Digital BW, The Print

Paul Roark writes:

> Have you compared scans with the non-masked version,
> Kodak's T400CN?

I don't remember.  I think I may have tried T400CN once.  I'm certain
I've tried some other chromogenic films, but I don't remember why I
ended up with a preference for Portra 400BW.

> I've been of the impression that the orange mask, while
> good for color printing, is not helpful in B&W scanning.

It doesn't help, but it doesn't hurt.  You do have to scan as a color
negative, though, so that the software removes the mask.

> I use T400CN and find, as with all B&W films, I prefer to scan as a
> grayscale positive on my Nikon 8000.  The g/s files are smaller, and the
> "positive" setting makes it easier to use the histogram and capture the full
> information of the film.  Too often the "negative" scans seem to clip or
> unduly compress the ends of the curve.

I set NikonScan to output a grayscale image, but the scan itself scans
the film as color negative.  Scanning Portra 400BW as a B&W negative
produces unsatisfactory results (very low contrast, for one thing).

> The grain in the shadows can be as bad as a 400 ISO silver
> film.

Well, the shadow areas are practically clear film, so this is not
surprising.

> The chromogenic films mask their grain with overlapping dye
> clouds.  This works better in the highlights than the shadows,
> which might not have enough dye to hide the grain.

I've noticed that Portra 400BW is rougher in the shadows than in the
highlights, but that's true for all negative films.

> I usually have T400CN in my Fuji 6456 Zi, which acts as my "snapshot"
> camera.  (Tech Pan is in the Bronica RF 645.)

Mmm ... Tech Pan!  If only it were not so slow!

> When I find I want a finer-grained landscape and only have the Zi, I
> put it on a tripod and "multi-sample" the scene. Just like in
> scanning, the random grain/noise averages out and virtually
> disappears.

I've been tempted to try this myself, but I've never had the patience.
Also, it requires sacrificing 16-bit mode (at least in Photoshop 5.x).

> A hand held T400CN Zi shot printed to 16x20 is considered by some to
> be one of my best shots. MF, 645 T400CN (or Portra, I'm sure) can do
> very good 16x20 prints, but that is all the further I enlarge that
> film.

It's all a matter of viewing distance vs. print size.  The larger the
format, the finer the scan, the finer the grain or resolution on the
film, the closer you can get to the print (expressed as a ratio to print
size) without seeing grain or loss of detail.

I wish there were a version of Tri-X with the same grain and resolution
as Tech Pan.  With very rare exceptions, I do not like grain.