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

Since the OP is begging for strong opinions I think C-41 film sucks for black and white. If I were going to scan that muddy crap I'd just shoot digital and save myself the effort. To me the look of it has no bite and I hate the tonality. I'd rather encode what I like in the film I shoot and spend less time in post production. I like real grain.

I actually prefer scanning a real black and white negative and printing digitally to printing in the darkroom. For me the results equal or surpass what I get from the darkroom as far as control goes. Yes, a heavy weight fiber paper looks better but I can match my vision of the print better with a computer. I prefer bending curves and seeing the result in real time to counting exposure seconds and waiting 3 minutes to see the results.

This comes after years of wet darkroom printing. Too much effort and sitting in a dark room inhaling chemicals for my taste. Just for an experiment, after probably 2 or 3 years of not printing in the wet darkroom, I went back and made a print recently thinking I was missing something and came to the conclusion that not only were my results better scanning negs and printing on my Epson 1480 with black only ink, it too about a 1/10th the time.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Same here. With really good paper like Hannemulhe Bayrta I can get equal tonality and more reliable surface texturing than with my wet prints. Also the ever expanding list of fine art papers means lots of variety to work with. It's also nice to avoid yellow fingernails from Dektol!

My experience has been that driver software is the difference between good and bad black and white scanning. Vuescan saved my scanner from the trash can.
 
Dan, with all due respect, spend a fraction of effort and money on wet printing before making any claim to digital preference. There honestly isn't a scanner made that can capture what film has to offer, much less an inkjet printer. The paper texture may hide the loss of detail, but then you could probably spread Liquid Light on newsprint and still beat it.

That said, there is definitely a place for digital workflows. I am not saying nobody should do things differenlty, just that scanning and inkjet printing is a pale substitute, an approximation. On the other hand, pushed Tri-X is no less valid than Pan F shot at box speed. As long as you get what you are trying to get, it's all good.
 
40oz said:
Dan, with all due respect, spend a fraction of effort and money on wet printing before making any claim to digital preference. There honestly isn't a scanner made that can capture what film has to offer, much less an inkjet printer. The paper texture may hide the loss of detail, but then you could probably spread Liquid Light on newsprint and still beat it.

That said, there is definitely a place for digital workflows. I am not saying nobody should do things differenlty, just that scanning and inkjet printing is a pale substitute, an approximation. On the other hand, pushed Tri-X is no less valid than Pan F shot at box speed. As long as you get what you are trying to get, it's all good.
Click to expand...

Dan indicated that he had done wet prints. I know I have. Thousands of them over a decade. I was a very good printer. If you have a good scanner (that is to say NOT a flatbed) and a good printer with good RIP software (I use Imageprint and it makes a HUGE difference in BW print quality with my Epson printer). then you can make digital prints that equal and even exceed what you got in the darkroom. I suspect you've done a lot of wet printing and have a prejudice against digital without having really tried it, or haven't taken the time to learn it (its a steep learning curve).
 
Nh3 said:
Perhaps I should have a put a question mark in the end of the title. But then I always expect better of people and think that they will get passed the title and read the message but once again humanity disappoints me. 🙂
QUOTE]

Ah, too bad your first time on the internet did not meet your expectations. A little advice: Expect nothing from anyone in an internet group and you will never be disappointed and will often be delighted. If you stick around here long enough you will find the vast majority of RFF posters, including many that have disappointed you, are a terrific group willing to share tips, tricks, methods and lots of knowledge.

Good luck,

Bob
Click to expand...
 
Color neg film and C-41 b/w gives you the ability to use digital ICE, which is a big thing if you are doing a lot of scanning. But the look of converting C-41 color to b/w is pretty unappealing. You also lose the ability to use contrast filters at shooting time and to push or pull to account for same.
 
In Australia, it costs me about $10 AUD/C41 roll. Developing black & white at home is about $3 AUD, not including the crafty feeling of doing it yourself (with push/pull and chemical mixing fun)... so while I may be still scanning, I'd be stupid to opt for even the cheapest C41 available...
 
Before I left my last job as a teacher, I was able to purchase all of the left over B&W film from the art teacher. Super affordable and it scans well. I do understand the pull of affordability though. Whatever makes you happy.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Dan indicated that he had done wet prints. I know I have. Thousands of them over a decade. I was a very good printer. If you have a good scanner (that is to say NOT a flatbed) and a good printer with good RIP software (I use Imageprint and it makes a HUGE difference in BW print quality with my Epson printer). then you can make digital prints that equal and even exceed what you got in the darkroom. I suspect you've done a lot of wet printing and have a prejudice against digital without having really tried it, or haven't taken the time to learn it (its a steep learning curve).
Click to expand...


I simply was suggesting that the time and cash outlay required to deliver what you describe via scanning and printing is not what most would consider free and easy. If one is going to put the effort in, one might as well be getting a superior product out of it, I think.

I've spent a fair amount of time both wet printing and photoshopping, and there is just no way I could ever agree that inkjet prints are anywhere close to as good as a wet print in all the ways that matter. I've also looked at numerous inkjet prints in galleries, and far more silver prints on display, and it's really no contest IMHO. I don't know what you were using for an enlarging lens, but I just cannot fathom how one could put two prints side by side and not see an obvious difference. Personal preference is one thing, but objectively, wet prints are just superior in detail, tone, and range. Of course, YMMV 🙂
 
Nh3 said:
This is an experiment and I'm not saying its an absolute fact. Find out for yourself.

To me photography is about experimenting.
Click to expand...

To me, experimenting in photography is best done in the confines of my home-based darkroom, not in the corner photo lab at Walgreens. Plus, they won't touch large format.🙂

~Joe
 
MartinP said:
Am I the only person who likes printing on silver-paper in the dark ?!
😕
Click to expand...

Not hardly Martin. It's all those lazy folks who don't want to spend the time on their feet that love the 'couch potato darkroom'. 😀

So much of digital printing seems to be about trying to emulate silver prints, like 'instant' oatmeal trying to emulate regular oatmeal.
 
Last edited:
I'm fairly early on in my adventures with film. I have been keen to see how color film scans handle digital black and white conversions as compared to straight BW film scans, with a view to printing digitally.

The discussion is very interesting and it seems that a converted color scan just can't compare with a nice true black and white film image.

If I was to select a color film, with the intention of converting a good proportion of them to black and white, which color film would you suggest?
 
i dont care what camera this was taken with, what film stock was used, ei, f-stop, handheld or tripod, printed on a pc or done by hand in someone's bathroom; this is a lovely lovely photograph.

very inspiring, keith. well done.

- chris



Keith said:
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.

IMG_0010.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Nice to see the photo again Keith.

But I am in some kind of time warp. I am seeing most of the responses in this thread with a date of 8-15-2008.

Help! Scotty, get me out! 😀 😀
 
If you try to develop c41 film in bw chemistry you'll get lots of experiment and fun. But it's just a way of getting some use out of obsolete colour film. Any bw film is way better.
I´ve given up trying to get c41 film developed as colour because it usually came back from the lab soiled and fingerprinted by the operator.
😎
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom