B&W film is obselte if you're going to scan the negatives

[mh2000]

for scanning with my Coolscan V I am happier with chromatic b&w films than traditional b&w films. I thought about using cheap color film, but don't really worry about saving a few bucks... and like that I am still shooting b&w (even if it does have an orange mask)... maybe it's a psychological thing... By the time I get to the print my XP-2 Super and BW400CN images "look" like "real b&w." For shooting color film, if you are real nice to the person at Walgreens you can probably get them to flip the b&w switch for you color negs and get dirt cheap b&w proofs. Cheap developing and proofs are a huge convenience for me. Being able to use DigitalICE while scanning is also a huge convenience for me. (IE. I don't get the "all the inconveniences of film with the disadvantages of digital" comment). Latitude is great from any C41 film as well (+3 for film!).

 

[Avotius]

Scanning an image printed in the wet and then scanning the negative and doing it up on the computer is rarely productive. Two completely different ways of doing an image with far to many variables for most of us here to properly handle.

 

[mh2000]

hmmm... the scanner is optimized for color print film and all reviews give it top marks for color... I think you maybe doing something wrong. Mine scans perfectly fine. Silver b&w gives it *some* trouble though.

>>
Originally Posted by J J Kapsberger
The Coolscan handles slide film the best, BW negs second and C41 colour negs a distant third.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Even if this worked...I like developing at home. So I'm either going to pay an extra 3 bucks for Tri-X, or pay an extra 3 bucks for lab developing...and have to drive to the lab.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

hmmm... the scanner is optimized for color print film and all reviews give it top marks for color... I think you maybe doing something wrong. Mine scans perfectly fine. Silver b&w gives it *some* trouble though.

>>
Originally Posted by J J Kapsberger
The Coolscan handles slide film the best, BW negs second and C41 colour negs a distant third.

What software do you use and which general settings?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I think it would be great if someone were to scan both the negative and the print (wet printed) of a negative and compare them.

I have made wet prints and prints from scanned film of the same image. I can get the tonality damn near identical between them and often my scanned neg prints look better than my wet prints because i have more freedom to dodge and burn on the computer.

 

[mh2000]

I use both the Nikonscan and Vuescan (Vuescan mainly because I felt I need it for other scanners that I use like my Epson 4990). For color, Nikonscan works perfectly fine with the films I've fed it (mostly consumer Kodak films... but I mainly shoot b&w). In either I always scan at 14-bit depth, in Nikonscan mostly default settings work perfectly fine, in Vuescan pick the film and dink around with the tricky exposure settings. Nikonscan automatically reads the the mask and adjusts (I believe) and Vuescan needs a profile, but if it has one they are usually good.

>>[re: Coolscan V] What software do you use and which general settings?

 

[mh2000]

Don't agree at all! If you are making a good enough print to scan, then why are you scanning it???? (Or am I too old-school thinking that the print is the point?)

>>Anyway, wet printing is the only way to go for b&w film and then scanning the prints.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

My scanner scans:

B+W negs, great.
Slides, great.
Colour negs, cr@p.

As long as you don't suffer from the Pristine CL Camera Dork Bars, it's all good. :angel:

 

[Keith]

Pitxu's on the money ... transparencies scan beautifully and also convert to black and white far better than negatives. This is a black and white conversion of a fifteen year old Kodachrome slide.

 

[tmfabian]

Ralph Gibson scans wet prints. It is best way IMHO. for preview scans from negatives work fine and it is cheaper way to avoid contact print.

I agree...i would much rather scan a print than any neg.

 

[gb hill]

B&W film is obselte if you're going to scan the negatives Quote NH3

How is scanning b&w negs. compared to making wet prints going to cause b&w film to become obsolete? What exactally do you mean by obsolete? BTW you chose the wrong photo to state your POV. Try one that shows a more tonal range of gray scale. To me developing your own film is just fun. Whats wrong with that? You should try it. Oh...nice to see you shooting with a rangefinder instead of posting DSLR images.🙂

 

[wray]

I rather like color C-41 converted to b&w. However, I don't think it's going to make traditional b&w obsolete.

Fuji Superia 400 converted.

Tri-X at ISO 200 in D-76 1:1

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

I was waiting for your appearance, Ray!

Here is a B&W photograph, you tell me if it is silver B&W, C-41 B&W, or converted color negative... or maybe even digital! No, I would not do that!

 

[wray]

And neither would I. Well composed image by the way Lynn! That being said, it wouldn't happen to be traditional film shot with your new 28mm lens would it? You're really getting into the landscapes lately.

 

[amateriat]

Well...not quite the mother of hot-button photographic issues, but pretty close.

My reasons for shooting b/w film, including XP2 chromogenic, is that I thereby reserve the option to wet-print if and when I want to, even though (1) I don't have a wet darkroom, or the space for even a half-assed one, and (2) as a result, most everything gets scanned and digitally printed. You can't "do" b/w wet prints from color negs without a lot of technical gyrations, and even then you get second-tier results, at best, compared with working with b/w negs. Furthermore, "conversion" from b/w to color is yet another step in the process, another link in the chain. What's so terrific about that?

On scanning: I'm a bit surprised to hear of people having trouble scanning color neg film with current Nikon scanners. When I worked at a stock photo agency years back, I had to use a Nikon LS-1000, and fed it everything from Ektachrome Pro to Kodak T400CN, Supra 400/800, to Fuji Pro 400/800 (and then-experimental 1600), and didn't have to go nuts getting decent results. My current Minolta 5400 scans just about everything I throw at it without throwing fits; in fact, I can print scans from Kodak Portra and Fuji Pro 400 and 800 with scarcely any PS touching-up. But, I use VueScan most of the time for scanning chores (and Minolta's own scanning app from time to time, which isn't too bad in its own right), I have a system with two calibrated monitors, and print with dialed-in paper profiles. In this case, it doesn't hurt to sweat the small stuff.


- Barrett

 

[Chris101]

I just spent all day in a darkroom printing onto beautiful paper. Scanning has never made me this happy. It was sheer joy to get away from everything digital, even if only for one day.

 

[P. Lynn Miller]

Chris,

I just got my enlarger, so I am more than ready to retire my scanner.

 

[craygc]

This is an example of the same event shot over two consecutive years. The first 2007 is Delta 400 and HP5 only 2007 B&W Film, and the second in 2008 was converted Fuji Professional 400 2008 Fuji Pro 400.

Everything is scanned on a Nikon 4000 with Vuescan and obviously some post processing. But I always find a distinct difference between the two having a preference for real B&W. The actuance and tonality just doesnt match

 

[myoptic3]

I think you should buy a lot of Tri-X and spend a year or two shooting it. For starters.