[rollei_list] Re: Rodinal, TMax, scanning

  • From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:28:49 -0300

Hi Sanders:

2011/3/20 Sanders McNew <sanders@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 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.

I wrote about TMax 400 and Rodinal specifically, not TMax in general,
I obtained _excellent_ results with TMax 100 and Rodinal. I only
developed one TMax400 roll with Rodinal and I found a difference
regarding the grain between 100 and 400 both developed with Rodinal,
the 400 was more grainy, it was perceptible for the sky specially,
this more grainy feature did not appear for the TMax 400 using
developers like the Tetenal Ultrafin Plus; anyway I think you could be
right about to manipulate the TMax 400 by exposure and developer
(Rodinal for this case), it happened that I developed the second TMax
400 roll with the Tetenal and liked the results very much, I forgot to
insist with Rodinal for this 400 T film, I kept it for the TMax100.

> 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

Thanks for the links, I had read those interesting threads some time
ago, I'll read them again.

> 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.

As I wrote, I did not find a practical difference scanning with the
frame or on the glass directly for most situations;I prefer to use the
120 scanner film holder because I can quickly scan the film even if it
is still curled, I cut the developed film each two frames and then the
film holder holds them up, down and along each side, flatness could be
not perfect but it is very good and DOF also works for this case as
you wrote. The standard Epson 4490 120 film holder puts the film at
0.5mm from the glass, the focus distance for film according the specs
for this and others Epson scanners designed lasts years.

> 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?

I agree with you in general, Newton rings are a real problem for these
underexposed film situations, sometimes you get two or three of them,
sometimes you get one and sometimes you get nothing. Dust on the neg
surface could cause a Newton ring, I clean the surface carefuly, it
helps to avoid Newton rings, I had two situations where a Newton ring
disappeared after to clean the neg for the second scanning (I also use
worn-out and clean cotton gloves to handle the negs). If the Newton
rings insist to appear, I change the neg position in the scanning area
trying different scannings, I have luck in general. BTW, I rarely have
a severely underexposed neg I would like to scan, but it could happen
for some reason.  I have a neg taken in a bar with available light
that I could only scan on the glass directly to obtain an usable
result, it got a Newton ring but it was soft and appeared in a no
significant image corner, I cut the image there directly;  the
scanning with the film holder produced a white result or a too poor

Best regards

> Best regards,
> Sanders McNew
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

Other related posts: