Scanning

[paulpp]

As my prevous posts indicate I have only just returned to film with a R2A - great camera! But have been very disappointed with the results from having my Kodak BW400CN developed and scanned. As I want to print at home (with an inkjet) I had the films comercially developed and scanned (two films using two different companies) but on printing I find the grain much more obvious than I expected.
Are my expectations too great?

 

[Avotius]

What is the resolution of the scans? Also I would try a different film. I have never been fond of the Kodak BW films, give Ilford a try. XP2 is a great choice. Delta 400 and HP5 are also good if you dont want to stick to color process films.

Also there are many other factors like exposure, how the images were scanned, etc etc etc

I regularly print images scanned from 400 speed black and white film around 15x10 inch, and they look fine. Scans are 39mb BMP's at 4500x3000 worked on in photoshop and saved as tiffs.

Maybe you could post an example of one of the images you are trying to print?

 

[sojournerphoto]

As my prevous posts indicate I have only just returned to film with a R2A - great camera! But have been very disappointed with the results from having my Kodak BW400CN developed and scanned. As I want to print at home (with an inkjet) I had the films comercially developed and scanned (two films using two different companies) but on printing I find the grain much more obvious than I expected.
Are my expectations too great?

I've just printed the picture below at 15 by 10 inches and it's a lovely print. Not digital in it's resolution or smoothness, but the grain is far less than I recall from my younger days. It was shot on HP5 developed in Xtol and scanned at 4,000 ppi on a Nikon 5000.

Mike

 

[gilpen123]

That's a nice sharp and well exposed shot. The 5000ED did a good scan.

 

[david.elliott]

Looks good to me. 🙂

 

[paulpp]

Scanned image

Scanned image

Far better results than I have been getting. Will have to try different films and different companies.

 

[Chris101]

I have never been pleased with a scan made by a lab. They do not have my eye when it comes to making the necessary adjustments. I think you should get a scanner of your own. Developing C41 film is rote - you just do it correctly and it turns out like it is supposed to. But scanning involves personal choices, which they are unable to make in your absence.

 

[samoksner]

Scans done my labs usually have a slew of settings bent on making a perfectly fine negative into mush.

I've found Kodak BW400 to be crap honestly, did not like it at all.
HP5 is a pretty grainy film though, very nice, but grainy, try Delta 400, goes well with XTOL for sure.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have done a lot with that film, scanned on my Nikon LS-8000ED, which is similar to the 5000 that Mike (sojourner) used above for his photo. My results equal Mike's...magnificent quality. Lab scans generally suck unless you're paying $50+ PER IMAGE. Buy a good scanner $600 or so pays for itself fast if you scan much. My scanner does medium format too so it was $3000 when I got it new and it literally paid for itself the first day I had it. Good medium format scans where I live are $100 EACH.

Here's a few of my 35mm T400CN scans: