Leaving the Wet Darkroom?

First, I did think long and hard about posting this to R.P.Digital but
after looking at the posts there, I decided that I needed the advice of
people who were more involved in the wet process. I have contributed to
many of the analog newsgroups for years so please try not to flame me.

I have been involved with photography as a hobby for years and I have a
125 square foot plumbed darkroom in the basement that has given me long
hours of enjoyment. I have been a follower of the zone system as well
using my trusty Crown Graphic, Mamiya 330, Mamiya 7, and an old Moskva
folder, shooting many negatives and printing them on my D5XL. I have
even dabbled in color.

Lately with the addition of two children to the mix (2 years old and 4
months old) I have not had nearly enough time (read none) to pursue
printing in the darkroom. I still shoot black and white and have a
stack of negatives that have gone unprinted.

I recently dragged my old $199 flatbed scanner with the film adapter
lid and scanned those negatives just to see them, and discovered that
there were many shots I would love to print. Some serendipity through
work allowed me to recently acquire a G5 dual processor Mac. Of course
the cheapo scanner doesn't do any justice to the negatives (but mind
you, I was pretty impressed anyway).

I am contemplating getting a dedicated film scanner (such as the Nikon
8000, which from what I read is a bit older but not significantly worse
than the Nikon 9000, and a lot cheaper used) and scanning these and any
future negatives I create and creating a completely digital workflow
from that point on.

The questions I have a

1. Output. What are your thoughts on how to create black and white
prints digitally? Do they have the feel of real prints; the gloss of
the paper, Dmax, contrast, tone? Who makes them and how are they made -
are people exposing real B&W or C paper to digital light and processing
them, versus giant inkjet printers? Longevity? Do they carry the drama,
or emotion of a print? Does the "art" come through?

2. Giving up B&W film. I am still able to process my B&W film myself
with my Jobo, but from what I am reading I am tempted to just shoot C41
film and have it professionally souped. I would still want to print
black and white but it seems the color information is useful in
generating grayscale images in Photoshop, and eliminate the need to
commit to a specific lens filter color. A grayscale scanned and printed
C41 shot would have a specific "look" to it (grain wise) that may be
different than some specific pure B&W technique, but it would be a look
possibly worthy unto itself. This would keep my hands totally dry.

3. Giving up instant gratification. Obviously there is some pleasure in
seeing and handling your finished product immediately when you are
done. I'd have to wait until that big envelope (or tube) came in the
mail to see what I had created. But if I could reliably see what I was
going to get on the screen it would be liveable. How easy is it to
profile a serivce's prints. Can you display, print and calibrate some
sort of step wedge so you have some idea of what white, black, and all
the greys will look like with some degree of accuracy. Are people
generally happy with what comes in the mail 2 weeks later based on what
they had been visualizing on the monitor. It would eliminate the 20 or
so prints I usually have to make before I am happy.

4. Being able to feel I run a color darkroom as well. I have tried RA4
and been pretty happy with the results, but the process didn't thrill
me. And I felt there was less for me to control, so I kept up just
bringing my color negs to a lab and getting prints. But digitally I
feel I'd be more involved in the final output and have more possible
manipulations. Again, how easy is it to calibrate to an outside
printing service so I am not disappointed with the final results I get.

Thanks for letting me rant. Any thoughts on all of this? Has anyone
made the switch and are you as happy? I know I'll miss the process,
even the smell, but I want to get back into photography but just cannot
get back down into the darkroom right now.

-Joshua Wein

B&W negatives (except C-41 films) do not scan well. It would be a waste
of time. B&W film is intended for a wet darkroom.

B&W negatives (except C-41 films) do not scan well. It would be a waste
of time. B&W film is intended for a wet darkroom.

Don't take this as a flame but I am passionate about darkrooms and have been
at this a while, too. I processed my first roll of film in 1967, I didn't
have a timer or tanks. I shut myself in the bathroom and stuffed towels
under the door. For a timer I had my younger brother on the other side of
the door calling out the times while I seesawed a roll of 127 film shot in
my Brownie Starmite through soup bowls of Dektol, Indicator Stop and Kodak
Fixer (the old Tri-Chem pack), I made contact prints on Velox and ferrotyped
them on the window in my bathroom. I now own four enlargers and practically
every piece of darkroom equipment known to man, it's not quite as much fun
as it was back then, but the darkroom is the place I like best when I want
to get in touch with me.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of a digital darkroom. My darkroom
is a place I go to get away from my wife, kids, computer, etc. If I sit in
front of the PC scanning I am forever getting interrupted, but my family
leaves me alone when I am in the darkroom. I do both wet and digital
darkroom, I also own two film scanners, several flatbed scanners, 9 PC's (or
so, I build 'em so I have enough parts to make a couple more) several inkjet
printers and a dyesub printer.

As far as converting C-41 to black and white, I haven't seen much produced
yet that didn't look like C-41 converted to black and white--it just ain't
the same. Much like colorized versions of film noire movies; you're making
a sow's ear from a silk purse. Shooting black and white and the choices we
make before making the negative are parts of the creative process.

C-41 (and digital even more so) is a slice of life, it's a faithful moment
recorded from the real world, it's Kool-aid, it's malt liquor, it's Muzak.

Black and white is abstraction, it's essence, fingernails on a blackboard,
single malt scotch, the sweet breath of your little child, it's jazz, baby.

To paraphrase Jack Kennedy, we don't do these things because they are easy,
rather, we go into the darkroom because it is hard. Let me know when you
have your garage sale.

To answer your questions in order.

1. Black and white output, it's possible to make pretty good prints using
inkjet printers, I use a Epson C82 and print using only the black ink and
get fair results. Plenty good for most applications. Expect to make lots
of prints, just like in the wet darkroom, you can get subtle here, too, plus
you have curves as well as contrast that you can mess with. The digital
paper printers print to either color or black and white RA-4 paper, I
actually prefer inkjet prints to RC. The medium is different, in the same
sense that photography should not try to be painting, digital printing
should not mimic it's brother from the wet darkroom. If you're an artist,
then it's all Art.

2. See my semi-rant above. I still haven't seen much B&W conversion that
didn't look converted, ditto for digital camera conversions. You just don't
(and can't) light color like you would black and white. It's not bad, just
not the same.

3. Shoot digital and you'll get the most immediate gratification ever. You
won't have piles of negatives to play with on winter days, you'll probably
throw out everything that doesn't immediately seduce you. Profiling
monitors and printers and scanners gets easier all the time. And cheaper,
the hardware cost isn't much more than the price of a good color analyzer or
a new lens.

4. The best cheap digital prints are the ones you get from Walmart
(seriously) unless you want to take the time to learn color management. The
easiest way to shoot color digitally is to buy a digital camera, it already
has a great color profile and will make life much easier.

--
darkroommike

----------
"Josh" wrote in message
oups.com...
First, I did think long and hard about posting this to R.P.Digital but
after looking at the posts there, I decided that I needed the advice of
people who were more involved in the wet process. I have contributed to
many of the analog newsgroups for years so please try not to flame me.

I have been involved with photography as a hobby for years and I have a
125 square foot plumbed darkroom in the basement that has given me long
hours of enjoyment. I have been a follower of the zone system as well
using my trusty Crown Graphic, Mamiya 330, Mamiya 7, and an old Moskva
folder, shooting many negatives and printing them on my D5XL. I have
even dabbled in color.

Lately with the addition of two children to the mix (2 years old and 4
months old) I have not had nearly enough time (read none) to pursue
printing in the darkroom. I still shoot black and white and have a
stack of negatives that have gone unprinted.

I recently dragged my old $199 flatbed scanner with the film adapter
lid and scanned those negatives just to see them, and discovered that
there were many shots I would love to print. Some serendipity through
work allowed me to recently acquire a G5 dual processor Mac. Of course
the cheapo scanner doesn't do any justice to the negatives (but mind
you, I was pretty impressed anyway).

I am contemplating getting a dedicated film scanner (such as the Nikon
8000, which from what I read is a bit older but not significantly worse
than the Nikon 9000, and a lot cheaper used) and scanning these and any
future negatives I create and creating a completely digital workflow
from that point on.

The questions I have a

1. Output. What are your thoughts on how to create black and white
prints digitally? Do they have the feel of real prints; the gloss of
the paper, Dmax, contrast, tone? Who makes them and how are they made -
are people exposing real B&W or C paper to digital light and processing
them, versus giant inkjet printers? Longevity? Do they carry the drama,
or emotion of a print? Does the "art" come through?

2. Giving up B&W film. I am still able to process my B&W film myself
with my Jobo, but from what I am reading I am tempted to just shoot C41
film and have it professionally souped. I would still want to print
black and white but it seems the color information is useful in
generating grayscale images in Photoshop, and eliminate the need to
commit to a specific lens filter color. A grayscale scanned and printed
C41 shot would have a specific "look" to it (grain wise) that may be
different than some specific pure B&W technique, but it would be a look
possibly worthy unto itself. This would keep my hands totally dry.

3. Giving up instant gratification. Obviously there is some pleasure in
seeing and handling your finished product immediately when you are
done. I'd have to wait until that big envelope (or tube) came in the
mail to see what I had created. But if I could reliably see what I was
going to get on the screen it would be liveable. How easy is it to
profile a serivce's prints. Can you display, print and calibrate some
sort of step wedge so you have some idea of what white, black, and all
the greys will look like with some degree of accuracy. Are people
generally happy with what comes in the mail 2 weeks later based on what
they had been visualizing on the monitor. It would eliminate the 20 or
so prints I usually have to make before I am happy.

4. Being able to feel I run a color darkroom as well. I have tried RA4
and been pretty happy with the results, but the process didn't thrill
me. And I felt there was less for me to control, so I kept up just
bringing my color negs to a lab and getting prints. But digitally I
feel I'd be more involved in the final output and have more possible
manipulations. Again, how easy is it to calibrate to an outside
printing service so I am not disappointed with the final results I get.

Thanks for letting me rant. Any thoughts on all of this? Has anyone
made the switch and are you as happy? I know I'll miss the process,
even the smell, but I want to get back into photography but just cannot
get back down into the darkroom right now.

-Joshua Wein

Don't take this as a flame but I am passionate about darkrooms and have been
at this a while, too. I processed my first roll of film in 1967, I didn't
have a timer or tanks. I shut myself in the bathroom and stuffed towels
under the door. For a timer I had my younger brother on the other side of
the door calling out the times while I seesawed a roll of 127 film shot in
my Brownie Starmite through soup bowls of Dektol, Indicator Stop and Kodak
Fixer (the old Tri-Chem pack), I made contact prints on Velox and ferrotyped
them on the window in my bathroom. I now own four enlargers and practically
every piece of darkroom equipment known to man, it's not quite as much fun
as it was back then, but the darkroom is the place I like best when I want
to get in touch with me.

There's nothing wrong with the concept of a digital darkroom. My darkroom
is a place I go to get away from my wife, kids, computer, etc. If I sit in
front of the PC scanning I am forever getting interrupted, but my family
leaves me alone when I am in the darkroom. I do both wet and digital
darkroom, I also own two film scanners, several flatbed scanners, 9 PC's (or
so, I build 'em so I have enough parts to make a couple more) several inkjet
printers and a dyesub printer.

As far as converting C-41 to black and white, I haven't seen much produced
yet that didn't look like C-41 converted to black and white--it just ain't
the same. Much like colorized versions of film noire movies; you're making
a sow's ear from a silk purse. Shooting black and white and the choices we
make before making the negative are parts of the creative process.

C-41 (and digital even more so) is a slice of life, it's a faithful moment
recorded from the real world, it's Kool-aid, it's malt liquor, it's Muzak.

Black and white is abstraction, it's essence, fingernails on a blackboard,
single malt scotch, the sweet breath of your little child, it's jazz, baby.

To paraphrase Jack Kennedy, we don't do these things because they are easy,
rather, we go into the darkroom because it is hard. Let me know when you
have your garage sale.

To answer your questions in order.

1. Black and white output, it's possible to make pretty good prints using
inkjet printers, I use a Epson C82 and print using only the black ink and
get fair results. Plenty good for most applications. Expect to make lots
of prints, just like in the wet darkroom, you can get subtle here, too, plus
you have curves as well as contrast that you can mess with. The digital
paper printers print to either color or black and white RA-4 paper, I
actually prefer inkjet prints to RC. The medium is different, in the same
sense that photography should not try to be painting, digital printing
should not mimic it's brother from the wet darkroom. If you're an artist,
then it's all Art.

2. See my semi-rant above. I still haven't seen much B&W conversion that
didn't look converted, ditto for digital camera conversions. You just don't
(and can't) light color like you would black and white. It's not bad, just
not the same.

3. Shoot digital and you'll get the most immediate gratification ever. You
won't have piles of negatives to play with on winter days, you'll probably
throw out everything that doesn't immediately seduce you. Profiling
monitors and printers and scanners gets easier all the time. And cheaper,
the hardware cost isn't much more than the price of a good color analyzer or
a new lens.

4. The best cheap digital prints are the ones you get from Walmart
(seriously) unless you want to take the time to learn color management. The
easiest way to shoot color digitally is to buy a digital camera, it already
has a great color profile and will make life much easier.

--
darkroommike

----------
"Josh" wrote in message
oups.com...
First, I did think long and hard about posting this to R.P.Digital but
after looking at the posts there, I decided that I needed the advice of
people who were more involved in the wet process. I have contributed to
many of the analog newsgroups for years so please try not to flame me.

I have been involved with photography as a hobby for years and I have a
125 square foot plumbed darkroom in the basement that has given me long
hours of enjoyment. I have been a follower of the zone system as well
using my trusty Crown Graphic, Mamiya 330, Mamiya 7, and an old Moskva
folder, shooting many negatives and printing them on my D5XL. I have
even dabbled in color.

Lately with the addition of two children to the mix (2 years old and 4
months old) I have not had nearly enough time (read none) to pursue
printing in the darkroom. I still shoot black and white and have a
stack of negatives that have gone unprinted.

I recently dragged my old $199 flatbed scanner with the film adapter
lid and scanned those negatives just to see them, and discovered that
there were many shots I would love to print. Some serendipity through
work allowed me to recently acquire a G5 dual processor Mac. Of course
the cheapo scanner doesn't do any justice to the negatives (but mind
you, I was pretty impressed anyway).

I am contemplating getting a dedicated film scanner (such as the Nikon
8000, which from what I read is a bit older but not significantly worse
than the Nikon 9000, and a lot cheaper used) and scanning these and any
future negatives I create and creating a completely digital workflow
from that point on.

The questions I have a

1. Output. What are your thoughts on how to create black and white
prints digitally? Do they have the feel of real prints; the gloss of
the paper, Dmax, contrast, tone? Who makes them and how are they made -
are people exposing real B&W or C paper to digital light and processing
them, versus giant inkjet printers? Longevity? Do they carry the drama,
or emotion of a print? Does the "art" come through?

2. Giving up B&W film. I am still able to process my B&W film myself
with my Jobo, but from what I am reading I am tempted to just shoot C41
film and have it professionally souped. I would still want to print
black and white but it seems the color information is useful in
generating grayscale images in Photoshop, and eliminate the need to
commit to a specific lens filter color. A grayscale scanned and printed
C41 shot would have a specific "look" to it (grain wise) that may be
different than some specific pure B&W technique, but it would be a look
possibly worthy unto itself. This would keep my hands totally dry.

3. Giving up instant gratification. Obviously there is some pleasure in
seeing and handling your finished product immediately when you are
done. I'd have to wait until that big envelope (or tube) came in the
mail to see what I had created. But if I could reliably see what I was
going to get on the screen it would be liveable. How easy is it to
profile a serivce's prints. Can you display, print and calibrate some
sort of step wedge so you have some idea of what white, black, and all
the greys will look like with some degree of accuracy. Are people
generally happy with what comes in the mail 2 weeks later based on what
they had been visualizing on the monitor. It would eliminate the 20 or
so prints I usually have to make before I am happy.

4. Being able to feel I run a color darkroom as well. I have tried RA4
and been pretty happy with the results, but the process didn't thrill
me. And I felt there was less for me to control, so I kept up just
bringing my color negs to a lab and getting prints. But digitally I
feel I'd be more involved in the final output and have more possible
manipulations. Again, how easy is it to calibrate to an outside
printing service so I am not disappointed with the final results I get.

Thanks for letting me rant. Any thoughts on all of this? Has anyone
made the switch and are you as happy? I know I'll miss the process,
even the smell, but I want to get back into photography but just cannot
get back down into the darkroom right now.

-Joshua Wein

"Mike King" wrote:

To paraphrase Jack Kennedy, we don't do these things because
they are easy, rather, we go into the darkroom because it is hard.

"...because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our
energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to
accept..."

