Digital BW, The Print

Hello all,
    Does anyone have experiences good or bad with particular black 
and white films.  I shoot 35mm and have been using Kodak's C-41 
chromogenic BW film and my Canon 4000 dpi scanner.  I recently 
purchased tanks, chemistry and equipment to begin developing true BW 
film (Kodak or Ilford).  I was hoping to improve the contrast and 
quality of my images.  Of course, after my purchase, I have now read 
that the C-41 BW film perhaps scans better than true BW film.  Any 
advice would be appreciated as I have not used any of my new 
equipment or many rolls of film.  Thank you in advance.
                                Scott Michener

"smichener" <smichener@...> writes:

> Hello all,
>     Does anyone have experiences good or bad with particular black 
> and white films.  I shoot 35mm and have been using Kodak's C-41 
> chromogenic BW film and my Canon 4000 dpi scanner.  I recently 
> purchased tanks, chemistry and equipment to begin developing true BW 
> film (Kodak or Ilford).  I was hoping to improve the contrast and 
> quality of my images.  Of course, after my purchase, I have now read 
> that the C-41 BW film perhaps scans better than true BW film.  Any 
> advice would be appreciated as I have not used any of my new 
> equipment or many rolls of film.  Thank you in advance.

The C41 film scans better than silver-based film (for me it's been
XP2). 

What sort of contrast problems are you having with your old workflow?
You're probably best off working to fix that first.  Then, when you
understand what the problem is, maybe the right fix *is* a change in
film and/or processing, or maybe not.  But you'll actually know then
:-). 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  New TMDA anti-spam in test
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/

I have had good experience with Kodak's T-max films. 
I mostly use T-max 100 for 35mm.  I still use Tri-X
for 4x5.  I have not had a chnace to test out the
T-max 4x5 film yet.  I use ASA 64 for the 35mm T-max
100 and develope in HC-110.  It scans very well for
me.

--- smichener <smichener@...> wrote:
> Hello all,
>     Does anyone have experiences good or bad with
> particular black 
> and white films.  I shoot 35mm and have been using
> Kodak's C-41 
> chromogenic BW film and my Canon 4000 dpi scanner. 
> I recently 
> purchased tanks, chemistry and equipment to begin
> developing true BW 
> film (Kodak or Ilford).  I was hoping to improve the
> contrast and 
> quality of my images.  Of course, after my purchase,
> I have now read 
> that the C-41 BW film perhaps scans better than true
> BW film.  Any 
> advice would be appreciated as I have not used any
> of my new 
> equipment or many rolls of film.  Thank you in
> advance.
>                                 Scott Michener
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com

Hey Scott, I have pretty good luck with and of the Ilford films (I like
F-Pan 50) with d-76 and my Nikon scanner.  I have recently started using
T-Max and developing in the RS Developer and replenisher (not used as
replenisher), and getting nice skin tones.  In fact I like the Ilford films
for landscapes and objects and the T-Max for people, both scan really well
for me and print nice too.  Hope this helps.
 
Jim P

-----Original Message-----
From: smichener [mailto:smichener@...]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:42 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] B&W Films and Scanning


Hello all,
    Does anyone have experiences good or bad with particular black 
and white films.  I shoot 35mm and have been using Kodak's C-41 
chromogenic BW film and my Canon 4000 dpi scanner.  I recently 
purchased tanks, chemistry and equipment to begin developing true BW 
film (Kodak or Ilford).  I was hoping to improve the contrast and 
quality of my images.  Of course, after my purchase, I have now read 
that the C-41 BW film perhaps scans better than true BW film.  Any 
advice would be appreciated as I have not used any of my new 
equipment or many rolls of film.  Thank you in advance.
                                Scott Michener



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	

ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=178320.2057063.3524709.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=17050191
82:HM/A=979989/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/yahoo-79f> 	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=178320.2057063.3524709.1829184/D=egroupmai
l/S=1705019182:HM/A=979989/rand=904946466> 	

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Scott: I learned to shoot, develop and print on bulk-load TX. Loved it. It 
was much easier to print than TM400. But scanning those old negs is a hideous 
struggle because of dust and scratches. I now use factory rolled canisters, 
TM 400 for an ongoing project, which even when I try to be ultra careful 
during developing, winds up with time-consuming scratches. For job work (not 
a lot, so far) I use T400 CN; have a local lab process only, and sleeve the 
entire roll. This I cut (still sleeved) into six-frame strips. I can examine 
the frames on a light table and remove the negs only for the length of time 
it takes to scan. (In this house any negative is a cat hair magnet.) I like 
what I got and so did my client. Can't offer a scientific comparison, though. 
Good luck, Carol.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I use the Kodak Portra BW - it's a chromogenic BW film. I love it.

(Mostly because I'm lazy and I hate doing my own film development -
years of being a color shooter spoiled me.)

The only advantage I see to the chromogenic stuff other than ease of
processing is that if you have a scanner with digital ICE or an
equivalent (I think canon calls theirs FARE) then you can enable
dust/scratch removal - this won't work with "real" BW film, only
color/chromogenic films.

If you don't care about that, I don't see any reason not to use
traditional film.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "smichener" <smichener@y...>
wrote:

> Hello all,
>     Does anyone have experiences good or bad with particular black 
> and white films.  I shoot 35mm and have been using Kodak's C-41 
> chromogenic BW film and my Canon 4000 dpi scanner.  I recently 
> purchased tanks, chemistry and equipment to begin developing true BW 
> film (Kodak or Ilford).  I was hoping to improve the contrast and 
> quality of my images.  Of course, after my purchase, I have now read 
> that the C-41 BW film perhaps scans better than true BW film.  Any 
> advice would be appreciated as I have not used any of my new 
> equipment or many rolls of film.  Thank you in advance.
>                                 Scott Michener

"charles_bandes" <byronbulb@...> writes:

> The only advantage I see to the chromogenic stuff other than ease of
> processing is that if you have a scanner with digital ICE or an
> equivalent (I think canon calls theirs FARE) then you can enable
> dust/scratch removal - this won't work with "real" BW film, only
> color/chromogenic films.
> 
> If you don't care about that, I don't see any reason not to use
> traditional film.

The chromagenic stuff has very different grain characteristics; just
like color film, there's a small dye cloud rather than a sharp-edged
silver grain at each exposed point.  So it's a little bit less sharp,
but has much lower visible grain.  This could be a deciding factor
(either direction) for some photos.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  New TMDA anti-spam in test
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
        Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
                 Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/

Even though I'm not using the same scanner, I'll jump in with my experiences.

I have a Polaroid SprintScan 120. I use Lasersoft Silverfast Ai 5.5 
software to do my scans. For negative film, I use the NegaFix settings in 
Silverfast. I recently scanned a wide range of black-and-white, including 
the C-41 films (XP2 Super, Portra BW, and T400CN) to see what works best 
for me. I preferred the non-C-41 films, specifically Ilford 100 Delta and 
Ilford HP5+. The odd thing is the NegaFix setting that provided me the best 
base scans was for Kodak TMax 100 film. Go figure.

TMax 100 looked good, too, but I preferred 100 Delta over it. The C-41 
films seemed flat by comparison. For the C-41 bunch, I got the best scans 
from Portra BW, with T400CN a close second.

My experiences have all been with 120 film.

Another option is to shoot color film and convert to black-and-white in 
Photoshop. I've just started experimenting with this so I don't have 
recommendations for or against.

