Digital BW, The Print

I shoot 35mm film and want to print in B/W. Typically, what would give 
the better B/W print in the end, shooting in color or in B/W? I 
understand that Digital ICE does not work when scanning in B/W so it 
would take some more time correcting dust in software. While I would 
like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
impossible. 
~Mary

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "m_misiaszek" 
<m_misiaszek@...> wrote:

Actually, these are two different questions: how to shoot and how to 
scan. 

I have no personal experience in this, so this is just my 2 cents. To 
my knowledge common wisdom is to shoot in black& white, to scan in 
color and use only the color channel that gives the best result. 

However, I know people that shoot in color because they like to be able 
to control the BW conversion color mixing in Photoshop (and not while 
shooting).

Good luck

Joost


>
> I shoot 35mm film and want to print in B/W. Typically, what would 
give 

> the better B/W print in the end, shooting in color or in B/W? I 
> understand that Digital ICE does not work when scanning in B/W so it 
> would take some more time correcting dust in software. While I would 
> like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> impossible. 
> ~Mary
>

Mary,

> I shoot 35mm film and want to print in B/W. 
> Typically, what would give the better B/W print in the end, 
> shooting in color or in B/W? ...

B&W film will usually give you a better image than color film 
converted to B&W.  Slide film has too little latitude to do a good 
job in many cases.  Color negative film has the latitude, but is not 
as sharp as a good silver grain B&W film such as Tmax 100.  Also, if 
you "filter" the image in Photoshop -- for example, using the red 
image as a substitute for a red filter -- the grain becomes much 
worse.  Color film depends on the multiple emulsions to smooth out 
the grain.  

It was this last factor that caused me to abandon my use of the best 
color negative film I could buy.  I'd thought it would be useful to 
do in-computer, multiple color filtering for B&W.  However, 
the "filtered" skies were unacceptably grainy.

Good luck with your B&W.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

>...common wisdom is to shoot in black& white, to scan in 
> color and use only the color channel that gives the best result. 
...

That probably depends on the scanner.  We used to scan in RGB in order 
to overcome the 8 bit limit of the old, cheap scanners.  However, a 
good scanner with high bit depth should be excellent in grayscale 
mode.  

However, with my Nikon 8000 I find I have to scan with the Nikon driver 
set to "positive" to avoid clipping the ends of the histogram.  I 
develop (Tech Pan) to a higher contrast than the driver assumes for 
negatives.  So, by telling the driver it's a "positive" (slide film, 
presumeably), even though I also set the driver to "grayscale," the 
driver gives me its full dynamic range capabilities.  I then adjust the 
histogram manually.  It works well.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

m_misiaszek wrote:
> I shoot 35mm film and want to print in B/W. Typically, what would give 
> the better B/W print in the end, shooting in color or in B/W? I 
> understand that Digital ICE does not work when scanning in B/W so it 
> would take some more time correcting dust in software. While I would 
> like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> impossible. 
> ~Mary
>   
It's a complex question. Largely it depends on what you want. Of course.

All other things being equal, B&W film for a given ISO will be sharper 
and less grainy than the color negative film counterpart. If you like 
enlargements bigger than, say, 10x or so, this might matter to you. The 
reason for this is in the construction of the film. Color film can have 
dozens of layers, and the graininess adds as the enlarger or scanner has 
to look though them all to capture the image. B&W film has far fewer layers.

But... in B&W the image is formed from metallic silver. This leads 
directly to the Callier Effect which effects both enlarger and scanner. 
In color films, positive or negative, the image is formed by translucent 
dyes. Color films have interesting features, but don't exhibit Callier 
Effect.

Then there's graininess, and perceived graininess. Graininess is a 
function of density. In areas of low density there is very little 
graininess, while areas of high density exhibit considerably more 
graininess. In trannies, this means that the graininess is in the 
shadows where it's hardest to see. In negative films, color and B&W, 
it's in the highlights where it's easier to see. Even though most modern 
negative films have lower graininess ratings then their similar ISO 
tranny counterparts, the tranny can be *perceived* to be less grainy -- 
a property of perception.

All of this (and more that I just can't be bothered to talk about) 
before you even consider scanning. And the various scanners all interact 
differently with the different films. Some seem to be optimized more for 
trannies. Some are more tolerant of negatives. The same is true for the 
software that drives said scanners.

In the end, and you knew it would come to this, you'll have to do the 
work yourself to find out which film works best for your style of 
photography, your equipment, and your workflow. No one can tell you 
which is actually going to be your favorite -- only you can make that call.

That said, if I want B&W prints, I always shoot B&W film. The extra 
sharpness and ability to capture detail matters to me. But clearly YMMV.
--
Bruce Watson

I'm just in the process of testing three films in 4x5: E100G (positive 
color), Portra 160NC (negative color) and TMX100 (bw).  I will scan the 
images and see what I like better, and I'll be happy to report the 
results.  I'll send the color film off to the lab tomorrow, and so I 
won't have any results until next week.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson <bwyg@...> wrote:
>
> m_misiaszek wrote:
> > I shoot 35mm film and want to print in B/W. Typically, what would give 
> > the better B/W print in the end, shooting in color or in B/W? I 
> > understand that Digital ICE does not work when scanning in B/W so it 
> > would take some more time correcting dust in software. While I would 
> > like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> > impossible. 
> > ~Mary
> >   
> It's a complex question. Largely it depends on what you want. Of course.
> 
> All other things being equal, B&W film for a given ISO will be sharper 
> and less grainy than the color negative film counterpart. If you like 
> enlargements bigger than, say, 10x or so, this might matter to you. The 
> reason for this is in the construction of the film. Color film can have 
> dozens of layers, and the graininess adds as the enlarger or scanner has 
> to look though them all to capture the image. B&W film has far fewer layers.
> 
> But... in B&W the image is formed from metallic silver. This leads 
> directly to the Callier Effect which effects both enlarger and scanner. 
> In color films, positive or negative, the image is formed by translucent 
> dyes. Color films have interesting features, but don't exhibit Callier 
> Effect.
> 
> Then there's graininess, and perceived graininess. Graininess is a 
> function of density. In areas of low density there is very little 
> graininess, while areas of high density exhibit considerably more 
> graininess. In trannies, this means that the graininess is in the 
> shadows where it's hardest to see. In negative films, color and B&W, 
> it's in the highlights where it's easier to see. Even though most modern 
> negative films have lower graininess ratings then their similar ISO 
> tranny counterparts, the tranny can be *perceived* to be less grainy -- 
> a property of perception.
> 
> All of this (and more that I just can't be bothered to talk about) 
> before you even consider scanning. And the various scanners all interact 
> differently with the different films. Some seem to be optimized more for 
> trannies. Some are more tolerant of negatives. The same is true for the 
> software that drives said scanners.
> 
> In the end, and you knew it would come to this, you'll have to do the 
> work yourself to find out which film works best for your style of 
> photography, your equipment, and your workflow. No one can tell you 
> which is actually going to be your favorite -- only you can make that call.
> 
> That said, if I want B&W prints, I always shoot B&W film. The extra 
> sharpness and ability to capture detail matters to me. But clearly YMMV.
> --
> Bruce Watson


Hi Bruce

I believe grainer hilites are a product of development.  Hilite areas tend to exhaust or have  
slower development activity, because of the large amount of exposure they receive, 
creating a larger "grain" where as shadow areas develop more fully.  this really holds true 
with "silver solvent" developers like D76.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "m_misiaszek" 
<m_misiaszek@...> wrote:
>
> I shoot 35mm film and want to print in B/W. Typically, what would give 
> the better B/W print in the end, shooting in color or in B/W? I 
> understand that Digital ICE does not work when scanning in B/W so it 
> would take some more time correcting dust in software. While I would 
> like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> impossible. 
> ~Mary
>

I too only print B&W.  But my  workflow is to shoot C41 B&W (mostly Ilford XP2) rather than 
color.  I scan, with ICE, in RGB then convert to Lab and toss the a and b channels.  I then 
convert to Grayscale and adjust the black and white points.  I gave up on silver film, partly 
because of the dust problem.  I also like XP2 because of its wide latitude.

The XP2 is developed by a reliable local shop which also provides a CD of jpegs (no prints), 
all for US $10.  The snaps at http://www.pbase.com/hlockwood/folio_2 were all 
processed this way.

Harry

fredfischer77 wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson <bwyg@...> wrote:
> Hi Bruce
>
> I believe grainier highlights are a product of development. Highlight areas tend to exhaust or have slower development activity, because of the large amount of exposure they receive, creating a larger "grain" where as shadow areas develop more fully. This really holds true 
> with "silver solvent" developers like D76.
>   

Interesting theory which holds some truth if you are talking about stand 
or semi-stand development where the point is to induce developer 
exhaustion in the highlights. For normal agitation however development 
doesn't exhaust anywhere on the film. That is actually the point of 
normal agitation -- to prevent developer exhaustion.

Grain clumps vary widely in size depending on exposure and subsequent 
development. One of the reasons for this is the 3D nature of the 
emulsion. More exposure means that photons transit deeper into the 
emulsion. When developed to metallic silver, the individual grains 
overlap forming a larger overall grain clump. If you want to see some 
photomicrograms, have a look here:

http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2006-03-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf

Mr. Vitale has been researching this and other film topics for decades. 
There's way more information here than most people want to know. But it 
all makes sense, and other researchers like Kodak's Grant Haist back him 
up.

