Wow. What an answer.
K.
On 14/04/2008, AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > Michael Wong wrote:
> > Water front of Central & Sheung Wan, Hong Kong Island. Left hand
> > side is Central & right hand side is Sheung Wan.
> >
> http://www.michaelphotography.net/TST_B&W20080407/images/IMG2934_ZF85.jpg
>
> Something is a bit "off" in this scan. The midtones are all clumped
> together as though the scan exposure was way off and the tonal
> gradient is represented by too few bits.
>
> A note about XP-2. If the film is not washed sufficiently, the base
> is a bit dark. This isn't an issue with scanning, but is a major
> issue for darkroom printing. I sometimes need to soak my film and
> redry before enlarging to wash more of the dye away. There can be an
> entire stop of difference between densities based on the washing.
>
> XP-2 does encourage you to overexpose slightly. Some people shoot it
> at ISO 200, but the problem with that is the fact XP-2 has almost no
> straightline section and is all shoulder/toe. By overexposing you
> are leaning into the shoulder more and you and up with less tonal
> seperation (blocked up midtones). Effectively, it will also supress
> skintones slightly too. If I'm feeling punky I'll shoot it at ISO
> 320, but rarely at ISO 200. ISO 200 makes the film almost impossible
> to print in an enlarger.
>
> When scanning, it is almost always better to scan in RGB and convert
> to monochrome in an editor.
>
> The grain in the reduced images points to an issue with your resize
> algorithm of choice. Avoid the newer algorithms that preserve
> sharpness when downsizing. These cause the "grain" to go
> over-the-top. I've found that a two or three-step resize process
> using standard Bicubic does about the best job of downsizing XP-2.
> And then apply a bit of edge-enhancement sharpening afterwards.
>
> I used this technique on the images in "Christmas Outing with the
> Olympus OM-4T on the www.zone-10.com website.
>
>
> http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=141&Itemid=1
>
> Personally, my favorit B&W film remains Ilford Delta 400 processed in
> Ilfotec DD-X. But convenience and cost usually dictates XP-2 these
> days.
>
> In my article "Call me Square", the photo was taken with either Delta
> 400 or HP5 pushed one stop.
>
>
> http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=88&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=0
>
> In another article "Chrome and Rust" I have downsized images taken
> with the New Kodak Portra 400VC. Again, little to no visible grain.
>
>
> http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=1
>
> The point is, that it is entirely possible to get nice grainless or
> near-grainless images for web-display if you recognize that scans do
> not resize the same way that digital camera images do. GEM helps,
> but is not the end-all, be-all. In fact, GEM will do some really
> gut-wrench things if you are not careful.
>
> Oh, what about the prints? Printing film scans is actually quite a
> bit better than screen display because of "dot-gain". Dot-gain on a
> monitor is exactly the opposite as it is in a print. On a screen,
> luminance noise shows up more, whereas on a print chroma noise will
> show up more.
>
> AG
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
--
"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of people" - Emily
Cox
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
