First chromogenic processed... first scans... disappointment and a few questions

[ocean7]

Hello everyone,

I got my first chromogenic film processed, it's a Kodak BW400CN. I know it might not be the best but it was the only one in stock at my local photo store.

It's also my first venture into scanning black and white with my Coolscan V + Vuescan and I must say it is a bit of a disappointment. First the scans looked very flat straight from the scanner and I had to boost the contrast a lot using curves. Second the photos taken in low light like the girl playing the cello are very grainy especially in the shadows. I had to use a heavy setting on noise reduction to get something acceptable. The negs look properly exposed though. Am I missing something with this kind of film or are the results pretty normal?

I must say I let Vuescan automatically adjust exposure, the film was scanned as a colour negative as recommended by Hamrick, and it seems the Ilford XP2 profile gave the best results - or should I say the least worst results!

These were taken with the CV 35/1.7 wide open for the first one.

Your thoughts are very much appreciated. Oh yes and I am not looking for a critique on artistic value, I know it must be close to nill here 🙂

Thanks a lot!

 

[rogue_designer]

sharpness looks very good...

I found with vuescan it took a while to find scan settings that gave me good results right out - there is a way to control the contrast in the scanning stage - I just can't remember how at the moment.

Regarding the grain in the shadows - C41 films in general do get grainy in shadows and when underexposed - but they typically have a long shoulder in the highlights, so you can slightly over-expose more safely if you want a little extra wiggle room. (ie. If you must err, err on the side of too much exposure).

 

[Tim Gray]

A flat scan is good. A lot of my B&W scans look like crap out of the scanner, but a quick levels or curves adjustment makes them look a lot punchier.

To be honest, I might be missing something, but the pictures you posted look pretty good. If you are using vuescan, I would recommend adjusting the highlight and shadow clipping point to something like 0.1% or 0.01% or whatever is the lowest. That will help give you better scans.

 

[Keith]

I've used a lot of this film and discovered it won't tolerate underexposure and what you describe in the shadows is what I used to consistently get until it clicked!

I agree with Tim ... your shots look pretty good to me and I think if you shoot it at 200 instead of box speed you'll be surprised at the improvement! 🙂

 

[Conner999]

Scanning Tips

Scanning Tips

Couple of tips that might help:

1. Try the demo pro version of silverfast

2. With sharpness. Get a couple of Gepe glass slide mounts & a small tube of DSLR sensor cleaning fluid. Assuming all is clean, a drop or two of fluid on the inside of say the bottom of the mount. Let self-level for a second. Carefully place negative in holder. Couple of drops on fluid on top of negative, close mount. Put it on a blotter for a minute so any seepage (haven't had any yet) occurs here and not in scanner and scan ahead.

The result is a notable increase in sharpness. Trick is letting fluid self-level across whole frame.

Since using DSLR sensor cleaning fluid which evaporates quickly, etc and could safely be used to clean your scanner's mirror, it's bout as safe as you're going to get and hell of a lot less messy than any oil-based system.

That being said, home-scanning is an art I don't know if I have the patience for vs. shooting).

Anyone want to buy a Nikon 5000ED? ;> Ad to follow shortly

🙂

 

[Conner999]

Should add - your scans do look good.

 

[Trius]

I agree the final results look pretty good. Also concur with Keith, that you need to use a lower EI with this film. I use 250 instead of 400 ... not far off from Keith's suggestion of 200.

 

[Ronald M]

Your scans look fine.

Levels in PS is a beeter, faster tool to increase contrast. Just move the white and black point sliders into the histogram end points. Automatic often works fine.

In my opinion, getting a scan where everything is in focus is first priority. Then fix in ps. When you fix with scanner software, you loose future options.

 

[Cindy Flood]

2. With sharpness. Get a couple of Gepe glass slide mounts & a small tube of DSLR sensor cleaning fluid. Assuming all is clean, a drop or two of fluid on the inside of say the bottom of the mount. Let self-level for a second. Carefully place negative in holder. Couple of drops on fluid on top of negative, close mount. Put it on a blotter for a minute so any seepage (haven't had any yet) occurs here and not in scanner and scan ahead.