I specifically refer you to page 17, figure 18-D which shows an 
excellent example of grain clumping.
--
Bruce Watson

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson <bwyg@...> wrote:
>
> fredfischer77 wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson <bwyg@> 
wrote:
> > Hi Bruce
> >
> > I believe grainier highlights are a product of development. Highlight areas tend to 
exhaust or have slower development activity, because of the large amount of exposure 
they receive, creating a larger "grain" where as shadow areas develop more fully. This 
really holds true 
> > with "silver solvent" developers like D76.
> >   
> 
> Interesting theory which holds some truth if you are talking about stand 
> or semi-stand development where the point is to induce developer 
> exhaustion in the highlights. For normal agitation however development 
> doesn't exhaust anywhere on the film. That is actually the point of 
> normal agitation -- to prevent developer exhaustion.
> 
> Grain clumps vary widely in size depending on exposure and subsequent 
> development. One of the reasons for this is the 3D nature of the 
> emulsion. More exposure means that photons transit deeper into the 
> emulsion. When developed to metallic silver, the individual grains 
> overlap forming a larger overall grain clump. If you want to see some 
> photomicrograms, have a look here:
> 
> http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2006-03-vitale-
filmgrain_resolution.pdf
> 
> Mr. Vitale has been researching this and other film topics for decades. 
> There's way more information here than most people want to know. But it 
> all makes sense, and other researchers like Kodak's Grant Haist back him 
> up.
> 
> I specifically refer you to page 17, figure 18-D which shows an 
> excellent example of grain clumping.
> --
> Bruce Watson
>


Continuous processing (Jobo, Wing-Lynch, roller transport) has somewhat the same 
"grainer highlight" effect as the soluble halides, which are released in development, act as 
restrainers, again slowing highlight development, and also the shorter development times 
of that type of process. Hand process, dip and dunk all have a "stand" time just for 
restraining reasons. Different B&W films have different amounts of iodides/bromides 
(restrainers) built into them as a control.
I have noticed that film developed in Rodinal seems to have fairly uniformed grain size 
regardless of exposure. Again this is a different developer (p-Aminophenol) that makes a 
very sharp, high acutance image. The high dilution (1:25, 1:50) exhaust quickly in 
highlight areas during the recommended stand times acting as restraint. 
I will refer you to "Photographic Materials and Processes"  page 273 (7.40) which has 4 
authors, and, although I could give a educated guess to who wrote what, the book is 
strong enough to stand on its own.

F Fischer

Well there certainly are a lot of variables to consider.

Paul said:
" I 
> develop (Tech Pan) to a higher contrast than the driver assumes for 
> negatives.  So, by telling the driver it's a "positive" (slide film, 
> presumeably), even though I also set the driver to "grayscale," the 
> driver gives me its full dynamic range capabilities.  I then adjust 
the 
> histogram manually.  It works well." 

Paul, sorry, but I am not sure what you mean by "developing". Do you 
mean *darkroom* development, or something to do with the scanning part.

Harry, you brought up the C41 B&W, essentially throwing in an entirely 
different option I had not even considered but one that sounds 
interesting as well.

Peter, yes, please do report back on the results of your test with the 
color slides/negs and B&W negs.

Thanks all for the comments and education. Much appreciated!
~Mary

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "m_misiaszek" 
<m_misiaszek@...> wrote:
>
...
> 
> Paul said:
> > " I develop (Tech Pan) to a higher contrast than the 
> > driver assumes for negatives.  So, by telling the driver 
> > it's a "positive" (slide film, presumeably), even though 
> > I also set the driver to "grayscale," the 
> > driver gives me its full dynamic range capabilities.  
> > I then adjust  the histogram manually.  It works well." 
> 
> Paul, sorry, but I am not sure what you mean by "developing". 
> Do you mean *darkroom* development, ...

Yes, I develop Technical Pan film myself.  That film's native 
characteristics are to be very high contrast.  As such, holding down 
the contrast has always been difficult and often results in blotchy, 
un-even development.  Allowing it to go to a higher contrast -- which 
works well for scanners designed for slide film -- allows medium 
format Tech Pan negatives to be essentially free from the problems we 
had with the film when we were printing with an enlarger.  

>... C41 B&W, ... option ...

Many love these films.  I used them in medium format for my hand-help 
B&W shooting.  I had a Fuji Zi with zoom and AF that really made a 
fine combo for fast action people shooting.  I switched that type of 
shooting to digital now.  For my landscape work I found that the C-41 
films in 6x6 or 645 were barely able to make what I'd consider a 
super-sharp, reasonably fine grain 16 x 20" enlargement.  Also, 
unlike silver films, as my filtered skies get darker, the grain 
increased.  These films are smoothest where there are lots of 
overlapping dye clouds.  They look just like the 400 ISO films they 
are in the shadows.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

While I would 
> > like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> > impossible. 
> > ~Mary
> >
> 
  I gave up on silver film, partly 
> because of the dust problem. 
> 
> Harry
>

It doesn't take much skill to eliminate "dust problems."
Use of a lab will inevitably result in scratches, no matter what
you're experiencing at the moment. 

1) use distilled water, not filtered, for the last change or two of
water (agitating...you do of course use a stainless reel because you
can't properly clean plastic). You can use relatively clean tap water
to mix chems and to do the initial rinses. 

2) use distilled water, not filtered, with 3 drops Photoflo per 500cc
for a few second dip before hanging.

3) hang to dry in a low dust area...in my case, that's a casually
cleaned bathroom, hanging from clips on coat hangers hung in turn on
the shower curtain rod.

Any small amount of dust that remains can be cloned out in
moments...in extreme cases (carelessness) it can be eliminated with
the lightest Photoshop dust/spot setting (which will conserve some
film character that XP2 and color neg films totally lack to begin
with). IMO if you resort to XP2/color neg you might as well go digital
because your detail resolution and tonal scale will be
better...assuming more than 10mp on APS-C and assuming you don't use
inexpensive zooms. 

An important trick is to avoid polyethlene negative sleeves.

Not ALL labs :)

Mark
http://www.ctphoto.com

On Aug 22, 2008, at 11:25 AM, djon43 wrote:

> Use of a lab will inevitably result in scratches, no matter what
> you're experiencing at the moment.



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

Mark, Your site's convincing.

Some opinions:

A good quality lab uses dip & dunk, as you do, unless they are small
enough (one person lab) to rely on SS reels. Rotary and continuous
equal bad quality IMO. 

Your 35mm silver process / scan prices are what anybody should expect
if they want quality results...lower price means the lab will die. 

I'd use you except that a) I'm now mostly digital and b) I like the
character of Rodinal (for Hexar AF). As well, I dislike your Senator
intensely :-)

John/Albuquerque


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia
<mark@...> wrote:

>
> Not ALL labs :)
> 
> Mark
> http://www.ctphoto.com
> 
> On Aug 22, 2008, at 11:25 AM, djon43 wrote:
> 
> > Use of a lab will inevitably result in scratches, no matter what
> > you're experiencing at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" <djon43@...> wrote:
>
>   While I would 
> > > like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> > > impossible. 
> > > ~Mary
> > >
> > 
>   I gave up on silver film, partly 
> > because of the dust problem. 
> > 
> > Harry
> >
> 
> It doesn't take much skill to eliminate "dust problems."
> Use of a lab will inevitably result in scratches, no matter what
> you're experiencing at the moment. 
> 
> 1) use distilled water, not filtered, for the last change or two of
> water (agitating...you do of course use a stainless reel because you
> can't properly clean plastic). You can use relatively clean tap water
> to mix chems and to do the initial rinses. 
> 
> 2) use distilled water, not filtered, with 3 drops Photoflo per 500cc
> for a few second dip before hanging.
> 
> 3) hang to dry in a low dust area...in my case, that's a casually
> cleaned bathroom, hanging from clips on coat hangers hung in turn on
> the shower curtain rod.
> 
> Any small amount of dust that remains can be cloned out in
> moments...in extreme cases (carelessness) it can be eliminated with
> the lightest Photoshop dust/spot setting (which will conserve some
> film character that XP2 and color neg films totally lack to begin
> with). IMO if you resort to XP2/color neg you might as well go digital
> because your detail resolution and tonal scale will be
> better...assuming more than 10mp on APS-C and assuming you don't use
> inexpensive zooms. 
> 
> An important trick is to avoid polyethlene negative sleeves.

Then I guess I lack the "skill to eliminate 'dust problems.'"

No Lab involved; I develop my own Ag-based films.  No scratch problems whatsoever.  SS 
tank?  Check.

Photoflo rinse?  Check.

Hang to dry in closed shower stall?  Check.

Distilled water rinse?  Uh oh.  Haven't tried that.  Since I have a roll of TMax in the tank, I'll 
give it a try.

Another problem I couldn't solve was film curl.  Created scanning problems in my Nikon 
4000 ED.  The C41 film I get from the local (pro) shop is dead flat.

I use PrintFile neg holders, and, indeed, they are polyethlene.  The manufacturer claims 
they are archival and better for not attracting dust.  What would you recommend as a 
alternative?

Might as well go digital?  Bite your tongue!  (As I fondle my M7.)

As for tonal scale, my feeling is that the printing workflow may have a greater impact on 
*my* images.  I use K7 piezo inks on (typically) HPR in an Epson 2400.  And since I don't 
do landscapes, perhaps I'm just not seeing the loss of tonal range.

(Also, I had originally mentioned the exposure latitude of XP2 which I find valuable in fast 
shooting situations and tricky lighting.)

Nonetheless, I do appreciate the comments/suggestions.  I realize there are some heavy 
hitters (ncluding djon43) here with vastly more experience than I have.

Harry

WOW, lots said but not a lot of info. Said tongue in cheek, but so much not
mentioned that really effects the question.

While some may think they have "the" process for making perfect negs, in
either color or B&W, I have found great stuff can come from many places. It
really comes down to matching your environment to make a good clean neg. 

 

Color or B&W neg? I haven't push the envelope on it yet, but Kodak did
introduce some C41 films meant for scanning. They looked good to me, but I
only have tried it under studio lights and I don't think that is a fair
comparison to many of my other negs. If you put the priority on little post
scanning a good color neg may be your best bet if you like the ICE control.
If your intent is B&W, your not really concerned about color crossover tat
might be a problem with way over or underexposed C41. 

 

Grain and sharpness can be a complicated issue when you are talking scans
and prints. What type of scanner do you plan to use? What is your post
production plan? In handling digital files to print, the whole process needs
to be taken into account; at least from where I sit. 

 

I find that Vue Scan allows me to get better B&W scans than Nikon Scan ( I
use a 9000). I didn't however, try to beat the beast by going positive with
my negatives. How many tests are you willing to run? You can scan in RGB and
look at the channels for noise, sharpness, etc. and decide what you have
handles each best. XP2 looked sharper than mushy TCN. I rather like Delta
100 or 400 negs that I have scanned. Tech Pan is also a dead film is it not?
So unless you have access to it, our process may not help you. I liked HC110
at 1:25 for contone images with it. What if any color stain is in your negs?


 

Heavy hitters don't always use a bat the same way you might either. Get to
know your tools and hit it out of the park in a way that makes you most
happy and damn what the rest of us say Harry. 

 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Harry
Lockwood
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 9:38 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Scan color or B/W better for B/W printing?

 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" <djon43@...> wrote:
>
> While I would 
> > > like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> > > impossible. 
> > > ~Mary
> > >
> > 
> I gave up on silver film, partly 
> > because of the dust problem. 
> > 
> > Harry
> >
> 
> It doesn't take much skill to eliminate "dust problems."
> Use of a lab will inevitably result in scratches, no matter what
> you're experiencing at the moment. 
> 
> 1) use distilled water, not filtered, for the last change or two of
> water (agitating...you do of course use a stainless reel because you
> can't properly clean plastic). You can use relatively clean tap water
> to mix chems and to do the initial rinses. 
> 
> 2) use distilled water, not filtered, with 3 drops Photoflo per 500cc
> for a few second dip before hanging.
> 
> 3) hang to dry in a low dust area...in my case, that's a casually
> cleaned bathroom, hanging from clips on coat hangers hung in turn on
> the shower curtain rod.
> 
> Any small amount of dust that remains can be cloned out in
> moments...in extreme cases (carelessness) it can be eliminated with
> the lightest Photoshop dust/spot setting (which will conserve some
> film character that XP2 and color neg films totally lack to begin
> with). IMO if you resort to XP2/color neg you might as well go digital
> because your detail resolution and tonal scale will be
> better...assuming more than 10mp on APS-C and assuming you don't use
> inexpensive zooms. 
> 
> An important trick is to avoid polyethlene negative sleeves.

Then I guess I lack the "skill to eliminate 'dust problems.'"

No Lab involved; I develop my own Ag-based films. No scratch problems
whatsoever. SS 
tank? Check.

Photoflo rinse? Check.

Hang to dry in closed shower stall? Check.

Distilled water rinse? Uh oh. Haven't tried that. Since I have a roll of
TMax in the tank, I'll 
give it a try.

Another problem I couldn't solve was film curl. Created scanning problems in
my Nikon 
4000 ED. The C41 film I get from the local (pro) shop is dead flat.

I use PrintFile neg holders, and, indeed, they are polyethlene. The
manufacturer claims 
they are archival and better for not attracting dust. What would you
recommend as a 
alternative?

Might as well go digital? Bite your tongue! (As I fondle my M7.)

As for tonal scale, my feeling is that the printing workflow may have a
greater impact on 
*my* images. I use K7 piezo inks on (typically) HPR in an Epson 2400. And
since I don't 
do landscapes, perhaps I'm just not seeing the loss of tonal range.

(Also, I had originally mentioned the exposure latitude of XP2 which I find
valuable in fast 
shooting situations and tricky lighting.)

Nonetheless, I do appreciate the comments/suggestions. I realize there are
some heavy 
hitters (ncluding djon43) here with vastly more experience than I have.

Harry

 



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

Well, There was some real info, sorry, missed this set of reply as they are
RE: and the other set was  [Digital B&W]..

 

I still go by, know your tools and use them to craft your image. Ones
persons grain is another persons sharpness ; )  

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
fredfischer77
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:02 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scan color or B/W better for B/W printing?

 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson <bwyg@...> wrote:
>
> fredfischer77 wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson <bwyg@> 
wrote:
> > Hi Bruce
> >
> > I believe grainier highlights are a product of development. Highlight
areas tend to 
exhaust or have slower development activity, because of the large amount of
exposure 
they receive, creating a larger "grain" where as shadow areas develop more
fully. This 
really holds true 
> > with "silver solvent" developers like D76.
> > 
> 
> Interesting theory which holds some truth if you are talking about stand 
> or semi-stand development where the point is to induce developer 
> exhaustion in the highlights. For normal agitation however development 
> doesn't exhaust anywhere on the film. That is actually the point of 
> normal agitation -- to prevent developer exhaustion.
> 
> Grain clumps vary widely in size depending on exposure and subsequent 
> development. One of the reasons for this is the 3D nature of the 
> emulsion. More exposure means that photons transit deeper into the 
> emulsion. When developed to metallic silver, the individual grains 
> overlap forming a larger overall grain clump. If you want to see some 
> photomicrograms, have a look here:
> 
> http://aic.stanford
<http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2006-03-vitale->
.edu/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2006-03-vitale-
filmgrain_resolution.pdf
> 
> Mr. Vitale has been researching this and other film topics for decades. 
> There's way more information here than most people want to know. But it 
> all makes sense, and other researchers like Kodak's Grant Haist back him 
> up.
> 
> I specifically refer you to page 17, figure 18-D which shows an 
> excellent example of grain clumping.
> --
> Bruce Watson
>

Continuous processing (Jobo, Wing-Lynch, roller transport) has somewhat the
same 
"grainer highlight" effect as the soluble halides, which are released in
development, act as 
restrainers, again slowing highlight development, and also the shorter
development times 
of that type of process. Hand process, dip and dunk all have a "stand" time
just for 
restraining reasons. Different B&W films have different amounts of
iodides/bromides 
(restrainers) built into them as a control.
I have noticed that film developed in Rodinal seems to have fairly uniformed
grain size 
regardless of exposure. Again this is a different developer (p-Aminophenol)
that makes a 
very sharp, high acutance image. The high dilution (1:25, 1:50) exhaust
quickly in 
highlight areas during the recommended stand times acting as restraint. 
I will refer you to "Photographic Materials and Processes" page 273 (7.40)
which has 4 
authors, and, although I could give a educated guess to who wrote what, the
book is 
strong enough to stand on its own.

F Fischer

 



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

I'm CERTAINLY not a "heavy hitter." However, I've printed forever in
darkrooms and struggled intensively with scanning/inkjet. 

I have found that no amount of filtration works as well as distilled
(not filtered) water (which I buy at pharmacies or grocery stores).
It's cheap. 

You have a Nikon 4000 so you know high resolution..I find that my
Nikon V exaggerates dirt which does escape fine filtration. In my
experience, it only takes a final rinse or two plus photoflo/distilled
dip to do the trick. For me, bottled distilled water is actually more
convenient than filtration.

The alternative to polyethylene is polyester, a hard, somewhat rigid
plastic. I prefer the "sidelock" polyester sleeves from Light
Impressions Direct because the film doesn't have to be dragged across
so much sleeve to be inserted and removed. 

I'm sure you're right that polyethylene is "archival" but that's not
the only issue IMO. 

I notice that my 30 year old Savage and Agfa glassines (translucent
paper) are still in good shape (though yellowing), the negs still scan
beautifully, with minimal spotting.





