Which 35mm B/W films best for scanning?

[briandaly]

I've just started scanning with my new 8800F scanner and am finding that C41 B/W film seems to scan much better than traditional B/W film - very little noise or grain.

I'm using the standard film folders that come with the scanner and scaning using Canon's software at 2400 dpi.

Are there any films which are particularly good for scanning ( or any I should avoid)?

I'm new to this, so any advice to shorten the learning curve would be appreciated.

Brian

 

[rxmd]

Switch off dust removal, the silver crystals in traditional B&W films foil the IR-based dust detection system.

 

[minoltist7]

Best for scanning are C-41 films: XP2, 400CN

 

[Keith]

The best scans I've had so far are with Neopan 400 slightly under exposed ... very little noise and very workable files!

When I used to shoot black and white chromogenic I always seemed to get poor shadow detail with a lot of noise!

 

[rxmd]

When I used to shoot black and white chromogenic I always seemed to get poor shadow detail with a lot of noise!

Like colour film, and unlike traditional B&W film, chromogenic B&W has more reserves in the highlights than in the shadows. Try overexposing it by a stop or two.

There's a reason why XP2 (rated at 400) is said to be usable up to 800, but down to 50. I normally shoot it at 200 to 250, i.e. one stop of overexposure vis-a-vis the manufacturer's specification.

Philipp

 

[Maxapple88]

I agree with Keith, I've had very good results with Neopan 400. Also with Tri-X and APX, not so much with HP5. I think turning off the dust-removal is most important though.

 

[titrisol]

I have no issues with BW film in the scanner, I understand the exaggeration of grain and admiti it as is.
IMHE the ones that are excellent and grain is not exaggerated are Delta100, fuji Acros, Efke 25, Rollei ATP
Then APX100 and Neopan 400
Then Fp4, Hp5, TriX

 

[Roger Hicks]

XP2.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Marsopa]

Not exactly the same question but related... For the scanning results what would be better: a little underexposure or a shorter development time (underdevelop?)?

Forgive the newbie question if it is the case... and the poor english.

 

[Roger Hicks]

With conventional (non-chromogenic) films, minimum exposure AND minimum development will give the smallest grain and maximum sharpness and the easiest-to-scan negs.

'Minimum' is defined as 'the least you are satisfied with'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Marsopa]

OK, I've just self-assigned a little homework, I've a bulk loader so I will shot some film at the box rate and under-exposing (400-600-800) and develop it at the box time, 90% and 80% of the box time... I just need a reference subject... If I found a grey card I'll do as systematic as I can, on the other hand I could select a subject with a medium to high contrast or range.... (Just thoughts, comments wellcome) and sorry for hijack the thread

 

[Roger Hicks]

OK, I've just self-assigned a little homework, I've a bulk loader so I will shot some film at the box rate and under-exposing (400-600-800) and develop it at the box time, 90% and 80% of the box time... I just need a reference subject... If I found a grey card I'll do as systematic as I can, on the other hand I could select a subject with a medium to high contrast or range.... (Just thoughts, comments wellcome) and sorry for hijack the thread

DON'T use a grey card (unless you habitually shoot pictorial images of grey cards) and don't cut the exposure that far: -1/3 and -2/3 stop should be enough. Remember that ISO speeds are based on minimum tolerable exposure, plus a small safety margin. Cutting dev times by -10 and -20% should be about right.

Don't be surprised if you're happiest with box speed and dev time, but do be surprised if you're happiest with 'Zone System Wet Printing Addict' figures of 50-200% extra exposure and 20-40% reduced exposure.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jja]

I've had the best luck with Fuji Acros. In my experience, once scanned it requires very little, if any, post-processing. Additionally, when I have printed it using traditional wet-printing, I have found that the final output was consistent with my scans/machine prints, which means you do not have to adjust development for scanning.

I also like Ilford FP4+.

 

[bigdog]

I have no problems scanning any B&W films but I give the credit to Silverfast software and a Minolta Dimage 5400 scanner. The chromogenics scan well and can use your scanners "ice" feature to clean up scratches. I have had good results with Kodak's chromogenic film.

The one film I find scans with virtually no need to adjust in Photoshop after scanning is EKFE 25. This film scans beautifully but I find it much less forgiving when exposing in camera.

The other B&W films I use (APX, TMAX3200and Tri-X) all seem to require some adjustments in contrast and brightness after scanning but I can get great results with all provided I expose the negative properly. I also use my scanner/software "grain disolver" feature. I do love the grain for certain shots and shoot TMAX3200 just for it's large grain.

I usually shoot my film "overexposed" 1/2 to one stop below box speed except for EKFE 25 (shot at box speed). EFKE 25 can build contrast very fast and is not so forgiving to overexposure. It has an ability to maintain very rich blacks when shot properly.

 

[aparat]

My first scanner was a Minolta 5400, and currently I am using Nikon 9000. Both scanners handle traditional BW really well. What seems to work best for me is film that is a bit flat, even slightly underdeveloped. For example, Tri-X exposed at EI200 and development shortened by 20%, developed in D76, DD-X, or Clayton F76. These developers will give you fine grain. Of course, if you prefer a gritty look, you may use other deveolpers, such as Rodinal, but coarse-grained film does not scan well in my experience. Chromogenic films scan very well, as other have mentioned, however they do not have the same "traditional" tonality as Tri-x or HP5+

aprat

 

[mcgrattan]

I've ahd good results with Neopan 400 [chromogenic and non-chromogenic versions] and Acros in the past.

Just this week, though, I got some fantastic scans from FP4 [in medium format, admittedly].

 

[kaiyen]

Hm. Why does Roger always beat me to the points I want to make? Oh right. He's written like books and stuff and knows 10000x more than I do. 🙂.

Chromogenic films also have the "benefit" of being dye-cloud based formations. This means you don't get grain aliasing...because there is no grain. You also don't have nearly the sharpness as with traditional film.

IMHO, properly exposed and developed t-grain and e-grain films (TMX and Delta 100 in particular) scan the best, have the lowest grain, and the highest sharpness I've seen. But they have a radically different H&D curve so...

 

[photophorous]

This is all subjective. The C-41 films will be easier to scan, probably require less editing, and also give the finest grain. But that means they don't look like real B&W film. That's fine if that's what you want, but I kinda like grain.

I disagree with underexposure as a means to improve scanning. I think the best negs to scan have low contrast and underexposure gives you black shadows. The best thing to do is expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights (like you should be doing anyway), except you might want to reign in the highlights a little more than usual by cutting back slightly on developing time.

I think developer / technique is much more important than the particular type of film. If you use a developer like D76, you will get better scans from using it straight, as opposed to diluted 1:1. Also, I find film developed in DD-X to scan better than film in D76. Film developed in Diafine is worse. These are just examples. Some developers (or different dilutions of the same developer) can give you smoother grain than others. The grain can be big and smooth, or small and gritty, so it's not just about the size of the grain. I think negs with smoother grain will give you a scan that looks more like a traditional print.

Paul

 

[Ronald_H]

Not that much experience with B/W, but a lot with scanning. I have been using three scanners capable of negative scanning so far (Epson Photo 1200, Minolta Dimage Dual II and Nikon Coolscan V).

I tend to agree that C-41 (Kodak CN400) scans best, with little, if any, PP needed. My beloved Tri-X - Diafine combo also scans surpisingly well. FP4+ in Diafine gives wonderful tonality for scans, although it can be grainy. HP5+ looks grainy and flat, but with a lot of shadow detail. I suspect I didn't rate it correctly though.

If you know your way around Photoshop etc. you can work curves and shadows and highlights to your heart's content. But it sure helps to get the ideal negs for your particular scanner. I only work with Diafine, but I am pretty confident how to rate my favoutite films to get good scans. YMMMV of course.

Good luck!

 

[Roger Hicks]

I disagree with underexposure as a means to improve scanning.

Dear Paul,

So do I. I'm advocating minimal exposure, not underexposure. The latter will, as you say, give empty shadows.

That's why I say that 'minimal' is the least that is acceptable to you, and why I said 'don't be surprised if you like box speed'.

All I'm suggesting is that you don't want overexposure -- to any degree at all.

Cheers,

R.