Shiny Brook Saddleworth Moor

Discussion in 'Black And White' started by Ian-Barber, Oct 8, 2018.

  1. Ian-Barber

    Ian-Barber Admin Staff Member Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Doncaster (Yorkshire)
    Home Page:
    This photograph is an enlargement of the original 4x5 negative. To get the enlargement, I removed the negative carrier, sandwiched the negative between 2 pieces of 3mm glass and placed it where the negative carrier goes. To prevent light spill from the sides, I draped a piece of cloth over the enlarger head.

    The photograph is printed on some old slightly fogged Agfa Multi-Contrast RC paper.

    Shiny-Brook.jpg

    Shiny-Brook.jpg
     
    YorkshireBloke and Diz like this.
  2. martin henson

    martin henson Admin Staff Member Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Otley West Yorkshire
    The depth and detail from the large negs through the light of an enlarger is excellent, something you cannot get out of the Epson flat bed scanners
     
  3. Joanna Carter

    Joanna Carter Active Member Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2017
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Consultant Software Engineer / Photographer
    Location:
    Plestin-les-Grèves, France
    Home Page:
    I think I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I have half a dozen or so prints, made by Ilford from files scanned on an Epson V700. They are printed to 25" x 20" and, on one of a waterfall, the individual sprites of water are clearly visible and sharp.

    You can get some idea from a low resolution version on my website http://grandes-images.com/en/Landscape/Pages/North_Wales.html#6 It's a far cry from the full size print and, unfortunately, I lost the scan file when a mirrored disk drive failed.
     
  4. martin henson

    martin henson Admin Staff Member Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Otley West Yorkshire
    Well we will have to agree to disagree :rolleyes:



    And a Drum scan is not a match to a DR print from a 4x5 negative
     
  5. Joanna Carter

    Joanna Carter Active Member Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2017
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Consultant Software Engineer / Photographer
    Location:
    Plestin-les-Grèves, France
    Home Page:
    Even with that video I remain unconvinced that drum scanning is worth the money, unless maybe you need a "really big" print for an exhibition.

    I scan at 2400ppi to give me a 10x magnification because, in theory (and in my experience) you only need to print at 240ppi instead of 300; the difference is virtually undetectable unless you expect viewers to press their noses to the print. After all, every image has its intrinsic viewing distance and, at that distance, the human eye simply can't resolve the level of detail we would pixel-peep to improve on.

    I really wish you could see my Ilford prints; I have never had anyone be able to detect that they are of any less quality than a darkroom print. Fancy a trip to Brittany? :cool:
     
    YorkshireBloke likes this.
  6. martin henson

    martin henson Admin Staff Member Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Otley West Yorkshire
    Yea with free B&B ;)
     
  7. Joanna Carter

    Joanna Carter Active Member Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2017
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    Consultant Software Engineer / Photographer
    Location:
    Plestin-les-Grèves, France
    Home Page:
    I think we could manage that :)
     
  8. David M

    David M Well-Known Member Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    South London
    A couple of points occur to me.
    We are a bunch of nose-pressers so that needs to be taken into account.
    "Intrinsic viewing distance"? There are two sorts of viewing distance. Firstly, there is the distance at which a print must be viewed to re-create the original perspective.
    This can be calculated from the focal length and the magnification. It's important in a technical sense.
    We don't usually view prints this way. We stand at a convenient distance from the wall and all prints have the same viewing distance, regardless of size or magnification. We might well choose to move closer (for nose-pressing) or further away from a mural of course, but in general we stick to the same distance. If we're handling loose prints, they'll all be held wherever our arm reaches.
    So we have two criteria for judging perceived sharpness.
    In Ben's excellent video, what impressed me was not the slight but perceptible increase in sharpness in the drum scan, but the improvement in saturation and the separation of small colour differences. This might be inherent in the two processes or it may reflect a difference in the software used. (Does drum-scanning include adjustments?) At normal print sizes, I doubt if we would notice the edge effects on the flat-bed scan. It didn't look like $200-worth of improvement to me, but Ben has his own reasons.
    All this is judged from viewing on this particular screen, of course.
    I suggest that if we saw either image alone, we would find it satisfactory. We seldom have such close side-by-side comparison. This is not just nose-pressing: this is eyelash-pressing.

    If I may return to the original B+W image from Ian, he is to be commended for his heroic efforts, but I don't think it demonstrates the superiority of the projected image over the scan. (What we see is a scan anyway.) On this screen there is a jagged black area in the middle, free of detail, which I find uncomfortable viewing.
    The eye does not see this way. It adjusts itself so that shadows in the real world have more detail than simple densitometry suggests. I can see no objection to black areas a such; they can have a strong and attractive graphic effect, but that does not seem to be the case here. Once again, I have to add the caveat that this is judged from one particular screen and the print itself may be much more satisfactory.

    May we eventually have a report of the interesting conversations in Brittany. please?
     
    YorkshireBloke likes this.

Share This Page