jrileystewart

Scanner focus is one of my most-asked-about problems from film shooters. Usually, the asker is new to film scanning, having recently delved into film after shooting digital for a long time.

 

Here's a way to check to see if the film holder is placing the film at the best distance from the lens: Easily verify the focus on your flatbed scanner Every other way I've used is too subjective; comparing an scanned image to "..what I think is a sharp picture.."

 

Keep this in mind:

1) Film will rarely give you those razor-sharp edges you're accustomed to seeing from your digital camera. In fact, that's what many of us film shooters LIKE about film. It's more organic; less 'plastic' If you are hoping to get razor-edged images from a 35mm film, I think you may be disappointed.

2) Looking at a scanned image at 1:1 and comparing it to a digital image at 1:1 ? Be sure to compare apples to apples. A scanned 35 mm can have much greater pixel dimensions, so 1:1 view of an image that is 6000x4000 is not the same as a digital image that is half that. You need to compare such a scanned image at 1:2 while viewing the digital image at 1:1 in order to compare them.

3) By far, most scanners are set to the appropriate focal distance; they're engineered that way. But return to 1) above and check it if you think you need to.

4) Most 'scanner out of focus' issues are due to 2) above and 'out of focus shooting' in camera.

 

Final tip: Before spending hours and hours fretting over that damned scanner, evaluate your prints, not just the digital image. Are they great? (probably so). If not, focus your attention on camera skills. (believe me... I've been there).

 

I'd be glad to entertain your questions on scanning. I've scanned (and printed) thousands of negatives on flatbed and drum scanners and have seen just about every scenario.

jim@jrileystewart.com

www.jrileystewart.com

There were issues in the film days too. One of my all time favorite photographers is W. Eugene Smith. His "documentary" images were highly manipulated because he was trying to illuminate a larger truth, not create a courtroom record of a scene. Many thought he was unethical, but I disagree. Maybe you should subscribe to the 1937 Hippocratic Oath of a Photographer by art director M.F. Agha. “The Hippocratic Oath of a Photographer” from 1937 still helpful for avoiding photo clichés :D

 

The "Hippocratic Oath..." ends with (paraphrased here for simplicity): "I won't take any more pictures" I don't think that's where any of us want to go. I know first hand that getting too wrapped up with being uniquely original, or bound to "the higher order of art" or even an obsessive obedience to someone's definition of ethics is a real creativity killer. Reject such BS and be happy doing what you're doing. What we know is that when people push the envelope, magic happens.

 

J. Riley Stewart

<p>Some may not understand the full effects of front tilt and swing. Depending on the lens circle of coverage, you can (and will) defocus the image on the ground glass. Excessive tilt will defocus everything (subject or not) beginning at the left and right edges of the frame. The more tilt, the more of the frame affected. Front swing has the same effect, but defocus comes in starting at the top and bottom of the frame. Commercial photographers shooting LF used this effect to completely isolate a subject in its field, regardless of its orientation in the field. So, don't get too heavy handed with front swings or tilts if you want everything in focus. </p>

<p>Would still like to hear thoughts about my original post, i.e., the developing capacity of PC-TEA, especially 1:75. How many 4x5 sheets of TMY or FP4 should I expect to get out of a liter of this mix? Thanks in advance. I have some experience under my belt, and it suggests about 10 or so sheets, then I should toss it. I'm wondering though if this is what others are seeing. Thoughts?</p>

<p>Reference Gainer's phenidone:asc acid: triethanolamine developer diluted at 1:75 (or other).<br>

Does anyone know what the capacity of this final solution is? I tray develop 4x5 films and tank develope 120 rolls. Wondering if it has weak capacity, making me use it as a one-time developer, or can I reuse it for over 4-5 120 rolls / liter without worry?<br>

Thanks!<br>

J. Riley Stewart</p>

 

<p>Update: These days (2015/2016) I use Ektar, and rarely Portra. Ektar is a very nice film for scanning, which I do on a drum scanner. </p>

<p>I shoot 160 C at ISO 100 using an incident light meter, size 120 negative, for scanning on an Epson V700. I develop for recommended time and temp in Kodak Flexicolor at home. Gives me good latitude and data.<br>

At ISO160, the shadows seem to 'dump', thus I use 100. <br>

All my color images on <a href="http://www.jrileystewart.com">www.jrileystewart.com</a> used this technique, so you can judge for yourself. Good luck.<br>

Jim</p>

 

Mac, Phil Davis's book "Beyond the Zone System" has a good description of the relationship between image brightness range, negative density profile, and paper density profile and how all three come together to affect the appearance of the print. It takes some testing to determine the profiles of the negatives, developers, and papers you are using in your darkroom, or you can use the profiles supplied by the manufacturers if you can find them.

