From: Eric Neilsen (e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net)
Date: 10/25/02-09:57:20 PM Z
Sandy, Yes. Though the real guy to ask would be Dan, I have seen big
changes in the quality of scans made from one film stock. The quality
of the scan will most certainly affect the outcome of your prints, or
negatives made from them. Some color negative film scan quite poorly.
The film that I have made good scans from with little effort is Kodak's
Porta films, either VC or NC at 160 or 400 flavors. Some of the worst
scanning nightmares have been with consumer grade Fuji film, speeds of
200 to 400.
Most B&W films that I scan, I turn off the USM setting and wait until
just before final output to apply it and apply it as little as needed
with color. Overly dense negatives and overly contrasty negs give
scanners or techs fits, so just like with good prints, poorly exposed
film or poorly processed film can lead to bad scans.
I find that XP2 to be very grainy but also very sharp, while films like
T400CN are smooth. I would think that Acros might be a film to give a
go with for a B&W film.
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street
Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
http://ericneilsenphotgraphy.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 7:07 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: films for scanning
I asked this question on one of the newsgroups but am repeating it
here since there are several people on the list who are pretty
experienced with scanning. The question is, are some 35mm negative
films better than others when the negatives are to be used for
scanning and making digital prints and/or to make enlarged negatives
for alt printing, or do the same considerations of grain and
sharpness hold when scanning as when making prints in the darkroom?
If some films are better than others for this purpose I would
appreciate some explanation of the reasons.
Sandy King
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:27 PM Z CST