peadarceiteach
Member
Hi all - I'm just getting back to shooting film. I've found a great commercial outfit to do my scanning, but am unsure about a couple of things.
Which scans better - slide or neg film? Or, does it matter. If I am going to end up photoshopping my scans - some converting to black and white, is it preferable to just shoot black and white film, or color and then convert - or again, does it matter?
Finally, please, please help me find a processor company for any of my needs - neg, or slide, or black and white development. I've got to have them processed - my scanning outfit does not process film.
Thanks much - PC
Which scans better - slide or neg film? Or, does it matter. If I am going to end up photoshopping my scans - some converting to black and white, is it preferable to just shoot black and white film, or color and then convert - or again, does it matter?
Finally, please, please help me find a processor company for any of my needs - neg, or slide, or black and white development. I've got to have them processed - my scanning outfit does not process film.
Thanks much - PC
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
negative film tends to have a longer range of information, and tends to be less dense so it scans nicely, and is more forgiving of exposure snafus. However, the "grain" is usually greater than with a comparably fast slide film.
As with anything tho, the skill of the operator is what makes the difference. You might ask your outfit what they have had better luck using on their equipment. Some operators have a definite preference.
I personally shoot mostly color negative film for my scanning, but I need the extra stop's of range, and that trumps all other factors for my needs.
As with anything tho, the skill of the operator is what makes the difference. You might ask your outfit what they have had better luck using on their equipment. Some operators have a definite preference.
I personally shoot mostly color negative film for my scanning, but I need the extra stop's of range, and that trumps all other factors for my needs.
40oz
...
IMHO, if you want B&W images, take B&W images. Some may say you get more flexibility doing a conversion in photoshop, but that requires you to take the time to carefully manpulate every shot, trying different setings until you find one you like. Far more reasonable to take the picture you want in the first place.
You can shoot C41 B&W films, and get it developed and scanned at the same place. Same with color negative films. In my experience, scanners are unable to adequately capture the range of color/light in a slide, so if the final image is to be digital, I'm not sure what you'd gain by using slides. I suppose if you're paying for a drum scan at a pro shop slides are better, but consumer scanners aren't going to compete with that.
Without knowing your location, it would be kind of tough to recommend a processor.
You can shoot C41 B&W films, and get it developed and scanned at the same place. Same with color negative films. In my experience, scanners are unable to adequately capture the range of color/light in a slide, so if the final image is to be digital, I'm not sure what you'd gain by using slides. I suppose if you're paying for a drum scan at a pro shop slides are better, but consumer scanners aren't going to compete with that.
Without knowing your location, it would be kind of tough to recommend a processor.
peadarceiteach
Member
Thanks for the help. Is there any difference in film quaility - other than ISO - between the different makes of C41? How do C41 B+W's compare to straight B+W negs?
Xmas
Veteran
PC
The C41 B+W's can be processed, scanned and printed at your local mini lab, normal B&W you really have to do yourself which is not difficult.
Noel
The C41 B+W's can be processed, scanned and printed at your local mini lab, normal B&W you really have to do yourself which is not difficult.
Noel
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I like C-41 BW films, my favorite is Ilford XP2 (see further down for a sample), it still has some grains which I love, the Kodak BW400CN is a bit too smooth for me, it *looks* like you've converted a color image to BWpeadarceiteach said:
On the other hand, I've used Forte Pan 100 which is a true BW film, I love the grains, here's a sample:
This is one of the fun thing shooting with film, you can mix and match film. I'll add one more dimension to your film parameters, expiration date!
As much as I can I always get expired films (I test a lot of cameras that comes and go from my collection), I have used expired Ilford XP2 from 2001 and still get results that I'm happy with:
For color films, I won't go that far, but this is a shot with 2005 Konica VX100 film:
Bryce
Well-known
Here's another take...
Assuming you want color...
Slide film will give the brightest color and ultimate image quality IF:
Your exposure is near perfect- AND
The scene doesn't have extreme contrast-AND
You can find a way to reasonably develop it-AND
The hard part, you can find a way to scan it that will do the film justice.
Color negative film will be easier to deal with for all the reasons that slide film isn't, except scanning; scans of CN film usually fail to do it justice, making it look grainier than it really is.
If you want B+W's and the best possible image quality, there's no replacement as yet for a wet print. Of course that requires a darkroom and tons of time to devote to printing. And if you wish to use c-41 B+W film, you'll want to use Ilford; the Kodak version has an orange mask that interferes with contrast control in traditional wet printing. The Kodak stuff is fine for scanning or color based printing, by the way.
I've had mediocre results scanning traditional B+W films, and actually prefer using color film and B+W conversion for digitally produced B+W's.
So what do I actually do? I gave up on slides, in spite of having 1 hour developing available nearby (no, not a misprint, it is true) because of scanning difficulty. When I shoot color (not often) I either use a digital camera or c-41 film and have it scanned when it is developed. My favorite 1 hour developer actually gives half respectable scans.
Mostly I shoot B+W's, the old fashioned way. It is absurdly time consuming, but worthwhile when the prints dry. If I want to digitize them, I either use a flatbed scanner or a digital camera and a copy stand.
Just my two bits worth.
Assuming you want color...
Slide film will give the brightest color and ultimate image quality IF:
Your exposure is near perfect- AND
The scene doesn't have extreme contrast-AND
You can find a way to reasonably develop it-AND
The hard part, you can find a way to scan it that will do the film justice.
Color negative film will be easier to deal with for all the reasons that slide film isn't, except scanning; scans of CN film usually fail to do it justice, making it look grainier than it really is.
If you want B+W's and the best possible image quality, there's no replacement as yet for a wet print. Of course that requires a darkroom and tons of time to devote to printing. And if you wish to use c-41 B+W film, you'll want to use Ilford; the Kodak version has an orange mask that interferes with contrast control in traditional wet printing. The Kodak stuff is fine for scanning or color based printing, by the way.
I've had mediocre results scanning traditional B+W films, and actually prefer using color film and B+W conversion for digitally produced B+W's.
So what do I actually do? I gave up on slides, in spite of having 1 hour developing available nearby (no, not a misprint, it is true) because of scanning difficulty. When I shoot color (not often) I either use a digital camera or c-41 film and have it scanned when it is developed. My favorite 1 hour developer actually gives half respectable scans.
Mostly I shoot B+W's, the old fashioned way. It is absurdly time consuming, but worthwhile when the prints dry. If I want to digitize them, I either use a flatbed scanner or a digital camera and a copy stand.
Just my two bits worth.