Process B&W differently if intended for scanning?

[PhilBurton]

I have some old B&W (Kodak Plus-X and Tri-X) which fortunately has been stored frozen since being exposed. Now that I no longer have a film darkroom, the only reason for processing this film is to do scans. Should I follow the normal processing time with normal chemistry, adjusting for the age of the film, or should I change the recommended chemstry, time and/or temperature?

Thanks for answering.

Phil Burton

 

[Ian Grant]

One of my friends has ditched his darkroom and only scans, he produces slightly lower contrast negatives, so cuts development times slightly and increases exposure. While I often do the same for darkroom printing after Zone System tests he's going a touch further. In real terms he's aiming for negatives that would need printing on paper a Grade harsder than I aim for, that way he retains greater detail in the negative. Should add he's an ex Ilford engineer so knows what he's doing. Personally I find my negatives scan as well as they print in the darkroom.

Ian

 

[Billy Axeman]

One of the more important features of B&W is contrast, so starting with a flat negative on purpose is not a good idea because it needs extensive corrections in post after scanning.

Low contrast negatives have a relative narrow histogram (lacking blacks and whites) which needs to be corrected in post by stretching the histogram until it covers the complete range from black to white, to get your contrast back. Doing so leaves the range of gray values in the histogram with small gaps in it, which in effect deteriorates tonality. The more you must stretch the harsher tonality gets, and the grain is emphasized too. So, the best practice is to expose and develop your negatives for a full range of gray values which needs only minimal corrections in post.

 

[osella]

My experience has been that a well exposed and developed negative scans the best and requires the least post processing. I haven’t done any real testing but negatives the print around grade 2-3 generally scan well.

I think some lower end scanners can have trouble differentiating tones when you get above certain densities so it may make sense to shoot for slightly lower contrast as you can easily add that back, where you may loose some if your highlights are too dense.

 

[Alan9940]

After testing and knowing exactly what my film does, I find that B&W negatives that print easily and well in the darkroom, using normal contrast grades, scan and print via the desktop just as well. No change to development for me.

 

[sterioma]

I've also found that once I've fine tuned my exposure and development times with the traditional tests for the darkroom, my hystogram started to be almost perfect on the scanner too (at least for HP5+, which I have tested extensively).

 

[destroya]

I agree with the above posts, a good neg for wet printing scans better, FOR ME, than a thin negative. I read sandy king likes a thin neg for scanning and he knows a thing or two, but to each their own. As long as you are consistent in your methodology, stick with what works for you

john

 

[MattKing]

Overly dense negatives can be harder to scan.
Good negatives work well with both approaches.
I can sometimes get slightly more from seriously thin negatives if I work digitally.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nope. I process same time regardless of process, including scanning as I do make digi negs for alt processes. Possibly because I use Pyrocat-HD.

 

[John Bragg]

As most of the other contributors to this thread, I process the same for scanning as if I was wet printing. I have a Kaiser enlarger with combined condenser/diffuser light source and I found that more exposure and less development was the way to go. My Ei for HP5+ is Ei200 and that holds good for my scanner. As far as I am concerned, the skills needed for either technique are largely transferable. You need a negative that holds the maximum of information.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Modern scanners have no problems with normal density ranges. I wouldn’t change anything unless I knew my scanner couldn’t get more density than 3 log units. I scan with a 14 ADC and develop for ISO contrast and have no problems with normally exposed and developed negatives.

 

[Frank53]

My experience is that “normal” negatives scan fine, BUT I’m often surprised how beautiful a thin negative scans. It may have to do with the way I like my prints, but I would centainly experiment.
Regards,
Frank

 

[Ian Grant]

One of the more important features of B&W is contrast, so starting with a flat negative on purpose is not a good idea because it needs extensive corrections in post after scanning.

Low contrast negatives have a relative narrow histogram (lacking blacks and whites) which needs to be corrected in post by stretching the histogram until it covers the complete range from black to white, to get your contrast back. Doing so leaves the range of gray values in the histogram with small gaps in it, which in effect deteriorates tonality. The more you must stretch the harsher tonality gets, and the grain is emphasized too. So, the best practice is to expose and develop your negatives for a full range of gray values which needs only minimal corrections in post.

There's a huge difference between low contrast negatives and the slightly lower contrast negatives many produce when they are only ever sacnning their negatives. Where I aim for negtaives that print around Grade 2 or 2.5 in teh darkroom my friens (and others like Howard Bond) are reducing contrast by approx anoth Grade so 3 to 3.5 if printing traditionally. This give slightly thinner negatives while gaining slightly better shadow details and better control of the high lights for scanning. It's more of a slight subtle change that makes a significant difference.

Ian

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Negatives developed to a slightly lower contrast than normal give very nice scans in my experience. Pyro developers seem to have a slight edge over other developers in this respect. However, mileage might vary as a lot depends on the scanning skills of the person scanning your negatives.

 

[Billy Axeman]

There's a huge difference between low contrast negatives and the slightly lower contrast negatives many produce when they are only ever sacnning their negatives. Where I aim for negtaives that print around Grade 2 or 2.5 in teh darkroom my friens (and others like Howard Bond) are reducing contrast by approx anoth Grade so 3 to 3.5 if printing traditionally. This give slightly thinner negatives while gaining slightly better shadow details and better control of the high lights for scanning. It's more of a slight subtle change that makes a significant difference.
Ian

How you approach this might be dependent on your gear and workflow and what you see as an ideal end result. I'm scanning with a DSLR and for viewing on a computer screen. So in that case there is no reason to compensate for a commercial scanner that can't handle dense negatives, or for printing. I'm overexposing all my film (mostly HP5+) and preferably shoot with plenty of light to keep my contrast up. When people say they need slightly lower contrast negatives for I good scan I always wonder how the result would look. What are they doing with the scan? Or perhaps they like gray prints?

