[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues

["Todd Flashner" <tflash@earthlink.net>]

on 6/29/02 6:08 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi Todd,
>
>> but no light source is capable of giving a better print than the other, in
>> and of, itself.
>
> Except for that darned Callier effect...which makes point light sources more
> susceptible to depth of focus, as well as dust, scratches etc.

Austin,

Most of the sources I've seen discuss the Callier effect show the same neg
printed through the two light sources. Unfortunately, what they've done is
taken a neg that was tailored to print well on a coldlight and printed it
with a condenser, then claim the highlights burn out...DUH. Likewise if they
print a neg that was tailored to a condenser and print it with a coldlight
it will look flat. Those fools could claim coldlight is bad, as in prints
too flat, because it does not produce the Callier effect. The point is, the
Callier effect is predicable, and in some cases useful, and can be
compensated for as needed. That there exists a phenomenon does not make it
bad.

Dust and scratches I will concede, but it's not like one has them and the
other doesn't - diffuse light merely mitigates them somewhat.

Not sure if depth of focus is of any real relevance. For instance, what
someone found in one of those darkroom mags (I think it was Ctein) was that
the multicontrast papers has a depth of focus issue (maybe that is the wrong
term for what I will describe) whereby the papers at certain grades needed
the light to be focused at different depths than others. So at one given
grade the light which was focused through the grain magnifier was correct
for the paper, but other grades would want it focused further or closer.

Fine, but how many people did that make a difference for? Few. I happened to
print a lot of grainy 35mm film at 16x20. That size reveals a lot of
sharpness/focusing flaws. What I found to be the greatest problem for my
print's sharpness were: A) film flatness, for which I often resorted to
glass carriers, B) paper buckling in the easel, for which I used
repositionable spray mount on the easel, C) lens quality, I'm a fan of APO
Rodagons and larger than recommended focal lengths (ie a 63 or 75mm lens for
35mm) D) lens aperture, E) enlarger shake, F) user error... and on. My point
is, while that list is in no particular order (though A and B were the worst
offenders) Callier effect, and multicontrast paper, are below any on that
list in importance.

Anyway, just my experience, not out to tell anyone theirs is wrong.

Todd

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body