 |
 | 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 / Film and Labs / January 2005Scannable B&W films
Something new for discussion, hope not to need an asbestos suit though.... Looking at 400ASA B&W Films, I have some choices, which do you find easiest to scan and gives the best scanned results. Old Tech HP5 Plus/ New Tri-X New Tech 400 Delta / T-Max 400 C41 XP2 Super, BW400CN These are all readily available, reasonably priced and I have used the old tech ones years and years ago. Want to get back into B&W.... W > Something new for discussion, hope not to need an asbestos suit though.... > > Looking at 400ASA B&W Films, I have some choices, which do you find > easiest to scan and gives the best scanned results. > > Old Tech HP5 Plus/ New Tri-X Somewhat equal on a film scanner. Both of these are very comparable, and about the same ease of use. > New Tech 400 Delta / T-Max 400 I have only tried TMax 400, and it is not too much more difficult than TriX. Scanning this film after pushing to ISO 1600 also works fairly well, and slightly easier than scanning Ilford Delta 3200 (used at ISO 1600). > C41 XP2 Super, BW400CN The orange mask is troublesome for both on film scanners. SilverFast, or LinoColor software can help greatly, though without those, these films are to be avoided for scanning intentions. They tend to drum scan okay, though again the combination of hardware and software are what helps the results. > These are all readily available, reasonably priced and I have used the > old tech ones years and years ago. Want to get back into B&W.... > > W My best advise to you is to scan regular B/W films as if they were transparency films. Do so in full colour mode, then invert in PhotoShop (or similar software). Then you can look in the Channels, and see which Channel, or combination of Channels give the best tonal range. Keep the one or two Channels that give the best results, then continue to work with the images from there. A film scanner is highly recommended, and ideally SilverFast software, if you have that sort of budget. Also, you should be manually focusing the scanner for best results. A slight change in focus from the autofocus point can sometimes give much better results, and avoid appearance of excessive grain or noise. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> >> C41 XP2 Super, BW400CN > > The orange mask is troublesome for both on film scanners. SilverFast, or > LinoColor software can help greatly, though without those, these films are to > be avoided for scanning intentions. They tend to drum scan okay, though again > the combination of hardware and software are what helps the results. I've only used VueScan (http://www.hamrick.com), and I've only scanned about three rolls of this type of film, but VueScan seems to do a good job with them. The VueScan manual recommends setting the film type to color; you can then set the film brand appropriately, resulting in good image quality with little or no color tinting. (IMHO, you should NOT set the B&W JPEG option when saving to JPEG format; that tends to produce poor results, in my experience.) That said, I'm not a professional, nor do I have experience with hundreds of rolls of B&W film. I'm just suggesting that VueScan is worth trying if you're having problems with these films in other software. (VueScan is shareware, so you can try the demo version, which puts dollar signs in the images, to see if it'll work reasonably well with these films.)  SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking >>>C41 XP2 Super, BW400CN >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > shareware, so you can try the demo version, which puts dollar signs in > the images, to see if it'll work reasonably well with these films.) The ones I have from the archives (late 1970's) that I have scanned, show good to fair to poor results, Ilford Pan-F was excellent, FP-4 and Plus-X good, HP-5 fair, and Tri-X was the same dreadful grainy mess, that made AgBr printing the stuff, a chore in the late 1970's. I tried a roll of XP-2 and it was pretty good, XP-2 Super has no orange mask, where as BW400CN does, from what I understand. Vuescan might be worth a try, if it supports my scanner, I want to stay away from the Chromogenics, because I can't control the process as easily as with a Spiral Tank, besides I always enjoyed pulling a roll of wet shiny negatives out of the tank. Printing I didn't like as much. One observation, the easier a negative is to AgBr print, (i.e. good exposure) the easier it is to scan..... > XP-2 Super has no orange mask, > where as BW400CN does, from what I understand. That's correct; processed Ilford XP-2 Super negatives look just like conventional B&W negatives to the naked eye (a bit of a purplish tone), whereas Kodak BW400CN negatives have an orange mask that's similar to that on C-41 color films. (I just double-checked samples of both to verify this.) SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking >>XP-2 Super has no orange mask, >>where as BW400CN does, from what I understand. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that on C-41 color films. (I just double-checked samples of both to > verify this.) BW400CN is intended on working woth any mini-lab that has been set up for C41 colour films. XP-2 is more intended for machine processing where the prints will be conventional B&W printing. W > >> C41 XP2 Super, BW400CN > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > http://www.rodsbooks.com > Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking I think VueScan is a good low cost solution, and on many scanners, it is better than the original scanning software. Those who are not professionals, and want a good product at a low cost, should investigate VueScan. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com> Don't bother scanning conventioanl films. Scanners don't work well with them. Any C-41 type should work well. I've found that the conventional B&W films scan well in my Nikon Coolscan III if I turn off the Digital ICE. Other scanners may have different results. SignatureDoug Greenwald Keeper of the Bad Attitude fsgreen@email.uophx.edu doug.greenwald@gmail.com Don't bother scanning conventioanl films. Scanners don't work well with them. Any C-41 type should work well. > Something new for discussion, hope not to need an asbestos suit > though.... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the old tech ones years and years ago. Want to get back into > B&W.... You'll probably have the easiest time scanning XP2 (assuming it's still available, as Ilford is bankrupt) because its color is close to neutral. Kodak's BW400CN is another alternative, although it has an orange mask designed to give neutral minilab prints. With chromogenic film you can use infrared cleaning, which can save you lots of "uncreative" time removing dust spots. Infrared cleaning doesn't work with conventional silver black and white film. If you don't have your own darkroom, chromogenic is really the only choice. Few labs process black and white any more, but any lab can do C-41. If your intent is to scan negatives rather than printing them optically, let me make another suggestion. Use a good color negative film (Kodak 400UC or Fuji Superia 800) and convert it to black and white with a channel-mixer tool. That gives you the advantage of adjusting the final tonality of the monochrome image, as if you had a nearly infinite set of color filters. There's also the advantage of having a full-color image available if you should want that. --- Non-spam e-mail: usenet{AT}tedsimages{dot}com Visit my Virtual Light Table: http://www.tedsimages.com Travel, scenic, and fine art photography > If you don't have your own darkroom, > chromogenic is really the only choice. Few labs process black and white > any more, but any lab can do C-41. IMHO, that's overstating things by a lot. Although conventional B&W processing is certainly not as readily available as C-41 processing, it's not really hard to find labs that'll do it, particularly if you live in a big city or are willing to do it mail order. Just don't take conventional B&W to a drug store for 1-hour processing! :-\ SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > If you don't have your own darkroom, chromogenic is really the > only choice. Few labs process black and white any more, but > any lab can do C-41. I have a developing tank, and I know how to use it.... Funny, before I closed the fume room in 1982, I liked processing film a lot more then printing, I also had, probably one of the first tray less B&W darkrooms, paper went into a colour tube, and got processed in conventional chemistries, using colour methods..... > If your intent is to scan negatives rather than printing them > optically, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > color filters. There's also the advantage of having a full-color image > available if you should want that. I've done that, have a hard time remembering which images were taken with the intention of making B&W images out of them later on. I figure using B&W film, will simply force the issue. Besides I have two camera bodies, the intention is to eventually load one with colour, one with B&W and work that way..... W >> If your intent is to scan negatives rather than printing them >> optically, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > have two camera bodies, the intention is to eventually load one > with colour, one with B&W and work that way..... If that's what you enjoy doing, far be it for me to deny you that pleasure. But it just doesn't make much sense to me. Sometimes you just don't know which images will end up working better in black and white, so there are advantages to starting out with color. Admittedly, I convert very few of my images to black and white, but when I do that it's because during digital processing I realize that the image will have more impact that way. It's good to have that choice. --- Non-spam e-mail: usenet{AT}tedsimages{dot}com Visit my Virtual Light Table: http://www.tedsimages.com Travel, scenic, and fine art photography >>>If your intent is to scan negatives rather than printing them >>>optically, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > it's because during digital processing I realize that the image will > have more impact that way. It's good to have that choice. My one camera body was declared DOA by the repair shop this morning, so I need to replace is as I am down to one, and it needs work too. I'll need to stick to colour for a while, at least until I can get my cameras all working again..... W > My one camera body was declared DOA by the repair shop this > morning, so I need to replace is as I am down to one, and it needs > work too. I'll need to stick to colour for a while, at least until > I can get my cameras all working again..... Replace it with a digital camera and you'll have no problem at all! --- Non-spam e-mail: usenet{AT}tedsimages{dot}com Visit my Virtual Light Table: http://www.tedsimages.com Travel, scenic, and fine art photography >>My one camera body was declared DOA by the repair shop this >>morning, so I need to replace is as I am down to one, and it needs >>work too. I'll need to stick to colour for a while, at least until >>I can get my cameras all working again..... > > Replace it with a digital camera and you'll have no problem at all! The current budget is under $200, find me a nice new digital SLR for under $200 with at least a 6MP sensor, and I'm game.... W >>> My one camera body was declared DOA by the repair shop this >>> morning, so I need to replace is as I am down to one, and it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The current budget is under $200, find me a nice new digital SLR > for under $200 with at least a 6MP sensor, and I'm game.... I know. The high cost of replicating the capabilities I currently get with a film SLR (including wide-angle lenses) keeps me in front of my monitor cleaning up those little specks on my film scans. --- Non-spam e-mail: usenet{AT}tedsimages{dot}com Visit my Virtual Light Table: http://www.tedsimages.com Travel, scenic, and fine art photography >>>>My one camera body was declared DOA by the repair shop this >>>>morning, so I need to replace is as I am down to one, and it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with a film SLR (including wide-angle lenses) keeps me in front of my > monitor cleaning up those little specks on my film scans. I usually start with one of those lens blower brushes, and blow off anything I can from both sides, that reduces the number of specks quite a bit...... W >> I know. The high cost of replicating the capabilities I currently >> get with a film SLR (including wide-angle lenses) keeps me in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > anything I can from both sides, that reduces the number of specks > quite a bit...... I use photo-grade "canned air" (actually a chlorofluorocarbon) and my scanner's infrared cleaning. Both help a lot, but they're not completely perfect. With a digital camera you don't have to worry about that... but you do have to worry about dust getting on the sensor. You can't win, I'm afraid. --- Non-spam e-mail: usenet{AT}tedsimages{dot}com Visit my Virtual Light Table: http://www.tedsimages.com Travel, scenic, and fine art photography >>>I know. The high cost of replicating the capabilities I currently >>>get with a film SLR (including wide-angle lenses) keeps me in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that... but you do have to worry about dust getting on the sensor. You > can't win, I'm afraid. NEVER EVER EVER use canned air around negatives or lenses, there is always the possibility that the can will release some of the propelent, and that stuff makes krazy glue look like the stuff on the back of a post-it note. The air in a blower brush is much safer, as the propellent is muscle power. W >> I use photo-grade "canned air" (actually a chlorofluorocarbon) >> and my scanner's infrared cleaning. Both help a lot, but they're [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the back of a post-it note. The air in a blower brush is much > safer, as the propellent is muscle power. That's often true of the "canned air" products intended for blowing dust out of computers. But the photo grade kind is "safe for delicate instruments, negatives, slides, cameras, lenses...." because the propellant is the "air." You just have to make sure it's the more expensive photo grade. I also have a blower brush, but the canned air delivers more pressure to dislodge particles muscle power can't. --- Non-spam e-mail: usenet{AT}tedsimages{dot}com Visit my Virtual Light Table: http://www.tedsimages.com Travel, scenic, and fine art photography |
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
|
©2008 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.