Oh, Helen dear. You always seem to have these oh-so-easy be-all-end-all solutions to such common problems. How fortunate for you. You should write a book. I'm sure you'd make a killing solving everyone's problems with simple theoretical propositions. While I admire your scientifically-geared testing, most of your results are not replicable by mere-mortals. You must have a silver halide touch.
Max,
Unless I specifically state that I am theorizing, I avoid
'simple theoretical propositions'. Maybe you are confusing naked theory with theory being used to explain experience. Rather than having a
silver halide touch I think things might be down to how much time and effort I have spent on these issues. Maybe that gets lost in my brief posts. I'm not really the book-writing kind, never mind the theoretical kind - I prefer internet forums, because people can present alternative viewpoints.
As for color negative film, I'm well aware of it's general capabilities, including its tolerance for overexposure. Grossly underexposing the film will introduce a lot of grain into the shadows just as you say...not so much with slight underexposure, though the effect of underexposure on grain will multiply in the faster films. Flatbeds especially have a very hard time dealing with fine highlight detail, whatever the film type. Color neg is no exception. I've devised this method precisely because this is a routine problem, not one that rears its head on rare occasions of "extreme lighting conditions."
Anyone with a scanner can do simple tests to find their optimum film speed - exactly as they might do when shooting for traditional printing methods. (But see my final comment) Theoretical discussion is, therefore, a secondary consideration. I'm intrigued by your reference to highlight details being a problem
'whatever the film type'. For reversal film the highlight details are in portions of very low density, for negative film they are likely to have a log density between roughly 1.0 and 2.5 (maybe slightly higher for well exposed colour negative). This suggests to me that you are referring to a problem in the software or method rather than the hardware, as does your next statement. In response to my question about where you placed the white point, you replied:
The Nikon scans are uncorrected TIFF.
OK. That might be why you have lost separation of highlight detail. I always prefer highlights (ie high pixel values) to be handled in the original linear space of the raw sensor data - ie where they have the best separation. In simple terms, I prefer to adjust the white point (low D-max point) in the scanner software.
The Nikon, for all its reliable and excellent general performance, still does have its shortcomings. One need only compare it against a Flextight...
Well, I've done extensive comparisons between the Flextight 949 and both the Nikon 8000 and 9000. I pay $45 an hour for the 949, and the Nikons are mine. I've had the 8000 since it was released many moons ago. The Nikons have a slight edge in terms of true resolution for medium format, but the 949 wins on resolution when used with 35 mm. The 949 does have an advantage in terms of D-max, but this is only significant when scanning the denser reversal films like Kodachrome and Velvia. That doesn't affect reversal film highlight detail, of course, and it isn't relevant for negative film. The 949 is about ten times the price of a 9000. The differences are only important for the very highest quality work - when I would tend to prefer a real drum scan or top-end flatbed scan anyway. (Later: I forgot one other difference I meant to mention. The Nikons have ICE, the Flextights don't. ICE is very useful when scanning old film.)
As for black and white, I can't speak for Minolta as I've never used it.
The original Elite 5400 is an excellent scanner, if slow. I bought mine for $300 each. They were always excellent value, even when new.
(and let me preempt you by noting that judging from your previous posts, your idea of a modest equipment price has a seriously inflated price tag).
Yes, I am fortunate. I can thank my discovery by the fickle, shallow world of fashion back in the mid 70's for starting my preference for decent-ish gear. I do, however, get to use scanners other than my own. As I said above, everyone should find out for themselves what is right for their equipment and their requirement. I'd be a little wary of tailoring my film exposure to low end scanners, however. This was an issue I faced about eleven years ago. "Do I change my still film technique to match the limitations of the scanner I have now, or do I anticipate improvement in the future?" I decided that I would continue to expose film for optimum printing by conventional means until there was an overall gain by changing that scheme. That was just my decision, based on my personal requirements and expectations. In retrospect I'm very glad I made it.
Best,
Helen