 

[Ian Grant]

When people say they need slightly lower contrast negatives for I good scan I always wonder how the result would look. What are they doing with the scan? Or perhaps they like gray prints?

They are only making digital prints and they are of exceptional quality. There's no reason the prints themselves should be of a lower contrast, after all they are prints from negatives that would print well in a darkroom on Grade 3 to 3.5 paper. It's also no different to the controls used in the Zone System where reduced development and a very slightly increased exposure is used to control extremes of contrast.

Ian

 

[Billy Axeman]

They are only making digital prints and they are of exceptional quality. There's no reason the prints themselves should be of a lower contrast, after all they are prints from negatives that would print well in a darkroom on Grade 3 to 3.5 paper. It's also no different to the controls used in the Zone System where reduced development and a very slightly increased exposure is used to control extremes of contrast.
Ian

I admire those with the patience, commitment and knowledge to make perfect prints. Deep in my heart I would like to do that too, but for now I keep my end-result all digital, which is already an art to do that well.

 

[PhilBurton]

Thank you for all these replies. I am amazed and abashed at the number of replies. I think my best approach will be to do a few rolls and then do scans, and adjust accordingly. I have a Nikon 5000 ED scanner, with a 4.8 density range, according to specs. Does that spec afffect any of the replies? Sorry for not posting this information in my OP.

Now I need to introduce a "wild card," and it may be that I need to post this question in a different forum. For reasons of "life happens," those rolls of Plus-X and Tri-X were exposed in1976 and then frozen "until could get around to processing them." But I processed only a few of those rolls a few years later, when I still had a wet darkroom. The remaining rolls of film are still frozen. Do I need to develop differently to compensate for the age of these rolls?

 

[Alan9940]

Thank you for all these replies. I am amazed and abashed at the number of replies. I think my best approach will be to do a few rolls and then do scans, and adjust accordingly. I have a Nikon 5000 ED scanner, with a 4.8 density range, according to specs. Does that spec afffect any of the replies?

My Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II also has a 4.8 density range and I develop B&W 35mm film for the same time, regardless of scanning or printing in the wet darkroom. Therefore, no it doesn't change my reply.

 

[PhilBurton]

My Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II also has a 4.8 density range and I develop B&W 35mm film for the same time, regardless of scanning or printing in the wet darkroom. Therefore, no it doesn't change my reply.

@Alan9940
Thank you very, very much for this reply.

 

[Stephen Prunier]

I'm somewhat new to the scanning world. I had been using a very old HP 4050 but only for sharing online etc. After I purchased another RZ67 (My 3rd) I decided to give the hybrid workflow a try and purchased the Epson V850. So like the OP, I'm also trying to figure out the best options for developing my B&W negatives. Because I still have my makeshift darkroom I don't want to make it harder should I decide to make a wet print. So based on everyone's suggestions, I'll keep developing negatives for making wet prints for now and if I enjoy scanning and printing then I will try some of the suggestions for making thinner negatives.

 

[George Collier]

As others have said here, I'm for building as much tonality (Information) into the neg as possible, for either printing or scanning. A full range neg will contain better adjacency contrast, or separation between values near each other, like between grade 6 and 6.5 or 7. If that separation isn't articulated in the neg, you won't "pull" or "expand" it with a print or a scan. Agreed, of course, that the scanner can accommodate the max density.

 

[PhilBurton]

As others have said here, I'm for building as much tonality (Information) into the neg as possible, for either printing or scanning. A full range neg will contain better adjacency contrast, or separation between values near each other, like between grade 6 and 6.5 or 7. If that separation isn't articulated in the neg, you won't "pull" or "expand" it with a print or a scan. Agreed, of course, that the scanner can accommodate the max density.

So I posted a thread in one of the analog forums https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-old-but-kept-frozen-plus-x-and-tri-x.176021/. My takeaway is that, before adjusting for the age of the film, I'm best off with either D-76 or Xtol to get got tonal range. When I last did serious B&W home processing, I don't think that Xtol even existed. For me, given the relatively low volumes, the overall cost, and the desire for simplicity, I will start out with Xtol 1:1 for one-shot use. The powder makes 5 L, so I'll need some 500-600 ml bottles for the stock solution, then do two batches in two days. I have a 2 reel Nikor tank, that takes about that amount of developer to fill up the tank. Plus some 500 ml or larger bottles for stop bath, fixer, etc. At least that's my starting point.

Since I'm dealing with very old film, and I don't want to sacrifice any rolls, I really can't afford to "experiment."

 

[Adrian Bacon]

So I posted a thread in one of the analog forums https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-old-but-kept-frozen-plus-x-and-tri-x.176021/. My takeaway is that, before adjusting for the age of the film, I'm best off with either D-76 or Xtol to get got tonal range. When I last did serious B&W home processing, I don't think that Xtol even existed. For me, given the relatively low volumes, the overall cost, and the desire for simplicity, I will start out with Xtol 1:1 for one-shot use. The powder makes 5 L, so I'll need some 500-600 ml bottles for the stock solution, then do two batches in two days. I have a 2 reel Nikor tank, that takes about that amount of developer to fill up the tank. Plus some 500 ml or larger bottles for stop bath, fixer, etc. At least that's my starting point.

Since I'm dealing with very old film, and I don't want to sacrifice any rolls, I really can't afford to "experiment."

Don't know if you want to spend the money or not, but JOBO makes 600ml and 1000ml bottles. https://www.catlabs.info/product/jobo-600ml-bottles

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If I overexpose, is the BW negative less or more dense? What does that do with chemical printing? What does that do with digital scanning and printing?