Re: RES: The Great Scanner debate  - round one

From: Ender100@aol.com
Subject: Re: RES: The Great Scanner debate  - round one
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 11:06:42 -0500 (EST)

> How many people are scanning graphic arts film? If they are
> developed for continuous tone, would it not be most likely that the
> DMax would be lower than when developed in lith developers?

The Dmax when Ektagraphic HC is developed for gamma less than one is
much less than that when developed for lithographic effect, but it is
still considerably higher than APX25 or Panatomic-X. When I developed
Kodalith 6556 type 3 (I have about 200 feet in my fridge, and there
are more outdated film sources for these) in my phenidone-ascorbate
developer at pH 8.00 for continuous tone, the Dmax was beyond my
scanner's actual readable range. My scanner has nominal maximum
readable range of 3.4 but craps out in high 2.x range.

Arista APH film is a different story. I have hard time developing them
for normal contrast, and if I try anyway, I lose speed, Dmax,
etc.

Plus, I like this film (Ektagraphic HC and Kodalith 6556 type 3 are
same emulsion, they say) processed in D-11. I get only a very narrow
scale on grade 3 paper, but it gives punchy graphic effects sometimes
(I'm shooting it in 35mm). If you increase contrast numerically in
software, it's analogous to amplifying after noise is added, and
you'll also get the noise amplified.

So there are uses for artists, and they can make very dense
highlights. I'm not saying it's a typical case, but I'd love to have a
scanner with better maximum readable density than mine.

If anyone is trying to do the similar thing to what I said, you can
use dilute XTOL (don't use stock strength -- you'll get dichroic fog)
or Technidol for normal contrast.

--
Ryuji Suzuki
"All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie." (Bob Dylan 2000)