Jerusalem Shuk 0208090321

He looks tired. A soldier, perhaps?Was he saying something to you?

What is "Shuk"?

I had a poor experience scanning Ilford HP5 Plus film. Your scans of T Max 400 like that here look beautiful. Do you think this film as more scanner-friendly or is it simply a better film for street shooting?

Regards,

He is not a soldier. Appears that he is offering "baklava" samples to passerbys. A shuk is a "market" I have many photos taken in the "shuk" i.e. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7651015. He and I never spoke; I just waited until he looked at me. Like you, I do not have good results with film scanners either. Among other things the whites tend to blow out; contrast too high. Film type does not seem to matter. I do not think Tmax is any better for scanner/street. I have never used HP5. Recently I have used Kodak ProFoto 400 BW which is a C41 Color developer, therefore I can take to a color lab instead of developing myself. I suspect that fixer with "hardener" might be a problem with scanners Seems the histograms are different (bad) but I have not done a controlled experiment. I have a 12 mega pixel digital camera but I also have 6 film cameras (konica hexar, three Nikons and 2 Hasselblads). If I move over to digital-only what will I do with these cameras? I love these cameras. I have been using the same ones for up to 19 years. I also feel very insecure having my images on CDs. I hear some people backup their backups. Also the day will come when PCs will not have CD readers. just like now they do not read floppy disc like 15 years ago before CD/DVD. In a 100 years there won't even be PCs. Seems like one will have to rearchive everytime technology changes.

 

 

Thanks very much, Meir.

Archiving is fast becoming a nightmare even for someone like me.

I am sure your negatives can always be "read" somehow. I doubt, however, if they can be printed properly on proper photographical paper...

You wrote; " I doubt, however, if they can be printed properly on proper photographical paper..." Will you explain? Do you mean in the distant future? If so, I am sure that Negatives of Ansel Adams, Weston, Roni, all Masters before the digital era will continue to be printed. Maybe not the way as now. Maybe negative images will be archived to digital but the negatives will be around. Demand for those images will increase with time. Do you agree? Maybe that is not what you meant.

 

Meir,

 

Backup is a point which is not yet too much in mind of the amateurs. The Pros definitely have to have their solutions and in the IT there are solutions. The lower end needs to Backup on drives (more less manually), and yes a second Backup is the thing which makes you sure about your stuff - In opposite, and here comes my plus on digital, to the negatives you can have multiple backups - one at your kids home or even more secure bank. This double backup is not possible with the negatives. (Thinking on Australia - losing the house - - - no more words needed)

 

The 'reading' format always changes and we need to convert - yes I'm sure this will come - and will be quicker then we think now.

 

So much to that - even though tons could be said more.

 

BW scanning: I'm running on a Coolscan IV. For BW a lot 'test' and time is needed to reach good results. The standard BW is not really ideal for scanning. After a while I'm finally only using the C41 BWs Kodak T400CN and XP2.

 

A snip of the following link is the key (by Helen):

"ICE: Relies on difference in IR transmission. Doesn't work with silver (opaque to IR, treats the silver as if it is dust), will work with chromogenic (XP-2, Portra BW etc) but only if scanned in RGB.

 

GEM: Works with silver and chromogenic, but only if scanned in RGB (but who likes the results of GEM-processed silver? I don't, it's just plain unnatural) "

 

The link: http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/008itv

 

Another point:

When I use my film-Canon loaded with BW - I don't now how/why I start to think different - more in BW mode - so I use still both Dig & Neg - depending on the mood I take this one or that one.

 

Regards Axel

 

 

 

I was trying to say that many photographical paper companies are quitting production. Agfa and Kodak comes to mind... Also some Eastern European ones. As far as I know, only Ilford seems to in bussiness in a strong fashion. And, they may stop producing if they find another, more profitable product.

However, the production of photographical papers for digital printers are on the increase. So, we may end up scanning the negatives and printing them on such papers. Some may think that this is not the same thing as printing on "proper" paper...

Axel, thank you for commenting and the link. I use a Microtek ArtixScan with Silver Fast Softwar but often as with this photo just put into my epson flatbed because it is so much faster and I can make contacts in a single pass. I know from the Manufacturer the ArtixScan is not made for color; seems she in the link is saying all scanners. I am Not familiar with Gem. Good thought on negative backup. I have considered the Coolscan but the higher model is too expensive and I need because I do 6x6 film also. I avoid fixer with hardener. I am a little suspect of it of on a scanner but can't prove it. I too have been shooting Digital or film or sometimes carry both.

 

 

That is a good point.. B&H in New York and others sell several brand name Archival Papers in different sizes. Bergger, Oriental, Forma, Forte, Ilford. The only digital prints I have seen are my own and mine do not have the luster of silver gelatin. I use an Expson Pro 3800/UltraChrom K3 Ink. In Axel's comment above and the link he provided, if I read them coprrectly they say that scanner technology isn't made for B&W medium. I used a Microtek Artixscan; It does great with color and poorly with b&W and the Manuf. has told me the scanner was not intended for B&W so I believe Axel's and link are correct. I think Axel is saying that C41 films are okay?? An alternative is to shoot color film and then remove the color in Adobe. But who can develop color film? Not me; and maybe that process will stop. I don't used color film because I can't develop it and because I want the option to print a B&W in the darkroom and certainly not use Panalure which maybe is no longer prodeced. So you have a good point. Have to wait to see what the future brings. I only have about 10 years, plus/minus left so the issue is more important to you :-).

 

 

 

>I think Axel is saying that C41 films are okay??

 

Yes - they are more simple to scan - but to find the correct curve-balances is still something to get used to it - like in the color also.

The surface of a standard BW holds silver particles or so - I'm not too technical on that - and this particles disturb the scanner.

 

Have a try on Kodak T400CN (now called BW400CN) or XP2.

 

Regards Axel

Axel, I have not tried that Kodak C41 that you stated. I have not seen this in Israel. The Ilford XP2 is a film that I think is available in Jerusalem maybe. I have used Kodak ProFoto 400, a C41 film. I have not liked so well. Results are about just like Tmax and TriX and those are "iffy" See http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8398258 which is ProFoto. Yes the film is silver salt. So is paper. Very important to me is to have the best film for producing an excellent print under a diffuser or condensor enlarger and C41 films do not provide this. So using C41 is not a lot different than shooting color, scanning and bw conversion in adobe. film I have processed myself in America and film which I send to a pro lab in America scan much better than what I can develop in Israel and I do not know why. The histograms are differernt the contrast is correct. I think it is not the Israel water so what else? All the film photos (many are digital) done in 2007 were processed in an American Lab. Histograms are altoghether different. Like I said above, I did not do the controlled experiment but I have suspicion that fixer with hardener is not the way to go with a scanner. Seems to me that the scanner sees the hardener. The American Lab suggested that hardener could be a problem -they never use it and In america I never used hardener. They ask me to send samples and they would look but I never did send. I think my best resuts for computer is film->darkroom print->flatbed scan of the print. I am too old to be playing with darkroom anymore. Thanks. Keep me up to date on what you have learned/learning.

>http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8398258

This was scanned? from the neg?

 

The BW400CN - may come out the same way - some are always rating the BW400CN @200 instead of 400.

 

Tony (http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=93013) uses a lot this Film, you may surf his Portfolio - and you can seehow it'll come out.

In the even I will my time and look which of mine are with BW400CN and which are XP2.

 

Will return. Cheers Axel

 

Yes, http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8398258 is a scan of the Kodak ProFoto 400 BW. I generally note in the details: the film , lens, camera or digital. I'll read the rest of your note later.

Meir,

 

I did not find the film you mention ProPhot 400BW

Here the link to Kodak where you can see the BW400CN

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/blackWhiteIndex.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1231

 

Maybe Kodak has different names for the same in different countries - like Canon does with it's bodies?

 

 

 

 

 

I do not see ProFoto either in Massive Dev Chart. But what is confusing is that Kodak BW400CN is listed with D76 developer and not C41. and D76 is ideal for TriX, it is a standard black and white film developer. see http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html .....מוזר מאד

seems like in Israel with these films the resuts look like maybe I should be overexposing and underdeveloping. I do not have the time or want the to wast the film to calibrate all of that and probably won't work with scan/photoshop anyway. But I think if I could flatten the curve I could get more detail in the darks and bring down the white.

I am almost positive this is a leading actor in a movie I just rented titled "Ajami". filmed in Israel"s Ajami neighbourhood. Filmed in 2009, it was an Academy Awards Best Foreign Language Film Nominee. Always enjoy viewing your portfolio from time to time Meir, thankyou. Steve Elliott. P.S., Israel has very beautiful women.

Possibity he is. I am familiar with the movie by not seen it. Yes very beautiful women here. Thank you for commenting.