How would you have scanned better?
Hmmm...You sparked by curiosity. I'm guessing that diffusion between the mask and the negative. If the mask's is output is OHP inkjet film, you'd need some sort of diffusion because the dots of ink would be enlarged when it's projected on the paper.You are free to solve with masking what share you want, and sparing the amount you want for genuine manual crafting. My personal approach is solving the curve tonal manipulation with masking and later elaborating the print manually in what is worth.
Not at all, it's a kids game, see this:
From an scan you use a grading map in Photoshop to assign a color to each gray level, you make the negative+diffuser+color mask and that's all, without needing a single brush stroke in Ps . With a bit of experience you nail the mask easily.
Make coarse contact copies of the negative + mask until you get the right balance, then you align well the mask and yo enlarge.
By manipulating the grading map manipulate effective sensitometric tonal curve of the paper, just like when you bend the curves in Ps in digital image edition, you give what extension you want to the toe/shoulder, beyond paper grade.
Me, I see it like a way to have the right paper for the scene or for the negative, I don't want that masking to be intrusive in my manual printing, just I solve the toe/shoulder extensions/gradient in that way.
Citing Alan Ross: "keep at it so long as it serves your purpose! Beyond that, everything is like cooking: personal preference! The options are endless and none are right or wrong!"
Way Beyong Monochrome also speaks a bit about that, and Ross pdfs give straight practial instructions. Just the grading map concept is a natural way to continously distribute grade across densities. This doesn't solve totally the print, but it easily solves toe/shoulder compressions, you simply get the paper you want for the job.
Imagine you project a 5x7" negative on the wall, you are projecting an insane amount of IQ, if you also nail the tonality... this rocks...
Hmmm...You sparked by curiosity. I'm guessing that diffusion between the mask and the negative. If the mask's is output is OHP inkjet film, you'd need some sort of diffusion because the dots of ink would be enlarged when it's projected on the paper.
I only now saw your PM. I'd rather not discuss stuff like this on PM. A good percentage of the value of a conversation such as this, is in other people who might be interested, potentially finding it any time.Scan 6400, 16 bits/channel, take all histogram, save tiff, sharpen, edit curves, reduce to edition size with "Bicubic for reductions".
https://www.largeformatphotography....rum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178 (See from post 90)
This test is fair, in my opinion: https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/
I only now saw your PM. I'd rather not discuss stuff like this on PM. A good percentage of the value of a conversation such as this, is in other people who might be interested, potentially finding it any time.
It's amicable from my point at least (and I'm sure yours) and I always welcome being educated and learning new detail and points of view (which I have here).
It is OFF TOPIC. Start a new thread.
PE
I’ve never found a good answer: Is XP/XP2 more pushable than regular B&W?
The way people talk about it, it sometimes sounds so.
What was the original reasoning behind chromogenetic film?
When it was put on the market B&W processing must have been very widespread.
BTW it was used for the production photos on Blue Velvet:View attachment 236501
Must have had something to recommend it.
Maybe it could be developed in the same chemistry as the dailies?
As @Cholentpot says another key user of chromogenic B&W film was the non-enthusiast...people who take "snapshots" and who don't want to get involved in learning about different films, chemicals, processes etc. They could get B&W photos by shooting chromogenic B&W film and dropping it off at which ever local mini-lab they preferred along with the Gold 200.
I know pros who used it for similar reasons, they could get it developed by which ever service also handled their C41 and E6.
True B&W processing labs have always been less common than those handling colour, at least since the C41 days and probably longer (think C22, E4). The colour processes are standardised across different brands and speeds of film. It matters not if you're processing Fuji 200CN or Kodak Portra 800...C41 is the same. B&W has so many different options depending on the film, developer, agitation style, temperature etc. You can't usually mix Ilford Delta 3200 with Fomapan 100 and Kodak Tri-X and expect it all to come out well with the same chemical, time and temperature.
About that, it reminded me of Mike Johnston's write up about a pro APS back in the late 90s. Few google clicks and I got it:For the average consumer I think the tech would have moved to something easier to load. APS would have caught on bigger and that would have had better and better emulsions. Maybe some sort of cart for 120 or an APS for medium format. 645 in a cassette.
About that, it reminded me of Mike Johnston's write up about a pro APS back in the late 90s. Few google clicks and I got it:
https://theonlinephotographer.typep...-fujifilm-produce-a-medium-format-camera.html
(The paragraphs under "Attack")
What a stupid suggestion. What he suggests is just another format, plain and simple. Not something that would in any way have helped APS get to the consumer.About that, it reminded me of Mike Johnston's write up about a pro APS back in the late 90s. Few google clicks and I got it:
https://theonlinephotographer.typep...-fujifilm-produce-a-medium-format-camera.html
(The paragraphs under "Attack")
I still have some rolls of Kodak BW400CN film left, remaining from the 10 or 15 rolls I bought when it was discontinued. Sadly, the fellow who ran a camera store in my town passed away, so now I have to send it off for processing. I usually use Dwayne's in Parsons, Kansas. I like the fact that the iSRD helps eliminate scratches when I scan it. It is a bit grainy (which is fine), and it often makes green grass glow - I like the effect. This photo is from Brandon, Mississippi, Leica M2, 50mm f/2.0 Summicron-DR lens.Chromagenic B&W was presumably put on the market because of the ubiquitous nature of the C41 process at the time. It was literally available in every town, even most villages. Any sizable town or city had multiple outlets offering C41 processing in an hour, sometimes 30 minutes. Suited pros and amateurs alike, especially those who don't want to develop by hand.
I still have some rolls of Kodak BW400CN film left, remaining from the 10 or 15 rolls I bought when it was discontinued. Sadly, the fellow who ran a camera store in my town passed away, so now I have to send it off for processing. I usually use Dwayne's in Parsons, Kansas. I like the fact that the iSRD helps eliminate scratches when I scan it. It is a bit grainy (which is fine), and it often makes green grass glow - I like the effect. This photo is from Brandon, Mississippi, Leica M2, 50mm f/2.0 Summicron-DR lens.
View attachment 236663
What is it you like particularly about:This is a beautiful photograph with a wide tonal range ! I reallly like those chromogenig films - there are about 60 rolls of Neopan 400CN in my freezer.
What is it you like particularly about:
A. Chromogenetic film?
B. The tonal range? The glowing effect of leaves could be easily achieved with a green or Y/G filter.
C. The photo? To me it looks like a pretty standard trial shot, with some random subject and little attention to composition. Am I missing something?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?