🙂

Connor,
Could you please elaborate on which Gepe glass slide mount you are suggesting. It seems there are a lot. I'm assuming you mean a 35mm size. Any further info on this technique would be appreciated. (I am using a Coolscan V.)

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have scanned a lot of this film with a Nikon scanner and Viewscan. All black and white films scan really flat with these scanners, not just the stuff you used. You have to do some levels and curves work in Photoshop to make them look right. These scanners have a wide dynamic range for scanning slide film and when you do negatives, the results look flat and muddy because of the lower contrast of negative films.

This was shot with Kodak BW400 film and scanned on my Nikon LS-8000 with Viewscan. Settings were, if I remember correctly, color neg, Kodak T400CN, landscape, and greyscale output. It was very muddy, as always, and I made it look like what you see in Photoshop

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

accidently posted the same thing twice..sorry!

 

[Nikon Bob]

I think your scans look pretty good. I routinely shoot/rate Kodak C41 B&W at 200 asa, 100 asa with a yellow filter. The results a creamy smooth from scans after some work in PS Elements 2.0. So I agree with most here that say to over expose it and you may have to try out by how much to get the result that you like.

Bob

 

[ocean7]

Thanks a lot everyone for your replies. I must conclude that my things don't look that bad after all... and that flat scans are pretty normal out of the scanner.

I'll try to overexpose the Kodak next time. Now I have a bunch of XP2 rolls to try. Do you advise to overexpose it as well?

PS : Chris that's a super cool portrait!

 

[kipkeston]

When you say flat do you mean contrast?

 

[ocean7]

When you say flat do you mean contrast?

Yes 🙂 that's what I meant!

 

[Nikon Bob]

Philippe

The few rolls of XP2 that I have used I have rated it the same as the Kodak stuff. It is easy to see what will work for you in just one roll. Just try exposing it at different speeds with the same subject on the same roll and choose what suits you best. The roll is processed as per normal with no special instructions.

Bob

 

[peter_n]

I'll try to overexpose the Kodak next time. Now I have a bunch of XP2 rolls to try. Do you advise to overexpose it as well?

Yes. 250ISO seems to give a really good negative with that film.

 

[mfogiel]

ocean7,
First - expose these films 1 full stop over, so 400 iso as 200 Iso, etc
Second - put the XP2 profile in Vuescan, medium ICE, and manually adjust the white and black points on the histogram after preview, then scan
Third - flat scan is what you want, then you do Levels, Curves, Brightness+contrast in PS plus any sharpening you need - for female portraits I also normally make a pass with Noise Ninja at the beginning, the skin comes out very creamy

Take a look at my flickr, there are tons of shots made with XP2, see if you like the results
Fourth - I feel chromogenics are best used as portrait films, for average stuff, if you can get good processing, try the silver films, possibly the modern types which scan better.

 

[ocean7]

ocean7,
First - expose these films 1 full stop over, so 400 iso as 200 Iso, etc
Second - put the XP2 profile in Vuescan, medium ICE, and manually adjust the white and black points on the histogram after preview, then scan
Third - flat scan is what you want, then you do Levels, Curves, Brightness+contrast in PS plus any sharpening you need - for female portraits I also normally make a pass with Noise Ninja at the beginning, the skin comes out very creamy

Take a look at my flickr, there are tons of shots made with XP2, see if you like the results
Fourth - I feel chromogenics are best used as portrait films, for average stuff, if you can get good processing, try the silver films, possibly the modern types which scan better.

Thanks for the advise Marek. I'll try your recipe.

You have some beautiful photographs in your Flickr. Makes me want to leave the office right now and go shooting!

 

[shadowfox]

XP2 also records amazing details with slight overexposure.

this is an 7 year expired XP2, rated as 125 ASA instead of 400 on the box. Besides getting rid of the purple hue from the anti-halation coating, I increase the contrast a tad bit to achieve the level that I like.