|
|
 | | 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 |
|
  |
Re: Underexposed Negatives |
|
Walter Glover |
12:10 10 Feb 04 |
 |
I don't profess to be any sort of expert on scanning - I gladly engage the services of a dedicated scanning facility - but is it fair to assume that the scanner will have the same ES as photographic paper? And how would one test it?
I recently had some BTZS processed 120 Tri-X portraits scanned because the subject was so ugly I couldn't tolerate seeing her come up in the dev. The negs were scanned on a flex-tight and the resultant files were positioned vastly differently on the histogram than my usual colour neg and trannie exposures. Where I normally get a histogram a bit similar to a bell curve well spaced over the entire range the B&Ws had the curve way over to the right indicating (to my limited understanding of the matter) that the film pre-set in the scanner software considered the negatives considerably over-exposed.
I look forward to seeing what Phil has to say on this matter, but in the mean time I would do at least a contact print, but preferably an enlargement if its is smaller format, on regular photgraphic paper to determine what changes are necessary switching from chemical prints to digital.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Davis |
17:37 10 Feb 04 |
|
|
David Rude |
22:32 10 Feb 04 |
|
|
Ross Borgida |
6:04 11 Feb 04 |
|
|
Walter Glover |
10:43 11 Feb 04 |
|
