Graflex.org

[djon]

Trouble posted a lens study on another thread, and I'd done this scanning/printing study last week in anticipation of some Century portraits, so maybe it'd be useful to share here. I've just gotten my 135 Xenar set up with the Century's rangefinder (that's how I want to work) and just shot my first roll of 6X9 Delta 100, will process in a few minutes and scan perhaps tomorrow. I'm immediately interested in DOF at 5' with 135mm @ f8 (per my strobe/umbrella), skin detail, wrinkles etc etc...

Here's earlier rumination and earlier test, both of which apply to Graflex films, 120 and as reasonably 4X5 using an inexpensive scanner:


I'm using Doug's antinewton carrier with 120 on an Epson 3200 flatbed.

I think 4990's Ice is not alone
enough to move from 3200 w/o Ice because 120 isn't much hassle dustwise.

Epson 3200 set at 3200 produces 334MB/approx from 6X7, RGB. This prints well at 12X18 from many subjects but I won't claim it's as good as 4990 or Nikon 9000 because I simply don't know. And I don't happen to have a
comparably large wet/optical enlargement for comparison.

I think Epson 3200's "3200ppi" is really more like 1400 ppi because my Nikon V scans, which I believe really are 4000ppi, are 120MB from 35mm (compare to Epson's 334MB from 6X7). Sloppy math...redo it if its important.

Here's a serious test: Using a very sharp approx "super-slide" cropping, perhaps 46mm sq from 120, I've scanned at Epson's "3200" and printed to 10.75" square (my maximum Epson 2200 width) using "black
only" setting.

This is a man's portrait from the mid Seventies, sharply lit from the
side by silver umbrella...shot with an old Rollei 3.5/Tessar and a Proxar close-up...sharp shadows, perfect lighting to emphasize textures and hair. The guy looks like a Hell's Angel, a happy devil...he was a dope dealer.

Comparing my inkjet print to an exquisitely good 16" square enlargement of the same cropping on Agfa Brovira, made for me in trade
by a better tech than I was 25(?) years ago (and I was OK), the inkjet print is beautiful, ultra sharp, at least as good. I wish I could
print the inkjet to the same size to make the case stronger...perhaps
I'll print a cropping of the eyes/nose/mouth to the same magnification, just to make the point for myself.

Hair, eye detail, pores, those peach-fuzz facial hairs we ordinarily lose in photos are all as sharp on inkjet as on silver.

Looking hard for faults in the inkjet, and ignoring Dmax, there might be faintly more detail in lip texture of this slightly oversize cropped head shot (eye catchlights spaced 3.5" means it's oversized perhaps 150%). I suspect I'd retain those details if I simply printed with QTR. OTOH, I'm printing on a matte paper from Inkjetart.com,
Illuminata...the paper itself my be faintly less sharp than the baryta-coated, air-dried Agfa Brovira.

I've never made a better B&W print (I've never claimed to be an obsessively fine printer, but I'm goodish).

I happen to be working with this negative because I'm preparing to do some similar portraits using my Century Graphic and want to be sure the 3200 and the rest of my kit are up to the challenge. My only practical alternative is to shoot 35 and scan with Nikon, but I think 120/3200 will work better for these shots.


[ This Message was edited by: djon on 2006-01-21 16:04 ]

[Henry]

Wow, 3200 gives enormous files! I've never scanned my 6x7 Ilford XP2 Super negs at more than 600 on my Epson 1600 (with transparency lid and plain old Epson 120 neg holder), and I've printed out some dandy sharp 12x15s from them. I find that 300 is plenty good for 8x10.



[ This Message was edited by: Henry on 2006-01-21 19:28 ]

[45PSS]

A tip that may help anyone scanning.
I use my Stouffer calibrated step wedge (medimun format size) to create a calibrated B&W setting for my scanner. Works!
http://www.stouffer.net/
There is an article in the current issue of Photo Techniques about using a scanner as a densitometer which requires a calibrated step wedge.

_________________
The best camera ever made is the one that YOU enjoy using and produces the image quality that satifies YOU.

[djon]

Printing at 1440 Vs 2880 does produce a faintly noticable difference with my Epson 2200 inkjet, but 2880ppi does sometimes (depends on paper and image) plug up, making 1440 better.

With my Nikon and 35mm, 4000ppi records distinctly more detail than 2000ppi and infinitely more than 600ppi, though in small-enough prints may seem no "sharper."

Obviously if one scans 4X5 and makes proportionately small prints, eg 11X14, low resolution scanning would be more acceptable than with smaller negs or larger prints.

As well, if one sharpens heavily all bets are off...different folks like different amounts of sharpening. Personally, I sharpen but I do it at the lowest level that serves the purpose.

Some scanners always sharpen, no matter what one does...I don't think that's true with either Nikon or Epson "Perfection" series (such as 3200 or 4990), especially as I rely entirely on Vuescan.

I'm not sure what the optimum resolution is for the 3200...I suspect a setting below the nominal "3200ppi" is less wasteful of real estate and perhaps just as good for detail resolution...but experience with 4X5 film taught me that 1200ppi was distinctly better than, say, 800ppi.