Tom hicks
Well-known
Hi all, another new guy. I have never scanned film . My scanner choice looks like a Nikon Coolscan 5000
My experiance with film is somewhat limited as far a knowing which one are more forginging when it comes to the scanning process. so if anyone can point me in the direction of a couple of B&W choices and some Color choices, As far as color goes I'm not to found of the overly saturated film. but hey if they produce good scans with little effort let me know .
Tom
My experiance with film is somewhat limited as far a knowing which one are more forginging when it comes to the scanning process. so if anyone can point me in the direction of a couple of B&W choices and some Color choices, As far as color goes I'm not to found of the overly saturated film. but hey if they produce good scans with little effort let me know .
Tom
Last edited:
markinlondon
Elmar user
If you want painless scanning in b&w shoot a chromogenic emulsion like Ilford XP2. You can even use ICE and similar dust and scratch removing software as it's a dye based film. The downside with this is that you can't fine tune the process to get the look you want and are restricted to PS tweaks to adjust contrast. To be honest it won't look much different to desaturated colour stock.
amateriat
We're all light!
Tom:
Firstly, a big welcome to RFf!
Secondly: The best thing, IMO, is to experiment a bit with several films in both categories. Ask 10 photographers about what the "best" film is (for scanning, certain subject matter, etc.), and you will get at least 18 different answers. Which, in a way, is good, because it reflects the amount of choices available.
One question, regarding black-and-white film: do you develop your own film? If not, one way to go for scanner-friendly film is using chromogenic b/w films, which are compatible with C41 processing, like color negative film. The advantages here are (1) the film can be developed at either the corner minilab or a pro lab, (2) the film is extremely scanner-friendly, and (3) Digital ICE dust/scratch removal can be utilized, cutting down the tedium of retouching in Photoshop. There have been questions raised about the film's archival keeping qualities compared to conventional b/w film, but I think that has been tempered somewhat by recent improvements in C41 emulsions, and in any case, good processing is what makes a difference here.
You have two choices in chromogenics: Ilford's XP-2 Super, and Kodak's BW400 CN. Both films are good; each has its adherents (I prefer XP-2, love it, and use it a lot in my work, but I also use BW400 from time to time).
If you soup your own conventional b/w, things get more interesting, moreso than I can get into right here and now. Suffice to say that, sometimes, a neg that makes a good print under the enlarger might be tougher to make a great scan from, and vice-versa. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, and often depends on one's expertise in the darkroom and/or at the scanner. Again, it pays to experiment.
Color? In a way, this one's a bit easier. Your principal choices are Kodak and Fuji. My favorite films in the yellow box are the Portra series and UC400, which I've found a breeze to get good scans from, with minimal PS tweaking. From the green box people, I'm partial to Fuji Pro 400/800 films. But there's lots more from both companies to try out.
Of course, there's also the matter of what, how, and where you shoot, which will have an influece on things like film speed and the like. All the above suggestions are, IMO, a good start, but they're only a start.
Enjoy. And keep asking questions.
- Barrett
Firstly, a big welcome to RFf!
Secondly: The best thing, IMO, is to experiment a bit with several films in both categories. Ask 10 photographers about what the "best" film is (for scanning, certain subject matter, etc.), and you will get at least 18 different answers. Which, in a way, is good, because it reflects the amount of choices available.
One question, regarding black-and-white film: do you develop your own film? If not, one way to go for scanner-friendly film is using chromogenic b/w films, which are compatible with C41 processing, like color negative film. The advantages here are (1) the film can be developed at either the corner minilab or a pro lab, (2) the film is extremely scanner-friendly, and (3) Digital ICE dust/scratch removal can be utilized, cutting down the tedium of retouching in Photoshop. There have been questions raised about the film's archival keeping qualities compared to conventional b/w film, but I think that has been tempered somewhat by recent improvements in C41 emulsions, and in any case, good processing is what makes a difference here.
You have two choices in chromogenics: Ilford's XP-2 Super, and Kodak's BW400 CN. Both films are good; each has its adherents (I prefer XP-2, love it, and use it a lot in my work, but I also use BW400 from time to time).
If you soup your own conventional b/w, things get more interesting, moreso than I can get into right here and now. Suffice to say that, sometimes, a neg that makes a good print under the enlarger might be tougher to make a great scan from, and vice-versa. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, and often depends on one's expertise in the darkroom and/or at the scanner. Again, it pays to experiment.
Color? In a way, this one's a bit easier. Your principal choices are Kodak and Fuji. My favorite films in the yellow box are the Portra series and UC400, which I've found a breeze to get good scans from, with minimal PS tweaking. From the green box people, I'm partial to Fuji Pro 400/800 films. But there's lots more from both companies to try out.
