scan versus enlarger: detail on negative

[ian_gordon_bilson]

<p>If Jean-Marie is still using the 50/4 EL-Nikkor,it will be likely be a bottleneck in the quality of her results. Of all the EL-Nikkors I have tried, this one is the little,ugly piglet in the bunch. If you add sample variation,it is still not stellar.<br>

The 50/2.8, 63/2.8,80/5.6/105/5.6 examples I use are great,at F5.6. Optimum aperture for all. You can see the grain edges soften at smaller apertures.<br>

I would recheck the focus of the focus-finder,and then alignment of the lens/film plane,and then take the 50/4 out of the loop.<br>

Scan are ok I guess,but the whole point is a lovely,sharp,silver,print.</p>

 

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>SORRY for the delayed response; our server has been ill (again), price to pay for living on the other side of the equator...<br>

BOB Thanks for the useful nikkor refernce; happy at least my 105 lens is one of the better ones; it was a gift from a friend and in mint condition.</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>LG and CRAIG Thanks for pointing that out; I had a vague feeling the scratched unexposed film was not kosher. I read it in a 1930's book and it seemed to work the two times I tried it. Focusing is often difficult on landscape detail, even more so when you can't move the focusing tool <strong>movements are restricted to the center part</strong> of the negative.<br>

I never noticed much difference using different thicknesses of paper to focus on; the brightness of the paper seems to have a greater impact.</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>SCOTT and JOHN Interesting, thanks.<br>

IAN Looks like my el 50 will have to go. All my other (3) lenses, Rodenstock's are so damaged (scratchmarks, fungus, haze) to the point that they aren't useful at all (all free gifts, fortunately). I will try to borrow a lens and print the same image with the two lenses, that should show it up. I checked all other possible causes. I must say that the old chromega is one hell of an indistructable machine 15 years in Highveld and another 15 in subtropical hot and high humidity environment, now back in the highveld.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Jean-Marie -- One other focusing tip. In using a grain focusing tool, you are supposed to be focusing on the grain in the film, not looking for content of the image. Once you've got the clumps of grain in focus, the image is in focus, period. Doesn't matter whether the image is a landscape, person, building, car, etc.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I never noticed much difference using different thicknesses of paper to focus on</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's because it makes no difference. We had a discussion on this on APUG a couple of years ago and I contacted some of the manufacturers. The concensus of opinion from them was don't bother.</p>

<p>In his book, Darkroom Printing, Master printer Gene Nocon also said not to bother and Sharpness obsessive Barry Thornton documented his trial at making a print at the focussed point, another half an inch above and a third half an inch below and he could see no difference. This is in his book, Edge of Darkness.</p>

<p>The relationship between the negative and the lens is much more critical than that between the enlarger head and the paper.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>It seems to me that the simple fact is that a good scanner gets the same sharpness on every bit of the negative scanned while the enlarging lens still exhibits all of the usual problems of corner sharpness, diffraction, coma, astigmatism, etc. The scanning lens isn't taxed by having to scan the entire negative at once. And judicious sharpening is a HUGE advantage over a darkroom print. I even think my Epson scans are sharper. </p>

[nealcurrie]

<p>I have done tests with enlargements vs. Nikon 9000 scans. I will post them when I get to my computer later.</p>

[waldo_lee]

<p>Though there can be loss of sharpness in the corners when enlarging, it can be mitigated considerably by using a somewhat longer focal length lens (e.g., a 105mm lens rather than an 80/90mm for 6x6 film) and/or by using only the best lenses (El-Nikkor, Apo-Rodagon, Apo-Componon, etc.). I don't find corner softness a problem.</p>

<p>Corner softness can also be a problem if you're not using glass negative carriers. I suggest always using glass. If Newton rings become a problem, they can be dealt with, but that's another topic.</p>

<p>I use a very nice Chromega D5. As solid as it is, movement is always an issue...with any enlarger. Rather than use a baseboard, my enlarger base is bolted to a massive shelf that is attached to wall studs with lag screws and the upper portion of the enlarger column is further secured to the wall with heavy chain. Film can shift, too, quickly losing flatness in a glassless carrier, which is why I always use glass. And focus can drift very slightly--but enough to make a difference--which is why I always check focus with a grain magnifier immediately before exposing a print. If you want sharp prints, you cannot take things for granted.</p>

<p>After pursuing digital B&W for a decade, I returned to darkroom printing because I like it better. One thing I especially prefer is the way that sharpness and blur work naturally within a scene. It's very easy to introduce dubious sharpening in digital images. I'm not saying the digital photos cannot be rendered in a very fine way, but like anything you try to do well, it doesn't just drop in your lap</p>

[tim gray]

<p>I'm no expert in this, but I once did a comparison between a 4000 dpi scan of some T-Max 400 (and other films) on a Nikon Coolscan V and a a crop enlargement (would have been equivalent to a 19"x26" print) with an 80mm APO Rodagon N. Granted they weren't necessarily done on the top of the line equipment, but it's not shabby stuff. Both resolved about the same - the print might have had a hair more resolution, but the scan had the appearance of being sharper.</p>

<p>Links to the two images are below, neg scan then print scan. Warning, the scan is a big image.<br>

http://125px.com/articles/photography/film/txtmytmz/400-2tmy-scan-large.jpg<br>

http://125px.com/articles/photography/film/txtmytmz/400-2tmy-print-crop-med.jpg</p>

<p>The whole little writeup can be found here:<br>

http://125px.com/articles/photography/film/txtmytmz/</p>