B&W vs. Color

Only know about Ritz/Wolfe where the default is low resolution
(around 2 MPixel) and around 6 MPixel when you pay a bit more.
For the bigger scans, I can ask them to scan to tiff and also
to make sure that they don't crop to 8x10, but instead to
6x4 or 8x12.

Best,

Roland.
 
Let me be the first one here to say...for me there are only two colors, black and white. ;)

Todd
 
Tuolumne said:
Roland,
I meant the B&W file unfiltered and filtered, rather than the color and filtered B&W. That would show what filtered conversions can do best, I think.

/T
Click to expand...

OK, just quickly pulled something together. You see yellow in my post above.
Attached Blue, Green and Red.

Best,

Roland.
 
ferider said:
Only know about Ritz/Wolfe where the default is low resolution
(around 2 MPixel) and around 6 MPixel when you pay a bit more.
For the bigger scans, I can ask them to scan to tiff and also
to make sure that they don't crop to 8x10, but instead to
6x4 or 8x12.

Best,

Roland.
Click to expand...

Thats seems so low, because I was planning on getting the picture printed as a file from my computer instead of as a negative.

That way I can see what it would look like as color and black and white and choose before getting it blown up. And I could crop it first.

It takes 7.2 MegaPixels to get a 8x10 at 300dpi (The professional quality dpi for prints)
 
JeremyLangford said:
Thats seems so low, because I was planning on getting the picture printed as a file from my computer instead of as a negative.

That way I can see what it would look like as color and black and white and choose before getting it blown up. And I could crop it first.

It takes 7.2 MegaPixels to get a 8x10 at 300dpi (The professional quality dpi for prints)
Click to expand...

Yes but 250-260 dpi is not too bad ... I am sure other shops can do a better
job. When it's too low res for me, I scan myself. You can get a decent scanner
for below US 500 nowadays.

Best,

Roland.
 
JeremyLangford said:
One last question.

When getting negatives scanned, are they put on the cd as jpegs? Is there such thing as scanning to RAW?

Would WalMart or Walgreens scan at a good enough resolution to get me a 8x10 at 300dpi? (thats usually the biggest print I do.)?
Click to expand...


'this is one of the reasons you're better off scanning your own negatives, rather than going the one-hour lab scan route. Most one-hour labs scan at a lower resolution (which might initially be OK) and rarely give you a choice over the scanner settings. Therefore when scanning they'll pump up the saturation and sharpening. Most one hour labs are brutal to negatives, too. If you're sticking with shooting film, do yourself a favor and get a scanner and do it yourself.

I do color conversions fairly often, but I'm like Todd, I really prefer b&w film for b&w. NOTHING quite compares to well-exposed and souped roll of b&w film. I can make b&w from color, but can't seem to replicate the things I like about TriX, NP400, PlusX, or APX 100 with color film.

:)
 
Last edited:
RayPA said:
'this is one of the reasons you're better off scanning your own negatives, rather than going the on-hour lab scan route. Most one-hour labs scan at a lower resolution (which might initially be OK) and rarely give you a choice over the scanner settings. Therefore when scanning they'll pump up the saturation and sharpening. Most one hour labs are brutal to negatives, too. If you're sticking with shooting film, do yourself a favor and get a scanner and do it yourself.

I do color conversions fairly often, but I'm like Todd, I really prefer b&w film for b&w. NOTHING quite compares to well-exposed and souped roll of b&w film. I can make b&w from color, but can't seem to replicate the things I like about TriX, NP400, PlusX, or APX 100 with color film.

:)
Click to expand...

Has anyone tried the DxO Film Pack to simulate film on digital files? If so, how did you like it?

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_filmpack


/T
 
RayPA said:
Most one hour labs are brutal to negatives, too.
Click to expand...


And this includes a customary line from the begining to the end of the neg, due to dirt at their scanner negative try.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
ferider said:
OK, just quickly pulled something together. You see yellow in my post above.
Attached Blue, Green and Red.

Best,

Roland.
Click to expand...


Hi Roland,

in my most humbly way, what I see here, including the yellow one not repeated here, is a huge difference giving the upper hand to the color image. The converted ones look as if you had picked a lower quality camera or lens.

Put it bluntly, according to me, you have here second class black and white

Sorry. But this is what i really see.

Cheers,
Ruben



attachment.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Like I told you, Ruben, she picked the yellow version. :)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - but I would never make your statement
based on a 400x600, 8bit web-based picture, that looks different on my
monitor than on yours, with highest likelyhood.

Prints are a different matter, of course.

It's a bit like saying your class A, > 1000 US stereo amplifier produces lousy
sound on the telephone speaker.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
The B&W conversions look fine on my monitor. All different but certainly not what I would call lower quality than the color. And as Roland said, they are small 8-bit Web images anyway.

/T
 
Here it is with a magenta-blue filter, from Picasa's spectrum of infinitely variable color filters. I actually like this one best of all. YMMV.

/T
 

Attachments

  • Wray photo.jpg
    Wray photo.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 0
Yeah, I had done a magenta one, just didn't post it since red, green and yellow are fairly common filters. Actually, I would go with the yellow and play with levels and curves a bit! :D
 
Jeremy,

How good are you with computers? If you are pretty good, look for a Minolta Scan Elite F-2900, or Nikon Super coolscan LS 2000 and get a SCSI card installed on your machine. If you are not good with computer hardware, look for a Minolta Scan Elite 2, which uses USB. The "ScanElite" have digital ICE. All Nikon scanners (after the LS 10 and LS 1000) should have ICE, but check before you buy.

I shoot with both color and BW negs. ICE will NOT work with silver halide negatives. The silver reflects the infrared and it gets all weird. When scanning BW negatives I turn off ICE. Why do I shoot BW when I could covert in Photoshop? One less step and it costs less for me to develop then Walgreens. And, most importantly, I enjoy it.

As for Walgreens or Walmart scans . . . go when they are not busy and when someone works there who knows what they are doing. Ask him if he could do you a favor and scan at the highest resolution. The worst he could say is no.
 
BTW, the above mentioned scanners are old (1999/2000). With a F2900, you would get and optical resolution that would enable you to print a 8 1/2 by 12 at a little over 300dpi.

The F-2900 will sell for about $100 or less on Ebay.

If the choice is scanner resolution or ICE, pick ICE over resolution. It is magical - especially when you see how often negatives get mishandled by people developing them.
 
The only problem with ICE is that it takes 10x longer to scan with it. Really! I don't use it unless I absolutely have to. But when you have to - it's wonderful.

/T
 
I scan my black and white (tri-x) as a color negative and then desaturate. Doing it this way gives you a better range of tone and color I think. Color scans that are converted are fine but I really like the look of true b&w.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom