lenny_eiger

<p>We all come to this world thinking that things don't change. You buy a car, it should last n years. Manufacturers have long figured out that if they make things that well, they won't sell as many, so now the world is all about planned obsolescence. This is more true in computing/technology than just about anywhere else.</p> <p>If I had a stack of IDE drives, I would get a stack of 4TB SATA's and copy everything over, then throw them out. (You would need quite a few less of them because of the larger size.) That's what's expected of you. <br> We may not like this, most of us don't, but we live in a world where everything is a commodity, everything is disposable. Reminds me of that bar in college, where there was a sign in the bathroom that said, "You don't buy beer here, you just rent it."</p>

<p>I've been around for a while, along with many others here. I've been through Syquest drives, Zip and Jaz drives, tape, etc. All of these units have slowly disappeared, and for good reason. They weren't reliable. The removable idea is a great one, but it turns out that the devices lacked the tight control of a dedicated device. If you take apart a hard drive, you will find rare earth magnets that hold the stylus half the thickness of a human hair off the drive platters. They are incredibly strong. Removable devices have not been able to match the tight specs, and thus the lack of reliability.</p> <p>We were told when the CD's came out that the laser chipped into the plastic of the CD and that the data would last forever. (Once again.) And once again, it was a lie. People report that they put their very valuable data on one of these discs, and every once in a while they can't get it off again.</p> <p>Anyone that uses CD's and DVD's must be willing to lose whatever they put on there. There is no way of knowing when one of these will fail. In a number of years, CD's will be gone, so will DVD's and Blu-Ray. Everything is moving to the cloud. Netflix will not be sending discs thru the mail when the internet gets reasonable fast at delivery, which despite the efforts of the larger providers like Comcast, it ultimately will.</p> <p>The only way to solve this is to use hard drives. They are cheap. And yes, you have to buy new ones as the technology moves along. We no longer use SCSI drives, Firewire 400 or ATA. Now its Serial ATA, or SATA, and soon it may be Thunderbolt, or maybe not. Maybe a USB 4? However, when that time happens, I will move all my data over there before there is nothing I can plug it into to read it...</p> <p> </p>

<p>I already responded to you on another forum. However, I thought I'd just leave this here... so other people know as well. I've been a professional printer since the '80's. I printed for Avedon in both platinum and silver, and a few other top people. I have ink jets set up for both color and b&w. Everything is about personal service, and museum quality.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Cone just posted an article today about this. He says the answer is no, it isn't getting better....</p> <blockquote> UGH Poor Epson 4900, 7900, 9900 printer owners. We are absolutely besieged with orders for PiezoFlush kits. It's epidemic - and it's widely being complained about all over the various user groups. The good news is that we are having a very good success rate with freeing up permanently clogged print heads on the 4900, 7900 and 9900. </blockquote>

<p>Ray, the prices are per image.</p>

<p>Ellis, thanks for the endorsement. The other two services mentioned don't actually offer a fair comparison. My scans are less expensive than NancyScans and WCI. I deliver 16 bit scans at full resolution for a reasonable price ($150 of 8x10). The 8x10 scans are 3GB of data, they are cleaned and ready to go. I also use an Aztek Premier whereas both these other services use Tango's. They are quite a bit less sharp than the Premier's. You get a great scan by someone who scans the way you want it (or does it over) and you don't ever have to scan it again.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The rest (including tweaking contrast and colour) can be done later. So scan 'clean' ('raw') and work on a copy of the resulting file.</p> </blockquote> <p>There is one exception to this. Drum scanners driven by Digital PhotoLab Pro (Howtek's, Aztek Premier) can create a set of settings, collectively called a CMS file. This file is sent over to some firmware location in the scanner, and it adjusts the A/D converter so that the scan is done within the range of the CMS "profile". The resulting scan has a perfect, uncombed histogram, complete with adjustments intact.</p> <p>I know the OP is using a flatbed... but the scan raw isn't a hard and fast rule. If it works in your setup, great.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Because, in the words of another recent poster who I believe captured the spirit of the problem, I think you are a “nasty bully”. I am sorry, but such behavior does not deserve “deference”.</p> </blockquote> <p>My apologies, I did not mean to take sides. Every time I read threads with this much vitriol I just zone right out. I don't want to figure out who's right, I just want the forum to be a nicer place where everyone gets respected (that means the both of you...). I want everyone to get some deference. We all have different experiences.... etc.</p>