Sorry I said "skill." It's an issue of "technique." 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Lockwood"
<hflockwood@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@> wrote:
> >
> >   While I would 
> > > > like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> > > > impossible. 
> > > > ~Mary
> > > >
> > > 
> >   I gave up on silver film, partly 
> > > because of the dust problem. 
> > > 
> > > Harry
> > >
> > 
> > It doesn't take much skill to eliminate "dust problems."
> > Use of a lab will inevitably result in scratches, no matter what
> > you're experiencing at the moment. 
> > 
> > 1) use distilled water, not filtered, for the last change or two of
> > water (agitating...you do of course use a stainless reel because you
> > can't properly clean plastic). You can use relatively clean tap water
> > to mix chems and to do the initial rinses. 
> > 
> > 2) use distilled water, not filtered, with 3 drops Photoflo per 500cc
> > for a few second dip before hanging.
> > 
> > 3) hang to dry in a low dust area...in my case, that's a casually
> > cleaned bathroom, hanging from clips on coat hangers hung in turn on
> > the shower curtain rod.
> > 
> > Any small amount of dust that remains can be cloned out in
> > moments...in extreme cases (carelessness) it can be eliminated with
> > the lightest Photoshop dust/spot setting (which will conserve some
> > film character that XP2 and color neg films totally lack to begin
> > with). IMO if you resort to XP2/color neg you might as well go digital
> > because your detail resolution and tonal scale will be
> > better...assuming more than 10mp on APS-C and assuming you don't use
> > inexpensive zooms. 
> > 
> > An important trick is to avoid polyethlene negative sleeves.
> 
> Then I guess I lack the "skill to eliminate 'dust problems.'"
> 
> No Lab involved; I develop my own Ag-based films.  No scratch
problems whatsoever.  SS 
> tank?  Check.
> 
> Photoflo rinse?  Check.
> 
> Hang to dry in closed shower stall?  Check.
> 
> Distilled water rinse?  Uh oh.  Haven't tried that.  Since I have a
roll of TMax in the tank, I'll 
> give it a try.
> 
> Another problem I couldn't solve was film curl.  Created scanning
problems in my Nikon 
> 4000 ED.  The C41 film I get from the local (pro) shop is dead flat.
> 
> I use PrintFile neg holders, and, indeed, they are polyethlene.  The
manufacturer claims 
> they are archival and better for not attracting dust.  What would
you recommend as a 
> alternative?
> 
> Might as well go digital?  Bite your tongue!  (As I fondle my M7.)
> 
> As for tonal scale, my feeling is that the printing workflow may
have a greater impact on 
> *my* images.  I use K7 piezo inks on (typically) HPR in an Epson
2400.  And since I don't 
> do landscapes, perhaps I'm just not seeing the loss of tonal range.
> 
> (Also, I had originally mentioned the exposure latitude of XP2 which
I find valuable in fast 
> shooting situations and tricky lighting.)
> 
> Nonetheless, I do appreciate the comments/suggestions.  I realize
there are some heavy 

> hitters (ncluding djon43) here with vastly more experience than I have.
> 
> Harry
>

One other tip on the shower stall.

Remove the towels first (they're dust magnets) and run the shower with
hot water for a few minutes to create some steam (settles the dust).   

Then put the film in to dry

I shoot B&W and scan - dust is not a great problem if I do the above
and, in any event, it is pretty quick to remove in photoshop

I also like Tri-X grain

Cheers
Gareth

such a tough question to answer because there are so many, many 
variables involved.  no short answers here but one can easily make a 
case for each being better than the other based on final image 
quality criteria as well as other pros and cons of each method.  
highly dependent on equipment, tools, techniques, workflow, $$$, etc.

one gripe i have about digital is the quality of the blacks.  just 
not the same as film, IMHO.  i shoot 12-bit RAW and convert to 16-bit 
prophoto RGB (maybe i should use a narrower color gamut with a better 
tone curve?) but can never achieve the kind of Dmax you see in an 
analog process.  it's a tradeoff between high Dmax and posterization 
with digital.  maybe it's occurring on the printing side.  i have yet 
to do a full test to see where best to focus on.

so it's more than one question or even two questions as someone 
suggested.  there are three different and distinct processes here 
that require very different skillsets - camera, scanner, 
printer/paper/inks/software.  one can even make the case there are 
four - editing in photoshop.  you need to align planets to maximize 
quality but that may not be feasible for many reasons.

consider this though...
if done right (i.e., using right film, development, etc.), some 
scanners offer true 16-bit scanning.  this has a lot of advantages 
for the critical shadow areas as it has sixteen times the amount of 
tonal transitions as does 12-bit digital (new cameras today have 14-
bits so 16-bit scanning only offers four times as many tonal 
transitions there).

if you do the math for a 4000 dpi scanner, you get a lot more 
megapixels than even the full frame DSLRs.

if you do a wet scan, you can increase the resolution of the image 
(albeit at the cost of more noticeable grain & dust so film/developer 
choice is a critical part of the quality equation).

good scanning software is necessary and some offer multipass scanning 
to increase the dynamic range even more than what's on the original 
negative.

you can even create different scan versions based on exposure and 
then use specialized software to process the image for additional 
increased resolution.

but all this is a whole lotta work when digital is so much easier and 
cheaper.  the question comes down to - what are you willing to trade 
off for quality?

best to experiment before making the investmnet.  try out some film 
(both color & b+w) and process and scan it at a lab like 
http://www.dr5.com.  then print trying out both digital and analog in 
continuous tone and inkjet at a lab like 
http://www.dalmationlab.com.  then you can make a good informed 
decision based on your objectives and parameters.

also, to address your comment...
you can scan in RGB rather than grayscale to use ICE and convert it 
to b+w in photoshop.  try out the new silver efex pro plug-in for 15 
days to see if that's something that fits with your needs.  good for 
toned prints on color papers.

hope this helps.  good luck and please give us a followup report on 
what you decided on that works for you.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "m_misiaszek" 
<m_misiaszek@...> wrote:
>
> I shoot 35mm film and want to print in B/W. Typically, what would 
give 
> the better B/W print in the end, shooting in color or in B/W? I 
> understand that Digital ICE does not work when scanning in B/W so 
it 
> would take some more time correcting dust in software. While I 
would 

> like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> impossible. 
> ~Mary
>

Using a facility that you haven't used before does not always provide a good
test. Using any lab, big or small requires a line of communication so that
you both know what you are expecting and or giving. 

