Scanning B/W Film Issues

[john_r_smith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Folks

 

I have been using a local lab to develop and scan B/W film for me. They burn the scans to CD as high quality TIFFS, and then I can print them at home to my inkjet printer. I still have the negatives to file and keep for that glorious day when I might once again have a proper wet darkroom

 

So far, this has worked quite well, but after experimenting with several different film types I notice the following -

 

* Generally speaking, grain clumping in sky areas seems more noticeable in the scanned images than it used to be when printing with an enlarger.

 

* The slower film seems worse in this regard than the faster, which is a bit puzzling. Specifically, Ilford FP4 seems extremely grainy in the skies, whereas HP5 is OK. The Delta versions of the Ilford films seem to scan better, with a smoother result.

 

Has anyone else encountered these problems, or can offer some advice?

 

John

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

Yep - which is why I switched to Ilford Pan F a few years ago (the 1/1000 limitation on M shutters was another reason).

 

This effect varies with the type of scanner illumination to some degree. Scanners using LED lights (Nikon, e.g.) act like a point-light-source enlarger, making the grain (and also fine detail) very visible. A scanner with diffuse illumination (frosted glass behind the film or some such) makes for a smoother image. You might want to inquire as to what scanner your lab uses.

 

Also, the C-41 "B&W" films tend to work differently than silver films - the grain is most visible in the shadows and softer in bright areas. Ilford XP2 is likely the best choice for your purposes (Scans + eventual darkroom work), since it 'looks' like silver negs (brown-tinted image on a gray base).

 

Kodak's 400B+W film has the orange base of color negs, so is best for direct "B&W" prints from a color minilab, but would be a pain to print traditionally.

 

Also - One does have to ask what developer your lab uses. If it's a one-size-fits-all developer (say, HC-110 or Ilford's equivalent, or the machine version of Ilford DDX), it may not be producing the finest grain your films are capable of. Perhaps the lab can offer you an alternative.

[john_r_smith]

Andy

 

thank you for a useful and illuminating reply, as usual. Of course, as you point out, there are two unknowns involved here - the developer the lab uses (which probably is the same whatever film goes through), and the scanner itself. I will have a chat with Charles at the lab. Incidentally, I take the lack of replies to this question to mean that -

 

* Very few Leica users are working a hybrid process - or

 

* They do, but have no problems because they are scanning slides

 

John

[Michael-IIIf]

I take the lack of replies to this question to mean that -

 

* Very few Leica users are working a hybrid process - or

 

* They do, but have no problems because they are scanning slides

 

 

John,

 

Or:- * They are amazed you found a lab that still does B&W processing.

 

I gave up after several rolls were messed up by my local labs. I bought a Patterson tank and a scanner. This amounts to a very small investment and now I know all the c**k-ups are 100% mine

 

Michael

[adan]

Here's some Ilford XP2 I just home-brewed in C-41 and scanned with my Nikon 5000 ED (prone to emphasizing grain at the drop of a hat)

 

The full frame plus a crop of the scans actual pixels - this 4000dpi scan makes about an 18 Mbyte grayscale file. 21 Elmarit-M.

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!

[cbretteville]

Andy

* Very few Leica users are working a hybrid process - or

 

* They do, but have no problems because they are scanning slides

I shoot 90% B&W of which 90% is silver based film. I develop my own negs except for XP2 and what little colour I shoot on film (for colour I shoot digital), and I scan. I don't have an enlarger operational and I probably never will get them set up again. I get the need for doing my own wet stuff satisfied from the souping of negs which dosen't require a darkroom as such only a dark room...

 

I've been experimenting a lot in the last year and find I like some of the results I get with film/developer combos and some I don't care for as much. Here is a list of combos I like in no particular order:

 

Fuji Neopan Acros in Paterson FX-39 (1+19)

Agfa APX 100 in Xtol (1+1)

FP4+ in D76 (1+1) or Xtol (1+1)

HP5 in D76 (1+1) - haven't tried it in Xtol yet.

Delta 100 and Delta 400 in DD-X (1+4)

 

As FX-39 is gone (I have a little left) and DD-X is hard to get and horribly expensive where I live, Xtol seems to be what is becoming my std. developer.

 

I scan film using a Konica Minolta 5400 mk. II , Vuescan and do finishing in PS. My printing is done on an Eposn R800.

 

Some of my B&W stuff: In glorious black and white Photo Gallery by Carl Bretteville at pbase.com

 

- Carl

[Lucklik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I get better results with my wet darkroom compared with scans from Super Coolscan 4000ED.

For scanning I prefer Kodak C41 b&w film at ISO 200 over normal B&W film.

I haven't tried XP2.

 

rgs

 

Luc

[andybarton]

Another vote for doing it yourself and scanning (if you haven't got access to a darkroom).

 

Just remember to turn off the ICE function on your scanner if scanning directly from the negative using silver based film.

[Guest flatfour]

I use a Canon flatbed scanner and have noticed that HP4 and HP5 both show more grain on scanning than Neopan 400 chromo and XP2 when conventionally wet printed. Of course my HP4 film is now very old but not the HP5. I no longer have a wet darkroom but am surprised how the scanner emphasizes grain.

[leicamann]

I am seriously not a C41 B&W user... compared to the silver based B&W..they simply cannot compare.

 

I have been able to overcome all B&W issues and all films with large dynamic ranges with a very simple solution.

Scan at 16 samples ...or 8 samples if you don't have the time. It takes my scanner about 35 minutes per image at that level..but the quality is beyond compare..have a look..

 

 

Black and White Film Main page

 

Oh I use ViewScan..

 

Regards, Leicamann

[john_r_smith]

This is lovely B/W work, John. You seem to be getting very good results with FP4 - so I shall persevere Thanks for the link. BTW, in answer to the question, my lab not only does B/W work, but develops and sleeves my films to very high standards (no dust, no scratches) so cheaply that it is hardly worth doing it myself.

 

John

[pvenables]

John

 

I find that Delta 100 scans very well on my Nikon Coolscan V. I've had some success with FP4, too.

 

The results do have a little grain [more noticeable with FP4] but what there is is quite pleasing.

 

I haven't shot any C-41 B+W for a while. I scanned in some XP2 negs the other day and although I haven't printed them out, the results on screen were less good IMO than with Delta 100/FP4.

 

If you ever plan to get your own scanner, bear in mind that you can't use digital ICE on B+W, but the upside is that on the Nikon scanner at least the negs scan VERY quickly. One can clean up the results in Photoshop almost as quickly as it takes the scanner to wheeze through XP2 plus ICE...

 

Hope this helps.

 

Paul

[john_r_smith]

Paul

 

thanks for that, most helpful. By the way, I am not particularly anti-grain, if you see what I mean. In fact, I rather like a fairly gritty quality to my prints, always have done. I was just surprised how the scanning process seemed to accentuate it, having never tried scanning B/W negs before, only slides.

 

John

[Guest flatfour]

John R Mead - I am very surprised at your comments about C41 Chromogenic film. Apart from absence of grain I think you would find it impossible to tell which print had been made with silver film or C41. I stopped using silver film completely about a year ago because my XP2 and Neopan 400C prints were just as good as FP4 and 5. In fact I think the tonal range of the latest Neopan is as good if not better than silver film.

[leicamann]

Ok.ok I'll conceed this much..that I like the Neopan and on ocaasion use the XP2 ...but I prefer precisely that...the grain.. a very particular grain....that C41 B&W films don't get.

 

Lastly..I prefer develping my own film....C41 would involve me getting a Jobo kit..which I am still considering..but it is more complicated and expensive.

 

 

Regards, Leicamann:)

[uulrich]

Hi John; Jobo is very easy to use. It gives good and constant results. But I agree it requires some space, I am too lazy to arrange everything till I can use it, and then to pack it away. This is the reason why I use stainless steel tank. ;-) I figured out that I can get good control over the temperature by just adding some cold water into the sink after a few minutes. My thermometer is alwas in the sink and I check it regulary.

 

As far as scanning is concerned I find ILFORD easieier to scan then Kodak (TX400). Also, Kodak is a bit stiff, while ILFOD goes easier out of the cannister. I do not use the film can opener.

[pierovitch]

Silverfast scanning software has a grain and noise elimination function. This. seems to reduce the grain substantially on my old Nikon coolscan 3 which brings out every artifact on a negative. some softening occurs but if you scan at 5400dpi interpolated the effect is minimised. My favorite film is Techpan ( no longer available) as It can be developed longer.The negatives have more density and match the scanner tonal range.

I hope the image and inset full size sample demonstrates the point.

 

M3 and 35mm spectacle summaron

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!

[KevinA]

We need to be sure here exactly what we are seeing and why. A scanner is not going to increase the grain of the film, it might add something of it's own though. Poor dynamic range of a scanner could increase the appearance of grain due to increased contrast through the tonal range. Then of course there is scanner applied sharpening and scanner noise. Not to say some films will not scan better than others, but a wet darkroom only had a light path to contend with, digital has much more to go wrong.

I have on more than one occaison heard of people scan a print on a flatbed and claim they have more detail in the scanned print than the original, impossible of course. What does happen is a contrast increase which now emphasizes parts of the print, drawing attention to things not easily seen in the original. I can quite believe a flat grey area scanned on some scanners will be very difficult for a scanner with limited range to pick out faint tonal changes, therefor increasing local contrast and apparently increasing the grain.

Oil mounted film would smooth the appearance of grain.

 

Kevin.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Findus]

I find that my old Coolscan III with the scsi interface made better B&W scans than my current 9000, maybe the simplicity of the product.

But then again the 9000 does a miraculous job with almost anything, except 24x36 b&W films. (not really bad, but certainly not up to 6x6 B&W scans). But then APX and Tri-x is not the best scanable stuff anyway.

Delta is good for scanning, but I dislike the film in general so I never tend to use it.

[ellegant]

Please pass on advice for scanning B&W negs. I dusted off my M4 and want to start shooting B&W again. I have an Epson 3170 flatbed scanner hooked to my Mac PowerBook.

 

I want to enlarge and crop electronically printing 8x10 (ooops 8 1/2 x 11 1/2). What resolution(s) can I scan at for a balance of quality, sharpness and relatively speedy scans?

 

Thanks

 

Howard Ellegant