer combinations also. John W

 

[j_landecker]

IMO, with this scanner's shallow dof, it's necessary to use the AF on every frame.

 

[JW PHOTO]

IMO, with this scanner's shallow dof, it's necessary to use the AF on every frame.

I'm tending to agree with you 100%. I have the glass carrier for 120 film and that's what I use 95% of the time. I can't say I have ever had this focus problem with the glass carrier and 120 film. I don't do much 35mm stuff, but from now on, when I do, I'll AF on every frame. John W

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Some scanners have more or less DOF than others. A particular, very popular brand that I am allergic to actually has focus adjusting carriers or attachments, last I looked a few years ago. Part of the reason for my allergy.

Love my Canon.