B/W Snapology

Russ

Well-known
Local time
11:36 PM
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
959
Location
In the Couve
Hello Fellow RF Snapper's;

I just thought I'd pass this on. About three years ago, I discovered that Fuji Neopan 400 negatives, print up rather well onto color paper from those "one hour" machines. It's a traditional silver based film, so you have to have it souped normally. But once you have the negatives, if you just want some small proof prints, they look quite good. That's how most of the B/W images on my funky little website were made. By scanning the proof prints on my flatbed. Souping the negs is a bit pricier than using the chromogenic (C-41 process) B/W film, but the Neopan has a much nicer tonal range and is a sharper film.

I've actually had some 8"x10" enlargements made onto the color paper, and they look real nice. It's no substitute for traditional B/W paper, but it's much faster and cheaper, if you aren't doing your own darkroom work. The attached image was scanned from one of these little "one hour" machine prints, on color paper. The local B/W lab soups my B/W films in X-Tol, and the results are very good. A great combination. For street shooting, I usually burn my Neopan 400 @ 320, through a deep yellow (#15) filter. The attached image was unfiltered during exposure, due to overcast skies and I couldn't afford the light loss due to the filter.

Russ
 
Russ, interesting tidbit on the Neopan. It's a great film and I have 2-3 rolls in the refrigerator that needs to be put through a camera soon.

Your image above which I've seen before and think is great seems to have a lot of digitial artifacts in the dark/black areas. I took it into PS and clipped the levels and this is what that looks like - the artifacts seems to be gone. Hope you apologize me tweaking your image - I'll delete it if you want.
 
Russ,

I played with your image in PhotoShop also and this is my interpretation, I hope you don't mind. I don't know if it makes a difference in appearance on the web or not.

Wayne
 
rsilfverberg said:
Russ, interesting tidbit on the Neopan. It's a great film and I have 2-3 rolls in the refrigerator that needs to be put through a camera soon.

Your image above which I've seen before and think is great seems to have a lot of digitial artifacts in the dark/black areas. I took it into PS and clipped the levels and this is what that looks like - the artifacts seems to be gone. Hope you apologize me tweaking your image - I'll delete it if you want.

Richard

Too dark and shadowless for my taste, but leave it in there. I like the dark printing by Eugene Smith, Salgado, etc. My scanning skills are horrendous. I know very little about scanning and digital in general. The actual prints, slides and negs are very sharp. Yeah, since discovering Neopan 400 & 1600, I haven't purchased any Kodak B/W in many years. The Ilford Delta films are very good too. Leaving in a few days for the Sierra's, Bodie, Mono Lake, etc, (used to live there) and I plan on burning quite a bit of Delta 100 & Kodak B/W infrared. Velvia 50 for the color work. It'll be nice to get back to some serious slow film & tripod work. It's been awhile. Probably tote the Oly RC or Canon GIII QL-17, for the quick grab shots. Which one do you recommend?

Russ
 
Wayne R. Scott said:
Russ,

I played with your image in PhotoShop also and this is my interpretation, I hope you don't mind. I don't know if it makes a difference in appearance on the web or not.

Wayne

Damn! I have to learn that Photo Shop stuff.......

Russ
 
Wayne R. Scott said:
Ok Russ, I played with this image for a couple of seconds also, I hope you don't mind.

Wayne

Wayne

How did you sharpen up the "gas pumps" picture? I just have a cheap flatbed scanner, and I scan this crap @ 400 dpi. But when I sharpen it, it gets a funky pixelated look. It's frustrating, because the prints are way sharp. The gas station snaps are very recent one's, on Neopan 400, printed with the one hour procedure that I stated in the first thread.

Thanks
Russ
 
Russ,

After I have the image in Photoshop I click on "Image" in the toolbar then in the drop down menu I click on "adjustments" under adjustments I click on auto levels to adjust photo to my liking, then I click on auto contrast. Next I open the "filter" drop down menu, and select "sharpen" from this drop down menu I select "unsharp mask". The settings I use are Amount 125%, Radius 1.25 pixels, Threshold 1 Levels. After applying these adjustments I click on image and open "image size" here I adjust Resolution to 72 PPI. For web usage 72 ppi is all that is needed as our monitors cannot tell the difference.

I hope this helps.

Wayne

P.S. You will probably notice that this method results in loss of shadow detail. There are ways of retaining it just like in custom printing the "old fashion way", but it is more involved and probably not worth it on a majority of our prints.
 
Last edited:
Wayne R. Scott said:
Russ,

After I have the image in Photoshop I click on "Image" in the toolbar then in the drop down menu I click on "adjustments" under adjustments I click on auto levels to adjust photo to my liking, then I click on auto contrast. Next I open the "filter" drop down menu, and select "sharpen" from this drop down menu I select "unsharp mask". The settings I use are Amount 125%, Radius 1.25 pixels, Threshold 1 Levels. After applying these adjustments I click on image and open "image size" here I adjust Resolution to 72 PPI. For web usage 72 ppi is all that is needed as our monitors cannot tell the difference.

I hope this helps.

Wayne

I'll have to try that. We have a PC and a MAC.

Thanks
Russ
 
O.K.,
I gotta ask, is she naked? It's a nasty scan (no pun intended), almost pictorial in nature. And what is she doing, I gotta know!!!!

Todd
 
Todd.Hanz said:
O.K.,
I gotta ask, is she naked? It's a nasty scan (no pun intended), almost pictorial in nature. And what is she doing, I gotta know!!!!

Todd

Yeah, the slide is much better. My scanning technique SUCKS! I used that old crappy Ektachrome 200 from the mid 80's, and pushed it two stops to (asa) 800 in order to break up the grain. Also added a diffusion filter. That's why her skin has that "glow" about it. I was going for the old impressionist, renaissance painterly look. The slide and print have less contrast and look great. Yes, she's naked and picking flower's. Back then, I hated Ektachrome, but it was great for pushing and tweaking for special affects.

Russ
 
Back
Top Bottom