Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,706   Posts: 1,548,488   Online: 924
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    34
    I recently went back to Xtol from homemade brews and did a couple of tanks of TriX 1:1. The first one used 10 minutes at 20 degrees C and was too flat for me, but I used the large tank agitation - first 30 sec constant and then 10 sec/minute. The second time I used the large tank time and agitation - 11 minutes at same agitation - and was much more pleased. I'm still not sure I prefer it to D76H, but time will tell.

  2. #22
    stormbytes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New England, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    244
    Images
    1
    I doubt this is relevant anymore, seeing as this thread kind of died about a year ago. Still, I thought I'd leave my mark in hieroglyphs so future generations visiting might pick something up.

    The images you posted are super-high dynamic range, with ratios in excess of 128:1. If you were to open up the shadows beyond where they are now (a bit dark for my taste) you'd blow your highs into the stratosphere, and those highs I speak of would probably start somewhere mid-curve. For scanning purposes (and yes - I know this is taboo here, I'll be brief!) you'll need to drop development times to something like N-3 or even 4 (not really doable with Xtol) which would require a compensating developer, so you maintain texture in those tones and then apply your curves to pick up the highs to where you're satisfied with overall contrast. My suggestion is that you consider Diafine, which will get you in the general ballpark. Also, see Steven Schaub's many articles on Tri-X & Diafine on FigitalRevolution.com (now defunct, but the info is still there).

    As for my own feelings on the matter -

    I can't stand digital imaging. Notice I said 'imaging', not photography, because that's what it is. Any process that requires a person sit in front of a computer for hours on end, using a calibrated screen, working with color profiles, watching his/her viewing angles and tweaking an organically formed image with boxy, pixel tools is not a photographer. Photography should be, at its core, an organic process. Digital imaging overcomplicates something that is otherwise remarkably simple.

    Here's what I think your image might look like

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	retouch.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	826.5 KB 
ID:	46244
    Last edited by stormbytes; 02-14-2012 at 04:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    -
    Daniel

  3. #23
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,560
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    Scanning negatives is easy... converting scans to decent images is not. The problem is that there is way more dynamic range in the negative than in your final image, so you have to have to discard some of it, fiddle with curves or finish with a flat-looking image because there is insufficient local contrast. If you cram 10 stops of DR (pretty typical from a B&W neg) into an 8 bit image (jpeg), you will end up with a contrast index about 4x too low, i.e. it will look terribly flat.
    Bit depth has nothing to do with dynamic range.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    141
    Blah blah blah, scanners are evil and it's impossible, etc etc etc. Here we go:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	February 14 Roll B 27-tweaked.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	947.0 KB 
ID:	46245

    I took one of your shots and did a two second tweak by bringing the midtones down in the levels menu. You can clearly see that they're much too high in the originals. There is no problem with the scanning, it's your editing that needs a little work. Scanners are perfectly fine, you bunch of luddites!

  5. #25
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,285
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post
    Bit depth has nothing to do with dynamic range.
    The entire history of signal processing would like to disagree with you.

  6. #26
    dehk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    W Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    885
    Your scanner, go into options and turn the Auto Exposure way down from default and your stuff will look great.
    - Derek
    [ Insert meaningless camera listing here ]

  7. #27
    ParkerSmithPhoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    823
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by stormbytes View Post
    My suggestion is that you consider Diafine, which will get you in the general ballpark. Also, see Steven Schaub's many articles on Tri-X & Diafine on FigitalRevolution.com (now defunct, but the info is still there).
    +1

    If you are scanning, Diafine is the juice for you. Of course, when you decide you want to print them on silver (ahem...guilty) you'll be using a Grade 5 and pulling out the bleach.
    Parker Smith Photography, Inc.
    Atlanta, GA

    Commercial & Fine Art Photography
    Portrait Photography

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin