 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / May 2005which 400 speed B & W 35mm Film scans the best ?
I have been using TMY and I have not been satisfied with the results, way too grainy showing some weird specular highlights in the grain. I know T Max has a fine grain, but perhaps too fine a grain for scanning ? And that after is on 2 different scanners, a Microtek 120tf @4000ppi and Konica Minolta Dimage 5400II @5400ppi,  Signature© Johnny Slothman -Slowest Contractor in the East... If you need it done 10 years from now, call Johnny >I have been using TMY and I have not been satisfied with the results, way >too grainy showing some weird specular highlights in the grain. I know T Max >has a fine grain, but perhaps too fine a grain for scanning ? And that after >is on 2 different scanners, a Microtek 120tf @4000ppi and Konica Minolta >Dimage 5400II @5400ppi, http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/59/0900688a80300559/EpubBW400CN4036.pdf BW400CN which is in fact a chromogenic color-negative (CN) material. I haven't found any real black-&-white films to scan well. JD - www.puresilver.org >>I have been using TMY and I have not been satisfied with the results, way >>too grainy showing some weird specular highlights in the grain. I know T Max [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >JD - www.puresilver.org Ilford XP-2 and Fujin Neopan 400CN -- both chromogenic films -- have scanned well for me. I've had quite good results from the standard Fuji Neopan 400 [the traditional silver film, not the chromogenic one] too... Matt I find that my EPSON 1640 with the transparency adapter scans BW silver films very well, but the Minolta Dimage Multi does a horrible job on BW. > >I have been using TMY and I have not been satisfied with the results, way > >too grainy showing some weird specular highlights in the grain. I know T Max > >has a fine grain, but perhaps too fine a grain for scanning ? And that after > >is on 2 different scanners, a Microtek 120tf @4000ppi and Konica Minolta > >Dimage 5400II @5400ppi, http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/59/0900688a80300559/EpubBW400CN4036.pdf > BW400CN which is in fact a chromogenic color-negative (CN) material. I haven't > found any real black-&-white films to scan well. > > JD - www.puresilver.org > I have been using TMY and I have not been satisfied with the results, way > too grainy showing some weird specular highlights in the grain. I know T Max > has a fine grain, but perhaps too fine a grain for scanning ? And that after > is on 2 different scanners, a Microtek 120tf @4000ppi and Konica Minolta > Dimage 5400II @5400ppi, I've done a lot of B&W film scanning on my Minolta Scan Dual II. This is an older film scanner but the same principles apply. Chromogenic B&W (400CN or whatever Kodak calls theirs now, XP2, Konica Monochrome, etc.) definitely scans "smoother". Regular B&W is not bad either. I get good results with HP5 Plus. Delta 400 is very nice too. My general advice would be to go for the finest-grain combination you can find. I don't think there's such a thing as "too fine grain for scanning" here -- avoid coarse films and "acutance" developers like Rodinal and keep development times conservative (you can increase the contrast later) to avoid blowing out highlights. Make sure your scanner software is not applying some kind of sharpening algorithm. Jordan > I have been using TMY and I have not been satisfied with the results, way > too grainy showing some weird specular highlights in the grain. I know T Max > has a fine grain, but perhaps too fine a grain for scanning ? And that after > is on 2 different scanners, a Microtek 120tf @4000ppi and Konica Minolta > Dimage 5400II @5400ppi, In addition to the other suggestions, you might look into changing your developer rather than (or in addition to) your film. In particular, I've heard that staining developers often improve the scannability of B&W negatives. I've not tried this myself, though, so take this with a grain of salt. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking Why are you scanning??????? Conventional B&W films are designed for printing, not scanning! > I have been using TMY and I have not been satisfied with the results, way > too grainy showing some weird specular highlights in the grain. I know T Max [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -Slowest Contractor in the East... > If you need it done 10 years from now, call Johnny Which developer are you using? I've been developing TMY in XTOL 1:1 and have gotten good results scanning with a Dimage 5400. Another thing to consider is your scanning software. Also, I've found that I got better results overall using Vuescan rather than Minolta's driver. --Phil Wow !!! This looks like a very active NG here. I never expected so many replies in so short amount of time. I develop using T-Max RS and I have also used XTol with the same scanning results. But it looks like I will be trying some Kodak 400 CN now. That is a C41 process isn't it ? And Phil thanks for the suggestion of using Vuescan over the Minolta software. Signature© Johnny Slothman -Slowest Contractor in the East... If you need it done 10 years from now, call Johnny > But it looks like I will be trying some Kodak 400 CN now. > That is a C41 process isn't it ? Yes, it is. So is Ilford XP2 Super and one or two others that were mentioned specifically in this thread (Fuji 400CN and one by Konica, IIRC). SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking >But it looks like I will be trying some Kodak 400 CN now. >That is a C41 process isn't it ? Exactly. Process at your local lab. Usually. JD - www.puresilver.org I gotta say that after working with both XP-2 and Kodak CN, the XP is still my favorite for tonal range. I'm willing to bet it will scan like a dream. And yes -- both are C-41 processes. Don't be shocked when the first set of prints come out a deathly brown (like a really bad Sepia-toned print). That's normal. The other combination worth trying is Ilford Delta 400 developed in Pyro -- ABC or PMK (take your pick). Kodak 400 CN looks beautiful, both grain and tonal range wise, and it _is_ a C41 process (with the same archival issues about color negative film), and it is expensive. Best of luck. --Phil Just recently, I found that my HP5+ negatives that were done in some homebrew staining developers have scanned quite nicely. The lack of grain is balanced by the light edge effects and by scanning in color it seems my scanner can handle the tonality better in this combination. I'm admittedly not an expert and quite new to film scanning but the effects were easily better than I had been getting with traditional non-staining developers. >I have been using TMY and I have not been satisfied with the results, way >too grainy showing some weird specular highlights in the grain. I know T Max >has a fine grain, but perhaps too fine a grain for scanning ? And that after >is on 2 different scanners, a Microtek 120tf @4000ppi and Konica Minolta >Dimage 5400II @5400ppi, Craig Schroeder craig nospam craigschroeder com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.