Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: TMAX/grain/BWscanning/dynamic range



On B&W film, doing my own 'speed test' of FP4 demonstrated a dynamic range
of 11 stops of solid exposure range!  Now I know paper won't render all of
them, so this is where a good scanner does come into play.  The gotcha with
multiple exposure is that if the scene you are imaging has any dynamism
whatsoever, it will show up as softness or worse.  (similar to multipass LF
digicams) However, having 11 stops on a single neg, allows you to do
multiple scans at different exposures (whitepoints), or using your
technique, print multiple enlargements at differing contrasts and exposures
and meld those.

The downside of scanning from a print is that the experimental results I've
seen, all indicate that scanning and then printing via digital photographic
process yields the highest resolution/sharpest results of ALL techniques
including 'straight to digital'.


----- Original Message -----
From: "don schaefer" <send2ds@mac.com>
To: <karlsch@verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:40 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: TMAX/grain/BWscanning/dynamic range


> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 06:57:38 -0700
> From: "KARL SCHULMEISTERS" <karlsch@verizon.net>
> ----------------------------------------
> B&W  film has much greater dynamic range than color film (some film
> approaches 12
> stops).

Thanks, Karl, I assume you mean TechPan, although many people don't
know how to get that much out of this film, and with 35mm, it's a very
difficult proposition. Shooting color neg, you can split the dynamic
range, shoot once for highlights, and another for shadow, and combine
the scans in PS.

I am not against BW shooting, just getting it scanned without the grain
becoming compounded with other artifacts to make a very unpleasant
situation is the problem. That's why I suggested making a very sharp
wet darkroom print, then scanning it on flat bed. And that solution is
suggested only because of the grain problem. If you have large format
negs and no comparable film scanner, then it make even more sense to me.

Now, whether you're printing to BW darkroom paper, or to an inkjet, you
won't get 12 stops of dynamic range printed, so you have to decide into
where all that extra dynamic range is going to be compressed to fit the
range of the paper, and that's the choice we make as photographers,
using whatever tools we choose, traditional or digital. It makes no
difference.

This is a great discussion. Thanks to all.

Don/Boston, MA

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

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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.