On 5/1/2014 2:31 PM, Peter Klein wrote:
I've embarked on an experiment to see whether I want to shoot B&W film again. The "Nurse" picture I recently posted
was the beginning of that experiment.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563@N04/13892553280/>
Here are a few things I've noticed while "recalibrating" myself--otherwise known as "how the heck did I do this back
in '06?"
Here's a side by side of the same Tri-X shot
If you can find a chromogenic film you like, you get the advantage of IR
dust/scratch cleaning.
, scanned at 4000 dpi (left) and 2000 dpi (right). The negative was developed in Xtol 1:2 by Moonphoto, a good B&W lab
a few miles from my home. The scanner is a Canon FS-4000, running under VueScan. Click the double rectangle above
the picture to see it full size.
<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/album170/GrainAliasTriX4Kvs2Kdpi.JPG.html>
The 4000 dpi scan is shown at 50%, 2000 dpi picture at 100%, so the image magnification is equal. Note that the 2000
dpi scan appears to have a bit coarser grain due to aliasing. But remember, this is with the negs magnified quite a
bit. If I view the whole frame at a reasonable screen size, the difference hardly matters. In fact, some available
light pictures might appear slightly sharper at 2000 dpi due to slight added texture.
That's in line with my experience. Grain, DOF/focus, etc. mean there's a significant difference in only shots taken with
careful technique in high res film.
A few more things. My scanner has...
Why did I bother doing this? Time. Here are scan times for the various options:
4000 dpi, single exposure 2:50
4000 dpi, multi exposure 7:15
2000 dpi, single exposure 0:55
This isn't a big deal to me, with my work flow. I scan RAW+IR with exposure only adjusted, six frames at a time. Yes, it
takes a long time, but the the Scanner and VS work away on their own while I do other things, at computer or not.
I then "scan" the RAW-TIFFS for framing and all other adjustments, which is very quick. One may put a whole roll in RAW
files with little time and attention, then work quickly with the whole roll.
The next thing I'll try is using the lab's own 2000 dpi scans. Another lab near my ex-employer did 2000 dpi scans that
I didn't like, too contrasty and worse aliasing than shown in my examples above. If this lab's 2000 dpi 16-bit TIFF
scans are as good as mine, I might as well use them for casual stuff, and save my own 4000 dpi scans for the really
good shots, especially those I want to print.
Another thing I'm going to try is to see how much worse my Epson V730 flatbed scanner is at this. The V730 is probably
faster for the lower resolution scans, but the question is whether I'd be happy with those scans for casual
screen-size posts, vs. my 2000 dpi scans or the lab's.
My guess is that it will do pretty well. My Canon 9950F is more than adequate
for casual/web stuff.
V.S. Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
