Best b&w or color 400 for dedicated scanners

S

sf

Veteran
Local time
5:44 AM
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
2,825
I'm getting ready to nail down a film preference - and one to use for my hardcore shooting test of the RF645's three lenses.

I've scanned lots from Kodak, Fuji, Ilford. . but not from fotokemika, Bergger, or any of the Arista films. I'm llooking at buying a roll of IR film to shoot and see how it scans.

My current favorites for scanning are the Fuji Neopan 400 and the Fuji NPH 400. I like the grain that comes along with hp5 and some others, and have read that Arista EDU ultra is grainy. How is it?

What are the best 50 - 100 ISO films for scanning? What is the highest resolution film that I can get developed without special costs?

What are your favorite 400 ISO films for scanning?
 
If you're referring to XP2, yes of course you can use ICE (it's C41 & thus has no silver grains). Same goes for Kodak's BW400CN.

My general recommendation re: scanning is that the scanners that I've used (Minolta) tend to do better w/thinner negs, which is usually the opposite of what you want when using an enlarger for wet prints. As far as grain goes, none of the emulsions I'm familiar with look any grainier when scanned than when enlarged, but that may depend on what kind of scanner you have (I've heard that the LED-based scanners like the Nikons have more trouble w/B&W than the fluorescent-based Minoltas, etc.).

shutterflower said:
Can you apply ICE to it?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
furcafe said:
If you're referring to XP2, yes of course you can use ICE (it's C41 & thus has no silver grains).
Click to expand...

I've never used it or even seen it before. I had heard about it's C41ness. I should pick some up.

How about Silver films? Are they less scannable than C41 for any reason?
 
I get good result with Tri-X (exposed at 320, but normal development),
Ilford Delta 100, and Kodak UC 400 for color.
Generally speaking, Fuji comes out good too.

Colors are a bit funny when I scan slides tho.

My scanner is a Konica Minolta Elite 5400II, using the bundled software.
 
the scanner matters, for sure. I'm using a Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro - fantastic scanner - and it produces different looking results than the Epson 3170 I used to use. It likes different films than the Epson did. That's why I say "dedicated scanners" and not just "Scanners".
 
furcafe said:
My general recommendation re: scanning is that the scanners that I've used (Minolta) tend to do better w/thinner negs, which is usually the opposite of what you want when using an enlarger for wet prints.
Click to expand...

so what films are particularly thin?

and one other thing : since C41 is developed a certain way - can I expect greater consistency from roll to roll coming from the lab? I find some serious inconsistencies lately - from lab to lab as well as roll to roll from one lab.
 
I have a Scan Multi Pro, too. Sadly, I had to send it off yesterday for repair as it started sputtering after 2 years of pretty heavy use. In the meantime, I picked up a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 (where do they come up w/these stupid-ass product names?) to scan 35mm, but haven't had a chance to scan any (traditional silver) B&W, yet. I use Vuescan, BTW.

shutterflower said:
the scanner matters, for sure. I'm using a Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro - fantastic scanner - and it produces different looking results than the Epson 3170 I used to use. It likes different films than the Epson did. That's why I say "dedicated scanners" and not just "Scanners".
Click to expand...
 
I've found the Fuji B&W films & the Ilford & Kodak "T-grained" films (i.e., Delta & T-Max) to be on the thinner side, but I think developing makes a big difference, too. I get my stuff developed commercially, mostly because I'm lazy & hate developing film, but also because the labs I use *are* more consistent than I could ever be. YMMV.

shutterflower said:
so what films are particularly thin?

and one other thing : since C41 is developed a certain way - can I expect greater consistency from roll to roll coming from the lab? I find some serious inconsistencies lately - from lab to lab as well as roll to roll from one lab.
Click to expand...
 
TX 400 @400 works for me on my Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED (with Vuescan).
 
EFKE 25, Neopna Acros and 400
Delta 100 and 400 are probably the ones I've had less trouble scanning.

My scanner is pretty old and has no ICE.
I use Vuescan for scanning... it rocks!
 
General observations after about 18 months experience with a MkI dimage 5400 are that it “likes” dye based film better than silver, XP2 seems to more “alive” than HP5+ my previous film of choice, which is a disappointment if you prefer doing your own processing.