Of course, there's also the matter of what, how, and where you shoot, which will have an influece on things like film speed and the like. All the above suggestions are, IMO, a good start, but they're only a start.
Enjoy. And keep asking questions.
- Barrett
Last edited:
Terao
Kiloran
Fuji also make chromogenic B&W - Neopan 400CN
Tom hicks
Well-known
Barrett, thanks for the quick reply, I have shot 10 or so rolls of the BW400CN, other than the slight color cast I like the sharpness, I have some 400TX that was given to me to try.
I have 3 kids 13, 11, 6 yrs and want to get them involved in the B&W developing of film and printing the using the enlargers , I want them to experiance that process. Then after that they can do what ever they want, stay with film or go digital. they all shoot now , Film and AE-1's . but developing is done at the corner you know what .
I shoot alot of digital , infact shoot both Canon and Nikon Systems. One of the main reasons for the scanner was so I can share my film experiance with members here and other forums I'm envolved with. I will be developing my own B&W so will be staying with the chromogenic films . After I have some experiance with these then I'l check into color and JOBO outfit, but one step at a time . I'll get some of the XP-2 and give it a try.
Again thanks for all your help.
Tom
I have 3 kids 13, 11, 6 yrs and want to get them involved in the B&W developing of film and printing the using the enlargers , I want them to experiance that process. Then after that they can do what ever they want, stay with film or go digital. they all shoot now , Film and AE-1's . but developing is done at the corner you know what .
I shoot alot of digital , infact shoot both Canon and Nikon Systems. One of the main reasons for the scanner was so I can share my film experiance with members here and other forums I'm envolved with. I will be developing my own B&W so will be staying with the chromogenic films . After I have some experiance with these then I'l check into color and JOBO outfit, but one step at a time . I'll get some of the XP-2 and give it a try.
Again thanks for all your help.
Tom
mfogiel
Veteran
Tom,
First, go to a mirror, look yourself deep into the eyes and make this important question:
Am I not going to take advantage of these fantastic MF cameras that are being sold cheaper by the hour (you name them -Rolleiflex, Mamiya, Bronica, Fuji, Hassselblad, Pentax, etc...) and never dip into the MF ?
If your answer is not going to be very convincing, go directly to CS 9000.
Second, whatever you decide, for painless and very effecive start to scanning, use the following films:
B&W - Ilford XP2 - an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1032442528&size=l
Colour negative: Kodak or Fuji 400 ISO exposed at 200 ISO, an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019892254&size=l
same for 160 ISO - exposed at 100 ISO, an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1140589233&size=l
for slow colour film, Fuji Reala, exposed at 64 ISO an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1064246893&size=l
For chromes 90% of the time Fujichrome Astia 100F, exposed at 100 ISO, an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1073641770&size=l
for the 10% of cases when you have a very flat illumination, Fujichrome Velvia 100 or the remade 50, exposed at box speed, an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1107561420&size=l.
If you decide to try silver based B&W, remember to overexpose and underdevelop, to get thinner negs, else you will have the highlights completely blocked. A film that scans decently is Kodak TMY 400, an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1065097998&size=l
Get Vuescan as scanning software, and be patient.
Have fun !
First, go to a mirror, look yourself deep into the eyes and make this important question:
Am I not going to take advantage of these fantastic MF cameras that are being sold cheaper by the hour (you name them -Rolleiflex, Mamiya, Bronica, Fuji, Hassselblad, Pentax, etc...) and never dip into the MF ?
If your answer is not going to be very convincing, go directly to CS 9000.
Second, whatever you decide, for painless and very effecive start to scanning, use the following films:
B&W - Ilford XP2 - an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1032442528&size=l
Colour negative: Kodak or Fuji 400 ISO exposed at 200 ISO, an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1019892254&size=l
same for 160 ISO - exposed at 100 ISO, an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1140589233&size=l
for slow colour film, Fuji Reala, exposed at 64 ISO an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1064246893&size=l
For chromes 90% of the time Fujichrome Astia 100F, exposed at 100 ISO, an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1073641770&size=l
for the 10% of cases when you have a very flat illumination, Fujichrome Velvia 100 or the remade 50, exposed at box speed, an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1107561420&size=l.
If you decide to try silver based B&W, remember to overexpose and underdevelop, to get thinner negs, else you will have the highlights completely blocked. A film that scans decently is Kodak TMY 400, an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1065097998&size=l
Get Vuescan as scanning software, and be patient.