Ken

"Josh" wrote in message
oups.com...

Josh,

I wouldn't give away the analog equipment just yet. To 'burn that
bridge' may be regrettable in the future. See my comments after your
questions.


The questions I have a

1. Output. What are your thoughts on how to create black and white
prints digitally? Do they have the feel of real prints; the gloss of
the paper, Dmax, contrast, tone? Who makes them and how are they made -
are people exposing real B&W or C paper to digital light and processing
them, versus giant inkjet printers? Longevity? Do they carry the drama,
or emotion of a print? Does the "art" come through?

Only you can judge this. See for your self if a print, your favorite print,
can be professionally printed using digital methods to your satisfaction.
It's the only way to judge for your self.


2. Giving up B&W film. I am still able to process my B&W film myself
with my Jobo, but from what I am reading I am tempted to just shoot C41
film and have it professionally souped. I would still want to print
black and white but it seems the color information is useful in
generating grayscale images in Photoshop, and eliminate the need to
commit to a specific lens filter color. A grayscale scanned and printed
C41 shot would have a specific "look" to it (grain wise) that may be
different than some specific pure B&W technique, but it would be a look
possibly worthy unto itself. This would keep my hands totally dry.

I ask this question of people over and over. You especially are a target of
this question seeing as you already own everything you need. My question is
why trust your film (precious?) to someone else? C-41 and E-6 processing is
as easy to process as B&W. IMHO even easier as there are less variables to
play with. Time/Temp/Chems are always used the same way. Using Color film
and then digitizing and printing may hold some advantages, not the least of
which is it may look better in color.


3. Giving up instant gratification. Obviously there is some pleasure in
seeing and handling your finished product immediately when you are
done. I'd have to wait until that big envelope (or tube) came in the
mail to see what I had created. But if I could reliably see what I was
going to get on the screen it would be liveable. How easy is it to
profile a serivce's prints. Can you display, print and calibrate some
sort of step wedge so you have some idea of what white, black, and all
the greys will look like with some degree of accuracy. Are people
generally happy with what comes in the mail 2 weeks later based on what
they had been visualizing on the monitor. It would eliminate the 20 or
so prints I usually have to make before I am happy.

Semi instant gratification aside in the wet darkroom, I, personally do not
feel the image is completely mine if I leave a (major?) portion of the image
construction to someone else. That 'sub-contractor' must be able to
reproduce my wishes exactly. Here's a question, did you ever print an image
that you cropped and thought was perfect on the contact sheet/easel only to
look at the working print and say, 'yuck'? I have many times and re-cropped
the image and made a much better print. You won't have that advantage when
you send it out to be done. Additionally, it is possible that each
machine/operator is 'calibrated' differently and therefore your standard
will have some movement.


4. Being able to feel I run a color darkroom as well. I have tried RA4
and been pretty happy with the results, but the process didn't thrill
me. And I felt there was less for me to control, so I kept up just
bringing my color negs to a lab and getting prints. But digitally I
feel I'd be more involved in the final output and have more possible
manipulations. Again, how easy is it to calibrate to an outside
printing service so I am not disappointed with the final results I get.

Less control? I don't think so. Sure maybe on the chemical side of the
house, but how many green (or other color shifts) people have you seen from
family gatherings in batch processed prints? If you're like me, tons! You
have a fair amount of control on the image. Color, saturation, and to some
degree contrast (that's whay Kodak makes three types of color paper). I
will not deny that digitally, color gives you more control.


Thanks for letting me rant. Any thoughts on all of this? Has anyone
made the switch and are you as happy? I know I'll miss the process,
even the smell, but I want to get back into photography but just cannot
get back down into the darkroom right now.


Don't give up yet. Rather, use the advantages of both. The pleasure factor
is very important to me. That satisfaction is not going to be replaced by
opening a mailing tube.

Jim

"Josh" wrote in message
oups.com...

Josh,

I wouldn't give away the analog equipment just yet. To 'burn that
bridge' may be regrettable in the future. See my comments after your
questions.


The questions I have a

1. Output. What are your thoughts on how to create black and white
prints digitally? Do they have the feel of real prints; the gloss of
the paper, Dmax, contrast, tone? Who makes them and how are they made -
are people exposing real B&W or C paper to digital light and processing
them, versus giant inkjet printers? Longevity? Do they carry the drama,
or emotion of a print? Does the "art" come through?

