|
|
 | | Author | |
|
| | Date | |
|
|
|
|
Brian Mikiten |
7:14 19 Jun 04 |
|
|
John D Gerndt |
9:11 3 Jul 04 |
|
|
Ross Borgida |
10:14 10 Feb 04 |
|
|
Jorge Gasteazoro |
10:39 10 Feb 04 |
|
|
Ross Borgida |
11:38 10 Feb 04 |
|
|
Walter Glover |
12:10 10 Feb 04 |
|
|
Phil Davis |
17:37 10 Feb 04 |
|
|
David Rude |
22:32 10 Feb 04 |
|
|
Ross Borgida |
6:04 11 Feb 04 |
|
  |
Re: Underexposed Negatives |
|
Walter Glover |
10:43 11 Feb 04 |
 |
Ross,
A couple of points:
When your are contact printing with conventional materials the light source is of little consequence - condensor, diffusion, a bare bulb all work the same for all intents and purposes.
When scanning, particularly on a low-end device such as the Epson, what I believe matters is the DR or DMax of the scanner. Most are suitable for the range of colour negative and will do a commendable job with colour reversal but a BTZS exposed and processed B&W negative will possibly have a range which far exceeds the capability of the scanner irrespective of what tweaking you do. In short the machine simply can't handle it. Even the much more capable Flex-tights are only just getting to the point where they can optimally scan B&W negs.
But yes, I believe that your entire digital work-flow needs to be calibrated - scanner, monitor, printer, etc. Find a local consultant and pay the bucks to have it done by an expert then just sit and work. Attempting to do it yourself with a Spider or some such will only get you part of the way there as I understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
