BW film for scanning

Hello,

I am new to hybrid photo (member of apug, but I think hybrid photo is better for me). Anyways, I posted a thread on apug, but it was closed as it is more suitable for this web. So here it goes: I do shoot landscapes on 35mm Velvia RVP and scan it using Nikon Coolscan V ED. I want start shooting landscapes on 35 mm BW film, do the processing myself and scan films with Nikon, but not sure which one will scan well with Nikon. Any suggestions on films, developers, fixers? ooh, and I have no experience with developing BW films, but as I have degree in chemistry, to learn all the stuff around mixing various chemicals should not be a problem.

Hello

welcome aboard

oddly the Coolscan is my least popular choice for black and white, mainly because it really exacerbates dust (thus needing its ICE) and ICE is not usable for the black and white films.

So that I don't end up saying the same things many times, I put them on my blog (which is part of the reason for its existence)

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2010/02/black-and-white-neg-scanning.html

that's my thoughts on good neg scanning

With respect to exposure
http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/photography/film/digiExposure.html

but of course expose for the shadows and the hilights will end up ok because negative is for black and white what HDRI is need for in colour

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2008/02/while-hrd-is-all-rage-ive-taken.html

try a single film (like Tmax 400) and just develop in d-76 till you get a feel for it ... try other developers in controlled situations and observe the differences.

A scanner is a good densitometer, and can help you understand your black and white enormously.

Well, the easy way to start is to use a C41 B&W film like Kodak BW400CN or Ilford XP-2. These scan beautifully on the Nikons but don't satisfy the 'develop yourself' itch.

Since you are shooting landscape/velvia, I'd suggest you try a slower fine grain film like Ilford PanF+. I like XTOL diluted one-shot 1+2 as my developer and the results scan very well on an Epson v500. Like pellicle, I don't care for the results from conventional B&W using my Coolscan IV. Others seem to have better luck with the later Nikons so YMMV. Either way, you will need to learn to clone out dust spots.

I have always used T-Max, Tri-X or Plus-X films from Kodak. They have never failed me.

I have always developed in D-76. It always gives me good results.
I use Kodak indicator stop bath and Kodafix fixer then finish off with Photo-Flo. Again, these never fail to give good results.

Now, I'm not saying these are the only things you should use but I have never had problems getting good printable/scanable results. The suggestions the others give are just as valid. My point is that, for your first few times developing your own film, it would be easier if you picked a product and used it by the book until you get used to the idea of how film is developed.

Having a degree in chemistry is cool! I think the scientist in you would agree that the best way to learn is to see how the process of developing film works at its most basic level before you move on to more complex projects. I wish I could mix my own chemicals but for the foreseeable future I'm going to be using commercial products. After you understand the process, you could certainly mix your own but, for now, stick to commercial products.

Your scanner will be fine as long as you understand its limitations. I also use a flatbed scanner. I knew it wasn't the best thing to create high quality film scans with but I also wanted versatility and a reasonable price. Later, when I get more experience, I can buy a better scanner but, for now, I'll stick to my Canon scanner.

With your experience, I don't see anything that would trip you up if you work carefully. Who knows? Maybe you'll decide to try your hand at developing your own color film?

thanks to all of you for help. Will try probably T-Max ISO 100 with commercial chemicals, do feel comfortable mixing "my own stuff" yet.

You might run some tests to see how it all works out with your setup, but it's often the case that a thinner negative scans better than a negative that prints well conventionally at grade 2. A denser negative has more tonal information, but also more grain and less sharpness, so even some people who print conventionally will target 35mm negs for grade 3 instead of grade 2 to get the most out of the small film area, and if you're scanning, you run less risk of exceeding the density range of the scanner with a thinner neg.

As an experiment, you might shoot a whole roll of the same subject (something with a range of tones and lots of detail), bracketing exposures +/- 1/3 stop and maybe 2/3 stop and develop clips at the normal time, 10% less, and 20% less, and seeing which neg gives you the best scanned result.

David

strange things happen and perhaps this is scanner dependent. I recenly made the mistake of putting neat dektol into a sheet of ADOX and got the densest neg i've ever had ... it left me wondering about it as I thought "even if I over exposed this I've never had it this dense.

I could hardly see detail (and it was snow) in it but managed to get something out of my Epson 4990.

I did some densitometery using my Epson (with a Stouffer wedge) and seldom get anything as dense as 17

A fully over exposed sheet (developed normally, not in my new dektol method ;-) gives me a density curve like this, looking at the histogram of Epson scan:


I find that exposing for shadows and letting the hilights fall were they may I normally get a density range on my negs like this:


My (perhaps mis-founded) thoughts are that the longer you can spread the tonal range of the scene onto the film density range then the better you're going to be in extracting those tonal graduations later on scanning.