Jeff Greer

At 01:42 AM 05/16/2002 +0000, you wrote:

>Hello all,
>     Does anyone have experiences good or bad with particular black
>and white films.  I shoot 35mm and have been using Kodak's C-41
>chromogenic BW film and my Canon 4000 dpi scanner.  I recently
>purchased tanks, chemistry and equipment to begin developing true BW
>film (Kodak or Ilford).  I was hoping to improve the contrast and
>quality of my images.  Of course, after my purchase, I have now read
>that the C-41 BW film perhaps scans better than true BW film.  Any
>advice would be appreciated as I have not used any of my new
>equipment or many rolls of film.  Thank you in advance.
>                                 Scott Michener
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
>"flames."
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Jeff,
 
you're introducing scanning software (Silverfast with Negafix, in this case)
as a variable. The fact that you got best results with settings for a
different film than the ones you were scanning is significative: I mean, it
could (just an example) be that Vuescan gets better results with FP4+ and
Canon Filmget with TMax100.
This information is not to disregard, of course, because there are surely
people that don't want to waste too much time in tweaking scans and
therefore rely on a certain software, and then, of course, which film looks
better with that software is very important.
OTOH, for those who are not afraid, for example, to get a raw scan and work
their way in Photoshop (which is not so hard a task with B&W images)
chromogenic has different charachteristics from standard B&W, which are
lower grain, lower DMax and the capabilty of using infrared cleaning
filters. Depending on the scanner you have, the importance of this may of
course vary (e.g., if your scanner resolution has or has not grain aliasing
problems, your scanner has or has not infrared cleaning etc.).
Converting from color is another matter. From a theoretical point of view,
there should only be advantages (it's like you can apply color filter
afterwards), and I did it happily for a while, but in the end I somehow
found it distracting to start working from a color image, and came back to
shooting good ol' B&W.
 
Alessandro Pardi

-----Original Message-----
From: J Greer [mailto:jgpinfo@...]
Sent: venerdì 17 maggio 2002 00.40
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Films and Scanning


Even though I'm not using the same scanner, I'll jump in with my
experiences.

I have a Polaroid SprintScan 120. I use Lasersoft Silverfast Ai 5.5 
software to do my scans. For negative film, I use the NegaFix settings in 
Silverfast. I recently scanned a wide range of black-and-white, including 
the C-41 films (XP2 Super, Portra BW, and T400CN) to see what works best 
for me. I preferred the non-C-41 films, specifically Ilford 100 Delta and 
Ilford HP5+. The odd thing is the NegaFix setting that provided me the best 
base scans was for Kodak TMax 100 film. Go figure.

TMax 100 looked good, too, but I preferred 100 Delta over it. The C-41 
films seemed flat by comparison. For the C-41 bunch, I got the best scans 
from Portra BW, with T400CN a close second.

My experiences have all been with 120 film.

Another option is to shoot color film and convert to black-and-white in 
Photoshop. I've just started experimenting with this so I don't have 
recommendations for or against.

Jeff Greer

At 01:42 AM 05/16/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>Hello all,
>     Does anyone have experiences good or bad with particular black
>and white films.  I shoot 35mm and have been using Kodak's C-41
>chromogenic BW film and my Canon 4000 dpi scanner.  I recently
>purchased tanks, chemistry and equipment to begin developing true BW
>film (Kodak or Ilford).  I was hoping to improve the contrast and
>quality of my images.  Of course, after my purchase, I have now read
>that the C-41 BW film perhaps scans better than true BW film.  Any
>advice would be appreciated as I have not used any of my new
>equipment or many rolls of film.  Thank you in advance.
>                                 Scott Michener
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and 
>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- Include your full name with your message.
>- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
>them short.
>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
>"flames."
>- Complete your Yahoo profile.
>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various 
>resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> 



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	

ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=178320.2057063.3524709.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=17050191
82:HM/A=979990/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/yahoo-79f> 	
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=178320.2057063.3524709.1829184/D=egroupmai
l/S=1705019182:HM/A=979990/rand=644478314> 	

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I also have a Polaroid 120 scanner and Silverfast AI 5.5 with 
Negafix. The Negafix software is great for color, but more often I 
just bypass it and scan my T-Max 100 negs at 16 bits, then tweak them 
in Photoshop. I always develop my films in a Jobo processor so don't 
have any need for the C-41 B&W films. Both T-max and Delta films scan 
great, but I prefer T-max because its base is a bit thicker. I 
absolutely love my Polaroid Sprintscan 120 and am suprised more 
people don't use them. I have a close friend who has a Nikon 8000 and 
has had nothing but trouble with it, but that's another story.

Bruce McElhaney
McElhaney Portrait Studio
Livonia, MI



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Alessandro Pardi 
<alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> Jeff,
>  
> you're introducing scanning software (Silverfast with Negafix, in 
this case)
> as a variable. The fact that you got best results with settings for 
a
> different film than the ones you were scanning is significative: I 
mean, it
> could (just an example) be that Vuescan gets better results with 
FP4+ and
> Canon Filmget with TMax100.
> This information is not to disregard, of course, because there are 
surely
> people that don't want to waste too much time in tweaking scans and
> therefore rely on a certain software, and then, of course, which 
film looks
> better with that software is very important.
> OTOH, for those who are not afraid, for example, to get a raw scan 
and work
> their way in Photoshop (which is not so hard a task with B&W images)
> chromogenic has different charachteristics from standard B&W, which 
are
> lower grain, lower DMax and the capabilty of using infrared cleaning
> filters. Depending on the scanner you have, the importance of this 
may of
> course vary (e.g., if your scanner resolution has or has not grain 
aliasing
> problems, your scanner has or has not infrared cleaning etc.).
> Converting from color is another matter. From a theoretical point 
of view,
> there should only be advantages (it's like you can apply color 
filter
> afterwards), and I did it happily for a while, but in the end I 
somehow
> found it distracting to start working from a color image, and came 
back to
> shooting good ol' B&W.
>  
> Alessandro Pardi
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J Greer [mailto:jgpinfo@u...]
> Sent: venerdì 17 maggio 2002 00.40
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] B&W Films and Scanning
> 
> 
> Even though I'm not using the same scanner, I'll jump in with my
> experiences.
> 
> I have a Polaroid SprintScan 120. I use Lasersoft Silverfast Ai 5.5 
> software to do my scans. For negative film, I use the NegaFix 
settings in 
> Silverfast. I recently scanned a wide range of black-and-white, 
including 
> the C-41 films (XP2 Super, Portra BW, and T400CN) to see what works 
best 
> for me. I preferred the non-C-41 films, specifically Ilford 100 
Delta and 
> Ilford HP5+. The odd thing is the NegaFix setting that provided me 
the best 
> base scans was for Kodak TMax 100 film. Go figure.
> 
> TMax 100 looked good, too, but I preferred 100 Delta over it. The C-
41 
> films seemed flat by comparison. For the C-41 bunch, I got the best 
scans 
> from Portra BW, with T400CN a close second.
> 
> My experiences have all been with 120 film.
> 
> Another option is to shoot color film and convert to black-and-
white in 
> Photoshop. I've just started experimenting with this so I don't 
have 
> recommendations for or against.
> 
> Jeff Greer
> 
> At 01:42 AM 05/16/2002 +0000, you wrote:
> >Hello all,
> >     Does anyone have experiences good or bad with particular black
> >and white films.  I shoot 35mm and have been using Kodak's C-41
> >chromogenic BW film and my Canon 4000 dpi scanner.  I recently
> >purchased tanks, chemistry and equipment to begin developing true 
BW
> >film (Kodak or Ilford).  I was hoping to improve the contrast and
> >quality of my images.  Of course, after my purchase, I have now 
read
> >that the C-41 BW film perhaps scans better than true BW film.  Any
> >advice would be appreciated as I have not used any of my new
> >equipment or many rolls of film.  Thank you in advance.
> >                                 Scott Michener
> >
> >
> >
> >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and 
> >other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 
> >
> >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >- Include your full name with your message.
> >- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep 
> >them short.
> >- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> >"flames."
> >- Complete your Yahoo profile.
> >- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various 
> >resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor	
> 
> ADVERTISEMENT
>  
> 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=178320.2057063.3524709.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=17
050191
> 82:HM/A=979990/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/yahoo-79f> 	
>  
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=178320.2057063.3524709.1829184/D=egroupmai
> l/S=1705019182:HM/A=979990/rand=644478314> 	
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> 
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various

> resources on the homepage. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]