rexmarriott

<p>Jochen, I read your words after I'd replied to Craig, and I think what you say ties in quite nicely, seeming to confirm that grain size would have been an issue for my brother, especially as he only ever shot 35mm.</p> <p>I'm interested in what you say about my brother being somebody who wanted to do more than just get the job done. I'd like to think that you are right. I felt that local newspaper work was an odd choice for him, in that he was often attracted to the bizarre and the surreal. He expressed frustration at times when his prints were heavily cropped or something 'off the wall' was rejected on the grounds of suitability.</p>

<p>Yes, Craig, my brother worked for a local newspaper in the South of England, mostly on a freelance basis, briefly as staff.</p> <p>For a couple of years, before he took up photojournalism, he worked exclusively as an art photographer, and put on exhibitions of B/W work. At that time, I'm sure he used only Ilford film. He definitely used FP4 and probably HP5. I remember he used to bulk load it.</p> <p>The complication is that Bruce continued to produce art work, ie stuff that had little or no news content, alongside the newspaper work. When on a story he'd be constantly on the look out for other things that might please him. Unusually for a press man, he spent a lot of time in the newspaper's darkroom and was allowed to process his private work there (or perhaps the management turned a blind eye). Between that and the pub, I'm not quite sure how he ever attended a story.</p> <p>What you say about choosing TMax because the paper supplied it makes sense, with the rider that Bruce knew that newspaper work and other stuff shot with TMax might be offered as a present (I knew what I was going to get for Christmas) or make it to exhibition, and therefore be blown up to 12"x16". I assume that TMax v1, like the present version, would have been less grainy than HP5, and so more suited to bigger enlargements. Might it be, then, that, rather than loading two camera bodies with two different types of film, one for newspaper work, one for art work, Bruce chose a film which could do both jobs adequately?</p>

<p>Thanks for these responses.</p> <p>John, I'm still struggling with the characteristic curve. Does a linear curve mean that negative density is more predictable over a range of exposures? As regards dynamic range, does this mean tone range?</p> <p>Mike, when you say finicky to process, does this mean that there is little margin for error with developing times?</p>

<p>My brother worked as a photojournalist in the 1980s and '90s. Interviewed in a local newspaper in November 1991, he declared a preference for Kodak TMax film. Sure enough, looking through the few surviving negatives, I found most of these to be marked '5053 TMY' in the rebate: TMax 400.</p> <p>I'm aware that TMax 400 changed in October 2007. I've read that version 2 produces sharper images.</p> <p>Among those of you familiar with the 'old' TMax 400, I'd like to ask: what do you think might have drawn my brother to this film? I understand that a faster film might have suited a newspaper photographer, but why TMax 400? Also, how was the old TMY viewed more widely back when my brother was taking photographs?</p> <p>I attach an unretouched scan of one of Bruce's exclusives, shot with TMax 400 in January 1990.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for those comments about VueScan, Edwin and Allen.</p> <p>As regards scanning with a DSLR, what you say makes perfect sense to me, Allen, especially the last part about variables which might compromise quality. I think I've now got the information I need.</p>

<p>I've got a bit left behind, and wanted to respond to a few things.<br> Sebastian, I'm shooting 35mm at the moment, but have got my eye on doing medium format down the line. This being the case, I know that Epson (what I've already got, but I've concerns about reliability which I'm discussing with Epson) at least offers holders for different formats. However, I'm starting to think that those drying marks on my 35mm negative scans are not drying marks at all. I suspect that, in the middle of a strip of 6, it's where the negative sometimes touches the glass; serious black mark for Epson's flimsy plastic negative holders.<br> Drum scanners is a no-no for me. I won't pay somebody else to do the work. In lieu of printing (what I'd really like to be doing), it will be DIY.<br> I'm quite surprised that there have been few strong advocates for scans by DSLR here, and take this to imply that there is not a great deal in it in terms of quality. I want to test DSLR scans, and am aware that this is going to involve some extra outlay. I reckon I'd need, at the very least, a copy stand and a light pad. It's not going to break the bank, I suppose.<br> A worry for me with Nikon or Minolta (I'd almost certainly go for Minolta, as the general drift seems to be Nikon for colour, not B/W) would be software. Would I be correct in assuming that I'd use VueScan, and I'd have no problems related to the age of the hardware?</p>

<p>I was most interested in what you had to say, David, and will take some time to consider your comments further.</p>

<p>I don't understand everything you told me, Sebastian, but I'm sure I could work out a process for scanning negatives with a DSLR and, as I'm working with black and white, things may be simpler than you suggest for colour.<br> I think I've reached the nub of the matter. Sebastian, as you've experience of using a dedicated negative scanner and a DSLR, is either of these two processes inherently more limited than the other in terms of the potential quality of the images produced?</p>

<p>Checked out the Minolta Scan Elite 5400, Mendel; rare as hen's teeth, it seems. I'm getting the distinct impression that I would have had more and better options for scanning negatives ten years ago.</p>

<p>Thank you, Edwin.</p>

<p>Steve, the Minolta looks a solid piece of kit. I'm going to read up about that. Enjoyed looking through the 'snapshots'.</p>

<p>Edwin, my issues with the Super Coolscan are: it's expensive and I'd have to buy it second-hand, which I'd view as a risk; I've read that Coolscans are not great for B/W.<br> Once more, quality is my main concern, so would you say that it's worth the risk for me to look for a Super Coolscan and that it will produce top quality results with B/W negatives?</p>

<p>I've viewed videos of negative scanning by DSLR, and I don't see how it is easier or less time consuming than scanning with my Epson V550 flatbed scanner. That said, I've already made it clear that quality is my paramount consideration so, Edward, my question to you is: does scanning by DSLR produce better results?</p>

<p>Thanks for your response, Wouter. I'll do some reading about the Reflecta ProScan. Were the images in your gallery scanned with this machine?</p>

<p>I'm aware that this is a subject that has been visited before, and am wondering if anything has changed in the past year or two. I own an Epson Perfection V550 which I've already had replaced once, and has started to produce unwanted lines on my negative scans once more.<br> I want to know whether there's any serious alternative to the Epson range. Quality is my main concern: much as I'd like to, I don't have the facilities to print, and I'm not keen on post processing with Photoshop or the like, retouching and moderate cropping aside.<br> I've read about the Nikon Coolscan and know that I'd have to take a risk on something second-hand (I've also read somewhere that it's not great for B/W, which is my normal mode.)<br> So, are there any worthwhile new additions on the market?<br> Rex</p>

<p>This was shot with HP5 and developed in Paranol S for 11 minutes. I used a site lamp for illumination at it was shining directly onto the seat. I think that part is overblown. Maybe 11 minutes is a bit too long, I don't know. I like the texture in the paving. Maybe I'm one of those new to film photography who is being seduced by strong contrast. Time will tell, I suppose.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for that, Chris.</p>

<p>Robert<br> I'm interested in what you say about agitation; I'll certainly explore that avenue some more.<br> I now realise that I've seen three different recommendations for developing times for HP5 in Rodinal/Paranol S at 20 degrees and 1+25: 6 minutes (Rodinal, on the box for HP5); 8 minutes (Agfa Rodinal process grid); and 11 minutes (Tetenal's website for Paranol S).<br> 6 minutes definitely doesn't work for me, producing the horrible soup I mentioned earlier. I developed a film for 11 minutes yesterday and was much happier with the results: sharper, more texture and sense of depth. The highlights were overblown for my taste, so I think 11 minutes is a bit too much.</p>