<p>I think having a conversation based on mutual respect would be great. Further, as much as I have disagreed, sometimes strongly, with Andrew, there are some here, including Andrew, that have quite a bit of experience and ought to get just a bit of deference.</p> <p>That said this:</p> <blockquote> <p>I plan to do all my post processing work at a later date with Lr or Ps. Right now, I just want to gather the all the available data from my scanned photos.</p> </blockquote> <p>is a bad idea. Scanning is an art, not a science. It took me a long time to learn how to get the most out of my scans. (And I am a professional drum scanner operator.) Without going all the way thru the process, you will likely scan everything and then have to rescan half of it again when you figure out how to set up the scanning curves the way you want... to get the results you want.</p>

<p>I've tried to stay out of this... but this Question is continuing to bother me:</p> <blockquote> <p>Question: is this due to pulling (over-exposing) the film? Perhaps pulling requires even more development--(but I had assumed that overexposure would require less development and thought if anything I was erring on the side of over development); or is it due to the effectiveness of the developer, either improper mixing (perhaps it is supposed to be at 1:40 instead of 1:50), or perhaps a loss of potency?</p> </blockquote> <p>Pulling film is normally defined as developing less. It has nothing to do with the exposure. For all practical intents and purposes, exposure and development have nothing to do with each other. (There is some very small effect, but it is too little to be concerned with.)</p> <p>The amount of exposure controls how much shadow detail one has; the amount of development controls how dense the highlights are and how much contrast there is. Period.</p> <p>When there is a high range between shadow and highlight, less development is used to keep the highlights from blowing out (becoming unprintable while keeping the full range).</p> <p>Pushing and pulling, in terms of changing ISO's, doesn't actually exist in real life. It's just a matter of managing the contrast ratio, after the fact, or as part of a zone system calculation.</p>

<p>Bruce - It isn't that I can't sere it, its that it doesn't concern me. The effect is very small, and frankly, much of the time I like it... </p> <p>Scotty - scanners weren't made to deal "normally developed negatives", they were developed to make color separations for print media. </p> <p>I would agree that scanners have a wide range. I just like a lot more separation in the midtones.</p>

<p>I have a drum scanner. I develop longer for it, about to 1.6. (Not quite the 1.8 or so for platinum.) I believe this less density for scanning is a fallacy. Hasn't borne out at all in my shop...</p>

<p>Don't expect a manufacturer's time to be correct. It's only a starting point. Shoot 2-4 exposures of the same thing at the same exposure. Develop them 20-30 seconds apart. Then print them. See which one prints with the least burning and dodging needed...<br> Keep doing this until you tune your exposure and development to exactly what works for you in your printing process...</p>

<p>HC-110 is a very mediocre developer. It doesn't hold a candle to Xtol or one of the Pyro variants. While Xtol is a powder, Pyro often comes premixed (Photographer's Formulary). Rodinal has a very special effect and if you like very large grain, its great. I don't like it at all. I want smooth. </p>

<p>Of course, you could have made a post with the same subject if you did everything perfectly. HP5 is a very grainy film and Ilfosol is not particularly exceptional. If you want less grain, move to Delta 100, or TMax and Xtol 1:1 or Pyro. </p>

<p>Peter, not suggesting you have to do it yourself, my point was that you should have a conversation with the lab about what they are using. I am a scanning professional and I've done a lot of research on this. What I can tell you is that the best film to scan with is Ilford's Delta 100, TMax or TMY2 (or ISO 25 traditional films). The best developer for these is either Xtol, or a Pyro variant.</p> <p>HP5 is not even in the running, Rodinal is not recommended and chromogenic b&w doesn't have the range of a normal b&w film. What one is looking for is a full range of tones, very tight grain, and lots of it. That takes away solvent type developers, and over active ones, like Rodinal, as well as starting with film with large grain. There is a way to succeed here.</p>

<p>One should not "send film to a lab". If you want b&w developed correctly, you should know what developer they use, and work with them on how long it should be developed. In the old days labs used overly active developers to save on time and these were quite grainy. I doubt Peak does that, but what did they use? It matters. It one uses XTol, for instance (usually excellent) and you go past a certain time, the gran explodes. D-76, ID-11 and HC-110 are very mediocre developers, which are quite common. Rodinal is exceptionally grainy...<br> If you move yourself down to ISO 100 you will find much tighter grain and you will be happier. Then, move up a size or two. A 6x7 neg has 5 times the area of a 35mm. Mamiya 7 II weighs the same or less than your Canon... A lightweight 4x5 is a wonder, and much more fun. It would work nicely for a shot like this...</p>