Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

Re: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-26 by Anthony Atkielski

A great deal depends on the scanner you intend to use.

----- Original Message ----- 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "B. Alex Pettit Jr." <a_pettit_jr@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 01:47
Subject: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?


> There seemed to be lots of information about Tmax, 
> TriX, and Porta400, but I am not sure I followed the 
> thread to a decisive conclustion ....
> 
> What is a good low grain ASA 100 ( or thereabout ) 
> film that will scan well. Is a low contrast film better 
> in that it is more compatible with the dynamic grey range 
> of a scanner ?
> Is there a film that is Not optimal for BW scanning ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex

RE: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by Austin Franklin

Hi Alex,

> What is a good low grain ASA 100 ( or thereabout )
> film that will scan well.

Plus-X or Delta 100.  Both are exceptional.

> Is a low contrast film better
> in that it is more compatible with the dynamic grey range
> of a scanner ?

Well, low relative to what?  Neither of those films will exceed the DENSITY
range of %99.99 of today's film scanners.

> Is there a film that is Not optimal for BW scanning ?

Don't know.

Regards,

Austin

Re: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by B. Alex Pettit Jr.

Thanks for the quick replies - I just made a small edit and reposted.

I have an older Polaroid SprintScan 45 scanner and plan 
to have a used Mamiya 645 quite soon. That pair coupled 
with the Epson 3000 and PiezoDriver should be a nice set. 

Now to work on my photographic 'skills' ....

Best,
Alex

Re: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by Kevin Gulstene

Alex-


> There seemed to be lots of information about Tmax,
> TriX, and Porta400, but I am not sure I followed the
> thread to a decisive conclustion ....

I'm not sure that there is a decisive conclusion.  I have used two film 
scanners.  An Nikon ls2000 and a polaroid sprintscan 120.  I had no 
problems scanning the chromogenic films ( XP2 and TCN400 is what I 
tried) on either scanner.


>
> What is a good low grain ASA 100 ( or thereabout )
> film that will scan well. Is a low contrast film better
> in that it is more compatible with the dynamic grey range
> of a scanner ?

I did not have a problem with the density range of any negative film on 
either scanner.  They both seemed to handle them well in that respect.

I did have better scans in terms of grain from the polaroid at 4000 spi 
than from the Nikon.  The nikon scans were 'lumpier' when scanning at 
2700 for films like fp4 and Plus-x.  This was not enough of a problem 
to get me to switch scanners though.  I switched to the ss120 so I 
could scan MF film.

> Is there a film that is Not optimal for BW scanning ?

There are no negative films that I know of that will not work with the 
current generation of film scanners (perhaps tech pan ?).

--
Kevin Gulstene
http://www.dockwalker.com

Re: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by Anthony Atkielski

Portra 400BW should scan well on just about anything.  The Portra films are
optimized for scanning, and as color negative films, their density range is
low, easing the load on the scanner.

----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "B. Alex Pettit Jr." <a_pettit_jr@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 02:03
Subject: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?


> There seemed to be lots of information about Tmax,
> TriX, and Porta400, but I am not sure I followed the
> thread to a decisive conclustion ....
>
> What is a good low grain ASA 100 ( or thereabout )
> film that will scan well. Is a low contrast film better
> in that it is more compatible with the dynamic grey range
> of a scanner ?
>
> How do PlusXPan 125 and TMax 100 compare for scanning ?
>
> ( there is a somewhat old fondness of PlusX as it was
> the film I used when very young in some little 120 format
> Kodak back in the very early 50s )

RE: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by Austin Franklin

> Portra 400BW should scan well on just about anything.  The Portra
> films are
> optimized for scanning, and as color negative films, their
> density range is
> low, easing the load on the scanner.

That all may be true, (and I agree with using color negative films over
slide films),
I must point out, that when you scan, your scanner has a particular density
range that it can capture, let's say 3.6, and the scanner will always
capture that range, no matter what the range of your film is.  The unused
range is simply thrown out, via your setpoints.

My suggestion to maximize your data capture is to use a film (I suggest
negative film, though it has a lower density range than slide, it has better
tonality...as in captures more tones) that is just below the density range
your scanner can handle, and learn to use it well.

Austin

Re: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by B. Alex Pettit Jr.

Hi Anthony,

I think I will try each the PlusX125, TMax100,
and Porta400. I agree, a lower contrast negative
is much less taxing on the abilities of a scanner.

Trying to scan some 100 year old glass plate 4x5s
on a Microtek X12USL flatbed was quite unsuccessful.

Thanks,
Alex

Re: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by B. Alex Pettit Jr.

Austin,
I am now a bit confused: you are recommending using color negative 
film for B&W scanning ?  Porta is BW but uses color chemistry, no ?
Thanks,
Alex


> That all may be true, (and I agree with using color negative films over
> slide films),
> I must point out, that when you scan, your scanner has a particular
density
> range that it can capture, let's say 3.6, and the scanner will always
> capture that range, no matter what the range of your film is.  The
unused
> range is simply thrown out, via your setpoints.
> 
> My suggestion to maximize your data capture is to use a film (I suggest
> negative film, though it has a lower density range than slide, it
has better
> tonality...as in captures more tones) that is just below the density
range
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> your scanner can handle, and learn to use it well.
> 
> Austin

RE: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by Austin Franklin

Hi Alex,

Sorry, I forgot this was a B&W list.  No, I didn't mean to recommend that
(though if you're shooting color, that is what I recommend though ;-),
but...fact is, the spectral response of Portra 400 is wider than that of
Tri-X, so you may in fact capture more of the visible tonal range with
Portra and do what you say!

Regards,

Austin
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Austin,
> I am now a bit confused: you are recommending using color negative
> film for B&W scanning ?  Porta is BW but uses color chemistry, no ?
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
>
> > That all may be true, (and I agree with using color negative films over
> > slide films),
> > I must point out, that when you scan, your scanner has a particular
> density
> > range that it can capture, let's say 3.6, and the scanner will always
> > capture that range, no matter what the range of your film is.  The
> unused
> > range is simply thrown out, via your setpoints.
> >
> > My suggestion to maximize your data capture is to use a film (I suggest
> > negative film, though it has a lower density range than slide, it
> has better
> > tonality...as in captures more tones) that is just below the density
> range
> > your scanner can handle, and learn to use it well.
> >
> > Austin

Re: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by Anthony Atkielski

Color negative film has the advantage of low density range; that is, the
range in density of the film between clear film and the darkest part of the
negative is quite small.  This makes it easy to scan.  It also limits the
tonal gradations visible on the film, but you can't have it both ways.

Conventional B&W film usually has a very broad density range, often so broad
that it exceeds the scanning capabilities of many scanners.  It also
provides extremely subtle tonal gradations (the flip side of having a broad
density range).  But that tonality doesn't help you if you can't cover the
density range of the film with your scanner, so if your scanner is not up to
the task, you may wish to try chromogenic B&W instead.

Of course, each roll is different, and a roll of low-contrast images can be
scanned by anything.  For high-contrast subjects, though, the chromogenic
film is handy.  Witness my night shots on Portra 400BW; the narrow density
range of color negative film allowed me to get some pretty extreme contrasts
recorded on film (actually, the scanner might have been able to handle these
even on conventional film, since it's a pretty good scanner, but it was
easier with Portra).

Austin recommends finding a film with a range that matches the scanner, and
I agree, although finding such a film (that is, on that is a fairly close
match) might be problematic in many cases.  Most films will probably be
relatively narrow, like Portra, and thus not nearly exhaust the scanner
capacity, or very broad, like Tech Pan, thereby easily blowing past the
scanner limits.

----- Original Message -----
From: "B. Alex Pettit Jr." <a_pettit_jr@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 02:52
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?


