Best 35mm B&W Negative film for overall user friendliness & Digital Scanning Q's???

[LeicaVirgin1]

Best 35mm B&W Negative film for overall user friendliness & Digital Scanning Q's???

Dear Tom-



This is a multiple item question(s). I admire your work from afar. What 35mm film would you recommend as the BEST user film for my Leica "M"'s? In terms of ISO/Speed, Sharpness, self-development with D-76, ID-11, or DD-X, Traditional "wet" printing, digital scanning, etc.?

I just want to turn to one film for my B&W and leave it at that unless something requires "special" needs? Also, what negative developer, & paper developer do you recommend for most work in a traditional darkroom set-up?

In addition, what is better a digital print from a pro-sumer scanner & pro printer, (Epson V750 PRO Scanner & a Epson 4880 Pro-Digital Photo printer), or traditional "wet" printing, (in my case I have a Leitz/leica V35-AF, Leitz 40mm Enlarging lens f2.8, and a Rodenstock 50mm f2.8 APO enlarging lens)? I have heard that "traditional wet printing" is superior to digital printing & scanning because of the "layers" that the light source projects through into the printing paper. Any answers on these?

Best,

LV1

 

[Tom A]

I am a great believer of Tri X as an universal film. It can be developed in just about anything and though it is not the "best" in all classes - it can do a good job of just about anything and can handle up to 16x20 or even 2ftx 3ft prints with some care. This said, today I would probably consider Kodak's Tmax 2-400 as one of the best bl/w films ever. The grain rivals any 100 asa films and Kodak managed to get a full tonal range out of it. The old Tmax was prone to either block shadows or fry high lights.
The Tmax 2-400 is not as forgiving as the Tri X or HP5 - some care with exposures and a bit critical of processing - but if you stick with it as the only film, you will soon get the handle on it. It does not have the flexibility as to pushing as Tri X. but I find that 400 asa will do me for most of my shooting anyway - if I need more speed, I just go to Neopan 1600 or something like that.
As for printing - I have very limited experience with inkjet/digital printing so I will defer that to someone who knows about it. When I print, it is wet darkroom. For quick stuff, usually Ilfords Multigrade RC paper - but when I really want the best, it is fiber paper and custom made developers and if I get two or three prints out in a day - I am doing well,
Inkjet/Digital printing in bl/w has come a long way in the last couple of years - but my personal feeling is that it still cant beat the "depth" you get with fiber paper. It somehow looks a bit bland and "flat". Some of the new papers and inksets do look good - but I find that you almost have to shoot for that process when it comes to contrast and "darkness".
I hope other people who know more about this will weigh in here. I am willing to learn about it - and maybe break down and get a printer too!

 

[Keith]

Tri-X is exactly as Tom says IMO ... perfect all round. In my experience Neopan 400 scans better though! 🙂

 

[mh2000]

For scanning I think TMX and TMY are best, BW400CN is very close and much more convenient. TX is great for wet lab work.

For printing, I think the HP dyebased b&w gives a richness and depth of blacks similar to traditional prints. Epson pigment b&w can be beautiful as well, it is more its own medium though and lacks the depth and traditional look IMO... have to decide what you are after and go for that...

 

[mh2000]

PS I just put my HP prints against my friend's RC prints and I much prefer the depth and tonality of my prints... I do love my old glazed FB traditional prints... but even then, the control I get from scans and inkjet prints make up for the differences... I don't ever see myself going in the darkroom to print again... developing film yes, enlarging, no.

 

[momus1]

Tri-X for not so bright light and Ilford FP4 for when you have lots of light. If you don't know what you're doing, stick w/ a film scanner and inkjet prints for your B&W. If you know what you're doing, or are willing to learn, a darkroom print on fiber paper is much nicer than anything else. After years of scanning my negs and printing them on *#@*&^% Epson printers I have sold them and am setting up a darkroom. Should have done it from the beginning. Yes, it will be a lot slower. It will be a lot better too. Others may feel differently, but they won't be hanging their prints on my walls.

 

[mfogiel]

I think all the above answers are right, however for a beginner I would just go with the Tri-X and 2 developers: D76 (ID11) for the ISO 200-400 and Diafine for the ISO 800-1600 range. One of the interesting aspects of developing in Diafine, is that the negs result quite flat and therefore tend to be easy to scan even if you shot some contrasty scenes.
As to the printing, I'd stick to the dry process, but you might want to try wet printing, just to know the difference. In any case, to get a real quality out of your negs, a V750 is not enough, you have to get a good dedicated film scanner, so this will up the stakes a bit.

 

[dfoo]

For a printer I would recommend an Epson 1400 with a dedicated black and white inkset. See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/ for some details. Printed on good matte paper, the prints are beautiful.

 

[kully]

Ilford XP2 Super, scans very very well and convenient too.

 

[mh2000]

GROAN! I went this route for a number of years... do a search on "clog from hell" on the yahoo b&w printing group for the real story. (Though I do agree that beautiful prints can be made... though I still prefer HP b&w).

For a printer I would recommend an Epson 1400 with a dedicated black and white inkset. See http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/ for some details. Printed on good matte paper, the prints are beautiful.

 

[capitalK]

I haven't wet printed from it yet, but I spent a weekend shooting 9 rolls of TRI-X every which way a few weeks back. From ISO 64 (mistake, but it worked out well) to 1600 and everything in between. Previously I was using HP5 but shooting TRI-X has been a really good experience.

 

[capitalK]

Because I know someone is going to say all of this...

This is a crappy scan, I don't have a 100% crop uploaded, it's too small to get any useful information from and all that BUT this is a 64 ISO shot that I thought looked nice. I was shooting Kodachrome and forgot to change my ISO dial. I went from inside with K64 to outside night time with the TRI-X so I didn't balk at what my meter was telling me.

I souped it semi-stand in Rodinal 1+100 for 60 minutes.

 

[furcafe]

Agree w/this. If you want to do digital prints that rival good wet prints, you'll need the best files possible, which means a dedicated film scanner (especially for 35mm). The Nikons are expensive when new, but you can find good deals on used Minoltas, Canons, & Nikons on eBay, etc.

. . . to get a real quality out of your negs, a V750 is not enough, you have to get a good dedicated film scanner, so this will up the stakes a bit.

 

[dfoo]

GROAN! I went this route for a number of years... do a search on "clog from hell" on the yahoo b&w printing group for the real story. (Though I do agree that beautiful prints can be made... though I still prefer HP b&w).

I'll take a look when the yahoo server doesn't suck 🙁 I've made hundreds of prints in the last 4 months and haven't had a problem... yet! . hope it stays that way! I haven't seen the HP b&w prints, so I can't say anything about their quality. Comparing the quality of the epson prints with darkroom prints that I've made, there is no question. The epson prints are better. However, that could be due to the quality of my old (now destroyed) crappy enlarger. I've since bought a new enlarger, so I'll report back later 🙂

 

[dfoo]

Agree w/this. If you want to do digital prints that rival good wet prints, you'll need the best files possible, which means a dedicated film scanner (especially for 35mm). The Nikons are expensive when new, but you can find good deals on used Minoltas, Canons, & Nikons on eBay, etc.

A user here was selling a coolscan 4000 for $450 recently!

 

[LeicaVirgin1]

Thank you Tom and all the rest (& you know eho you are)!

Thank you Tom and all the rest (& you know eho you are)!

Thank you for your kind responses and grand advise. I will invest in a good quality scanner like a Nikon 5000, or 9000.

I can't wait to get into the "wet" darkroom.

Best,

LV1

 

[mpve]

Ilford XP2 Super, scans very very well and convenient too.

Fully agree! And besides that: any ISO you use for this film between 100 and 800 will scan great on the Nikon Coolscan 5000 !

 

[Roger Hicks]

Another vote for XP2 Super. Because it's a dye image (no silver) it scans sharper and less grainy. Note however that while overexposure gives you finer 'grain' it also reduces sharpness detectably. Conversely underexposure gives you coarser 'grain' but more sharpness. The optimum for grain/sharpness/tonality is a matter of personal choice but I much prefer at least 250 (contrasty light) and at most 500 (flat light).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I haven't found any films that really scan badly with my Nikon 8000ED, but I will mention that C-41 films like XP2 and T-400CN can be used with digital ICE if your scanner has it. Regular BW films don't work with ICE. That said, I like the tonality of traditional films better. I've been liking the new Tmax 400 and Fuji Acros a lot lately.

 

[Bike Tourist]

With due regard to tradition, I like BW400CN for the convenience of C41 processing for darkroomless me and for scanning, using digital ice.