Why shoot black and white or chromogenic film to scan?

[hsandler]

I've been experimenting with film for about a year now and scanning with an Epson 4180 flatbed scanner. Mostly I've scanned slide and colour negative films, especially portra 160nc and velvia 100 slide film. My few results with black and white film did not come out as well. First, I don't develop it myself, so I'm missing the opportunity to tailor the developer and develop time to the look I want to get. Second, I think the scanner lacks enough Dmax (it's rated 3.4) to cover black and white film adequately. My questions are:

1. For scanning, why shoot chromogenic film, such as Ilford XP2, when C41 colour negative film can be converted to black and white after scanning and offers the added ability to apply the effect of coloured filters in post processing, e.g. orange filter to darken sky?

2. Can the "look" of black and white film be replicated using colour negative film and post-scanning black and white conversion?

[ann]

For me, ( do my own developing ) those films are going to fade. Sooner or later they fade.

I have negatives that are over 60 years old that I can still print. I recently was looking at some negatives for a family member shot on a chromogenic film that have faded and they have been kept in an archival box away from light and extreme heat.

I am sure someone will come along with more scanning experience and skill than I and give you some tips

[pschwart]

Second, I think the scanner lacks enough Dmax (it's rated 3.4) to cover black and white film adequately.

This may be an issue for contrasty transparencies, but not b&w negatives. Do you have negatives that
have a dmax > log 2.x? Trouble scanning b&w is often related to the scanning workflow ...

[hsandler]

Thanks for the feedback. @ann, I agree there is nothing like black and white silver film for longevity, but it's not my primary concern, since I doubt I will return to scan the film again after many years. @pschwart, on closer examination of my black and white negative scans, I think the problem is not dynamic range, but perhaps the negatives were very curved and were touching the flatbed scanner platen. The main problem is newton's rings visible in the deep shadows; i.e. areas where the negative was very thin. However, the problem for me with black and white film remains that I don't develop it myself, so I'm at the mercy of whatever developer the one lab in town that still processes it uses, which may not be a good match for the film. Anyway, I've purchased a roll of Kodak BW400CN today to try. I can get it developed at the 1 hour place near my home, and the chemistry for C41 is all standardized and shouldn't influence the results. I'll compare it to converting C41 colour film scans to black and white.

[OzJohn]

I can see no point in shooting any type of black & white film if the only end product is a digital print made either by inkjet or on RA4 paper. Although many folk on APUG would disagree, it is entirely possible to produce excellent black & white prints from converted colour images, whether scanned or camera originated and nearly every wedding photographer on earth does it routinely - some better than others, the best actually visualising the scene in mono when they take the photo. However, you will not achieve excellence using a cheap "photo" inkjet with only a single black ink but surprisingly RA4 paper that uses only CMY dye layers can produce great monochrome if exposed, filtered and processed precisely.

I still use some black & white film but only when I want to print on real silver-based paper. I think there is a "look" using traditional film and paper that cannot be replicated digitally but it is a two-way street because good digital black & white has its own "look" that film cannot replicate. To my mind both have inherent beauty and one is not better than the other - just different. OzJohn

[Jim Jones]

B&W film does have its use in making digital prints. The old large format film equipment I've used for decades can produce scanned B&W images that certainly compete with my soon to be obsolete DSLR. Replacing the film equipment would cost less than many new DSLRs. The cameras have some capabilities that are rare in DSLRs. I often prefer digital capture for convenience and for color photography, but film has some distinct advantages. Photo equipment, whether film or digital, is just a tool. The most appropriate tool should be chosen for the occasion.

[L Gebhardt]

I can see no point in shooting any type of black & white film if the only end product is a digital print made either by inkjet or on RA4 paper.

Regular black and white film is far cheaper than color, at least in sheet film sizes. It's also easier and cheaper to develop. Filters are easy enough to use. That, and the look, are why I still use it.

[lenny]

2. Can the "look" of black and white film be replicated using colour negative film and post-scanning black and white conversion?

No.

There have been others that say they can get the same results with color film or chromogenic. That depends on how you print. One of them mentioned wedding photographers. This is a particular type of fairly contrasty print, as most commercial prints are. If you want your prints to look like that, go ahead and shoot digital, no need to use film at all. I'm not being disparaging here, its just the reality.

However, if you want a full range of tones, as many b&w artists do, then you can not get this with color. Nor with chromogenic. B&W film still rules. My prints have the range and tonality of platinum prints. You can't do it with color film. Or with digital, for that matter. You need well processed film, good inks, proper balance of the inks with color mgmt techniques, good paper and sensitive eyes.

Lenny

[mdarnton]

Two points here: first, getting this out of the way: if you want good results, a flatbed is not the way to do it. I've been copying negs with my Nikon D300, and it's working better than any flatbed I've had access to, specifically referring to mushiness and lost detail. If I upgrade my camera some day, it will be specifically for this job, but for now D300 quality is certainly adequate for me. If you have a dedicated setup you can snap the camera into, the camera is a lot faster, too, scans taking on the order of 1/200sec rather than minutes, and you can bracket, too, if you want to, worrying about the details later.

Second, developing B&W film is really not difficult. I use D23, using a recipe made with kitchen measuring spoons (1t metol, 4T sodium sulfite, 32oz water). All you need is a tank and reels, thermometer, some bottles to hold your chemicals, a bottle of distilled water from the grocery store, and fix. My whole kit fits in a dishpan. Once you learn it, it takes MUCH less time than a trip to the mini-lab, is a lot cheaper, and will give you better negs than you're paying someone else for now.

Conclusion: if you're looking for good B&W quality, skip the funny films and the mini-lab. You'll be happier with the results. My flickr page has some recent results. Thanks to a comment on another site, I solved my last problem, alignment, so the last couple of "scans" are the best.

[hsandler]

@mdarnton, ah crap, i was afraid someone was going to tell me i had to develop real b&w myself and get rid of the flatbed. love the portrait " jim in smoke" on your flickr page by the way.

@lenny, actually i just got back my roll of kodak bw400cn and it looks pretty good to me compared to my black and white digital. however my own flatbed scans at 2400 dpi are clearly not as sharp as the minilabs low res scans of 1840 pixels on the long side of the 35mm frame, so the technique or the scanner is clearly lacking. the film has a nice look though to my eye. i take your advice in the context of your work, which i can see is many levels above what i aspire to do with my film work at this point.

anyway, another roll of new portra 160 did not produce the crisp and wide tonal capture of the bw400cn when converted to black and white.