Scanned B&W Workflow

[jplomley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just curious out of the Leica film users, how many are following the optical print path vs the scan/inkjet print path with B&W film. Initially, I purchased an M7 with the intent of generating a different "atmosphere" compared to my M8's when converted to B&W. But what I have noticed is that B&W film is terrifically difficult to scan and work-up, especially in terms of tonal range. Even scanning in 16-bit mode, there seems to be a loss in tonal information, and certainly increased noise compared to the M8 at similar ISO's. I'm now wondering if I'm short-changing my B&W film by not printing optically. Or am I better off moving away from silver halide and using a chromogenic film? But I fear tonal range will still be a limitation.

[andybarton]

I have no problem getting a wide tonal range from my b&w film, scanned on a Coolscan V. It's all about exposing and developing the film correctly. Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights sort of thing. You can't do that with C41. Tonal range of properly exposed and developed silver b&w film will be wider than an M8 or even a DMR for most people.

 

I have been reading Adams' "The Negative" to get a grip of the zone method. All good stuff.

 

It's different from an M8, obviously. It's film.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stunsworth]

Jeff, the increased noise is just a fact of life when comparing film to digital. Digital is much cleaner. But there's more to black and white photography than noise/grain or the lack of it.

[andybarton]

It's not noise though. It's grain. Grain has been there since about 1840.

 

Grain of some sort is a fundamental element of b&w film photography.

[stunsworth]

Andy, I totally agree, that's what I was trying to say in the last sentence.

[jpattison]

Jeff,

Try shooting Ilford Delta 100, it has the reputation of being the most "scannable" B&W film.

 

John

[andybarton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tri-X @ 320 in HC-110/B for 6 1/2 minutes at 20C scans very nicely

[Gentleman Villain]

To the OP...I checked out your links and there are a lot of beautiful color 4x5 photographs. You really have a good eye for natural color.

 

My experience is that there is still nothing better than shooting B&W film (using a technique like the zone system) and then making prints in a darkroom the old fashioned way. I haven't had good luck with B&W film in the digital world. However, I've had excellent results scanning my old Fuji Astia transparencies and then converting them to B&W. SO far, that has produced the best B&W tones in the digital realm for my personal work.

 

Just a hunch...but I bet the OP's color work would probably convert really well to B&W. Some people see really well in color for the actual film and it will often translate well to B&W in post.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Gentleman Villain

[jplomley]

Cheers everyone for the valuable feedback. I think this has started some interesting discussion. My 4x5 landscape work on the website which is in B&W is all recorded on Delta-100 and reverse processed by dr5, so it scans extremely well using either a CCD-based pre-press scanner or better an oil mounted drum scan. But this chemistry is $$$, so I wanted to avoid this route in 35mm. But my hunch is that the silver in B&W film just screws up the light source too much in these desktop scanners. So I guess my options are shoot B&W film but reverse process to wash out the silver, shoot color neg for the latitude and convert to B&W, or shoot something like Astia or Provia for the best sharpness but lower latitude and convert that to B&W. I'm just not sure if the meter in the M7 is accurate enough for E6 film.

[jplomley]

To the OP...I checked out your links and there are a lot of beautiful color photographs. YOu really have an eye for natural color.

 

Thank-you for your kind notes.

[russell c. greenberg]

Cheers everyone for the valuable feedback. I think this has started some interesting discussion. My 4x5 landscape work on the website which is in B&W is all recorded on Delta-100 and reverse processed by dr5, so it scans extremely well using either a CCD-based pre-press scanner or better an oil mounted drum scan. But this chemistry is $$$, so I wanted to avoid this route in 35mm. But my hunch is that the silver in B&W film just screws up the light source too much in these desktop scanners. So I guess my options are shoot B&W film but reverse process to wash out the silver, shoot color neg for the latitude and convert to B&W, or shoot something like Astia or Provia for the best sharpness but lower latitude and convert that to B&W. I'm just not sure if the meter in the M7 is accurate enough for E6 film.

 

Jeff, The meter in the M7 is deadly accurate for E-6 films, I had 2 of them until I went digital. I liked to adjust my exposure to minus 1/3 or minus 2/3 stop for E-6 films, I liked saturated slides better than the standard exposure, just my personal taste. Russell P.S. I kept my black paint M2 ( a present from the wife 20 yrs.ago) to shoot film when the "bug" bites me. I want to try the new Ektar 100 for the Cherry Blossoms.

[twittle]

I've had good scan results from Ilford Delta 50, Tri-X, and Adox Ortho. I've got some Adox CMS waiting to be developed, too, but have yet to see any scans from that particular film.

 

I don't have a scanner, so I don't do my own, but they're done on a nice drum scanner (can't remember the brand off hand). I get my Kodachrome done on the same machine, and the scans come out with a velvety appearance.

[antistatic]

Jeff, I think I know what you mean about tonal range in scanned negs. I have been making flat scans and trying to increase contrast with levels in Aperture but the shadows often come out with pixilated noise (not grain). I have found that the Silver Efex Pro plugin gives better, more film-like results for my scans when I try to increase the contrast. You can try it as a free trial (for Aperture or Photoshop) but be warned you will end up wanting to buy it.

[tobey bilek]

Some films scan better than others even if they developed to print perfectly. Lowering the contrast does not always help.

 

Tri X film scans well. Plus X does NOT. Delta 100 is good. New version of TMax 400 also scans well. Film manufactures are aware of the problem and the latest formulations are designed to be scanned.

 

The better films developed to print on #2 paper with a condenser enlarger scan properly.

 

If you have some with blocked highlights, make two scans, one for shadows, one for highlights, and combine as an HDR. This works , but you need to get to know photoshop well.

 

Leica Photography International had a piece on this subject with samples about two years ago. If memory serves, FP4 was also a good scanner, but the above are from personel experience.

[antistatic]

I beg to differ about Plus X. This is with minimal levels and not Silver Efex Pro (as per my post above)

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jplomley]

David, that is a beautiful image. Wonderful tones. What ISO did you rate Plus X at and which developer?

 

I do have SEP, and use it when I feel the need to convert my M8 images to monochrome. I have used it on occasion to build density into scanned B&W film. It is hit and miss though.

 

For film, so far TMAX-400 (TMY-2) and HP5+ have exhibited the most favorable scans on the Nikon Coolscan 5000. XP2/BW400CN are not bad, but I want to have the option of making a silver gelatin print when the need arises.

[antistatic]

It was rated at 125 and developed in Tmax developer as per the instructions on the bottle.

[MPerson]

I do not have problems scanning Plus-X - Coolscan V Ed & Epson V750 Pro. I usually rate it at 400 for Diafine and 64 or 125 for Rodinal and R09.

[Michael Hiles]

XP2/BW400CN are not bad, but I want to have the option of making a silver gelatin print when the need arises.

 

Jeff,

 

My experience is that both XP2 and 400CN scan perfectly and print on B&W silver paper as well as anything I have seen. (My definition of perfect). The 400CN requires longer exposures due to the orange mask.

 

You wont get gritty and grainy - that is not what they do. So if you like Tri-X in Rodinal, they will not give you what you are looking for.

 

They both have a very useful advantage when printing on silver paper. They are not subject to the Callier effect (as are all silver films), which means that they react very well in condenser enlargers. I use my focomat 1c with its condenser system for XP2, and I replace the condenser head with a cold light head for my older silver negatives (lots of Panatomic-X and some Tri-X).

Edited April 18, 2009 by Michael Hiles

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pop]

But my hunch is that the silver in B&W film just screws up the light source too much in these desktop scanners.

 

A silly question: do you set your scanner for scanning B/W or RGB transparencies? Some scanners yield nearly useless results when set to B/W yet scan the very same transparencies quite acceptably in the RGB mode.

 

After scanning in three colors, you still can reduce the scanned image to greys by simply dropping two of the three channels.