For instance ... looking right into the sun:



I was able to get a nice smooth set of tones in my scan:



ADOX sheet ... which isn't really a thin emulsion when it gets 'dense'

of course exposure / development for printing is a different ball game ...

pellicle said:

My (perhaps mis-founded) thoughts are that the longer you can spread the tonal range of the scene onto the film density range then the better you're going to be in extracting those tonal graduations later on scanning.

Click to expand...

We're talking about B&W silver film here right? If not, ignore the rest of this post because it doesn't apply. If so, read on if you want.

I used to think this too, then did a series of experiments that proved to me that more density is bad for scanning. In fact what I found is that less density is good for scanning. Here's why:

The density of film is made from metallic silver. IOW, more density means more silver, so as density increases, so does graininess. As graininess increases, so does the danger of grain aliasing. And as graininess increases, so does Callier Effect. These are all bad things for scanning.

OTOH, most any scanner can read through a lower density film. The lower density means less silver. Which means less graininess. Which means less danger of grain aliasing. And it also means less Callier Effect, and therefore better tonal separation in the highlights.

Remember, scanning isn't just an analog of darkroom enlarging. It's a completely different process and does different and interesting things. It takes whatever density range you give it, be it a range of 0.3 or 3.0, and spreads it over its digital range of, say, 0-4095 (assumes 12 bit).

I'm just sayin' that scanning is perfectly capably of pulling a full range of tones out of a compressed range of density. Spreading that full range of tones out over a larger density range isn't helpful. And it can certainly be harmful if taken to it's logical extreme (which is also call film abuse).

But no one has to believe me. It's easy enough to do the testing for yourselves, and prove it to yourselves.

Bruce Watson said:

We're talking about B&W silver film here right?

Click to expand...

yes ... well ... I was ...

I used to think this too, then did a series of experiments that proved to me that more density is bad for scanning.

...

The density of film is made from metallic silver. IOW, more density means more silver, so as density increases, so does graininess. As graininess increases, so does the danger of grain aliasing. And as graininess increases, so does Callier Effect. These are all bad things for scanning.
...
But no one has to believe me. It's easy enough to do the testing for yourselves, and prove it to yourselves.

Click to expand...

just in case, this diagram should help those who are unfamiliar with the effect Bruce mentions


sounds like a good reason to splurge a few sheets.

I guess that this will require a sunny day ... may I ask if you think the following will be an appropriate set?

• expose to fill the range, let highlights fall wherever
• expose for shadows pull development at 70% time
• expose for shadows pull development at 50% time

I can do this on ADOX and D-76 and put the results on my blog and here

thoughts?

rather than edit the above ... and looking again at this issue if I am dealing with a diffuse light source (as in a flatbed scanner) this may have less sensitivity to this effect than does a drum scanner (which will be inherently less sensitive to stray light from off axis (even if the source isn't columated the receptor is)

hmmm

since clearly there must be too thin, I wonder where the turn around point is and how wide it is

pellicle said:

rather than edit the above ... and looking again at this issue if I am dealing with a diffuse light source (as in a flatbed scanner) this may have less sensitivity to this effect than does a drum scanner (which will be inherently less sensitive to stray light from off axis (even if the source isn't columated the receptor is)

hmmm

since clearly there must be too thin, I wonder where the turn around point is and how wide it is

Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... indeed. Every scanner is going to be somewhat different, so optimum is something to test for.

Still, the problem is that light can't pass through metallic silver and so must be deflected in some direction. More silver means more deflection.

What I've found that seems to work best for me is a Zone VIII density of around 1.0. That's another way of saying "one stop pull".

Having said that, I have to also say that most any scanner will scan B&W silver film that's optimized for darkroom printing, and do a decent job of it. So if you are *ever* going to print in the darkroom, optimize for the darkroom.

If you will *never* print in the darkroom, you can usually eke out a bit more quality from your scan if you optimize for your scanner. And that almost always means developing a little less, resulting in a negative that is a little "thin" for darkroom work.

Greetings from Brisbane, Australia. Having almost retired, I'm about to restart black and white photography, just for my own pleasure - but with limited funds. I'll process film myself and if I choose to print digitally, they'll initially be scanned on an Epson 4870 Photo flatbed. I doubt if I'll make jumbo prints, and I don't own a printer. I'm sure drum scans would be better but... I'll be shooting 35mm, 6x6 with an ancient 'Blad and 5x4 with a Graflex - mainly landscapes and plant studies. But what film? Did I hear correctly that PanF, which I used for many years in the 1970s/80s, does not scan well? I'm sure emulsions have changed a lot in the last 35 years since I last took photos, and maybe chemistry, too ...and then I had use of a darkroom. I know I could try every film brand, but don't want to buy more 5x4 than can be helped just for test purposes. Suggestions will be welcome. Is there any good way to scan my old Pan F negs and Kodachrome 25 transparencies - I've heard K25 doesn't scan well either. Many thanks for any help you can give.