Developing times for scan vs. wet print

[semi-ambivalent]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is there an initial rule of thumb for adjustment of developing times for film intended to be scanned rather than wet printed?

 

Thanks,

s-a

[Robert Ridyard]

I don't have a rule of thumb, but I know from experience that a thin negative scans better than a dense one. I suggest developing for a condenser-type enlarger, somewhere between 10% to 20% less than for a diffusion enlarger. I suspect most of the development times on DigitalTruth are for diffusion enlargers. I also suggest not over exposing the film. Here are examples of my work: https://www.flickr.com/photos/borret44/

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[semi-ambivalent]

I don't have a rule of thumb, but I know from experience that a thin negative scans better than a dense one. I suggest developing for a condenser-type enlarger, somewhere between 10% to 20% less than for a diffusion enlarger. I suspect most of the development times on DigitalTruth are for diffusion enlargers. I also suggest not over exposing the film. Here are examples of my work: https://www.flickr.com/photos/borret44/

Thanks so much. I've got some Tri-X that has been shot at 1600. There's some times at filmdev.org but they have no mention if they were developed to be scanned or printed and if printed what type of enlarger. I have a condenser and tend to chop 10% almost out of habit but thought I'd get others' input. I didn't shoot this film so I'll ask what the light was like; 15% probably wouldn't be too much. Also, nice work there.

 

Thanks!,

s-a

[250swb]

If you are scanning your own film I think rather than adjust the negative you'd do better learning the scanning software. Just learn not to clip shadows or highlights and create a lower contrast scan (similar to the lower contrast negative you are trying to produce). From this you do all the contrast adjustments in Lightroom or Photoshop. It also means you have fully developed negatives with maximum shadow detail. 

 

Steve

[adan]

When I shot 35mm and scanned on a Nikon, I both underexposed slightly and cut development slightly (e.g. Pan F at EI 80, and development 10% less than the box said). But that was because the small Nikon scanners used pinpoint LED illumination, that acted like a point light source (lots of contrast, lots of grain, hated density).

 

Now that I'm scanning 6x6 on an Epson, I just develop and expose normally. The huge glowing Epson illumination panel is more like a cold-light or diffusion enlarger, and handles "normal" negatives better.

[Robert Ridyard]

I have always scanned 35 mm with a Nikon scanner, which explains why I prefer my negatives to be on the thin side. Adan's observation about the different types of illumination in Nikon and Epson scanners is particularly interesting. "Back in the day", it was necessary to tailor one's film development according to the type of enlarger one had, i.e., condenser or diffusion. Today, one must take into account the type of scanner, e.g., Nikon vs Epson.

[semi-ambivalent]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A quick post here just to pull in the reins a bit. I asked about scanning only because I have no experience with Tri-X at EI 1600 developed in HC-110, and the photographer 'would really like' this to come out well. The examples I've seen (on filmdev.org) are, of course, on the internet. So they were scanned, either as film or scanned prints. I intend to wet print and I'm just trying to screw down a development time to better my odds for good results. At this point in time I have no desire to adopt a digital workflow.

 

I'm grateful to everyone for their replies vis a vis scanning but I don't want to send you off into the weeds because I wasn't clear.

 

thanks,

s-a