 

Once you know if a certain negative has an upslope curve, shoulder, or short toe (all descriptors of the profile), you can better match it to the paper because you don't want the same profile in both the negative and the paper (exceptions permitted of course--no die hard rule). Matching the scene to the negative is similar: if you have a scene that has lots of delicate shades of highlights, you usually want to avoid a negative/developer combo that compresses the exposure range at the highlight region: pick a combo that produces a clear shoulder (Rodinal on FP4 does a good job with that, but TMY in rodinal doesn't). If you want decent constrast throughout the exposure range because you have a long subject brightness range (SBR), pick a negative/develop combo that has a short toe and no shoulder (D76 1:1 on TMY does that for me and I move the shadows are higher up the curve by shooting at ASA 200 vice ASA 400). Matching the paper to the negative is a big trickier but Davis explains it all (and I can't). Paper scale is much shorter than negative scale so you wind up balancing preserving the shadows or preserving the highlights (at the same time as preserving the mid-tones).. but that's the most important part of it isn't it?

 

I think Ctein's book "Post Exposure" also explains this a bit.

 

Might try to get a copy of BTZS or Post Exposure if you're interested in these characteristics.

 

Hope this helps.

Jim

Thermometers are essentially linear in response. Test to make sure it reads 32 degrees in ice water. Then make sure it reads 212 degrees in boiling water (after adjusting for altitude effect for your area). If either extreme is off very much, it will be off at 55-85 degrees. If both are spot on, it will be so at 55-85. Adjust if necessary, or replace if not.

 

Jim

It's normal, Jennifer. TMAX antihalation dye leaches into the developer with no effect on development. You may need to wash a bit longer to remove it all. With adequate washing, I find it finally goes away. Some folks keep it in the fix to do the same thing. I don't, I let it come off in the wash. 35mm film seems to me to be a bit more resistant to washing than 4x5 film.

Jim

I built one in my basement and have been using it for over a year. Mine is a bit bigger: 14 x 14.

Recommendations. Have one door not two.. gives you flexibility to rearrange the layout and you don't really need the second door (most basements are pretty dim anyway). Provide air movement by either routing a basement vent on your HVAC system to the darkroom or install a simple bathroom ventilator in one wall (mine is switched with the fan assembly at the bottom of the inner part of the wall and the exit at the top of the exterior side of the wall). Install both a safelight and white light circuit. Hope this helps

Jim

I recently reported my experience with FP4 and diluted Rodinal, and you might see the same effect with HP5 or other films. See: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008Xi4

 

Bottom line, carefully determine development times and volumes of developer for each of your typical push and pull conditions. I found that N+2 or greater was unachievable with "typical" volumes of Rodinal 1:50. Exhaustion of the developer by some films deserves attention.

 

Jim

I recently compared fog on 4x5 TMY (TMAX 400) developed in 20 year-old Rodinal and new Rodinal. I didn't see any difference in fog. Both gave me .1 density units, which may seem high to you. It's pretty normal for me with TMY, regardless of my developer. The age of the Rodinal may have nothing to do with your problem.

Jim

FWIW, I recently compared Rodinal in 1:50 dilution from a bottle I purchased in 1981 to the same dilution from a bottle I purchased in 2004. I exposed FP4 negatives to a Stouffer step wedge and developed a set in the old Rodinal and a set in the new Rodinal, using the same times. There were definite measureable differences in the characteristic curves. As I recall, the difference in activity (i.e., slope of the HD curves) was about 30% at comparable development times, the newer Rodinal being the more active.

The older Rodinal wasn't cared for during storage.. hot, cold, wet, dry... whatever conditions existed whereever it happened to be stored over the 20+ years. It was dark, espresso colored.

 

I'd advise if you have an older bottle of Rodinal (I mean years, not months), I'd plan on developing standard times with that bottle and not assume it has the same activity as new stuff.

Jim

I tried one additional step, that was to increase my volume of Rodinal 1:75 to 120 cc. It definitely helped, as indicated by greater densities and gamma, but the curves remained atypical.

 

Evidently, FP4 developed by rotary tubes does require more Rodinal than I'd have expected, and I don't want to have to adopt a 2 min development time (for Rod 1:25) or use 200 or so cc of Rodinal 1:75 for each sheet.

 

So, I've standardized (for the time being) on ID11 1:1. I've proven to myself it works using 100 cc of diluted developer. Anyone know how much D76 1:1 is required at a minimum? I know how to do the experiment.. but I hope someone can save me the time.

Thanks.

 

Jim

Thanks, Scott. I suspect going to 1:25 would be even faster than 1:50... my normal contrast is reached in less than 2 minutes with 1:50 using the tubes and constant rolling. I wonder if doubling the volume of Rodinal (still at 1:75) would work? That would give me more capacity and theoretically sustain development.. right?

