Differences in B&W films and developers for hybrid process?

I'm fairly new to a hybrid workflow. I'm shooting medium format 6x4.5 (Bronica ETRSi) and scanning on a flatbed (for now, a crummy Epson 4180, but I will soon have access to a shared higher end flatbed, an Epson V750 with Silverfast, at my photo club). I plan to shoot mainly B&W, a variety of subjects, mainly cityscapes day and night as well as studio portraits. I'm not particularly interested in the look of film grain; I just want to minimize it. I am interested in high resolution, superior to my 12 MP DSLR, and especially, getting a tonality which has the traditional "look" of good B&W.

I see a lot of comments on APUG about one film vs. the other, especially the newer T grain films vs. the older grainier emulsions, but those people are coming from a wet printing workflow, generally not scanning.

I'm wondering if the differences between films become less important when one is scanning due to the application of Photoshop curves after scanning or even to "restore" the film's characteristic look. For example, if I scan the negative like a film positive and invert it in Photoshop, it looks very different than telling the scanner it is a negative; I assume the scanner is applying some kind of curve, but I don't know what it is and if it varies with the scanner settings. So I always end up applying some kind of curves after scanning and I'm not sure what the film was supposed to "look" like anyway.

Does the developer matter much when going the hybrid route? For now, I'm using the services of a lab to develop the B&W film. They put everything through Ilfotec DD, no matter what film you give them. I might try developing it myself in the kitchen sink if there was something significant to gain by matching the developer to the film.

What about chromogenic? This removes one variable of developing, as every lab uses the same process. I tried a roll of Kodak BW400CN and a roll of Ilford XP2 in 35mm and they both looked pretty good. The XP2, in particular, seemed to capture a wider dynamic range in a night scene with streetlights and snow than Ilford Pan F Plus developed in Ilfotec DD.

To minimize grain you could go with a solvent developer, such us straight XTOL or Ilfotech DD-X. I think Ilfotech DD is not as fine grained. However my current preference is to go Pyrocat HD, which is a staining developer. The stain creates density and as a result there is less need for silver grain to get to the same optical density. This gives you less visible grain. My two favorite films for this are Fuji Acros, and Kodak Tmax 400. Both scan very nicely, with minimal grain and high sharpness. Both also print very well in an enlarger. I develop them to get good prints in an enlarger, and get good results scanning. You might be able to get better results for scanning with less development, but then you would get worse darkroom prints.

Keep in mind that to get better results than a 12MP DSLR you will need sharp lenses and a still camera. So use fast shutter speeds, or mirror lockup and a tripod. Also keep diffraction in mind as you stop down. It's pretty easy to lose the extra resolution you get with medium and large format through sloppy technique. For example, I found that hand holding my RZ and stopping down enough to get the depth of field I needed frequently didn't give me more information in the negative than a 35mm shot on fine grained film with good technique.

if I scan the negative like a film positive and invert it in Photoshop, it looks very different than telling the scanner it is a negative;

It shouldn't. Make sure you turn off *all* auto corrections in your scanning software!
Developers: there are lots of strategies for fine grain. XTOL, even dilute Rodinal work fine for medium format scans. If you mix your own, D-23 works very well. Staining developers are another option.
Chromogenics work well but I like the control and options I get with developing my own, and non-chromogenic negatives are easier to evaluate on the lightbox.

I should also add: the print process you are targeting and the degree of enlargement are factors to consider.

If the goal is to minimize grain, I'd either shoot T-Max 100, BW400CN, or XP2 Super. With a strong preference towards the last two. Actually, you could also shoot something like Ektar and convert to B&W in post.

Thanks everyone. Looks like a lot of ways to minimize grain. I just got my first roll of T-MAX 100 developed by the lab in Ilfotec DD and the grain isn't bad in a medium format negative. The comment about BW400CN or XP2 is reassuring, as I tried these in 35mm format and the results looked pretty good, although in my other thread in this forum "why shoot B&W or chromogenic", the purists were pretty down on using "funny films".

I'm even more interested in the other part of my question, which no one has addressed, is there much of a difference in the tonal "look" (as opposed to the grain look) of different films and/or developers after scanning and simple curves adjustments?

Hey, hsandler, photoshop curves opens up a lot of possibilities for tweaking films to look like this or that, but they still only do so much, and it's often obvious in the end print what's going on.

For instance, Tri-x in HC-110 is going to scan a lot different and give you a much different tonal palette than tmax 100 in xtol. You can spend time in photoshop tweaking to your heart's delight to make them look like something they're not natively, but at that point I'd offer that you might as well just capture digi and use a plug in, since the power and beauty of film is what it does intrinsically when used in specific ways.

