Scanning: Which Film Suggestions

[gbealnz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

I am an old time B&W film user, happy with processing, albeit not up to date with the current films and chemicals, but re-learning fast. When I last used film, some 5 or more years ago I was also shooting transparency film, quite happily in 35mm and also M/F.

So, since then I have had a plethora of digital cameras, and currently have an M8, some lenses, and an M6. I have my eye on an old LeicaFlex SL as well, but right now that's not part of the equation.

I picked up a PlusTech scanner which I am yet to try but pose this question to all you that are thoroughly conversant. Which film type?

Do I shoot B&W, process it myself, and then either scan or wet print, depending on time and desire?

Or do I shoot colour neg, and have it processed and then scan?

Pro/cons?

This becomes slightly more interesting as come August I am in Europe, and at this stage will have both the M8 and M6, shooting both (M8 especially with I/R, but also colour; M6 with "film").

If colour neg is as good as most ever need, then maybe I'll just shoot this in the M6, and have it processed while in the country wherever we are, thus avoiding the dreaded X-Ray issues at the airports.

If B&W is way better then I'll make the extra effort and use that, processing it when I get home, unless I find processing facilities where we are (Paris/Venice/Florence/Rome).

Interested in your thoughts.

Gary

[jneilt]

Shoot both.

 

I have really been loving FP4 for B&W lately! You could find a stock of vs100 before it's gone and shoot some of that in Italy (great for the marble). You could take a roll or two of HP5 for some street stuff at night.

 

Have a great trip! I am sure someone will chime in on the scanner and it's likings.

[Fgcm]

Shoot both.

 

I have really been loving FP4 for B&W lately! You could find a stock of vs100 before it's gone and shoot some of that in Italy (great for the marble). You could take a roll or two of HP5 for some street stuff at night.

 

Have a great trip! I am sure someone will chime in on the scanner and it's likings.

 

+ 1

Try also Adox 20 cms

 

Have a nice trip in Italy.

 

Fgcm

[richam]

It's difficult to find traditional B&W processing in Europe. C-41 process is easy. If you really like B&W, you might try a chromogenic B&W like Ilford XP-2. It scans very well, also.

[philipus]

Portra 160 and 400 scan very well. 400's exposure latitude is amazing.

 

Agfa ADX100 scans well too and has a nice tonality. Imho better than Ilford's offerings.

 

In my experience Velvia, Provia and Sensia also scan well.

 

With respect, I don't think one should over-estiate the difficulty of developing film in "Europe". Here in Holland there's no problem developing colour, slides or bw. The same i Sweden and from what I understand from this forum's other members in Europe this also applies in many/most other European countries. That said, slides may take longer if the shop has to send the film somewhere which could cause troubles if one's travelling, esp. for just one month.

 

In any event, there's little to no risk with x-rays at airports provided you have the rolls in the hand luggage. If you worry ask for manual inspection.

 

Cheers

Philip

[gbealnz]

Cheers guys, you haven't helped at all, LOL, I'm still confused.

No matter, I have another 3 months or more before we go, so I can and will trial a few thoughts here, and work it out.

I suppose the question was, is there much or any real difference between C41 film and normal B&W film, when scanned. If I want B&W, is there any "loss" by using colour neg (C41)?

I know that if I want a B&W "wet print" then B&W film is what I need to use, but if I scan, I can obviously use either, and the question then is, which is better?

Gary

[honcho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Unless you are going to make prints in the darkroom or are intent on following some misty-eyed nostalgia for home processing silver-based black and white film, the only other reason to go down the wet route is a need for very slow or fast emulsions. Traditional black and white film, generally, does not make good scanner fodder.

 

Kodak Ektar scans beautifully, if you can live with 100asa. For general, just for the fun of it black and white photography, I prefer to scan Ektar 100 and convert in post to using C41 black and white emulsions such as XP2 and BW400.

 

You still have a colour file to play with.

[StS]

I have different experiences, in my view, "traditional" black and white films scan well as well. No ideology from my side here, I mix them with BW400 and colour film (mostly Portra 400 and 800). And also digital images.

 

Firstly, it depends on the way of working you prefer.

 

For any black and white film, any filtering needs to be done during exposure. Converting colour images (digital or film) to black and white allows to achieve the effect of colour filters during post processing to a certain extent*.

 

So, if you prefer to set the final tonal range on location, black and white film is a better choice. If you prefer more extensive post-processing on your computer, converting colour files might be your way of working.

 

Secondly, traditional black and white film have a different texture, compared to C41 colour or the similarly structured BW400s or XP2s, it might be worth, to try the options to see, which works out best for you - or the situation you want to capture.

 

Stefan

 

 

 

* footnote - red filtering, for example, cuts out a large part of the visible light, or "takes a lot of light", so to speak. When converting a colour file to black and white, there is typically not very much intensity in the red area. However, over-exposing colour film for red-filtering on the computer will make the film too dense for scanning.

[swiss leica fan]

I have experimented with dozens of B&W films lately after having not visited a dark room for the past 20 years. I develop the negatives and have my own negative scanner. Here is what I think: There is no alternative to shooting with B&W film and there is no alternative to self processing (unless you want to pay the high prices of a professional photo processing studio).

 

The C41 B&W have a different character and grain compared to the regular B&Ws. Some may like it, others will insist on regular B&Ws. Note that Kodak BW400CN is designed to be printed on colored photo paper while XP2 should be printed on B&W photo paper.

 

Best quality is self processing of negatives and positives whatever film you take, 2nd choice is self processing of negatives and scanning of negatives with a good scanner and appropriate resolution.

 

For scanning of negatives Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ films have the advantage of tolerance for variations in exposure and good film flatness. Fuji Acros 100 has excellent tonality, but some problems with film flatness. Kodak is OK, but has also a flatness problem. My impression is that the scans of regular B&Ws are better than the C41 types in terms of tonality.

 

I would not worry too much about the X Ray check at airports as long as you do not put your films into your checked luggage. And if you still worry: Buy your films while you are in Europe, they are still available in good photo retail stores. This saves you the X-Rays in one direction (X-Ray exposure accumulates).

 

Hope this helps.

 

Kind regards

Andreas

[StS]

Some additional thoughts - my advice would be to try all options, what works best for you, but to travel lightly and to decide for one proven option for a long distance trip. I also always bring a digital back-up camera.

 

Trying something new is always fun and sometimes results in unexpected good pictures, so it is worth the effort, when done at home.

 

About finding a lab, my suggestion would be to ask local members in a different thread about their experiences (best chances probably in Rome and Paris) and to check the accessibility of these options - I like to use local labs for C41 and am happy with any result, as long the negatives return without scratches (I had some mixed results). However, I don't like to dedicate travel time for finding a lab, so I use this option only, if the lab is easily accessible.

 

The dangers of X-rays have been discussed several times, my technique is to ask for a hand inspection but put the film through the machine without worries, if this declined.

 

Stefan

[250swb]

For scanning of negatives Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ films have the advantage of tolerance for variations in exposure and good film flatness. Fuji Acros 100 has excellent tonality, but some problems with film flatness. Kodak is OK, but has also a flatness problem. My impression is that the scans of regular B&Ws are better than the C41 types in terms of tonality.

 

Some good points there. The Ilford B&W films consistently dry flatter than most others, especially Kodak. This makes scanning far easier.

 

I think another point to consider is that just like 'wet' B&W you can tune your negative exposure and processing to match your enlarger and preferred paper grades etc, you should think about tuning the negative to the scanner and post processing. And this generally means that you want a flatish negative with all the tones, and you also scan aiming for a flat image with all the tones. You then organise those tones in post processing, and obviously you can add contrast to a flat image, but you can't take contrast away if the negative is inherently contrasty. So B&W film gives far more leeway if you are processing it yourself over C41 sent to a lab to get a negative that is optimum for scanning.

 

 

Steve

[Fgcm]

The C41 B&W have a different character and grain compared to the regular B&Ws. Some may like it, others will insist on regular B&Ws. Note that Kodak BW400CN is designed to be printed on colored photo paper while XP2 should be printed on B&W photo paper.

 

For scanning of negatives Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ films have the advantage of tolerance for variations in exposure and good film flatness. Fuji Acros 100 has excellent tonality, but some problems with film flatness. Kodak is OK, but has also a flatness problem. My impression is that the scans of regular B&Ws are better than the C41 types in terms of tonality.

 

Kind regards

Andreas

 

Ciao Gary,

Andreas is right. It is also my opinion.

 

In Europe in summer you will have a plenty of light.

If I were you, I would go for FP4 and a 20 / 25 ASA film, like Adox or Efke.

For low light you can switch to digital. Do not bother with 400 or 3200 BW.

 

I also used a lot Kodak E100G. It's not flat and acutance is good. After discontinuing of this film, I want to try Fuji slides.

In my experience it's easier to convert a slide to BW than converting a negative color or a chromogenic c41bw.

 

As Stefan wrote, you have to try all and than you make your choice.

 

About X-Rays: I travel a lot around Europe and USA for business and leisure.

Last summer i passed some 6 airport checks: Milano, Paris, Miami, Providenciales, Miami again, Frankfurt. Plus some checks entering museums.

I had some film left that I used in some following trips in southern Italy.

Maybe the last roll passed 10 X-Ray checks.

I keep films in my camera bag, never into checked luggage.

I had not a problem at all.

No fogging, nothing.

I'm not any more worrying about X-Rays and i have my film processed at home.

 

Ciao

Franco

[Messsucherkamera]

I shoot Tri-X 400 and hand develop at home. I have been very happy with the quality of the prints that come from the scans of my negatives. If you want B&W prints, Tri-X scans in the hands of a skilled printer will produce beautiful results.

[tobey bilek]

Tri x scans well if developed for a condenser enlarger, ie moderately.

 

I uses TM100 usually. Prints/scans well at same development time. Some films do not do this.

 

Portra 160 is best color for scanning. 400 close behind

 

M8 makes really nice IR, B&W, and color. It does it all well. Why fool with film unless you want wet prints. Takeoff the uv/ir filter, add the 092 B+W for straight ir work. Set a custom WB on some green grass with one of the user profiles before you go. You will love it. Rendition very much like old Kodak ir film.

[gbealnz]

Thank you to all that took the time to reply, in the end the question could be academic as the M6 I planned on taking has developed a fault, and I returned it to the seller.

A shame as he was an excellent seller, tand he camera was very nice.

The answer may be just what Toby eluded to, use the M8 for everything, especially I/R.

The temptation to take the 500C/M is strong, but that is a heavy beast, so I'll likely just opt for the M8. It has already been decreed that I will not take the recently refurbished Model 1.

Gary

[Mikael Siirilä]

Some good points there. The Ilford B&W films consistently dry flatter than most others, especially Kodak. This makes scanning far easier.

 

This is true. Delta is almost perfectly flat with no extra effort. However if your scanner gets true 4000dpi and captures every grain then there is nothing like Tri-X. Currently I use an ANR glass holder to keep negatives totally flat for scanning and the results are very pleasing. Delta 400 looks very noisy compared to the random, artistic grain of Tri-X.

 

 

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!