I'm seeking a guide for the perplexed hybrid photographer. I've been shooting black and white negative film, home developing, and scanning on an Epson flatbed. In searching the online literature, I find little advice that is directly applicable to getting the best possible results (best resolution, least apparent grain, greatest apparent acutance, good tonality (whatever tonality is precisely). Most advice on chemistry and film on APUG, for example, pertains to wet printing. My sense is that most of the discussions about developers, especially caffenol, diafine compensating, pyro, seem to pertain mainly to controlling shadow detail and highlights for printing in the darkroom, and how the grain will appear. But I scan medium format with a cheap flatbed at 2400-4800 ppi with probably lower real resolution (that's not going to change for economic reasons) and finish in Photoshop with maybe C prints from an online lab at 11x14. I'm not resolving grain; it's certainly aliased. While I do see a difference in apparent graininess between 100 and 400 speed film, I question if developing with high or low acutance would be visible in my scans. I also wonder if the characteristic curves of various film/developer combinations make much difference, given I'm scanning at 16 bits and can push tones around a bit in Photoshop without banding. I am meandering a bit, so here are some specific questions for the gurus:
1. I am now using D76 stock or 1:1 for everything (cheap and keeps well). According to Kodak's literature, XTOL seems to do everything a bit better. However, I've read it dies suddently unless mixed and kept carefully and the 5L at a time quantity is problematic for the occasional user like me. Would it give noticeably better results in a scan at 2400-4800 ppi?
2. I am following the general rule of thumb of halving box speed and underdeveloping (pulling). Is this really necessary for scanning? My cheapo scanner (Epson 4180) seems to be able to see even into dense negatives. Although I am not a detailed note-taker, it seems that the most grain is seen in images shot in low contrast lighting, such as overcast. Maybe higher contrast negatives would actually have less grain.
3. What's caffenol all about viz a viz scanning, other than the coolness factor of developing with home products. I'm not concerned about environmental impacts of the minute amount of developer I pour down the drain, so the eco factor isn't meaningful to me.
4. Does traditional vs. T-grain "modern" film make a difference when scanning at a ppi where grain is aliased? I happened to compare Tri-X vs. Delta 400 in D76 stock on similar scenes and didn't see much difference in grain, although the Tri-X "long toe" was apparent in that the shadows blocked up sooner. After curving, the tonality seemed it could be made similar, except for those very deep shadows. In overcast shots, they both seemed almost identical. Have I answered my own question?
1. I am now using D76 stock or 1:1 for everything (cheap and keeps well). According to Kodak's literature, XTOL seems to do everything a bit better. However, I've read it dies suddently unless mixed and kept carefully and the 5L at a time quantity is problematic for the occasional user like me. Would it give noticeably better results in a scan at 2400-4800 ppi?
2. I am following the general rule of thumb of halving box speed and underdeveloping (pulling). Is this really necessary for scanning? My cheapo scanner (Epson 4180) seems to be able to see even into dense negatives. Although I am not a detailed note-taker, it seems that the most grain is seen in images shot in low contrast lighting, such as overcast. Maybe higher contrast negatives would actually have less grain.
3. What's caffenol all about viz a viz scanning, other than the coolness factor of developing with home products. I'm not concerned about environmental impacts of the minute amount of developer I pour down the drain, so the eco factor isn't meaningful to me.
4. Does traditional vs. T-grain "modern" film make a difference when scanning at a ppi where grain is aliased? I happened to compare Tri-X vs. Delta 400 in D76 stock on similar scenes and didn't see much difference in grain, although the Tri-X "long toe" was apparent in that the shadows blocked up sooner. After curving, the tonality seemed it could be made similar, except for those very deep shadows. In overcast shots, they both seemed almost identical. Have I answered my own question?