Only you can judge this. See for your self if a print, your favorite print,
can be professionally printed using digital methods to your satisfaction.
It's the only way to judge for your self.


2. Giving up B&W film. I am still able to process my B&W film myself
with my Jobo, but from what I am reading I am tempted to just shoot C41
film and have it professionally souped. I would still want to print
black and white but it seems the color information is useful in
generating grayscale images in Photoshop, and eliminate the need to
commit to a specific lens filter color. A grayscale scanned and printed
C41 shot would have a specific "look" to it (grain wise) that may be
different than some specific pure B&W technique, but it would be a look
possibly worthy unto itself. This would keep my hands totally dry.

I ask this question of people over and over. You especially are a target of
this question seeing as you already own everything you need. My question is
why trust your film (precious?) to someone else? C-41 and E-6 processing is
as easy to process as B&W. IMHO even easier as there are less variables to
play with. Time/Temp/Chems are always used the same way. Using Color film
and then digitizing and printing may hold some advantages, not the least of
which is it may look better in color.


3. Giving up instant gratification. Obviously there is some pleasure in
seeing and handling your finished product immediately when you are
done. I'd have to wait until that big envelope (or tube) came in the
mail to see what I had created. But if I could reliably see what I was
going to get on the screen it would be liveable. How easy is it to
profile a serivce's prints. Can you display, print and calibrate some
sort of step wedge so you have some idea of what white, black, and all
the greys will look like with some degree of accuracy. Are people
generally happy with what comes in the mail 2 weeks later based on what
they had been visualizing on the monitor. It would eliminate the 20 or
so prints I usually have to make before I am happy.

Semi instant gratification aside in the wet darkroom, I, personally do not
feel the image is completely mine if I leave a (major?) portion of the image
construction to someone else. That 'sub-contractor' must be able to
reproduce my wishes exactly. Here's a question, did you ever print an image
that you cropped and thought was perfect on the contact sheet/easel only to
look at the working print and say, 'yuck'? I have many times and re-cropped
the image and made a much better print. You won't have that advantage when
you send it out to be done. Additionally, it is possible that each
machine/operator is 'calibrated' differently and therefore your standard
will have some movement.


4. Being able to feel I run a color darkroom as well. I have tried RA4
and been pretty happy with the results, but the process didn't thrill
me. And I felt there was less for me to control, so I kept up just
bringing my color negs to a lab and getting prints. But digitally I
feel I'd be more involved in the final output and have more possible
manipulations. Again, how easy is it to calibrate to an outside
printing service so I am not disappointed with the final results I get.

Less control? I don't think so. Sure maybe on the chemical side of the
house, but how many green (or other color shifts) people have you seen from
family gatherings in batch processed prints? If you're like me, tons! You
have a fair amount of control on the image. Color, saturation, and to some
degree contrast (that's whay Kodak makes three types of color paper). I
will not deny that digitally, color gives you more control.


Thanks for letting me rant. Any thoughts on all of this? Has anyone
made the switch and are you as happy? I know I'll miss the process,
even the smell, but I want to get back into photography but just cannot
get back down into the darkroom right now.


Don't give up yet. Rather, use the advantages of both. The pleasure factor
is very important to me. That satisfaction is not going to be replaced by
opening a mailing tube.

Jim

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I realize that going down into the
darkroom is not going to happen for a while. So I figure I do it this
way for now at least, or don't do it at all. I have one specific
negative that I had been working on making a 20x24 print from about a
year ago, and after about 25 prints I had one I was happy with. I think
I'll pay to have that negative scanned and play and have a print made
from various sites and see what I think before I plunk down $1,500 or
so for a scanner.

-Josh

Why is this? It would seem that scanning at some high bit value would
allow some expansion of the values into full white to black despite the
fact that the negative probably exists within a total 2.0 Dmin-Dmax
range. Also wouldn't you think you could recalibrate a zone system to
take into account the fact that the negative is going to be scanned.
Right now I develop so Zone VIII is a density of 1.35 - this is
probably not dense enough to efficiently transmit the info fully to the
scanner. I could recalibrate a processing time/temp so maybe zone 8
would be 2.5 or even 3.0 if the scanner can read up to 4.2.

-Josh