d76 and scanners - I went crazy so you don't have to

[pierods]

I started testing d-76 with tri-x, in search for compensating effects and low contrast.

Let me clarify that,

- as far as scanner exposure is concerned, i leave it on "auto" since I found out it is the only option to get all the detail from a negative.

- i shoot 135 format at box speed

So I tried d-76 with a roll of tri-x, divided in 4 frame test strips. Each frame had a scene, metered at 1/60, shot at 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125.

Each scene contains a part of midtones, shadows, highlights, two stops away from each other.

My sequence has been so far:

1. stock/kodak time (6:45). A known quantity. Did it for reference.

2. 1+1/kodak time (9:45). As it is usually the case, no difference from case 1 in grain nor contrast, when scanning.

3. Angered at Ansel Adams, who did not foresee scanning in his books, i tried 1+1 at 6 minutes. Got even madder at Ansel, having gotten same result as case 1.

4. I figured, at 1+3, I will prove Ansel right. Did 1+3 at 20 minutes. No cigar. No real difference from case 1. I started picturing Ansel in a cage with monkeys.

5. Decided to screw up a test strip. 1+3 at 10 minutes. Well...surprise surprise...a bit of coarser grain, a ton of gained detail, some highlight compensation, and perfect development.

I think that the accelerators in d-76 (borax and HQ) are so active that the solution must be diluted all the way down to 1+3, and then dev time reduced by half, to actually see changes.

I still have to decide whether I like better the frames slightly under or slightly over exposed, but I suspect that when scanning, film actually gains 2 stops.

If I can confirm that, using tri-x at 1600 with no added grain will be fantastic!

Next tests: 1+3, 6 minutes, 1+3, 60 minutes, stand, and then rodinal, 1+100, stand.

I'll keep posting.

Opinions?

[df cardwell]

"Opinions?"

Well, D-76 and Tri X are nowhere near as good for scanning as TMY and Diafine.

There isn't anything you can do to make D-76 and TX scan well,
so why not take the easy route and get on with picture taking ?

[pierods]

Good question!

Have you noticed that all of the tmax film sample photos on Kodak's site are taken on medium/large format?

In my tests on 135 format and tmy/tmx, I got compressed tones.

Probably on larger formats than 135, things could be different, but I am not interested in larger formats.

Maybe when I try diafine, it will give me a better tone scale, I'll see,

Having said that, I have noticed that probably the real deal for a certain b/w look, that is, very fine grain and smooth tones is actually bw400cn, which is the easiest route.

I tried it, and it blew the whole bunch of grandfathers, tri-x, tmax and company right out of the water.

BUT...and that's a big but...it lacks soul.

I'll report on my results with diafine.

[df cardwell]

In any digitalization, the necessary step to master is Photoshop.

Whether you begin with a digital image, or make any sort of scan, you MUST adjust the image to your needs. THAT is the analogue to making a chemical print from a negative.

The scanners we can use ( that don't cost as much as a nice house ) are all incapable of making a scan from 35mm that can come close to the fidelity of a good chemical print. Therefore, the challenge becomes getting as much information from the negative in a useable form as possible. Scanning ANY B&W film (excepting C-41 films like 400cn) involves compressing the scale of the film, which is beyond the scanner's ability to record. So, yes, the initial image of TMY MUST seem 'flat' at first. THEN, you open the image up in PS. Don't blame the film: it is only doing its job.

Learn your scanner, and the scanning process. Then, make a negative that fits its limitations.

[mrred]

In any digitalization, the necessary step to master is Photoshop.

Whether you begin with a digital image, or make any sort of scan, you MUST adjust the image to your needs. THAT is the analogue to making a chemical print from a negative.

The scanners we can use ( that don't cost as much as a nice house ) are all incapable of making a scan from 35mm that can come close to the fidelity of a good chemical print. Therefore, the challenge becomes getting as much information from the negative in a useable form as possible. Scanning ANY B&W film (excepting C-41 films like 400cn) involves compressing the scale of the film, which is beyond the scanner's ability to record. So, yes, the initial image of TMY MUST seem 'flat' at first. THEN, you open the image up in PS. Don't blame the film: it is only doing its job.

Learn your scanner, and the scanning process. Then, make a negative that fits its limitations.

Yes and no. Getting the most from the negative starts with the scanner. Garbage in *is* garbage out.

Developing for a scanner is vital and calibrating your development to read a grey card for .75 + fog + base (can be measured with vuescan) . This puts the exposure for the scanner in the middle and will put it in a position to do the most for you. The usual methods apply - control strips + varying development time.

I have found most scanner software have issues with translation of the film image (log) to a digital (linear) image, negative or positive. Using ColorNeg or ColorPos photoshop plugins from c-f-systems.com, do the most realistic I have used to date. These plugins rely on you being able to do a raw (unconverted) scan.