W/ that, a few things I've found over the years, and ymmv: Negs that print well and are good to work w/ in the darkroom are also great to scan and work w/ in PS. On that topic, the scan and understanding the scanning software is hugely important, as it's so often the weak link in the hybrid process, and there's a huge amount of bad info regarding scanning on the web. With all the technical stuff, just as in the darkroom, some of the the most important things in this process are exposure and development. I know people always say that, but it's a journey, a rewarding journey, to find how you to personally expose and process for your look. This is why developing on your own is so great. Once you learn to build a nice negative, and get down a scanning method that builds a nice file from it, then you'll be on your way.

W/ that, I say to start getting your hands dirty in some film, scan some contact sheets of them, do some test runs, and see how they look. I think you'll find everything has a different palette. Start to find one you like, and then when you want to change something or make it better ask around on how to do that. There's a lot to be discovered and figured out for yourself in every step of the process to get a look. Imo this is why film work naturally has such unique signature creatively, since there are countless variables to play w/ and interpret for yourself.

FWIW, for your requirements I'd try TMY-ii (tmax 400) and try to process it in xtol. It's a great all round starting place. Speed, low reciprocity and push-ability for night stuff, but extremely low grain and still high acutance for your other tastes. And it's tonal palette is highly bendable through exposure and processing. Then further so in PS curves since it's a rather linear film as far as curves and makes for a nice starting point to go different ways. From there if you decide you want more grit you can try a more high acutance developer like rodinal, or if you want a more dramatic curve a developer like HC-110. Or if you want a finer grain still you can go to tmax 100. Etc etc. I'd start w/ a few basics though and start testing it out and tweaking. Most of the magic is going to be in your exposure and dev and then the interpretation of it in PS. Learning this will take you way beyond using c-41 process films.

Thanks all. Well, I tried Delta 100 in the commercial lab's HC110 and also a roll of XP2 Super chromogenic since my first post. The Delta was SHARP and good tonality, but the XP2 was great too and even less grain in the scan. Conversion in photoshop from colour Ektar and Portra 400 did not look quite as good. I will be able to use an Epson V750 scanner soon which may change how the scans look. Tonight I picked up a developing tank, reel and thermometer for $2 at my photo club's flea market, so I may give home developing a whirl, probably with Delta 100.

You're on the path.

The xp2 is dye based so it will exhibit less grain relative to real silver films, but at the expense of sharpness and accutance (two things tied to grain). Dye base films are also less archival, but that's another can of worms I never really cared about it, but it is still a real. I think Delta 100 is a fine place to start to do some testing on your own. For developer, if grain is a big concern for you, I'd probably try something a bit different at home for processing. X-tol would be my first bet for you. You can read a lot about it over at apug. It will give you a very different neg than hc-110. And at that point you're going to start to see the answer to your first question about how this stuff does matter, even when scanning.

Home processing may be a pain at first if you've never done it, since there's stuff to learn, but in the end it will allow you way more creative control than just dropping stuff at the lab. Fun stuff...and cheap too if you do it right. And once you get good at it, I think you'll find you can get way way more out of delta 100 (or a traditional silver film) than you can out of c-41 b&w.

thanks. here's a low res version of one from my second roll of delta 100 developed at home in Ilfosol 3, all conventional recipe for exposure and developing. so far I am getting the best scanning result with the epson v750 by using the green channel of the scanner, shimming the standard film carrier up by about 1 mm, and scanning at 4800 ppi with no sharpening, then downsizing in photoshop to 2400 ppi and sharpening with unsharp mask about radius 0.9, amount 200. the v750 is only marginally sharper than the epson 4180 i have at home. the nikon 5000 my club has smokes them both, but doesn't do med format.

http://http://www.flickr.com/photos/hsandler/6929010785/

In my opinion, if you are only shooting B&W film but not developing it, you're losing at minimum 70% of the point of going this route.

Unlike a digital image, creating a B&W film image is a three stage process: exposure, development, and either digitizing or optical printing.

The development phase has significant impact on your exposure choices. For example, with control of development, you can decide to push Tri-X 400 to incredibly high speeds (3200, 6400, even 25,600). But you'll not convince your commercial processor to commit to a multi-hour rodinal stand development process!

If you know your only choice is commercial development, or a C-41 process, you have significantly restricted what you can do at the moment of releasing the shutter.

The choice of film and development process will have significant effect on what you can do at scan (or optical printing) time. For example, if you had to underexpose but couldn't compensate during development, you might find that the detail you sought is lost. Different films respond differently to pushing, and to exposure in general.

Final comment: grain is not always bad, and frequently good, as opposed to digital noise. The former can add very interesting character to an image; the latter is almost always a detraction, at least in my opinion. Get to know your film, try different ones, explore development, and appreciate the control and artistry you can muster before you cross into the digital post processing realm. Don't try to coerce film into something it's not - either another film, or a digital image. Appreciate it for what it is.