One of the mostly botched results from the Tri-X / Diafine disaster.
9/09/2005
TMZ
All you 1600 ASA gurus - I know you're out there. I'd like a film that I can shoot at 1600. I've seen your work and you're doing great stuff. What's your favorite formula. The whole thing - temp / agitation / tap water? / time / cosmic vibrations.
I love what I'm getting with Tri-X and DD-X.
Diafine with Tri-x was a disaster.
Delta 3200 @ 1600 with DD-X - I don't know - the emulsion seems thin and grain is the usual golf-ball size.
Tri-X pushed to 800 with DD-X - not great in low-light situations but fine in bright sunlight where I don't need it.
I love what I'm getting with Tri-X and DD-X.
Diafine with Tri-x was a disaster.
Delta 3200 @ 1600 with DD-X - I don't know - the emulsion seems thin and grain is the usual golf-ball size.
Tri-X pushed to 800 with DD-X - not great in low-light situations but fine in bright sunlight where I don't need it.
Dimage 5400 Scans
Okay - somebody kick me. Kick me hard.
I have been using the Dimage 5400 film scanner for a long time. I have been using it with the "grain dissolver." I set this up as a job a long time ago, and never really did tests with the dissolver on and off. The scanner is also set to do a 2x multi-pass to pick up more in the shadows. I did do tests with the multi-scan option and found enough difference in what was picked up in the shadow areas to double the scan time. But --
This morning - just for the hell of it - this is what I discovered: To do a full 5400 scan with the dissolver @ 2x passes takes about 7 - 8 minutes. The same image scanned at 2x with the "dissolver" off takes 2.5 minutes.
Maybe worthwhile if the results were significantly better with the dissolver - but in fact the dissolver gives a slightly softer rendition which is then "fixed" when you unsharp it later which also brings back the grain.
The difference between the two renditions is so slight - that looking at both versions of a scan side by side - if I didn't know which was which - I don't think I could tell.
So there you go. How could I not have noticed this way back when? I think I need a supervisor to watch what I'm doing or at the very least, a wizard to pop up saying - are you sure you want to increase the time it takes to do a scan? Or - you might want to look at the manual - page 32 before you press that nice icon on the toolbar.
I have been using the Dimage 5400 film scanner for a long time. I have been using it with the "grain dissolver." I set this up as a job a long time ago, and never really did tests with the dissolver on and off. The scanner is also set to do a 2x multi-pass to pick up more in the shadows. I did do tests with the multi-scan option and found enough difference in what was picked up in the shadow areas to double the scan time. But --
This morning - just for the hell of it - this is what I discovered: To do a full 5400 scan with the dissolver @ 2x passes takes about 7 - 8 minutes. The same image scanned at 2x with the "dissolver" off takes 2.5 minutes.
Maybe worthwhile if the results were significantly better with the dissolver - but in fact the dissolver gives a slightly softer rendition which is then "fixed" when you unsharp it later which also brings back the grain.
The difference between the two renditions is so slight - that looking at both versions of a scan side by side - if I didn't know which was which - I don't think I could tell.
So there you go. How could I not have noticed this way back when? I think I need a supervisor to watch what I'm doing or at the very least, a wizard to pop up saying - are you sure you want to increase the time it takes to do a scan? Or - you might want to look at the manual - page 32 before you press that nice icon on the toolbar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)