Developing B&W negs for scanning - go low contrast?

[jbrough]

I used to develop my own black and white negs but haven't done so for many years. But, since the price of commercial processing here in NZ has just risen dramatically, I am going to try my hand at it again. My question is this - since there is now so much control available at the scanning stage (as opposed to printing in an enlarger) should I aim to develop my negs to a relatively low-contrast state to preserve as much shadow detail as possible which can then be contrast-boosted in Photoshop, rather than aim for the 'perfect' (i.e. full tonal range) negative?

It would seem to make sense to do this, but can anyone comment? I will only be scanning these negs, not wet printing at any stage.

Many thanks,

Jonathan.

 

[J J Kapsberger]

I've achieved very nice scans and processing of dense negatives. I've had thin negatives fail utterly in my computer. I really think scanning and working digitally with BW negatives (at least on a Nikon Coolscan scanner, which I use) is simply a black magic.

 

[robertdfeinman]

Develop normally so you get full film speed and adequate shadow contrast. Any modern scanner has a dynamic range much greater than that of B&W film and won't have any problem scanning.

All you want to do is ensure that you don't clip any important values at either end in the scanner software. Many of the packages that come with scanners do this automatically. If you think you aren't capturing the full range download a trial copy of Vuescan and see if you get better results.

Once you have the scan you can adjust the contrast and brightness in Photoshop. I suggest using curves instead of any of the more automated tools since you can set contrast more carefully.

 

[Dan States]

Robert is correct, your FILM (flatbeds are useless for 35mm) scanner will handle the range of negative films well, but your software may not. Vuescan is excellent and handles even pretty dense negatives easily.

You should expose most black and white films generously to maintain shadow detail, keep development to spec or possibly 10% under time to keep from blowing highlights and scan your files in as 24bit DNG's. Photoshop can convert the DNG and you will have a TON of latitude to work with to control contrast and total dynamic range.

Contrary to popular belief, T grain films are not the best for scanning. They tend to have easily over cooked highlights unless managed carefully and that is death for good scanning. I get the best results from Plus-x, FP4 and the NEW Tmax 400.

To keep your work to a minimum make sure you keep your negs clean! NO squeegy and never wipe them down. Dry them in an area with no airflow and if you can use distilled water as a final bath all the better.

 

[charjohncarter]

I don't scan, I copy. But when I did scan the thinner negatives worked better. And then again scanners are hard to adjust (maybe not hard just a lot of reading) so you will probably have to experiment with YOUR scanner and YOUR negatives.

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

Now Im finally motivated to mix that box of Diafine sitting my pile of darkroom stuff!

 

[photophorous]

I use a Coolscan V and before that I used a Canoscan 8400f. In both cases I found slightly lower contrast negs to be the best practical compromise. It's important to consider how much contrast variation there is from frame to frame on a particular roll. If it's all over the place, less development will mean more usable negs. If the lighting is identical in each frame, the old rule, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, is still ideal. But that never happens for me. Consider your scanner to be grade 3 paper and you'll do pretty well over all.

Paul