For the longest time my vision was to shoot the mixer like a product – white background, studio lighting, the works. For more interest I chose to use the glass block window in my dining room. It offered a second light source to the natural window light, back lighting the blender. Moreover, it offered a more structured grid pattern to juxtapose the curves of the mixer.

Photo shoot setup for Gilchrist No. 22

Equipment:

• Mamiya RZ67 ProII with Mamiya SEKOR-Z 110mm f2.8
• Ilford Delta 400; exposure compensation +1 at the meter; 2 sec exposures @ f8 / f5.6
• Tripod, double shutter release and bellows set to 110

Development:

• Pushed 1 stop with Ilford Ilfotech DD-X 1:4 using 4-6 inversions at the top of every minute
• Stop bath for 30sec
• Five minute fix using Ilford Rapid Fixer 1:4
• Water wash for 5 minutes
• Ilfotol rinse for 5 minutes
• Hang dry after film squeegee
• Cut in pairs and sleeves using lint free gloves

Scanning:

• Nikon 9000 ED
• NikonScan
• Scan Science wet scan

Seven of the ten shots were worth further review. About half needed considerable touch up to remove air bubbles caught by the fluid and film.

Lesson 1: Do not develop and then scan immediately. The film is not as flat as it should be causing the edges of the film to lift and air to form pockets.

Lesson 2: Slight surface tension, by applying tape to the edges of the glass and holder, can correct the introduction of bubbles.

The thin grip tape that lines the sides of the Nikon negative holder began the wrinkle, likely due to the slight overflow of Lumina from the mount. From what I can tell this did not have any effect on the scan, possibly do to the ability to focus the scanner. Regardless, the ripples seemed minimal and depressed with the weight of the glass mount.

Once the final scans were complete I imported them into Adobe Lightroom 2 as my digital negatives, performed basic adjustments and then edited the visual defects (dust, bubbles etc) in Adobe Photoshop. Adobe Lightroom 2 offers spot removal, but slows with the number of spots and does not do nearly as good a job as the healing brush in Photoshop. Finally, back in Lightroom to add the final polish.

As a test, I ordered 8×10 inch glossy prints on Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper. The images were exported as JPEG, highest quality, 300ppi and sent to myPhotopipe.com to get printed on their Noritsu or Chromira printers. The results were striking – the quality was  superb and clearly much larger prints could be made with minimal quality loss. Another excellent activity for a follow-on post.

My initial test compares the results of a dry and wet scan of the same negative. The image was captured with a Mamiya 7ii, 80mm f4 outfit. It was an extended exposure, taken at dusk. The film is 120 Kodak TMAX 400 developed at LTI New York City. The scan was performed with the same settings – 4000dpi; scale 100%; 16bit; multi-sample 1x; CCD Scan Mode set to superfine; scan image enhancer on; custom focus, black and white points. This resulted in NEF (RAW) files on disk exceeding 550MB files. Slight differences in crop are responsible for the file difference.  The wet scan fluid is Scan Science’s Lumina – a full review to come!

To keep things as simple and neutral as possible the screen shots that follow are from Nikon Scan. No processing has been performed on either, what we see is what was captured and saved. Snagit was used to capture the screens and the only modification is cropping out the main user interface of Nikon Scan. To properly view this comparison you will need to see the large versions of the following images (~2MB PNGs) by clicking the smaller versions below.

The first image shows the dry scan (left) and the wet scan (right). Each is at 8% with the scan settings area of the image view displayed to show all things that could be recorded are equal. Notice the greater tonal depth on the wet scan specifically in the shadows. Notice the crisper detail in the bricks, especially around the chimney top.

The next image zooms into the chimney at 33.33%. The details apparent at 8% are now very clear. Notice the dust caught in the wet scan. I didn’t realize how much was there. Compressed air and lint-free tissues are now in hand for future scans. An anti-static brush is on my B&H wish list.

This following image is the same view zoomed to 100%. This shows without question, the wet scan on the right more detailed and has greater dynamic range.

The differences were so dramatic that I questioned if the focus points were the same. The default focus point is middle negative. The following image compares both at approximately middle image. At this 100% view the differences are subtle, but present. Again, notice the richer darks on the right and greater overall range. What is muddy gray on the left is a stronger gray tone on the right. The grain structure from the window (upper right) is simpler and smoother when comparing the two scans.

This final image is found on the left middle of the image and offers yet another point of comparison. It shows the bricks and window frame of an apartment. Again, notice the overall dynamic range, but more importantly, review the detail seen in the brick.

If you caught me a couple of weeks ago, I would have told you that wet scanning might be a gimmick. I wasn’t convinced from what I could find and while the 9000 ED is a great scanner it isn’t a drum scanner, so I didn’t presume the comparison in process was transferable. At the very least, it can be said, that for black and white negatives, wet scanning is a must. The quality is apparent with almost no detailed review. The effort added to the overall workflow is relatively small and the cost is nominal when compared to all the other things photo geeks spend money on.

Finally, this is the image after being imported into Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. I adjusted the crop slightly to align the horizon (noticeable at the top). Basic treatment includes conversion to grayscale, Recovery set to 12 and Clarity to 80. Tone curve is set to the Medium Contrast setting. No additional sharpening was applied. A slight vignette is added at an Amount of -15. I then edited a copy in Adobe Photoshop to review and remove a few dozen dust threads and two air bubbles at 100%. While I was there I removed the distracting light in the lower right. I am not sure I would say I am done, but my intent was to show a “clean” version of the image for review. The JPEG export was done at 100% quality, sRGB, 75ppi and 2000 pixels on its largest edge. The version below is a reduced size, remember to view the full sized version by clicking the image.

Courtyard at dusk, Park Slope, Brooklyn, New York

As a teenager I would run around with my black Olympus OM-2n wishing that one day I would find myself with a Mamiya. It was what I saw in magazines and my medium-format camera experience went from a Yashicamat TLR to a Rolliflex TLR – a story all of its own. I had nice equipment, so the Mamiya was not an obsession, more of a dream. I love Lamborghini cars and one day I will have one. For now, it is a dream.

My first few shots with the RZ were using the Polaroid back. Polaroid had announced earlier in the year that it would stop manufacturing instant film, which was fine, I loved the results from Fujifilm even better. In the first weeks, I ran through a few packs of expired Polacolor and started to realize two very important things. First, I needed a better tripod. The Mamiya RZ is heavy and my little tripod was not up for the task. Second, I needed a light meter. Using the digital camera to do meter readings was cumbersome at best and I was still often left compensating for the film characteristics. I knew I needed these things, but I waited to make sure.

Lesson: If you can afford it, do not wait, just get what you need. It moves the conversation away from the gear and into the art of making images. The catch is in knowing what you need.

This is how it all began. The dream unleashed the sleeping giant which has compelled me to share my journey on the hybrid photography jet-stream. I know I am not alone, and yet we are scattered in our sharing.