Developing for scanning

[olivier_reichenbach]

The kind of enlarger - diffuser or condenser - is often asked from people who seek advice

on developement times or agitation, or even on developers. So, I guess optimum

processing is different depending on the enlarger. Is there also an optimum kind of

processing recommended for scanning the negative? What should one try to achieve at the

developement stage to ensure the best scanning possible? Thanks again for your help.

[mike_williams8]

Pretty much a negative of any reasonable exposure and density is going to scan well. I

tested my Epson 3170 Photo scanner with a Stouffer 31-Step wedge. This is a calibrated

piece of film with 30 steps from 0.0 to 3.05 log (10 stops) in 1/3 stop increments. My

scanner was able to scan about 0.0 to 2.40 log (8 stops) from white to black. So,

technically I could develop my film to a CI (contrast index) of 2.4 to achieve max

performance out of the scanner but this would be at the expense of grain (Greater CI

requires longer development times, increasing grain) and I would not be able to print it

except in Platinum/Palladium maybe. So, I would just develop as you were going to print

on good old number 2 paper and you'll get great scans no matter what.

[kaiyen]

While I agree that I can get more zones out of a scan than I usually would with paper, I do find that developing for lower contrast helps. I can usually pull more shadow detail out of the negative with scanning than I can when printing to paper. For instance, using a zone I density of .1, I found FP4 in Rodinal to be EI 64. But when I do it "by eye" with my scanner, I can go to EI 80.

 

However, I try to develop for lower contrast to keep the highlights in control.

 

So...the basic rule is to develop as if you're using a condensor enlarger. That works pretty well for me.

 

allan

[frank.schifano]

Please don't dismiss this as just another glib answer because it's not meant that way. Conventional B&W films just don't scan that well. If you want a high quality monochrome scan from a B&W negative, you're pretty much restricted to 3 options. In descending order they are:

 

1)Use a chromogenic (C-41 process) B&W film

 

2)Use C-41 color print film and convert it to monochrome with your image processiong software of choice.

 

3)Use E-6 film and do the same as option 2.

 

I figured out a while back that film scanners are designed to work well with films whose image is made of translucent dyes rather than opaque silver grains. This is why you used to hear about problems scanning Kodachome transparencies. The image in Kodachrome transparencies contains silver grains just like conventional B&W negatives. C-41 and E=6 process films have virtually no silver in them after process, it having been replaced by dyes. Sorry if this disappoints you, but that the way I see it. I get scans of B&W negatives, but they're never very good. Most times, they're so bad to my eye that I don't even keep them. About the only thing they're good for is to experiment with cropping and composition.

[ronald_moravec1]

Any neg that prints with a #2 paper- condenser or #3 -diffusion will scan well. This is how my negs are made and never had a problem scan.

 

Minolta 5400 and Epson 4780.

 

Too much density will give you trouble just like in the real darkroom.

[ken_hughes4]

Frank,

 

you need to find someone else to scan your film then, if you took a negative to be traditionally printed and the lab did a crappy job, would you automatically give up and say that film just can't be printed??

 

I scan my bw and get very high quality out of them. start hunting....

[marshall_arbitman4]

Frank:

 

While I'll agree that C-41 monochrome film scans nicely, indeed, you've got it somewhat wrong about Kodachrome. Once processed, it contains no more silver than a Peach Melba. The only significant difference between it and other color films has to do with its NON-processed state. Simply put, it doesn't incorporate color couplers in the emulsion.

[christian hilmersen www.]

Frank: I have tested Ilford Delta 400 against Ilford XP2 for scanning with Nikon Coolscan V. The Delta wins - but requires more spotting, as ICE does not work. B/W film scans are sharper than E-6 converted to B/W.

[william_john_smith]

I'm now in the process of scanning B&W negatives that go back 35 years to the present.

I'm using a Nikon 4000 scanner and getting outstanding results. Since moving from the

wet darkroom I have not changed the way I process negatives, still the same development

time. I have seen no change in enlarger output vs. scanner output. Scanning B&W

negatives is no big deal <B>IF</B> one takes the time to learn the correct way to do it.

<BR>That <I>"scanning B&W

negatives is hard"</I> is a myth that I believe was started by non-film, read digital only,

people

to mask their lack of understanding of the photographic process.

[silent1]

<i>This is why you used to hear about problems scanning Kodachome transparencies. The image in Kodachrome transparencies contains silver grains just like conventional B&W negatives.</i><p>

 

Frank, this is just wrong. Kodachrome has no more silver left in it after complete processing than E-6, C-41, or older E-4 and E-3 or C-22 materials. Kodachrome, in fact, is bleached repeatedly, with its four separate developer stages (first dev, bleach to remove the silver negative image and colloidal silver filter layer, then three separate reversal exposures and dye-bearing color devs, each followed by a bleach stage to remove the silver so all layers can be reversed).<p>

 

Kodachrome has a reputation for being difficult to scan because it uses different dyes with different spectral characteristices than either C-41 or E-6 materials, and the scanner setup has to be a bit different to obtain a quality scan -- just as scanning silver-image B&W requires a little different scanner setup from dye-based color materials.<p>

 

I routinely get very nice scans from silver B&W negatives (from Copex Rapid microfilm, Fomapan 100, Tri-X 400 and TMY) with my "obsolete" Agfa Arcus 1200, in sizes from Minolta 16 (10x14 mm) up to 9x12 cm.

[helenbach]

Yes, I agree with everybody, and I'll add that, with silver-image film destined for digital intermediate processing, I've found a benefit in going for lower graininess and accepting lower acutance when compared to how I like my negs to be for conventional printing. I suspect that it depends a lot on the scanner you are using - I'm using Nikon 4000, 5000, 8000 and 9000 scanners.

 

Best,

Helen

[olivier_reichenbach]

Helpful people, as usual. Let me sum it up to see if I got you right: not too much contrast,

a bit lower density, lower graininess with a bit less acutance. Now, that could prove to be a

bit too subtle for the beginner that I am, but I'll try. Not that I got bad results scanning my

negs so far, but I'm just wondering if there is not a better way, and things I should

know.

 

Thank you all.

[don_mckeith]

Develop for prints,and make a hard copy(print)of the ones you want to save.Remember 8 track tapes? the Com-64? Atari? 'nuff said

[janne1]

In my experience 100TMX developed well in diluted Xtol scans

extramely well even on my bad flatbed.

[kc_dougherty]

I've had very good luck with TMX. My old 1950s Rollei (Zeiss lens) and TMX make negatives that scan superbly. Sometimes the settings need to be tweaked but otherwise my Epson 3170 does great scans.

 

KC