Scanner advice for b&w printing

[mporter012]

I've been having a friend scan my negatives the last few years, but he sold his scanner. It wasn't great - I'd get the negatives back and bring them up online and they'd have streaks and lines and dust - it was nightmare to deal with. I shoot 95% b&w, so I'm looking for some advice on scanners for b&w film. Mike Johnson had made a comment on his blog recently that film scanner's give you the same issues that digital sensors do in having noticeable weakness in the mid-tones. He really only mentioned this in passing, so I didn't really get much from it. I'm fixin' to purchase a Epson P800 soon, if that is helpful. Or is this all a losing game, and I should really be focusing on building a darkroom?!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Some gave up on darkroom years ago on this forum already. I remember how one of them wrote how his scans are better than prints, because he was able to edit them good enough comparing to darkroom printing.

Any way... they say any scanner can't remove scratches and else from BW because it is full of reflective silver. I have tried few available and not expensive scanners, never bothered to overpay for very old Nikons.
All I could say today, if you are not into big prints, Epson flatbeds are the best. Because it is not about pixels, but how easy and fast scanner handles it. I also have Plustek first and latest models and they are not so better than Epson flatbed for BW. Color is slightly better. IMO.

It also depends how good BW negatives are in terms of condition. It is possible to develop them clean and without dust. Then it scans easelly and few scratches from bulk loader are not critical.
But once I discovered old rolls of bw negatives with family pictures. It was total fiasco with scanner. But then I printed them under enlarger it was fine 8x10 prints. Most of the damage was not on emulsion side.

And one more thing, scans are still negatives. Instead of darkroom printing you will need to edit them (I prefer Lightroom) and then spend money on dedicated pigment ink printer and paper. Only then you'll get something ... so-so.
If you'll decide to get it better from scans you will need to invest in better paper at least.

Here is 100$ Epson 88C+ printer prints with cheap pigment inks on cheap (20$ for 50 Letter sized matte) paper looks like:

Left is from digital BW, right is BW negative scan.

In my both sides experience darkroom is great if you like to print just few. It is time consuming and even cheap by all means Kentmere RC 8x10 paper cost twice more than fine ink jet paper.
But once I started to print under enlarger.... I have to force my self to use scanner. I do working prints instead. They are not always perfect, but I like them more than ideal scans.

Here is one rough (on purpose ) example:

And this is where flatbed scanner comes handy again.

 

[jim10219]

I’ve found that pretty much all film scanners do color and black and white well enough, assuming you can get the level of resolution you need. It’s slide film where a good scanner really comes into play. Cheap scanners have problems capturing the full dynamic range. And you really need a film scanner for the backlight to get a decent scan of the proper density.

As for cheaper, I’m not so sure. Inkjet ink is expensive. Like really expensive.

But in any case, I do it all. Digital photos, scanned negatives (and slides), DSLR scans of negatives (and slides), traditional wet prints, and alternative process. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. Which one is best depends on what you’re trying to accomplish.

I once saw an artist who did photos using a scanner as the camera. His work was really good. I wish I could remember his name.