Some films respond better to using the infra-red channel to use for BW conversion. TriX and KB400 are two films that I know of that clean up amazingly well.

Staining developers do very well with scanning, as they compress the extremes and bring the dmax into the range of lower end scanners. They generally work nicer with pulling than pushing. It usually will not give you finer grain than what the film can naturally provide, but you tend to have to develop less; which itself gives you a finer grain and box speed or less.

[Bruce Watson]

Getting mad at Ansel won't help. Besides, he was right. All he was doing with the Zone System was describing a way to systematically apply the old adage: Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

All of my personal testing to optimize B&W for scanning was for scanning on my drum scanner. Once I nailed that down I tried an old Epson 2450 (this was several years ago) to see if my drum scanning results would translate to the CCDs in the flatbed. I found a reasonable agreement between the two scanners. That is, what I did to optimize for the drum also improved scans from the flatbed.

What it all came down to was small grain and less density. And since graininess is directly related to density...

What I found for my 5x4 Tri-X work was that XTOL 1:3 gave me excellent results if I developed for a Zone VIII density of around 1.0. That's about N-1 in Zone System terms. I got very similar results from 5x4 TMY-2 when I optimized it for scanning last year.

How far is too far, or how thin is too thin, is almost certainly scanner dependent. Some scanners will want more density than others, so one has to optimize for the scanner one is going to use. OTOH, if one is *ever* going to use the film in the wet darkroom, one should certainly optimize for the wet darkroom -- it will scan just fine. But if one is *never* going to use the film in the wet darkroom, then optimizing for scanning can yield a small improvement. Not a lot, but noticeable and worth doing.

[cooltouch]

This is a very interesting topic and brand new to me. It would have never occurred to me to process film differently for a scanner, but in retrospect, it makes sense.

Are there any references on this topic where a person could find out more? Books? Websites? I tried googling it, using a few different parameters, but didn't unearth anything significant.

I am working toward a "hybrid darkroom" setup -- developing my own B&W, but using my flatbet scanner (an Epson 4990) and image processing software. So far, my results, using film developed "normally" have been quite good.

Best,
Michael

[pellicle]

Hi

like any good researcher, its important to undertake a review of literature. I think you may not have dug deeply. Much of what you're saying is published.

Of course when reading any text you need to understand it may not have been written to answer your specific quesiton.

had you asked here before starting your research people may have been able to offer advice on this topic.

Firstly

I started testing d-76 with tri-x, in search for compensating effects and low contrast.

Let me clarify that,

- as far as scanner exposure is concerned, i leave it on "auto" since I found out it is the only option to get all the detail from a negative.

sadly this is a false assumption. In order to get the most from your scanner you need to understand your medium and adjust your scanner accordingly.

For instance establish what is the density of your unexposed sheets



when you know that and the density of a fully (really fully) exposed sheet you can then see what sorts of tone ranges you are getting on your film




to understand this you must use your scanner as a densitometer ... meaning it must be set to be linear and use its full scope. I suggest you need also a reference such as a Stouffer stepwedge.

Also you don't mention (or I didn't spot) what scanner you're using...

I've done some experiments with mine published here and here.

- i shoot 135 format at box speed

So I tried d-76 with a roll of tri-x, divided in 4 frame test strips. Each frame had a scene, metered at 1/60, shot at 1/15, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125.

Each scene contains a part of midtones, shadows, highlights, two stops away from each other.

My sequence has been so far:

1. stock/kodak time (6:45). A known quantity. Did it for reference.

but what did you expose and what was the scene contrast range?

this then needs to be compared to the density range.

before getting really carried away with that, try reading what I've published here and see if that helps you direct your research methodology a little.

Essentially I've found over the years that rather than get all carried away with technical detail (have you read Beyond the Zone system by Phil Davis?) try using some other tools (such as digital cameras and their raw files) as references to compare to film and scans.

Opinions?

offered above ;-)

still interested to continue the discussion?

[jeffreyg]

All very interesting comments. I have been using Ilford Delta 400, 100 and developing in ID11 and also HP5 developed in either ID11 or Pyro PMK. I find if the film was exposed properly it scans very well. I am using an Epson 4870 with Silverfast Ai. Some negatives require some tweeking before scanning which is quite easy and then I use PS CS4 for the final refinements. Most negatives take me about 15 minutes to scan and make an exhibition quality print. I'm not really interested in the technology or chemical details of the procedure but rather a finished print. I still use a wet darkroom and also print with platinum/palladium so I find that film gives me the best of both worlds. I am usind 120 and 4x5 film.

[Robert Budding]

"What I found for my 5x4 Tri-X work was that XTOL 1:3 gave me excellent results if I developed for a Zone VIII density of around 1.0. That's about N-1 in Zone System terms. I got very similar results from 5x4 TMY-2 when I optimized it for scanning last year."

Interesting. I shoot for about the same Zone VIII density when I print in my darkroom with a condenser enlarger.