Jim

I'm trying to standardize a new development regimen. Using FP4 sheet

(4x5) with Rodinal 1:75 and BTZS tubes. The attached shows the

curves I'm getting for avg gradient over speed point (.17 density)

and avg gradient over development time. I've derived similar curves

in two separate trials.

These look atypical and I suspect due to developer exhaustion, but

wanted to see what others thought before I try to correct it. I'm

using 60 cc of dilute developer in each tube with constant rotation.

I didn't not see this type of curve on the speed point curve with

Rodinal 1:50. I'm using 1:75 because I calculated very short (< 3

min) N development with 1:50 and wanted to extend that or consistency.

Thanks for responses.

Jim

Thanks, Sandy and Michael.

I'm using the procedures described in Way Beyond Monochrome by Lambrecht and Woodhouse. Appears straightforward, but when it comes to exposing the step wedge they say to have the wedge run thru a slide duplicator (don't have one of those) or use a light box like I've tried.

 

I have every other book.. might as well get Davis's. :) In the meantime I'll do a contact trial using less than .5 seconds.

 

I'm assuming your answers were that contacting was a sound way to do this once reciprocity is eliminated as a source of error?

 

 

Thanks, again.

Jim

I'm developing my technique for HD curves by sensitometry. I'm using

a Stouffer 21 step wedge to vary exposures to FP4 and TMY. Does it

matter if I use a contact procedure to expose the film under the

wedge? I've tried that with 3-5 sec exposures, then I worried about

reciprocity effects and wasn't sure it might effect gamma. I then

tried to shoot the wedge when mounted on a lite box. I seemed to get

more consistent curves with the contact method, but I worry that

gamma might differ between the two methods.

 

My lite box isn't exactly high end ... curves look like there might

be hot spots from it.

 

I think I can get adequate exposure using 1/2 sec from my enlarge

light source to reduce reciprocity, but I thought I'd ask if there

are other factors to consider. I'm developing the HD curves for lens

shots, not contact printing of negatives.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Jim

Jackie, you might first double check that you used the right ASA setting on your camera for the specific film. It sounds like your developer worked okay, since you have black areas and 2 of the frames look nearly okay. The washed out, thin look to your negatives suggest under-exposure. If the exposure was correct, double check that you developed them for an adequate amount of time and temperature (see instructions that came with the film. If both exposure and development were close to the recommended procedures, then you'll need to start answering Alan's questions to track down the problem.

Good luck.

Jim

As a follow up, I used Tim O'Brien's advise and notched all of my holders along the flap edge. I've found this invaluable for keeping track of which negative came from which holder, which negative produced which contact proof, and even linking negatives to masks. Thanks, Tim.

 

This procedure is really easy. I used a craft knife to cut the small notches..takes a couple minutes depending on the number of notches.

 

Jim

I bought this lens mounted in a Supermatic shutter... also didn't find the release cable socket until I removed two small screws holding a small plate, which was covering the socket. Check to see if you might have the same thing.

Some of the older books refer to behind the lens filters for contrast

control in B&W. I think AA mentioned a metal bracket mounted to the

lens board and then using a magnet to hand a gel filter just behind

the lens. Anyone use this approach? I have older lenses without screw

mount threads, and most of the experts say BTL is optically better

anyway.

 

Interested in any ideas.

Thanks.

Jim Stewart

Thanks, everybody. This is the most fun I've had this whole long day!!

:)

Now I'm going to go around my house and turn all my prints right side up...

 

Jim

All good suggestions. I'll share what I've learned since I bought a Kodak 4x5 in the same class as the Orbit about a year ago off ebay.

 

I paid much less than $160 for a camera and case without a lens. First thing I did was tear it apart...every single screw..and cleaned it up, etc. Only thing wrong with it was a couple broken ends off the knobs. Light tight bellows, but even if they hadn't been, I can fix holes with tape and so can you. These things are really simple so don't be intimidated about repairing things that might be imperfect.

 

Others have told me the Wollensak lenses are pretty good for 4x5, given you don't usually blow up the negative beyond 4-5 fold. I bought 3 lenses off ebay with shutters, a 203mm Kodak, a 90mm Kodak, and a 127 Kodak..I've shot pics with all of them and they are spot on (to me). These are all high-rated older lenses and I looked a long time on ebay before I found them available at the right price. But they're out there if you wait. Again, I dismantled each lens and carefully cleaned them on every lens surface I could find..carefully. No marks anywhere that I could find, not even cleaning wisps. I don't think I paid more than $110 for any one of them. I didn't mess with the shutters but what I've seen so far, as I use them they seem pretty close timing wise (one sticks at 1 sec, but I don't use that one often enough to matter). I did get a quote of $60 for a CLA but didn't get it done yet.

 

I may have lucked out, or maybe my experience is typical. Point is, if you're careful you can clean these gems up yourself and save some money. The loaded camera case does seem a bit heavy, but I have nothing to compare it to.

Good luck.

Jim