Have fun !
photophorous
Registered User
Hi Tom,
I'm not sure I understand if you will be developing your own B&W or not. If so, I think the way you develop the film is more important than what kind of film you use. I haven't noticed much difference between types of film, but there is a huge difference between under and over developing. Low contrast is much easier to scan. I typically develop for slightly less time so the scanning process will be easier. You'll have to fine tune your own process, but for a film like TMAX at 100 ISO, you might start by cutting 30 seconds off the recommended developing time. For a more traditional B&W film, you may need to cut more time to get the same results.
I hear a lot of people say that chromogenic B&W films are great for scanning, but it seems pointless to me. I think chromogenic B&W film is best for someone who wants B&W prints the easiest possible way. But if you're going to scan it, then it might as well be color. With color you can at least use the channel mixer to get the tones exactly as you want them. To a small degree that can make up for the flexibility you sacrifice in not processing your own. But, that's just my preference. It doesn't change the fact that I've seen some great shots taken on chromogenic B&W.
Paul
I'm not sure I understand if you will be developing your own B&W or not. If so, I think the way you develop the film is more important than what kind of film you use. I haven't noticed much difference between types of film, but there is a huge difference between under and over developing. Low contrast is much easier to scan. I typically develop for slightly less time so the scanning process will be easier. You'll have to fine tune your own process, but for a film like TMAX at 100 ISO, you might start by cutting 30 seconds off the recommended developing time. For a more traditional B&W film, you may need to cut more time to get the same results.
I hear a lot of people say that chromogenic B&W films are great for scanning, but it seems pointless to me. I think chromogenic B&W film is best for someone who wants B&W prints the easiest possible way. But if you're going to scan it, then it might as well be color. With color you can at least use the channel mixer to get the tones exactly as you want them. To a small degree that can make up for the flexibility you sacrifice in not processing your own. But, that's just my preference. It doesn't change the fact that I've seen some great shots taken on chromogenic B&W.
Paul
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
mfogiel,
Regarding the exposure ratings for your colour print films, are those pulled speed ratings just for shooting with development as normal--e.g. Reala exposed at 64 but processed at 100?
Regarding the exposure ratings for your colour print films, are those pulled speed ratings just for shooting with development as normal--e.g. Reala exposed at 64 but processed at 100?
Tom hicks
Well-known
mfogiel said:
Wow, thanks for all these wonderful examples that last B&W shot is just beautiful , Tone, dynamic range. I will really need to try some of the TMY400.
There is going to be so much to learn and I know it won't happen overnight.
sahe69
Well-known
Tom hicks said:
Tom, please note that at least the TMY400 picture is shot with medium format equipment, so expecting similar richness of tones and small grain from 35 mm film would probably be unrealistic, no matter what the film & scanner.
mfogiel
Veteran
JJ Kapsberger,
All the C41 films are rated for speed in flat lighting, but in reality it is difficult not to get some dynamic range when you shoot, and while these films hold the highlight detail well, they "fall apart" in the shadows pretty quickly. The remedy, is to overexpose - as a rule of thumb by 1 stop, this way you still get lots of latitude and good sharpness with better tonality, I tried XP2 2 stops over, and it still is fine, but the shadow detail gain is small, and the sharpness loss starts to show up.
So, overexpose 1 stop and develop normally, you will get much better results.
All the C41 films are rated for speed in flat lighting, but in reality it is difficult not to get some dynamic range when you shoot, and while these films hold the highlight detail well, they "fall apart" in the shadows pretty quickly. The remedy, is to overexpose - as a rule of thumb by 1 stop, this way you still get lots of latitude and good sharpness with better tonality, I tried XP2 2 stops over, and it still is fine, but the shadow detail gain is small, and the sharpness loss starts to show up.
So, overexpose 1 stop and develop normally, you will get much better results.
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Wow, just saved that one to the hard drive. Thanks, mes amis!
Tom hicks
Well-known
markinlondon said:
thanks Mark, now that you mention it ,it does remind me of the desaturated color shots.
Athena
Well-known
More and more new films are coming out which are formulated for enhanced scannability. This is particulary the case with the chromogenic B&W's and Kodak's latest version of the Porta films. Fuji has similar new "better scannable" films etc.
This is mainly driven by the fact that most mini-labs are using digital printing for film. But it means we who "scan our own" get to benefit from these new films too.
This is mainly driven by the fact that most mini-labs are using digital printing for film. But it means we who "scan our own" get to benefit from these new films too.
amateriat
We're all light!
Indeed, this is the case, although i've been surprised at how some old Kodacolor/gold negs, presumably formulated before brands K & F became savvy of service bureaus and digitally fast-forward labs. Kodak, may have been a bit ahead of anyone else on this particular curve, but, again, what do I know?Athena said:
- Barrett