@Krisky thanks you for your thorough comment @Mark_Segal.
He was quite surprised by the results from the Flextight scans, surprised, because he hadn’t even realized their dynamic range was lacking until he made baryta prints in the darkroom. It became immediately clear that the prints outperformed the scans in a way that felt unacceptable. By that point, he had already scanned nearly half the negatives. But making 777 baryta prints was out of the question - too time-consuming, too labor-intensive, and far too expensive. And even then, he would still need to document every print, with all the hassle that entails.
Then something unexpected happened. He stumbled across a snapshot he had taken of the negatives under the enlarger light, just a quick photo from the light table outside the darkroom - and noticed the same dynamic range in that image. That discovery opened up a new possibility.
He has worked with the Flextight for over twenty-five years and tested both the X1 and X5 models on these particular negatives. They’re Tri-X, pushed two stops to ISO 1600—which might be part of the problem. He also had to make analog prints from Ektar negatives for the same reason: the Flextight simply couldn’t handle them either, especially when push-processed. But with other films; Kodak Portra, Fuji Reala, Fuji Acros, Ilford - he’s had no issues at all. Those scan just fine, he says. This whole situation has left him baffled.
The grain is unusually aggressive, even with the unsharp mask turned off or dialed into the negative range, in the Flextight. But the biggest issue is in the blown out highlights; the grey areas that nearly solarize. He recalls a similar experience from his early days as an apprentice over twenty years ago, especially with cross-processed film and Agfa Ultra. Back then, he had to resort to a Nikon Coolscan 8000 to get usable scans.
He plans to share evidence of the advantages of a monochrome sensor as soon as the forum allows uploads. Personally, I believe the demosaicing process may be at the root of the degradation in Bayer sensors. You can see it at the pixel level, especially in the form of banding and loss of microcontrast. The files from a monochrome sensor just look cleaner, with greater dynamic range and more natural tonal gradation. Most importantly, the greys in black and white images feel more true, almost like you’re experiencing the silver of the negative itself. Tools like Negative Lab Pro only emphasize this difference further. It might not be significant for the naked eye, but when you print, offset or on high quality paper, you see it. Especially when making very large prints, where you have to interpolate a lot. Then the Bayer issues gets even worse.
He’s continuing to explore lenses and truly values all suggestions and input. The project he’s working on is massive - it’s about the generations that followed the greatest act of genosuicide in history, and it means the world to him. He has high hopes for Sigma, though he quietly fears the results won’t quite live up to the elusive feeling of the Elmarit. That good old German micro contrast that might just be in our minds. But if I know him, that’s probably just a touch of Leica fetishism talking. The last time we talked he was exploring the possibility of attaching a Leitz Focomat lens to the rig.
I personally find this process much more creative than scanning, especially with tools like Negative Lab Pro. Working in the dark at night, moving between the rig and the light table and the screen, the expectations and the dynamism of the process, it reminds me of the darkroom. And when I see his results I am dazzled to experience such an extreme upgrade in quality. The Flextight scans looked fine to me, but when I see the files processed through Negative Lab Pro the old Flextight scans look fake.
