[rollei_list] Rodinal, TMax, scanning

Carlos, I thought I would chime in here.  I don't think it's fair to say that
TMax and Rodinal are "not the best combo."  The two work very well
together, so long as you take the time to find the right recipe for the 
exposure conditions for the roll.  TMax has a fairly flat curve, and may
be manipulated to a large extent by exposure and developer.  There 
were a couple of interesting threads on this over on APUG by D.F.
Cardwell, that I've posted here before but are worth repeating:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/71428-todays-film-better.html

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/69617-shaping-tone-curve-rodinal-negative.html

Re scanning on the Epson flatbeds:  I scan all of my negatives 
directly on the glass of an Epson 4990.  My experience is that the 
DOF is adequate to compensate for the difference in film distance
from the scanner lens.  I suspect this is to compensate for the film
bowing in the film holder -- the holders are not precise.  

I am curious to hear more about your experience in scanning 
underexposed film directly on the glass.  My experience is that it
is a nightmare, because of the Newton rings caused by the bare
substrate on the glass (a problem I rarely encounter with a lot
of developed emulsion in a well-exposed negative).  How do
you avoid this problem with underexposed negatives on the glass?

Best regards,

Sanders McNew


On Mar 20, 2011, at 1:07 AM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager wrote:

> rollei_list Digest    Sat, 19 Mar 2011        Volume: 07  Issue: 051
> 
> In This Issue:
>               [rollei_list] Two Rollei TLR cameras and TMax100 and 400
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 13:53:36 -0300
> Subject: [rollei_list] Two Rollei TLR cameras and TMax100 and 400
> From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Lasts Epson Perfection scanners with fixed focus have it very close to
> the glass,0.5mm, I can't tell a difference scanning with the original
> frame or with the film on the glass directly for most situations, in
> fact I believe to perceive a slight better sharpness scanning with the
> frame, however it is also a fact to me you can get more details from
> negs clearly underexposed if you scan it on the glass directly, but my
> general rule is to scan with the scanner film frame.
> I had no special reason to scan this photograph on the glass directly
> and couldn't perceive a minimal difference using both ways but I liked
> the black frame (2.8C Xenotar TMax 100 in Tetenal Ultrafin+ 1+4):
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/5540247614/
> 
> TMax 400 and Rodinal were not the best combo, anyway I did the
> experiment (3.5F Planar TMax400 in Rodinal 1+25):
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/itarfoto/5537895991/
> 
> Carlos
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of rollei_list Digest V7 #51
> ********************************
> ---
> Rollei List
> 
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> 
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> 
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> 

---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: