e. s.

Wow, this was unexpected. How did you find this discussion? Anyway, your answer definitely answered all my questions and more. I don't suppose that I could get a better answer. Thank you both for your reply and inspiring photography.

 

I've been away for a couple of days so I haven't had time to do any more experimenting but as soon as I get some time and money I will. I have a lot of information to digest. In any case it seems to be quite obvious that tri-x and rodinal isn't the best combination when negatives are to be scanned.

 

While I'm at it I would like to chare a little "trick" that can be worth trying when scanning. I haven't had a chance to try it with Tri-X yet but I found a tip in another discussion about using what someone called the "advanced workflow" in Vuescan. You scan a piece of clear filmstrip, lock the exposure and then scan your negative.

 

I did this with a very very old roll of Kodak Verichrome pan developed in Rodinal (I'm still trying to find out when the film was exposed but it was in a 12 exposure instamatic cassette so it was definitely a while ago).

 

The negatives were almost completely black when not viewed against a bright light. I could hardly make out anything after my first scan but using the advanced workflow I actually got a pretty decent picture. So it seems like it can make a big difference in some cases...

Jay Johnson. I'm currently struggeling with Tri-X and Rodinal. If you scan your negatives I'd very much like to see a scanned Tri-X 400 + Rodinal 1+50 photo as it looks unprocessed straight from the scanner and as it looks when you're done in PS. I'm sort of searching for proof that this combination can look good scanned (since I've failed so far)...

I was sort of hoping to find a workflow that allowed me to do the creative part in the exposure and development and then just pop the negs in the scanner and get some nice jpgs to publish on the net. Eventually I would also like to start printing in the darkroom so I also want to produce negatives that would print ok. Maybee that's hard to achieve in practice. Since I work with computers most of the day I'd prefer a more analog approach to photography...

 

I have 10 more 36 rolls of Tri-X so I will bracket them in every direction, split them in two and apply diffrent times, dilution and agitation to each half, scan as to my best knowledge and see what i can shake out in photoshop. If nothing works I will buy something else than Tri-X to go with my Rodinal the next time. At least I know what I'll be doing this summer..

 

Now I have confidence that a dull scan can become a nice picture (or in my case at least a less dull picture). Pushing the histogram to the left did improve my scans though I'm far from satisfied. I must admit that I haven't fully mastered the curves yet but I will keep practicing until I gain understanding. The S-shape seems to do wonders in any case...

 

Thank you all!

With the curves adjusted it does look much better. So do I understand it correct if i assume that the above Tri-X negative has been developed and scanned without any big errors? Would this mean that my TMax 100 roll has been underexposed and over developed since it has much more contrast? In my opinion it looks much better straight from the scanner and I actually doubt that I'll ever get my Tri-X to look like this no matter how long I work those curves.<div></div>

Just to clarify. The attached image is a typical "boring" scan of mine. I don't know how to put it but it has no "edge" and no "punch". It's just gray. I would like to get results in the neighbourhood of the one at the site I've linked to. I guess a good start would be too shoot in better light but besides from that...

I'm experimenting with Tri-X 400, Rodinal and a Minolta Dimage Scan

Dual III.

 

I've just started out with B/W photography. The first roll I developed

was TMax 100 with Rodinal 1+50 exposed in India three years ago. Many

of those shot's came out really nice. Since then I've been out shootin

Tri-X. So far I've developed 6 rolls shot at ISO 400, 200, 800 and

1600 under diffrent conditions. They all look terribly grey, dull and

boring straight from the scanner.

 

I've used times, temperatures and dilutions from the massive dev.

chart and I think I agitate ok (10 inversions for 30 sek in the

beginning followed by 4 inversions for 10-12 seks every 60 sec). I've

also developed one roll of TMax 400. That one also looked pretty dull

but it had been exposed 5 years ago so it was quite old.

 

I would like to get pleasing images straight from the scanner. Is that

at all possible with Tri-X or are they supposed too look gray and

dull? If not what am I doing wrong?

 

I have no other means of checking my negatives than with my scanner.

So my question is how do I know where the problem is? Should I develop

differently, learn how to salvage my photos in photoshop or aim for a

slower film (problem is I have a lot of tri-x and rodinal)?

 

This is an example of Tri-X and Rodinal that I think look nice. The

fence is blown out but still, it looks much nicer than anything that

I've been near so far (except for my first TMax roll).

 

http://www.photosensitive.ca/?image=Tri-X-Rodinal-001

 

How did this shot look straight from the scanner? And what kind of

post scan adjustments has he/she probably made? Does anyone have

examples of Tri-X that shows how a good developed negative should look

straight from the scanner and how it can look when you've tweaked it

in PS?

 

I would really appreciate it.<div></div>