Down the Road

Photographs and stories by Jim Grey

Since 2007

single frame: No Outlet

Jim Grey
17 comments on single frame: No Outlet
1 minute
, , ,
No Outlet

No Outlet
Agfa Clack
Ilford FP4 Plus
LegacyPro L110, Dilution B
2021

Now that my new (used) dedicated 35mm scanner has solved my problem getting good scans of my 35mm negatives, I’m less satisfied with the medium-format scans my flatbed delivers. These scans are miles better than what my flatbed can deliver with 35mm negatives, but they’re still not great.

With this roll, I played around with VueScan’s built-in film profiles. VueScan has a paltry selection of them, far fewer than what rival SilverFast offers. There was no Ilford FP4 Plus profile, for example. But I tried the Kodak T-Max 100 profile, and it immediately balanced the contrast in these negatives.

The Clack is capable of better sharpness than this. No matter what I do, I can’t seem to get good sharpness from my flatbed. Could it be the device itself? Or is it the software; should I try SilverFast? Meh, bleh, what a pain. It’s just easier to send my film to the lab and let them deal with it.

If you’d like to get more of my photography in your inbox or reader, click here to subscribe.

Comments

17 responses to “single frame: No Outlet”

  1. lasousa2015 Avatar
    lasousa2015

    Hi Jim, there is probably an issue with either the negatives not being flat or the holder height being off. I don’t know what scanner you are using, but with the Epson Medium Format holder it is hard to get the film flat if 3 connected frames are loaded. It is impossible to get the left and right edges to seat under the holder grooves. If you cut the frames individually, it is easier to get both edges seated. If I scan 3 connected images, sometimes I trim a sliver off of one edge to get the negative to sit better in the holder. Scan the same negative at different holder heights to locate the best settings for your scanner. I have tried fancy third party holders with ANR glass in them but it is a hassle and the glass is another surface that introduces dust and smudges.

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      The negs fit fine into the holder. I’ve wondered for a while if there’s a problem with the holder height, or the scanner’s ability to focus on the negs where they are above the glass. I should look into that.

      Reply
  2. Joshua Fast Avatar
    Joshua Fast

    I hated Vuescan, I bought silverfast and never looked back. Silverfast has a better sharpening algorithm right out of the box and a multiple pass scan option that increases the dynamic range of your negative. The film profiles are a pretty handy starting point too.

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      I hated the Silverfast UI with a purple passion, but their film profiles are the bomb.

      Reply
  3. brineb58 Avatar
    brineb58

    I lay the negs directly on the scanner glass and put a piece of ANR glass on top of it. Works well on my V500 with VueScan.

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      I ought to try that. I swear my scanner isn’t focusing correctly.

      Reply
  4. Andy Umbo Avatar
    Andy Umbo

    Is there a way to set the actual focus height? I know some of the people I know that do scanning have machines that they can set the focus depth depending on what’s in there, but I couldn’t tell you what brand those machines are?

    I predict that 5 years from now, you’ll own a third hand Heidelberg drum scanner!

    Reply
    1. Andy Umbo Avatar
      Andy Umbo

      Why Mess Around!

      https://www.michaelstricklandimages.com/blog/2018/4/4/drum-scanning

      Reply
    2. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      sigh. Wouldn’t that be amazing.

      I don’t have space to build a darkroom here, but if I did, I have wondered if it would lead to better scans to make prints and scan the prints. What are your thoughts on that?

      Reply
      1. Andy Umbo Avatar
        Andy Umbo

        I remember years ago (since I’m an old guy), reading about how the LPM of lenses is wildly reduced by making prints. Lenses used to be judged by how they resolved LPM (line pairs per millimeter), and inherent contrast. I still remember those charts in Modern Photography (especially their great end of year issue that all the top camera reviews), and I still think they’re far more valuable than the type of tests people went to in the 90’s, the MTF chart, which seems to encompass contrast into the “sharp” as well, so a lens can “seem” sharp, because it’s contrasty, when it really isn’t all that sharp. I remember in the old system, someone saying that the CZ 50mm for Contax was one of the sharpest lenses, bar none, that they ever tested!

        Anyway, one of the articles from back then, was saying “…look, by the time you print an image, photographically through an enlarger, on conventional printing paper, you’re knocking your lenses resolving power of maybe 40 LPM, down to about 5-7 by the time it’s on the paper.” So the fast answer would be: scanning from the neg, in a high quality scanner, should be way sharper than scanning a print. BUT, if you have a not-so-good film scanner that does great flat scans from reflective art, like a print, and use RC paper, which is sharper than old fiber paper, and are scanning a larger that needed print and knocking it down to a smaller size, you just might be able to get a better result!

        Reply
        1. Jim Grey Avatar
          Jim Grey

          That’s a great perspective. On my flatbed, scanning a print would probably be better than scanning the neg, but only because my neg scans suck so bad.

          Reply
  5. fishyfisharcade Avatar
    fishyfisharcade

    My current process for medium format negs is to scan on my Epson V550 at 2400dpi (using Epson Scan, and setting whit and black points as I want them etc.) and then use the Output Sharpener tool in Nik FX to sharpen the negative before I do any additional processing in Lightroom. I don’t apply any sharpening during the scan (although I used to). I’m quite happy with the results I’m getting (although there is a hint of pixelisation creeping in if I pixel peep at the largest resolution). I expect this current process will evolve as all my previous systems have.

    Sometimes I tell myself to just be happy with what I have as it’s pretty good. Sadly I don’t always listen. :)

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      It sure seems like trying to get better scans is a process that never ends. :-(

      Reply
  6. Roger james Meade Avatar
    Roger james Meade

    It seems to me that something is being lost in all this pretty arcane tech babble, no offense meant to anyone. My question is- does the photo tell a story? Is it a story that “hooks”the viewer? If so, then it’s a good photo- period. Doesn’t matter how sharp, contrasty, or grainy, etc. The viewer most likely doesn’t care, because all they see is a photo that they like.

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      Good point. On that measure, this isn’t a great photograph. It’s just a documentary image of a sign.

      Reply
  7. kennethwajda Avatar
    kennethwajda

    Hi, Jim. I just got a Clack. Looks like a fun shooter. Thanks for your post.

    Reply
    1. Jim Grey Avatar
      Jim Grey

      It is fun. A reasonably capable box that takes 120!

      Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: