Acutance and Scanned B&W Film

[sanking]

I'm interested (but don't tell the analog purists, I'll get kicked out of the club house).

I am interested also, and I think it would be ok to post the information in this sub-forum so long as it involves a work flow that produces a digital negative for making a print by some form of traditional processing.



Sandy

[donbga]

I agree that B&W neg scans look horrible if unsharp mask is applied indiscriminately. I use an "Edge Sharpening" workflow in Photoshop that provides a sharpening "effect" without affecting the appearance of the grain. I can't find the page that describes it, but if you use Photoshop and are interested, let me know.

Okay, I'm interested also.

Thanks,

Don Bryant

[B-3]

Me too!

[philsweeney]

I agree that B&W neg scans look horrible if unsharp mask is applied indiscriminately. I use an "Edge Sharpening" workflow in Photoshop that provides a sharpening "effect" without affecting the appearance of the grain. I can't find the page that describes it, but if you use Photoshop and are interested, let me know.

Are you referring to:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html or http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html

[thomas_m]

B&W was never intended for anything other than printing on B&W paper through an enlarger.

I would disagree with this statement. I am getting very good results from scanning 120 B&W films both for web display and archival inkjet prints. I tried very hard in both time and $$ terms to use a digital camera for B&W but came back to film because I could not get the look I had in my head via digital image capture and Photoshop conversion. I'm sure some people can but for me film was easier. Plus, I like using my rangefinders more than digital SLRs.

Caveat - I am scanning with an Imacon Flextight so there was a significant investment but I also got acceptable workprints from my previous scanner, an Epson 3200.

Efke r25 in Rodinal example

Tri-X in XTOL example

Fomapan 100 in Rodinal example

T.

[Roger Krueger]

Jeez people, we're in the gray area subforum, and I think his post is a perfect fit--he wants information on how to optimize his analog workflow knowing that there's a digital step later on.

If he'd asked "what USM settings in Photoshop" yeah, that belongs somewhere else, but he didn't, he asked about developer choice. If you don't want to hear the "D" word at all perhaps this particular subforum isn't the place for you?

FWIW I'd choose grain over acutance in this situation not only because grain limits the usefulness of USM, but also because even the cheapest scanners can do a great job of screwing your image up with grain aliasing, far fewer can capture even a small part of the acutance of a good film/developer combo. Only if you've got a really great scanner does acutance even have a chance of making sense.

[Ara Ghajanian]

Thomas,
Unfortunately, I don't have a Imacon scanner. I wish I did. The Nikon Coolscan I have is acceptable with B&W after a little fidgeting, but nothing like the examples you showed us. Those are extremely sharp looking even at 72ppi. Oops, did I say "ppi"?
Ara

I would disagree with this statement. I am getting very good results from scanning 120 B&W films both for web display and archival inkjet prints. I tried very hard in both time and $$ terms to use a digital camera for B&W but came back to film because I could not get the look I had in my head via digital image capture and Photoshop conversion. I'm sure some people can but for me film was easier. Plus, I like using my rangefinders more than digital SLRs.

Caveat - I am scanning with an Imacon Flextight so there was a significant investment but I also got acceptable workprints from my previous scanner, an Epson 3200.

Efke r25 in Rodinal example

Tri-X in XTOL example

Fomapan 100 in Rodinal example

T.

[magic823]

As someone that straddles both "worlds" ((I love printing in "old" processes like carbon (which I just learned from Sandy King) and Platinum) and I'm an Adobe Certified Instructor for Photoshop) I wish people would realize that these are just tools to an end. And the end is art.

I use digital for my quick pics (grandkids, etc) and for creating the enlarged digital negs for my alt printing. I use film for my serious subjects. Am I a digital or analog photographer? To me I'm "just a photographer" using the tools that make sense for me.

It reminds me of the holy wars between Macs and PCs. They are just tools, get a life and get shooting with what ever "floats your boat."

Now on the subject at hand. Start out with the best negative you can make - period. Don't rely on the digital tricks later on in processing. If you start right, its better (and easier) to end right.

Steve