Developing film according to end use: enlarger vs scannergreenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread
I read that Tech Pan has had a developer especially formulated so it will scan better. Knowing very little about film scanning can anybody tell me what way this developer will alter neg characteristics.
Would this developer give the same print results under the enlarger. (I'm thinking I could use this as a furure-proofing dev for Tech Pan come the day hi-res film scans are commonplace).
This web page states:
"Technical Pan film is in a class of its own when extreme resolution is needed, and it will be a long time before CCDs come anywhere near to the film's data recording potential. SPEEDIBREWS has now come up with the solution for workers preferring to scan film negatives, and work on prints via a digital option. CELER MONO tames Tech Pan, yielding a clean negative absolutely tailor-made for digital scanning as an alternative to conventional dark room technology. The negatives contain an amazing tonal range, almost impossible to duplicate by conventional developers, whilst offering a true 2-stops speed increase to a nice and familiar 100 ISO film rating. The resolution will still out-perform most camera lenses.
Because Tech Pan is a specialist film, the extended red sensitivity really comes into it's own under artificial lighting."
-- Brian W. Thomas (BriT@bwphoto.freeserve.co.uk), January 02, 2001
There's basically no difference in the requirements of a B&W negative for scanning or enlarging, and I can't see why a special developer would be required.
Most CCD scanners will easily encompass the density range of a properly exposed and developed negative, colour or B&W.
If a negative prints easily, then it'll scan easily; if it's awkward to print, then it'll be awkward to scan. Besides; no desktop scanner is going to get anywhere near to the resolution that Technical Pan is capable of, so what's the point of using it for the sole purpose of scanning?
A new developer just means time and material wasted in testing. Stick with what you know gives you good negatives, and the scans will be fine.
I've found that FP4plus scans very well, as does Tmax100 if the density range is curtailed. The main thing to avoid for scanning is excessive grain, and practically any modern film under 400 ISO will give grain fine enough to be invisible to a scanner.
-- Pete Andrews (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 03, 2001.
I have to agree with Pete! If a film prints well, it will scan well. With this ad and web page, well no harm meant but this is a sales pitch. I've been shooting TP for 20+ years and get perfect results with a number of developers... Divided D76, Technidol to name a few! The statement that states: "...CELER MONO tames Tech Pan, yielding a clean negative absolutely tailor-made for digital scanning as an alternative to conventional dark room technology." sounds to good and there is nothing that a little pulling won't cure using Technidol. I am all for free enterprise but let's read between the lines here.
-- Scott Walton (email@example.com), January 03, 2001.
"almost impossible to duplicate by conventional developers". Typical marketing ploy. They're referring to D76 et. al., which will give high contrast, not Technidol. My guess is CELER MONO is a Technidol knockoff. It's like car companies boasting that their cars have crush zones. Well, all cars that meet USA safty standards have crush zones.
-- Tim Brown (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 03, 2001.