Developed in Tmax, exposed with the F100
So many topics in this post . . . First off, while in California last month I exposed a couple rolls of Tri-X, and included in this post are a couple of those images. Funny, when I was young I used to think of Tri-X as very contrasty (probably because most of the Tri-X images I remember from those days were concert shots. Now, when I hang out in the forums of APUG, Tri-X is lauded for its subtle tonality. Who knew? This frame above says that to me in spades. The light was soft, it was just after dawn in La Jolla, cloudy, raining, and the greys here are lovely.
After I wandered out on the beach, I turned around and took this image back over the roof of the hotel. This is kinda what I used to think of when I thought of Tri-X.
Same camera, roll and developer
I guess this image also exemplifies what people also say about Tri-X; how flexible it is. Anyhoo, these two images bring me to the next topic. Scanning.
I love film. I love thinking about the options it gives me (like I’ve said before, it’s like buying a different sensor for your camera every time). I know I process images captured on film a lot less than digital files to get the look I want, and I get the bonus of playing with the chemicals and the additional surprise of seeing what’s on the roll after I develop it. All good things.
But I hate scanning. Well, not scanning so much, exactly. I have a Nikon 4000, it scans very well, it’s easy to use, I get into a sort of meditative mindset when scanning, etc. But there are two things about scanning that make me nuts. The first is the dust and watermarks on the film. I’ve tried just about everything to minimize this bug-a-boo, and still it haunts me. Whether I use Lightroom to get rid of the dust specks or off-load the image to Photoshop, I still have to go over the image bit by bit to get rid of them. Here’s a screen capture of part of the first image above showing about 1/8th of he image and all the specs I’ve removed:
The Circles show the specs I've removed
And, just to prove my point, you can still see some speckles in the lower part of the frame I’ve yet to remove. They look pure white. The way you minimize these dust specs is during the film drying step, and I’ve tried everything: I use distilled water in all steps of development, humidifying the bathroom by turning the shower on before I hang the film, not turning the shower on, adding photoflo to the last wash, NOT using Photoflo and using the Edwal wetting agent instead, adding isopropyl alcohol to the last wash to make it dry faster, using a sponge squeegee to get rid of the water, using a rubber squeegee to get rid of the water, using no squeegee at all and just using my fingers (the way I was trained years ago). Nothing seems to work. It almost makes me want to stop shooting film, I’ll be honest. I’ve got to figure out something, I tell ya. I’m seriously considering a drying cabinet at this point.
The second issue is the software I use to scan. This last roll, the one at La Jolla beach, was just frustrating even beyond the dust. The roll was flat, contrast-wise, and I just didn’t think the software was giving me good scans. So, I downloaded a demo of Silverfast. This software is kinda the rolls-royce of scanner software if you’re not using an Imacon or something crazy-expensive. It’s expensive by itself and, above that, each copy is licensed for only one type of scanner. So, if you have, say a flatbed and a dedicated film scanner (like I’m considering for my medium-format work) you need to license TWO copies of the software. Yikes!
But those who use it swear by it. The main contender is Vuescan, which I have been using. So, just as quick test I pulled out a yet-to-be scanned roll, and, using the demo, scanned some frames. This is the first one to come up on the screen:
You can see the overwrite saying it's a demo
This was just the default settings, and that image, the contrast, the detail, etc, really made me sit up. (It’s Tri-X, btw, developed in Tmax). Ok, let’s try another, and then I’ll try that neg in Vuescan as well. Here’s the two:
Scanned in Silverfast
Vuescan
Well, I think even at this resolution you can see the Silverfast version has more bite. I’m not sure if you can really tell from these JPEGs, but using Silverfast seems to extract a little more out of the neg than Vuescan does. I really have to look into this a little more, I don’t want to leap to conclusions. One thing I might really do is send out a favorite neg of mine or two to a service bureau that does drum scans and see how much of a difference that makes. I know one film shooter who took out a loan to get himself an Imacon to scan his HP5 negs because he couldn’t stand the mediocre quality of his Nikon. In this image, I’ll let you figure out the Silverfast version.
Lastly, this post is #201. Amazing. Thanks so much for showing up and seeing what I’m up to. I’m gonna do more of these walk-throughs during the rest of the year. I head back to SF next week, so I’ll capturing more images in downtown SF. If you’re there and you see some idiot walking the streets with two cameras hanging from his neck, it’s me.
