Anyone scanning B&W negatives, then inkjet printing?
Morgan
I'm looking for the control I get with the digicam but some of the quality from the 35mm.
Specifically, I don't *need* more resolution than 2 megapixels to do acceptable 8x10 prints, but I
do want to use fixed-focal length lenses that have better flare control than my C-2020Z's zoom and I
prefer film grain to CCD noise. I'd also like to be able to shoot at ISO 400 and faster with a
small amount of noise. Being able to go on a trip and shoot hundreds of pictures without either
dragging along a laptop or spending a fortune on flash cards is another plus. The last advantage
for me is manual focussing with a screen that was meant for it and the option of getting an
autofocus camera that's fast for well under $1k. My Oly focuses like a point-and-shoot (slowly and
no continuous/tracking) and there's no way to confirm focus (don't talk to me about the LCD).
I'm thinking of getting a film scanner (maybe an LS-2000 which can penetrate dense B&W negatives and
has ICE for my dusty house) and shooting on chromogenic (I'm happy with T400CN)film & minilab-ing it
until I move to a house that'll let me mix chemicals for daylight tanks without poisoning my family.
I would use "real" B&W film now, but I don't like the extra delay and my sole experiment with my
local lab (which serves local professionals & is supposed to be good) and TMY gave me really thin
negatives. I could have been gross underexposure (I don't have a seperate light meter) and I shot
at 400 instead of rating it at 320 like a lot of people do, but I've tried T400CN and like it. It's
also cheaper (incl. processing) which doesn't hurt.
--------------
So there's the image acquisition/processing side. Now printing. I've heard good & bad about the
quadtone inks for Epson printers. I'd rather keep my printer (a 600 to be replaced by a 1270 next
year) color-capable.
I always hated B&W printing in school, even in college where we had a super-easy chemistry setup, a
great print washer and nice enlargers. I just don't have the patience to get exposure and contrast
right when each tweak takes minutes to see (i.e. you have to think too much :-). I have even less
time know then I did then. Lastly, it'll be hard to get the room to do it (yes, I've seen the
vertical "darkroom in a closet" set up, but *no thanks*).
I've been happy with B&W inkjets from digicam photos, but I wonder if anyone that actively prints on
real B&W paper and does inkjets can comment on tonality, range, etc. Michael H. Reichmann who runs
http://www.luminous-landscape.com likes inkjets, but he's printing color.
Sorry about the length, but I'm hoping for thoughtful responses. I'm interested in a n approach to
the whole system rather than fights about specific equipment.
-M
richc...@my-deja.com
I develop my own B&W negatives in the kitchen sink. This gives me
control, fast turnaround, and cheap pricing. Using bulk-loaded
film, the cost comes out to around a 7 cents per frame, and the
cost per frame is nearly independent of the roll length (I can
roll up a 12 exposure roll and shoot it for only a little more than
1/3 the cost of a 36 exposure roll). No darkroom required, just
a changing bag, developing tank, and a sink. No scratches on my
negatives, ever. Nobody ever sees my mistakes. And there's
something about the "look" of Plus-X and Tri-X that I really like.
I'm curious why you'd want to use chromogenic film. If you're
going to use C-41 minilab processing anyway, why not shoot color
negatives and desaturate them for B&W? Oh well...
I scan with an HP Photosmart scanner. Not much to say about it,
but it works well.
For printing, I use an Epson 870, with the normal "lightfast"
color inks. Quality is good, but I have never seen any inkjet
that can produce the deep, rich, graduated blacks that you get
using good darkroom technique with fiber based paper containing
lots of genuine silver in its emulsion. Unfortunately, my
current house doesn't have space for a conventional darkroom,
though I've had one in the past.
Still, the Epson compares very favorably to using RC paper in a
"real" B&W darkroom, and I like the ability to do quick 8x10 proofs
on plain paper for a lot less money than a real darkroom would
cost. Manipulating images in Photoshop is quicker and easier than
manipulating them in a real darkroom, too. I think the inkjet
does better than any results I've seen printing chromogenic
negatives on a color minilab (that's not very high praise, though).
If I had a chemical darkroom, I'd only use it for making exhibition
prints of those rare negatives that deserve the very best treatment.
I'd still do all proofing and most ordinary printing on the inkjet.
Of course, the scanner/printer works very well for color, and is
so much easier to use than a conventional color darkroom.
--Rich
In article <veyV5.205$uE1....@news.pacbell.net>,
"Morgan" <ha...@spammenot.foo> wrote:
[snip description of scanning B&W negatives into computer]
> I've been happy with B&W inkjets from digicam photos, but I wonder
> if anyone that actively prints on real B&W paper and does inkjets
> can comment on tonality, range, etc. Michael H. Reichmann who runs
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com likes inkjets, but he's printing
> color.
>
> Sorry about the length, but I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
> I'm interested in an approach to the whole system rather than
> fights about specific equipment.
>
> -M
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Morgan
> I develop my own B&W negatives in the kitchen sink.
I would do this and I have a bathroom I could store chemicals in that has no windows & wouldn't be
hard to seal for loading tanks, but my worry is that if I use powdered chemicals (which seem a lot
easier to get and cheaper) some dust will get in the air. I'm also worried about sulfer dioxide
gas. In the new house, I'll be able install separate venting for the chemical room.
> I'm curious why you'd want to use chromogenic film. If you're
> going to use C-41 minilab processing anyway, why not shoot color
> negatives and desaturate them for B&W? Oh well...
