35mm: A modest grain reduction proposal...

[Petraio Prime]

The work in PP isn't the hard part. Scanning is "new to me" however, and it's fair that may be the issue. I'm using a Plustek 8100 35mm scanner with Vuescan software for a DNG "supposed" to have 7200DPI - which I doubt. There may still be some defaults there that need turning off, though I thought I'd done that at the start. FWIW, my problem with my local lab's commercial scans is that return JPEGs... and I'd prefer the raw files... which is why I got a scanner of my own. After post in Capture One I typically print through Imageprint software to keep the ink, printer and paper in synch and to be able to re-do the exact results without missing a beat. FWIW, the results with digital originals have been very, very good.... but with film negatives, I'd agree we're still likely at the beginning of debugging the conversion process. Can it be soooo much different? Didn't think so, but maybe it is.

Like the idea of wet printing vs. ink printing to see whether there's an issue in the negative though I would tend to agree with those that while there might be a tweak or two there, the likely culprit is in the scanning process itself and working it from there. Fairly, I'm still new enough at developing to have room to go in removing inadvertent efforts which constitute "grain enhancers" there. Again, I'm not trying to eliminate grain so much as have a factor that's there, but not overwhelming to the point of poking my eyeballs out.

And of course, it's also possible that my standards may just be ridiculously unrealistic, too. I see more grain by far in some of the galleries out there for folks on this forum than I'm getting and complaining about. Needless to say, for the moment I tend to think there's more I can and should be doing. THanks!

Please remember that scanning technology was developed for color negative films. The image in conventional B&W films is composed of particles of silver, which reflect and absorb light. The image in color negative films is composed of dyes, which do not reflect light. This means that the contrast of conventional B&W films is greatly exaggerated when scanning is performed, and graininess is accentuated. So, either use color negative film or Ilford XP-2 if you want to scan.

 

[JWMster]

Please remember that scanning technology was developed for color negative films. The image in conventional B&W films is composed of particles of silver, which reflect and absorb light. The image in color negative films is composed of dyes, which do not reflect light. This means that the contrast of conventional B&W films is greatly exaggerated when scanning is performed, and graininess is accentuated. So, either use color negative film or Ilford XP-2 if you want to scan.

Interesting. FWIW, I scanned a color negative and it was amazing. When I went back and scanned a B&W negative using AdobeRGB rather than 16-bit Gray, I had a pretty doggone good DNG there as well. On the other hand, I had to limit the size to keep it from topping 100MB's. But when I tried that, I managed to reduce it significantly. Of course one of my scanning gurus then suggested sticking with 16-bit Gray... so I'm going to go back and try the Adobe RGB output all the way through printing to see what happens there. Maybe it was a mirage?

 

[Craig75]

try giving an extra stop exposure and halving development time then? (perhaps)

 

[MattKing]

Does anyone else think of Jonathan Swift when they see a reference to any sort of "modest proposal"?

 

[JWMster]

Having folks for dinner?

 

[MattKing]

Having folks for dinner?

could be .

 

[faberryman]

Scanning is "new to me" however, and it's fair that may be the issue. I'm using a Plustek 8100 35mm scanner with Vuescan software for a DNG "supposed" to have 7200DPI - which I doubt.

The actual resolution of scans from the PlusTek 81000 at 7200ppi is 3800ppi. That is sufficient to resolve the grain in B&W film.
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/PlustekOpticFilm8100.html

 

[Ian Grant]

Please remember that scanning technology was developed for color negative films. The image in conventional B&W films is composed of particles of silver, which reflect and absorb light. The image in color negative films is composed of dyes, which do not reflect light. This means that the contrast of conventional B&W films is greatly exaggerated when scanning is performed, and graininess is accentuated. So, either use color negative film or Ilford XP-2 if you want to scan.

That's exactly the same with enlarging chromogenic films, so your comments are largely irrelevant as to the means of output.

You could use a staining developer like PMK or Pyrocat and have the best of both worlds. I happen to be a committed darkroom printer but I do scan B&W negatives for reproduction etc and the results are no different in apparent graininess as long as you scan at a high enough resolution.

As to your comments that "This means that the contrast of conventional B&W films is greatly exaggerated when scanning is performed, and graininess is accentuated." all that means is you are doing something wrong when you scan or have an inadequate scanner.

Ian

 

[Lachlan Young]

Skillfully operated, a serious professional grade scanner should offer results that come close to what a top printer can achieve in a darkroom. The results will be different but both methodologies can produce superb prints. It must however be made clear that the PlusTek or pretty much any CCD scanner short of an Imacon/Hasselblad or Eversmart/iQSmart is realistically not going to be up to the job. On the other hand, many recent higher end DSLRs & a macro lens with a good light box will beat the living daylights out of most consumer grade (ie sub multi (tens of) thousands USD new) scanners & may well run a drum scanner very close if not beat it outright (and it will certainly come close to most of the high end flatbed/ CCDs like the Hasselblad etc). Your A7RII would be excellent for this sort of thing.

With this borne in mind, you should not compromise your films against future darkroom printing by massively compromising your process to match substandard equipment. You would be astonished how easily a high end scanner can handle dense highlights. It should also be said, the trickiest films to scan well are chromogenic (C-41) negatives. But that's a different story.

Use Xtol or ID11/D-76 at 1+1, do some sensible testing for acceptable shadow detail & highlight density. Proceed from there. Don't overbuy lenses, spend your money where it matters on materials.

Follow Ilford's times for Delta 400 rated at 200 in ID-11 1+1 and be amazed at the beautiful negs that result. They wet print beautifully & scan ridiculously easily too. Grain is present but elegant in 135. Delta 100 if you want less grain, massive resolution, different curve shape. Delta 400 & FP4 if you want to match curve shapes, or HP5 & Delta 100.

 

[JWMster]

Skillfully operated, a serious professional grade scanner should offer results that come close to what a top printer can achieve in a darkroom. The results will be different but both methodologies can produce superb prints. It must however be made clear that the PlusTek or pretty much any CCD scanner short of an Imacon/Hasselblad or Eversmart/iQSmart is realistically not going to be up to the job. On the other hand, many recent higher end DSLRs & a macro lens with a good light box will beat the living daylights out of most consumer grade (ie sub multi (tens of) thousands USD new) scanners & may well run a drum scanner very close if not beat it outright (and it will certainly come close to most of the high end flatbed/ CCDs like the Hasselblad etc). Your A7RII would be excellent for this sort of thing.

With this borne in mind, you should not compromise your films against future darkroom printing by massively compromising your process to match substandard equipment. You would be astonished how easily a high end scanner can handle dense highlights. It should also be said, the trickiest films to scan well are chromogenic (C-41) negatives. But that's a different story.

Use Xtol or ID11/D-76 at 1+1, do some sensible testing for acceptable shadow detail & highlight density. Proceed from there. Don't overbuy lenses, spend your money where it matters on materials.

Follow Ilford's times for Delta 400 rated at 200 in ID-11 1+1 and be amazed at the beautiful negs that result. They wet print beautifully & scan ridiculously easily too. Grain is present but elegant in 135. Delta 100 if you want less grain, massive resolution, different curve shape. Delta 400 & FP4 if you want to match curve shapes, or HP5 & Delta 100.

Lachlan: Kind of you to post. I'm re-scanning the image in question using Chris Crawford's Vuescan notes. Looks like an improvement, but we'll see what we get with a print. I live to print! Thanks also for the encouragement and suggestions. No doubt you're right about a higher end scanner, and using a DSLR to scan. I started my forray into this initially with that approach but chucked it in favor of cleaner, dedicated tech. I didn't like the handling involved and debugging that looked to be harder as a starting point. The Plustek... has more limited capability, but is easier to get up and running, leaving a future DSLR scan approach for down-the-road. There's a lot to be said for that - especially in terms of speed.

Again, thanks for your kindness... and to all who've offered tips and messaged me privately. Great list and group of folks you have here. A real treasure!

 

[Petraio Prime]

Lachlan: Kind of you to post. I'm re-scanning the image in question using Chris Crawford's Vuescan notes. Looks like an improvement, but we'll see what we get with a print. I live to print! Thanks also for the encouragement and suggestions. No doubt you're right about a higher end scanner, and using a DSLR to scan. I started my forray into this initially with that approach but chucked it in favor of cleaner, dedicated tech. I didn't like the handling involved and debugging that looked to be harder as a starting point. The Plustek... has more limited capability, but is easier to get up and running, leaving a future DSLR scan approach for down-the-road. There's a lot to be said for that - especially in terms of speed.

Again, thanks for your kindness... and to all who've offered tips and messaged me privately. Great list and group of folks you have here. A real treasure!

Why not get an enlarger?

 

[JWMster]

Got one. Bought it as a stand for DSLR scanning.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Got one. Bought it as a stand for DSLR scanning.

Why not use it as 'gasp' an enlarger?

 

[JWMster]

Petraio: You are relentless. I appreciate your dedication, persistence and enthusiasm. But let me answer simply that I can climb only one mountain at a time. I'm still climbing the mountain where I switch from digital to film, develop and bulk load it myself. Printing... that's another ball of wax. And to mix my metaphors, that ball's not rolling down hill any time soon. It may, but I'd have to have a whole lot more time on my hands than I have now. Cheers, Ciao! and whatever.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Petraio: You are relentless. I appreciate your dedication, persistence and enthusiasm. But let me answer simply that I can climb only one mountain at a time. I'm still climbing the mountain where I switch from digital to film, develop and bulk load it myself. Printing... that's another ball of wax. And to mix my metaphors, that ball's not rolling down hill any time soon. It may, but I'd have to have a whole lot more time on my hands than I have now. Cheers, Ciao! and whatever.

There is no point in using conventional B&W film unless you print it conventionally.

 

[faberryman]

There is no point in using conventional B&W film unless you print it conventionally.

Although you might not, some like the look of scanned film.

 

[JWMster]

I disagree that for me and for my life, this is simply not true, and that there is more than one answer. For a pure artist with unlimited resources of time and treasure, the answer may be something else. For me, the point does not have to be solely about one's preferred printing method, but about the rest of the image making process and photographer's life. And as an amateur, that's just a fact and compromise is part of the picture. FWIW, I find B&W film simply does what digital can more simply, more beautifully, and more cheaply with more magic. Given the capital cost of a film Leica is substantially lower than the capital cost of a digital Leica Monochrome, and that the film Leica is an appreciating asset while the digital depreciating, there's also some economic sense. But in my case, it's a hobby and I can choose to do what I want and what I find pleasure in doing and creating, and if somehow that's pointless to you, fine. I surely do not mean to disrupt your contempt for my engagements. Fact is, I may actively revel and enjoy the common disregard as a place of esteem lost somewhere between the 100% film and 100% digital worlds. There's a saying that I'd paraphrase that suggests when the artist disappears, the art speaks clearly.

 

[trendland]

Thanks for the replies and encouragement. Yes, I've tried to get in touch with the Glen Echo folks, but so far it's a one-way conversation. So I'm rather self/youtube/forum taught and only been at it about 2 months. Getting the kinks out, but quite a ways to go. I went with HC-110 on recommendations, and probably misread the Kodak chart to thinking it was a good all-arounder, and it was a liquid... so no "scarey dust" to mix. Have a bottle of Rodinal.... but folks seemed to suggest that with 35mm it would tend to increase grain. So I set that aside to just focus on getting the procedures down with one developer.

My reason for posting lies in suspecting I may have chosen the wrong one, or some part of the film-developer combination may simply not be as complimentary. Dunno. Some places I read that Kodak developed HC-110 as a liquid D-76 but simply didn't describe it that way... which would seem confused, but "okay... whatever the experts say I guess." Found here a few folks using a 1:49 dilution as a 50 part, simple formula that offered a wide range of times, and have run with that. So I ponder D-76 and Xtol... and others. Have a bottle of FA-1027 on order, but not in a particular rush to collect chemicals just to ponder, look at, or toy with. Rather want to go with something with good prospects for long-term use.

And yes, have begun to shoot FP4+ and will try some Pan F as well. But I realize at this point in the process, there's less I'd value in my own experience than in trying to filter and leaven it with the wisdom of others.

Hello JWMster - I just read this great treat and notice it began to get a little complicate as you are no great expert
with bw developement - am I right.

Nearly it is like to ran with unspecific
illness to several doctors back at home
with tons of medicine.

So what can one do to you????

You whant to have "HD - Scans" ?
From bw films - right?

An HD is in use as "High Definition"
Lest us say : Extreme Resolution - OK ?

A good doctor would first ask :What type of scanner Do you have in use ?

The medicine should be a recipe to get
HASSELBLATT IMACON from the next
drugstore.

Please forget complicate issues aboud
grain.
The scanner is the key to your preference.

I remember a comparison between
135, 4,5x6, 6x7, 4x5 inch (all with bw film) and NikonD800 Full frame 36Mp.

The Nikon was in sw modus with photoshop.

Results : forget 135,4,5x6,
6x7 is not able to REACH 36Mp
4x5 did it.

So you will not need 4x5 inch bw film
anymore because the full frame Nikon
is as good as 4x5 even with Delta100.

AND the type of scanner? ????

An epson flatbad scanner - terrible !

But for you - this little anecdote should make clear that you should focus to a lab with best equipment.

AND the film is not the limiting factor.

Just use Tmax100, Delta100 , PanF.
Just develope as you like with D76,
Xtol,Perceptol a.s.o
But better don't use RODINAL.

BON CHANCE

 

[Petraio Prime]

I disagree that for me and for my life, this is simply not true, and that there is more than one answer. For a pure artist with unlimited resources of time and treasure, the answer may be something else. For me, the point does not have to be solely about one's preferred printing method, but about the rest of the image making process and photographer's life. And as an amateur, that's just a fact and compromise is part of the picture. FWIW, I find B&W film simply does what digital can more simply, more beautifully, and more cheaply with more magic. Given the capital cost of a film Leica is substantially lower than the capital cost of a digital Leica Monochrome, and that the film Leica is an appreciating asset while the digital depreciating, there's also some economic sense. But in my case, it's a hobby and I can choose to do what I want and what I find pleasure in doing and creating, and if somehow that's pointless to you, fine. I surely do not mean to disrupt your contempt for my engagements. Fact is, I may actively revel and enjoy the common disregard as a place of esteem lost somewhere between the 100% film and 100% digital worlds. There's a saying that I'd paraphrase that suggests when the artist disappears, the art speaks clearly.

Don't complain about grain if you scan then. It's inherent in that process. If you want 'normal' looking prints, use an enlarger. You can't change the laws of physics.

 

[trendland]

To make it clearer I just forget it :

A proffessional lab with best scan
equipment is meant.
Don't ask to bw developement you can save your money because you need it
for scans with equipment nobody can
afford.

AND ask to HASSELBLATT /Flexicon X5

No nikon coolscan Ls 9000

with regards

 

[klownshed]

I disagree that for me and for my life, this is simply not true, and that there is more than one answer. For a pure artist with unlimited resources of time and treasure, the answer may be something else. For me, the point does not have to be solely about one's preferred printing method, but about the rest of the image making process and photographer's life. And as an amateur, that's just a fact and compromise is part of the picture. FWIW, I find B&W film simply does what digital can more simply, more beautifully, and more cheaply with more magic. Given the capital cost of a film Leica is substantially lower than the capital cost of a digital Leica Monochrome, and that the film Leica is an appreciating asset while the digital depreciating, there's also some economic sense. But in my case, it's a hobby and I can choose to do what I want and what I find pleasure in doing and creating, and if somehow that's pointless to you, fine. I surely do not mean to disrupt your contempt for my engagements. Fact is, I may actively revel and enjoy the common disregard as a place of esteem lost somewhere between the 100% film and 100% digital worlds. There's a saying that I'd paraphrase that suggests when the artist disappears, the art speaks clearly.

Some people are never satisfied and whatever you do they will criticise you for it. There is a lot of piousness and condescension on APUG from often anonymous posters that never link to their own work. Accordingly their opinion counts for little in my book.

They will find something to criticise you for even if you do print; sometimes it's hard to hear the signal above the noise sometimes but there are some talented, helpful and non judgemental people here too.

A hybrid system is a perfectly valid method and lots of fun and in many ways the best of both worlds.

The only reason for you to print is if you enjoy it and have the means and time to do so. I love printing, but finding time to set up the darkroom and make some prints is very nigh on impossible these days. I was actually crtitisced here for wanting to put my family first ;-)

Anyway, I always scan my negs and occasionally print them. Not frequently enough though, but that only for my satisfaction.

When you print a well scanned negative on a decent inkjet printer you'll notice that some of the grain apparent on the screen will disappear. Just as it does when you wet print.

Maybe one day you will be in a position to be able to print in the darkroom, but in the meantime make sure you enjoy making photographs with whatever method you like. There are so many photographers around these days with talent to shame us all on APUG armed with nothing but an iPhone.

Unfortunately it seems to be human nature to criticise and be divisive.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Some people are never satisfied and whatever you do they will criticise you for it. There is a lot of piousness and condescension on APUG from often anonymous posters that never link to their own work. Accordingly their opinion counts for little in my book.

They will find something to criticise you for even if you do print; sometimes it's hard to hear the signal above the noise sometimes but there are some talented, helpful and non judgemental people here too.

A hybrid system is a perfectly valid method and lots of fun and in many ways the best of both worlds.

The only reason for you to print is if you enjoy it and have the means and time to do so. I love printing, but finding time to set up the darkroom and make some prints is very nigh on impossible these days. I was actually crtitisced here for wanting to put my family first ;-)

Anyway, I always scan my negs and occasionally print them. Not frequently enough though, but that only for my satisfaction.

When you print a well scanned negative on a decent inkjet printer you'll notice that some of the grain apparent on the screen will disappear. Just as it does when you wet print.

Maybe one day you will be in a position to be able to print in the darkroom, but in the meantime make sure you enjoy making photographs with whatever method you like. There are so many photographers around these days with talent to shame us all on APUG armed with nothing but an iPhone.

Unfortunately it seems to be human nature to criticise and be divisive.

The poster was complaining about the grain. I simply pointed out that this goes with scanning, and that he won't see that sort of grain when the negatives are printed. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Craig75]

Don't complain about grain if you scan then. It's inherent in that process. If you want 'normal' looking prints, use an enlarger. You can't change the laws of physics.

He wants a modest reduction in grain... which is hardly the moon on a stick goal.

Its pretty gruelling reading your posts on this thread

 

[Petraio Prime]

He wants a modest reduction in grain... which is hardly the moon on a stick goal.

Its pretty gruelling reading your posts on this thread

Well, you can't always get what you want.

 

[Vaughn]

Well, there are no problems with 35mm that medium format won't cure.
Some are even lighter than 35mm outfits...