 

You can not use an RGB setting and ICE with B&W films across the board with
equal or even any satisfaction. T400 CN or it replacement, XP2 will work
better than a Tech Pan, Delta, etc.  

 

If you are seeing posterization in your B&W prints from scans, somebody is
doing something wrong. It can come from many steps, but if you see it only
through your output, you need to look at output profiles. 

 

Why shoot film instead of digital? Well one very big reason is that you can
make a print in your darkroom and in your ink jet. If you are skilled in the
darkroom, perhaps one that is better than a Photoshop manipulated file and
limited output devices. 

 

And there is no guaranty that a digital capture is dust free either.  

 

Testing, testing, testing and direct observation of others process will get
you closer. Direct observation includes how others are printing in
darkrooms, their film choices including how those are processed. Their
choices in how to scan, what software workflow they observe and why. What
output choices they have made including color sets, or dedicated B&W sets,
paper or canvas, etc

 

Several years back at Photo Expo members of this group got together and
shared work on ONE chosen file, perhaps it would be good to bring samples of
various workflows so that curious minds could hold several samples at once.

 

Eric   

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of c1asia
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 1:42 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Scan color or B/W better for B/W printing?

 

such a tough question to answer because there are so many, many 
variables involved. no short answers here but one can easily make a 
case for each being better than the other based on final image 
quality criteria as well as other pros and cons of each method. 
highly dependent on equipment, tools, techniques, workflow, $$$, etc.

one gripe i have about digital is the quality of the blacks. just 
not the same as film, IMHO. i shoot 12-bit RAW and convert to 16-bit 
prophoto RGB (maybe i should use a narrower color gamut with a better 
tone curve?) but can never achieve the kind of Dmax you see in an 
analog process. it's a tradeoff between high Dmax and posterization 
with digital. maybe it's occurring on the printing side. i have yet 
to do a full test to see where best to focus on.

so it's more than one question or even two questions as someone 
suggested. there are three different and distinct processes here 
that require very different skillsets - camera, scanner, 
printer/paper/inks/software. one can even make the case there are 
four - editing in photoshop. you need to align planets to maximize 
quality but that may not be feasible for many reasons.

consider this though...
if done right (i.e., using right film, development, etc.), some 
scanners offer true 16-bit scanning. this has a lot of advantages 
for the critical shadow areas as it has sixteen times the amount of 
tonal transitions as does 12-bit digital (new cameras today have 14-
bits so 16-bit scanning only offers four times as many tonal 
transitions there).

if you do the math for a 4000 dpi scanner, you get a lot more 
megapixels than even the full frame DSLRs.

if you do a wet scan, you can increase the resolution of the image 
(albeit at the cost of more noticeable grain & dust so film/developer 
choice is a critical part of the quality equation).

good scanning software is necessary and some offer multipass scanning 
to increase the dynamic range even more than what's on the original 
negative.

you can even create different scan versions based on exposure and 
then use specialized software to process the image for additional 
increased resolution.

but all this is a whole lotta work when digital is so much easier and 
cheaper. the question comes down to - what are you willing to trade 
off for quality?

best to experiment before making the investmnet. try out some film 
(both color & b+w) and process and scan it at a lab like 
http://www.dr5. <http://www.dr5.com.> com. then print trying out both
digital and analog in 
continuous tone and inkjet at a lab like 
http://www.dalmatio <http://www.dalmationlab.com.> nlab.com. then you can
make a good informed 
decision based on your objectives and parameters.

also, to address your comment...
you can scan in RGB rather than grayscale to use ICE and convert it 
to b+w in photoshop. try out the new silver efex pro plug-in for 15 
days to see if that's something that fits with your needs. good for 
toned prints on color papers.

hope this helps. good luck and please give us a followup report on 
what you decided on that works for you.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "m_misiaszek" 
<m_misiaszek@...> wrote:
>
> I shoot 35mm film and want to print in B/W. Typically, what would 
give 
> the better B/W print in the end, shooting in color or in B/W? I 
> understand that Digital ICE does not work when scanning in B/W so 
it 
> would take some more time correcting dust in software. While I 
would 
> like to think it would be dust free I know that is effectively 
> impossible. 
> ~Mary
>

 



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