I think T400CN gives better grain (and tonality) than any 400 speed color film I've used, but that
isn't based on anything approaching science.
> Still, the Epson compares very favorably to using RC paper in a
> "real" B&W darkroom
Yes, yes. Here's the crux! I could even use the local rent-a-darkroom, but in order to simplify
chemistry, they don't allow you access to it! They have an RC-paper-only automatic processor.
Fiber paper can give those super rich blacks, but as you suggested, it's rare to find that in
everyday use in regular (amateur) darkrooms. Who has the time to deal with it!?
I think I'll go in stages. After a scanner, negative development equipment, a wide-carriage printer
and quadtone (or Piezography) inks, I might be too busy making pictures to worry about adding an
enlarger, though I may be tempted to try the "Digital Negatives" techniques. Just the scanner and a
return to using "real" cameras (duck!) will probably make me happy with the process again.
-M
richc...@my-deja.com
"Morgan" <ha...@spammenot.foo> wrote:
> Rich- thanks for your answer. Seems we're of the same mind on
> several issues.
>
> > I develop my own B&W negatives in the kitchen sink.
>
> I would do this and I have a bathroom I could store chemicals in
> that has no windows & wouldn't be hard to seal for loading tanks,
> but my worry is that if I use powdered chemicals (which seem a lot
> easier to get and cheaper) some dust will get in the air. I'm also
> worried about sulfer dioxide gas. In the new house, I'll be able
> install separate venting for the chemical room.
Mixing powdered chemicals is a fairly rare thing (a half-gallon of
fixer will fix a LOT of film if it's not being used to fix prints).
You can always prepare the warm water in a bottle, and then go
outdoors for a few seconds to open the powder bag and pour it into the
water. After that, you're no longer dealing with powder. With a
sealed inversion tank, there's very little odor from B&W film
developing, since the chemicals are only exposed to air for a brief
time when filling or dumping the tank.
> Fiber paper can give those super rich blacks, but as you suggested,
> it's rare to find that in everyday use in regular (amateur)
> darkrooms. Who has the time to deal with it!?
The other side of this is, if you're not going take the time to at
least occasionally try using the very best paper and techniques you
can, then why bother with all the trouble of setting up a conventional
darkroom? You might as well go digital! My guess is that a good
fraction of the world's FB paper is used by dedicated amateurs.
--Rich
Tony Spadaro
"Morgan" <ha...@spammenot.foo> wrote:
>
> I'm thinking of getting a film scanner (maybe an LS-2000 which can
penetrate dense B&W negatives and
> has ICE for my dusty house) and shooting on chromogenic (I'm happy
with T400CN)film & minilab-ing it
> until I move to a house that'll let me mix chemicals for daylight
tanks without poisoning my family.
You would have to shoot chromagenic to use Digital ICE. It does not
work with silver. VueScan will sort-of work, but it does not give as
good a B/W scan as Nikon's own software.
>
> So there's the image acquisition/processing side. Now printing.
I've heard good & bad about the
> quadtone inks for Epson printers. I'd rather keep my printer (a 600
to be replaced by a 1270 next
> year) color-capable.
The quad tone ink situation is always changing. The Leben list is
made up of people who are experimenting with various inkjet/ink
combinations, mostly B/W.
I find that if I "tone" my pictures they print quite well using Epson
colour inks on Epson and other brands of paper. I use and Epson 3000
which can do 16x22 prints. THe 1270 and the paper for it are optimised
for colour printing - B/W is apparently a real hassle.
I don't know the address of the Leben list off hand, but if no one
else provides it, I'll look it up.
>
> I always hated B&W printing in school, even in college where we had a
super-easy chemistry setup, a
> great print washer and nice enlargers. I just don't have the
patience to get exposure and contrast
> right when each tweak takes minutes to see (i.e. you have to think
too much
Remember there is calibrating the screen to the printer, and quite
frequently nasty surprizes pop up even then. I have many files I have
simply "put away" to print later, when inkjets are improved.
>
> I've been happy with B&W inkjets from digicam photos, but I wonder if
anyone that actively prints on
> real B&W paper and does inkjets can comment on tonality, range, etc.
I haven't printed chemically for a few years now. Inkjet prints are
not up to the quality of good chemical printing. However, they don't
have to be "spotted" since that is done digitally, and all the
"dodging, burning in, contrast adjustsments" etc, are on the digital
file. You can re-produce a print as many times as you want.
Michael H. Reichmann likes inkjets, but he's printing color.
All in all colour inkjet printing is quite a bit further advanced than
B/W. There are people doing salon quality stuff, but like chemical
printing, calls for dedication.
>
A note on mixing chemicals - Last year Richard Knoppow suggested the
following method for mixing powders - it works quite well.
Submerge the package with the powdered chemicals in the mixing water
BEFORE opening it. Wear clean rubber gloves of course. All the powder
is under water and does not escape into the air. I only use one
powdered chemical anyway (X-tol) and there are many good liquid
concentrate developers - HC-110 is my standard developer.
A note on digital "toning": There are a few pictures on my website
that are toned. You convert a B/W image to RGB then use one of the
controls that alters the colour channels to tone the image. I prefer
the Colour Balance control as it allows me to split-tone images, and
fine tune them for the printer.
--
Digital photo restoration in autumnal Chapel Hill NC
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony
New - A Digital Workflow + Sharpness: Threat or Menace?
And Selecting Your First SLR - Java must be enabled