Fuji 400 Superia seems fine for colour print as it needs little work in Photoshop to correct colour casts, and is surprisingly good de-saturated as fake black and white plus you get to filter it after the event if you need to.

The best settings I’ve found to date (both colour and black and white) is 16 bit colour neg, single scan and maximum resolution, with all the correction options switched off.
 
Let's see. Here are my opinions (and some facts, I guess):

- a "thin" negatives doesn't mean physical thickness of the base and emulsion. it means contrast. all dedicated scanners use a fairly concentrated light source, like a condenser enlarger. As with those types of enlargers, you need a lower contrast negative. So "thin" means lower contrast. This is a very important reason why you should develop the stuff yourself.

-the c41 films (Ilford XP2, Kodak CN400 or whatever it's called this year) scan very well and you can use ICE, which is nice. However, I have not found them to have the same sharpness as what I prefer to get out of traditional silver films. They are low contrast, though, so you have a lot with which to work in PS afterwards. I use these for quick one-offs or in my "carry everywhere" cameras. Otherwise I don't use them much.

-this is the important one - if you spend the time getting your system calibrated and choosing the right tools, you can pretty much get the results you want from any film while scanning as you (or others) have gotten while wet printing. Of course, there are some inherent characteristics you can't ignore - Tri-X is grainier than Pan F Plus. But if you liked the look of Tri-X in a wet print, you can get that in a scan>digital print if you get everything in place.

In terms of everything, I mean EI, developer choice, development method, scanning software, scanning technique, and sound but controlled use of Photoshop and sharpening tools.

What are you after? Low grain? Tonality? Sharpness? Ease of development?

allan
 
To clarify: when I referred to thin, I did sort of mean physical thickness, i.e., the density of the dark parts on a silver B&W neg. I know little about the engineering/optical reasons behind it, but my experience has been that the Minolta scanners, no matter what settings I use in Vuescan (or the Minolta software for that matter), have had problems pulling detail out of dense areas of B&W negs that never presented a problem in an enlarger. Same goes for the dark areas of slides (scans v. projector/light table). I also get better scanning results from films that have a clearer base, like Neopan 1600 & Macophot PO 100c (an ortho film that's developed in regular chemistry).

I agree w/you on all your other points.

kaiyen said:
Let's see. Here are my opinions (and some facts, I guess):

- a "thin" negatives doesn't mean physical thickness of the base and emulsion. it means contrast. all dedicated scanners use a fairly concentrated light source, like a condenser enlarger. As with those types of enlargers, you need a lower contrast negative. So "thin" means lower contrast. This is a very important reason why you should develop the stuff yourself.
allan
Click to expand...
 
Thin can also refer to general under exposure or under development. You can have an over exposed underdeveloped neg (pulled), underexposed overdeveloped neg (pushed) or any combo thereof. Generally some of my best scans are made from HP5 exposed at 1250 and dev'd in diaphine (basically, under xposed and pushed). The negs look thin and flat. It's not my favorite look as far as photos go. It just scans very well.
 
I would think that proper exposure and a tad underdevelopment would be better to keep details in the shadows.
 
We are all saying the same thing for thin. Thing generaly refers to less contrast, and that generally means less highlight density. I hadn't considered that more density meant a (very, very, very) slight increase in physical thickness in those areas. But the point is the same. You want less contrasty negatives.

My one response to Pablo is kind of a nitpicky one. Proper exposure is a must. But one need not underdevelop. One need merely find a normal time that is appropriate to get the kind of contrast that is optimum for scanning. Yes, that time tends to be less than recommended times you see online. But it's "normal" for scanning.

allan
 
kaiyen said:
What are you after? Low grain? Tonality? Sharpness? Ease of development?

allan
Click to expand...


I suppose the initial question was for a film that would be best for shooting a lens test series. So, low grain, tonality, sharpness, they are all important. I remember scanning a roll of Fuji Neopan 400. It scans remarkably well. No visible grain. I have considered Neopan Acros 100, but I fear it will be a dense/thick neg.

I tend towards XP2 for some of the characteristics like ICE and consistency in developing. But Neopan 400 just looks SO smooth, tonal, grainless on my screen. Accutance will be vital.

Can I expect Acros to be too dense/thick to scan well? I have actually never used it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom