it looks like even though your sKannmasheene was left at the same settings
it really isn't the same settings ...
1 stop more dense makes a world of difference
the bottom one when printed down + with a little TLC
will look 10x nicer than the first ...
1 stop less dense makes it ez/pz for the sKannmasheene to blast light
and give more contrast, even though the settings appear the same ...
Yes, you just answered your own question. That's why the rule-of-thumb is "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights." There just isn't as much tonal separation in the shadows to begin with, and you lose that separation when the shadows slide down the scale toward the toe of the film. A Zone III value barely holds detail, pushing it down into Zone II gives you gray mush if you try to print it lighter.
The thing is, I dont want seperation in my darks. I just want them
To go black. Thats why I like the higher contrast one. I dont like mid tones. Also. I like dark lows and high highs and not much inbetween.
As jnanian said (in his own inimitatable way), the problem is with the interface between your negatives and your scanner software.
Even when you set it for no adjustments, it is like the auto-exposure function in a camera, it is still trying to adjust things for you.
Some software (Vuescan?) does provide a true "no adjustments" option, but it is hard to find it.
In which case, underexpose and overdevelop. You'll get soot and whitewash to your heart's content.:)
Originally Posted by cjbecker
By scanner you can make the first as the second one or the second as the first one, i mean by adjustments, i most of the time don't scan flat direct without some adjustments.
you can really not adjust your sKannmasheene of you go into the leevalls
and move the sliders all the way to the right + left, and then the contraster to 1.0
so the line is straight across on the diagonal. THAT will unadjust your leevalls,
otherwise your sKannmasheene still adjusts them in one way or another ...
do you use a variety of films and papers and developers ?
it might be a fruitful exercise to use one film and developer and paper
and "fine tune" your shooting to match the prints you like .. i wouldn't trust the sKannmasheene unless
you use it to convert your film to 0s + 1's
and use a less arcane system to do your printing for you ... and you can fine tune your film exposure and developing
for that too, if you want ... exposing, and developing will be different than for paper printing, just as
processed film used in a condenser and cold light / diffusion head will be different ...
they used to say 30% more processing for cold light but that was a starting point ( just like developing times, box speeds + everything else ) there is no right or wrong, just what works for you ...
... personally i like to over expose most everything i shoot by a few stops ( sometimes 4 or 5 )
and then develop the film so it is almost too dense to see an image ... i have a few ways to get an image out of that, and
i know my film is dovetailed to the way i like to do that ...
All my film and developing is adjusted for what i do now. Tri-x hc110b is what i have done lots of testing with and jav come up with my own iso and developing. This was just something that i have been wondering for a few years.
My big question is...
Do the negatives "look" that different? Is the contrastier shot really a lot "denser" and the flatter shot "thinner"? Or as jnanian said... did the Skanmeecheenee do something you didn't order it to do?
The one wirh more contrast is thinner. But it ended up being the scanner. Time to shut this thread down. Its funny because i had the line going straight.