jack paradise

Printing b&w with color inks (dyes or color pigments) is a sure way to get a color cast (green, magenta or whatever) and metamerism.

 

There are some solutions like ImagePrint which reduce the amount of yellow ink being used for a more neutral print. On the upside, the same printer can be used for both b&w and color printing.

 

Greyscale carbon pigment (quads) are being used by those who do not want these printing problem. And as an added bonus, carbon pigments are the longest lasting inks. Longer than any color pigment inkset. On the downside, it forces you to dedicate a printer to b&w printing.

 

Visit these suppliers to find out if your printers if being supported.

 

www.inksupply.com----www.inkjetmall.com-----www.bwguys.com

To clarify my point on the Coolscan speed vs the Minolta 5400:

The Minolta 5400 has faster preview than the Coolscan but it actual scan is slower. If you add the time of the preview + the scan time, then the Minolta is faster.

 

But, and there is a but, turn on ICE and the Minolta starts dragging its feet. It then becomes at least twice as slow as the Coolscan for the total scan time.

Use a swellable polymer paper such as Epson ColorLife (semigloss surface) or Ilford Galerie Classic (gloss and pearl surfaces). They last much longer.

The previous response was in regards to Xtol only.

If i'm not mistaken, Kodak no longer recommend higher dilution than 1+1 for film development. Too many reports just like yours. Next time try it with a 1+1 dilution.

From Kodak site:

Celebrating 50 Years of KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X Films

 

You're in Good Company

If you've been shooting TRI-X Films, you're in good company. Just check out this list of industry luminaries who share your film:

· Henri Cartier-Bresson, one of the acknowledged masters of modern photography

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

HCB was using Tri-X as early as 1948 in China. Kodak's marketing dept needed something to celebrate after the gloom that's been hanging over the company recently, even if it meant taking liberty with the thruth.

About the Nikon Coolscan LED (5000/V): (As per Chasseur d'Images test)

It's sharp enough to show the structure of the film which may lead to a pepper effect. They recommend to go easy on the USM (UnSharp Masking) which is almost unneeded!

 

On the Dimage 5400, the image appears smoother with the Grain Dissolver but needs USM.

French magazine Chasseur d'Images ran a comparative test in its December 2003 issue (no. 260). The tests were done with each scanner's own scanning software. (Minolta Dimage Scan version 1.1.1 and Nikon Scan version 4.01)

 

Here's what they said:

 

The Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 USB 2.0, the Scan Elite Firewire 400 IEEE 1394, the Nikon Coolscan 5000 and the Nikon Coolscan V were tested. All in all, these are the best 35mm film scanner in their class. Image quality is very near that of real professional scanners. (read: drum scanner) However, they overall rated the two new Coolscan scanner equal, above the Minolta 5400.

 

The older Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED has been outclassed by these three three newer scanners.

 

Nikon Scan software is much improved over previous version. The Minolta software has user scripts, missing on the Coolscan. Both offer ICE with the Coolscan having DEE, a function that lets the user adjust both the highlights and shadows independently.

 

The Minolta 5400 has the fastest preview times, but is slower of the three doing the actual scan. And when ICE is activated, the difference is even higher. The Coolscan 5000 is faster than the Coolscan V.

 

While the input resolution of the Scan Elite 5400 is higher, its real resolution (output) is about the same as the new Coolscan.

 

Scanning b&w films in RGB mode, the Coolscan (Nikon scanning software) preserved both highlights and shadows with the result that the scan appeared softer in terms of contrast (not resolution or sharpness) and demanded more post-processing.

 

With the same b&w film, the Minolta 5400's scan (Minolta scanning software) had much more contrast but tended to blow out some highlights, which could not be recovered with post-processing.

 

This time, they gave the advantage to the Nikon's for scanning b&w negative.

 

The Coolscan's sharpness is as good off-center as it is in the center of the image. Without multi-sampling, the Nikon digs deeper into the shadows and does not have a color cast. The Scan Elite 5400 needs multi-sampling to open up the shadows.

Read what he says. He is advocating direct conversion from RGB to greyscale based on luminosity. This is not the proper way to convert a color image to b&w.

 

Here's what he says:

 

"The other method involves you going to the "Image" menu, then to "Mode" and selecting "grayscale." Photoshop asks you if you want to discard the color information, hit "OK." Now go back into the same menu and select "RGB color" to convert the grayscale image back to color"

 

and the conclusion:

 

"So in conclusion, using "desaturate" is a poor choice if you want to retain the real look of your image. Your best option for keeping your image looking the way they should be is to use the grayscale mode"

Making a color to b&w conversion by doing "Image" menu, then to "Mode" and selecting "grayscale" is about has crude as one can go.

 

This will do the conversion based on luminosity instead of luminance.

There are numerous other method (lab, calculations, channel mixer, etc) that are better suited.

 

Only after the conversion to b&w has been done with one of the method cited above, does one changes the mode from RGB to grayscale. As presented, the information in the link of the original post is just about useless except for the uninitiated who does not know where to begin.

Here's a Photoshop action called "Holga Simulator"

One of the best yet for Holga style pics.

 

http://share.studio.adobe.com/axAssetDetailSubmit.asp?aID=6756&sar=1

I could never make an 16x20" that I was satisfied with even using an 80mm APO Rodagon.

 

I assume you are talking about the old Tri-X, not the new 400TX which is a totally different film.

-Jack

You idea of wanting to stick with one film is very good indeed. Sticking with a film-developper combo might be a better idea and I agree with you that Ilford will be around for several years more in the b&w film business. However, as the market for digital camera increases and the market for film shrinks, there's bound to be some consolidation in the near future.

 

I, for one expect to be forced into buying b&w film over the internet only within a year or two, as local stores are either closing or converting to digital only, laying off older employee to hire younger ones for the digital crowd.

 

So, that esoteric film developper might not be available in two to three years. Things are moving fast in the film business and when that critical mass is gone, so will be a lot of sellers.

 

I'd stick with Ilford products all the way. They have a better chance of surviving than anyone else.

 

Cheers,

Andre

If I understand correctly, the Minox 35 GTE/X/S can be used as a complete manual camera especially when using 100 ISO film by installing a flash and not using it, but only a shutter speed of 1/125 second. Any other way to manually tweak out the other shutter speed with the DX equiped models?

Technical specifications from the minox.com site for the Minox GT-X list both a manual (ISO 25 to ISO 1600) and a DX film setting (ISO 25 to ISO 3200). From what I've seen on this forum, the Minox GTX would only have a DX film setting ?

http://www.minox.com/htmle/akameras35.html#techgt-x

 

<p>

 

Also is it possible to use different filters for b&w film with the Minox and how does the meter handle those if it's not a TTL meter ?

Thanks