> Austin,
> I am now a bit confused: you are recommending using color negative
> film for B&W scanning ?  Porta is BW but uses color chemistry, no ?
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
>
> > That all may be true, (and I agree with using color negative films over
> > slide films),
> > I must point out, that when you scan, your scanner has a particular
> density
> > range that it can capture, let's say 3.6, and the scanner will always
> > capture that range, no matter what the range of your film is.  The
> unused
> > range is simply thrown out, via your setpoints.
> >
> > My suggestion to maximize your data capture is to use a film (I suggest
> > negative film, though it has a lower density range than slide, it
> has better
> > tonality...as in captures more tones) that is just below the density
> range
> > your scanner can handle, and learn to use it well.
> >
> > Austin
>
>
>
> 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
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> 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.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

RE: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by Austin Franklin

Anthony,

> Color negative film has the advantage of low density range; that is, the
> range in density of the film between clear film and the darkest
> part of the
> negative is quite small.

Quite small?  Not necessarily.  Portra has a density that goes up to 3.

> This makes it easy to scan.  It also limits the
> tonal gradations visible on the film, but you can't have it both ways.

No, that is absolutely wrong.  There are MORE tonal gradations (as in it has
a higher dynamic range) on negative film than there are on slide film, it's
just a property of the type of film and how it responds to light.  Slide
film has a higher DENSITY range, but NOT a higher DYNAMIC range.  Density
range and dynamic range of the film are two entirely different things.

> Conventional B&W film usually has a very broad density range,

What film is that?  Tri-X has in fact a narrow density range, like 1.8 to 2.

> often so broad
> that it exceeds the scanning capabilities of many scanners.

Nonsense.  Go look at the Kodak data sheet for Tri-X.  It gives a density
range of 2.0.

> It also
> provides extremely subtle tonal gradations (the flip side of
> having a broad
> density range).

No, as I said above, tonality (dynamic range) and density are two different
things.

Austin

Re: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by Anthony Atkielski

Austin writes:

> Quite small?  Not necessarily.  Portra has a density
> that goes up to 3.

Yeah, but the exposure range is large.  It's unusual to actually see that
kind of density on the negative, although I've seen it in specular
highlights and light sources sometimes.

> There are MORE tonal gradations (as in it has a higher
> dynamic range) on negative film than there are on slide
> film, it's just a property of the type of film and how
> it responds to light.

If you divide the change in density per change in exposure, you get the
tonal resolution.  Slide film changes a lot more in density for small
changes in exposure, so it shows better tonality in the midrange of
exposures.

> What film is that?  Tri-X has in fact a narrow density
> range, like 1.8 to 2.

Tri-X shows about 2; Tech Pan can exceed 4.0, although that wouldn't be very
good for pictorial use.  In Technidol it shows less than 2.0.

I may have been thinking of exposure range.  Typing too fast, I guess.

> Nonsense.  Go look at the Kodak data sheet for
> Tri-X.  It gives a density range of 2.0.

Correct, my mistake.

RE: [Digital BW] Optimal BW film for scanning ?

2003-05-27 by Austin Franklin

Hi Anthony,

> > There are MORE tonal gradations (as in it has a higher
> > dynamic range) on negative film than there are on slide
> > film, it's just a property of the type of film and how
> > it responds to light.
>
> If you divide the change in density per change in exposure, you get the
> tonal resolution.  Slide film changes a lot more in density for small
> changes in exposure, so it shows better tonality in the midrange of
> exposures.

It's dynamic range that determines the number of tones, not the density
range.  You can have a density range of .2-4, and have few discernable tones
(like when using a graphics film), but you can have a density range of .4 -
2.6 and have discernable tones of, say 4000 tones, vs a density range of
.2 - 3.2 with discernable tones of only 1000.

Unfortunately, this will open up the density range vs dynamic range
discussion, which I have neither the time, nor the energy to discuss right
now.

Regards,

Austin

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.