nick_west3

Thanks for the quick response. Is this because it can't hit a neutral black without the use of colour inks? So does the 'black' setting only use the black carts then? I'm only printing solid black line art and it's costing a fortune replacing the colour inks all the time.

Hi All, Quick question, I've been using 'Advanced B&W Photo' mode with my R2400 when printing B&W but I've noticed it still appears to be using a lot of colour ink. Does anyone know if changing this mode to 'Black' ensures that only black ink is used? Thanks for your help

Thanks for the quick response Larry. Any thoughts on how to rectify this? The scan was made using Epson software on a V550 with all features disabled (sharpening, digital ice etc.)

<p>Hi Guys,<br> Back again! <br> I just processed another roll of Tri-X and found it to be, while not as bad, similar to my first problem roll when scanned.<br> Take a look here and see what you guys think, correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the dead space between frames be completely black and void of any texture?<br> This is a straight scan, no sharpening or other adjustments, 100% crop:<br /><a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TEST2.jpg">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TEST2.jpg</a></p>

<p>Hi Rodeo Joe, <br> The film definitely appears fogged as there is very little contrast between the frames and empty areas, but you're right, I didn't even think of that.. maybe this was the results of a combination of X-Rays and extreme temp changes.</p>

<p>Hi everyone, just a quick update:<br /> I'm pretty sure the issue was due to the film being X-Rayed. I have just processed a new roll of Tri-X with the exact same chemicals, temperatures and process and my results are much closer to what I originally expected. <br /><br />I could even see straight away that the negatives were already dramatically different, as you can see here: <br /><a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/IMG_1547.JPG">New roll of Tri-X 400</a><br /><br />I'm sure you'll agree this is a huge improvement from the previous roll: <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/Comp.jpg">Problem roll of Tri-X 400</a><br /><br />I'll let you know how the scans turn out.<br /> Thanks again for all your help!</p>

<p>Randy,<br> I have looked through a loupe and the entire film seems to have a fine texture to it which I'm guessing is where there is 'detail' in the blank areas?<br> Apologies for the bad image, I have over sharpened it to exaggerate the problem, but you can see the texture <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TestC.jpg">here</a></p>

<p>Kodak seem to suggest that heavy grain and complete fogging could be visible from multiple x-ray scans. I guess this explains it.<br> I'll buy a new roll of Tri-X tomorrow and repeat my process and report back.<br> I am incredibly sorry if it does turn out to be the cause of the baggage scans I have wasted anyones time in trying to solve an impossible problem.</p>

<p>Thanks Lex,<br> So if this was in my checked luggage, as I'm leaning towards thinking it was, both rolls were unexposed in both directions. I flew UK - ATL - BNA and a couple of weeks later BNA - ATL - UK<br> So I can only presume it was exposed to heavy X-rays at least twice. Should this look more like as you described if that was the case?</p>

<p>Hi Lex,<br> Certainly not while I've had it, it was only purchased recently and the highest temperatures will have only been those involved in the processing.<br> However.. now you've said that, I've just realised that both of these films may have accidentally been in my checked luggage when I recently travelled to the US and back.<br> Now I feel stupid.</p>

<p>Hi Randy,<br> Check page 2, and also what do you make of my last post on page 4?<br> Thanks</p>

<p>Yeah, even your 'ugly' scan looks good to me Lex, even at that size my shadow areas are just huge white noise monsters.</p>

<p>Ok, here's another update.<br /> I remembered I had some lab processed HP5+ negs and I have just given one of those frames a quick scan. It's absolutely perfect, so we can now completely rule out the scanning issue.<br /> I'm not sure if this is just the difference in film but I notice a huge contrast between the frames and blank outer areas of the HP5+ compared to my Tri-X, where it all kind of looks one tone. I've shown them side by side here: <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/Comp.jpg">Lab developed HP5+ vs Idiot developed Tri-X</a></p>

<p>Thanks Lex, well.. I wish they did look like those.<br> I also tried scanning the same negatives with Silverfast just to rule out the issue being with the Epson software, same result.<br> Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the area outside of the frame be pretty much black? Wouldnt this indicate a processing issue? (<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TestB.jpg">example here</a>)</p>

<p>Thanks Lex, that's exactly what I was expecting to see from my first scan.<br /><br />Trust me Didier, it's not a lens issue.</p>