Favorite B&W for scanning

[jtk]

Those of you that scan your own..what B&W films do you prefer ?

 

I've only recently returned to B&W in 35 (due to my new Nikon scanner)

...been scanning old and new TMax, ancient ILford HP4 (Neofin Red) and

FP4 (Neofin Blue )as well as current Delta 400 (Rodinal).

 

What are your favorites with what scanner?

[boulderjoe]

I cannot say enough about the Kodak 400CN for scanning. It's C-41, but it scans so much better.

 

-Joe

[anand_n._vishwamitran]

Neopan 400 is superb with the Nikon Coolscan 9000 scanner.

[michael s.]

I'm a comparative novice (at photography and at scanning), but I'd suggest you also give Ilford XP2 a try.

 

It's chromogenic b & w (C41 processing) but has a smooth look and is amenable to the Digital Ice scanning software that reduces dust and scratches.

[gene_e._mccluney]

Neopan 400, D-76 1+1, scanned in Nikon 9000ed Yum.

[sliu]

Most of my recent B&Ws are from XP2 Super.<div></div>

[kajabbi]

HP5+, Scanner Minolta 5400<div></div>

[rich815]

Almost any B&W film will scan nicely if you do not use overly developed and overly contrasty negs. The C-41's scan very well, and though I like them, they definitely have a different look than traditional B&W films. I use mostly HP5+, Tri-X or Neopan 400 and thye scan pretty well if I cut typical digitaltruth development times by 10-20%.<div></div>

[rich815]

Another from the same roll (and if anyone cares the camera was a Rolleiflex Standard 622 with uncoated Tessar 75/3,5 lens)<div></div>

[roger_michel]

i consistently get superior results with the new t400cn (or whatever it's called now) and pan f plus. everything seems to work OK, but these films sem to be made for scanning (indeed, kodak claims the t400 was made precisely for scanning).

[rich815]

...and I get similarly good results with the same films with my Nikon LS-4000 35mm scanner.

[jorn ake]

Development is 9/10 of the battle. Negatives that print fine on multigrade paper may be too contrasty for most scanners to resolve half-tones. Too much heat or agitation can also make things bullet-proof (blacks shadows with no detail) or too grainy. Less is more - you want a fairly low contrast negative with lots of shadow detail. Diafine is a good developer to try, which I like with HP5 rated at 640. But my favorite combinations are Fuji Acros & Neopan with HC-110 - nice even salt and peppery grain with lovely gradations throughout. Keep the temperature under control & consistent though.

 

For a scanner, I use a Microtek 4000tf with Silverfast. I have entirely disabled the Negafix feature of Silverfast as I have found that the profiles are basically crap and remove a lot of detail from the scans. Silverfast itself used to be very finicky but it seems to have gotten more dependable with each version. The scanner is good - fast, quiet-ish, and dependable. However, if I had cash, I would buy the new Nikon 5000 as it has one feature I think is a killer app: a roll feeder that allows you to scan a strip of 35mm negatives up 40 images long. Makes digital contacts very easily done. Nicest lens too.

[jim_a]

Jorn, I also have a 4000tf and found it to be a good scanner. I was wondering if you tried using other profiles in Negafix other than the one meant for a particular film? I'm sure you have, just wanted to make certain.

 

As to the original question, the most important factor in all of this is the skill of the operator using the scanner and their prowess in Photoshop. In my recent post of photos from a few days I ago I shot a mixture of Neopan and the "new" Tri-x. I thought I would find the Neopan easier to scan but that was not the case. Each scanned very well. Unless you want the grain look, why anyone is shooting 400 speed 35mm film and souping in Rodinal is lost on me.

[john_brewton]

Hi John. I have a Minolta 5400. I scan everything from Pan F to TriX with no problems. However, I HAVE had problems with the higher ISO films and way too much grain. Some like that grainy texture but I'm not one of those. I will never shoot 1600 or 3200 again. I find that TriX does just fine in low light situations.

[jtk]

Jim, there are three real arguments for Rodinal and fast film:

 

1) It's sharp. It doesn't dissolve grain/sharpness the way *almost* every other developer does (I sometimes like Neofin for the same reason).

 

2) It looks distinctive, like nothing else. It makes the famous dark "edge effect" where tones collide...a dark line gets drawn, almost the opposite of an oversharpened look...the look it can be dramatic. Nothing else does this.

 

3) The grain itself can be attractive.

 

4) Nostalgia. The same reason many of us shoot Leicas. It's the oldest commercial developer on the market, maybe 90 years of history.

 

That said, I'm looking for new, better ideas.

[jorn ake]

Jim - yep, thanks, tried the others. When you get rid of Negafix, the image is scanned as a negative (or rather, as a positive like slide film) and then you invert in Photoshop and adjust. Try it yourself and compare. The detail, especially in the shadows, is much better. I think the profiles end up just creating a "look," rather than truly augmenting the information on the film.

 

Here is the Negafix version.<div></div>

[jorn ake]

Here is the one done without Negafix.<div></div>

[marco_buonocore]

I've been doing a lot of scanning of old negs recently. I shot HP5, TriX, PanF+, TMAX 400 and APX 100. Without a doubt, the PanF+ negs produce the best scans. When I look at the 12x18 prints, it's amazing how they still keep their smoothness. The grain on the 400 ISO films gets quite noisy, by my standards, and I find they print heaps better in the darkroom.

 

Scans are done on a Coolscan 9000 and Imacon 848 and 2200 and 3200 dpi respectively. Pretty much everything developed in Rodinal.

[simonpg]

For C41 B&W my vote is for XP2 Super. Look at the negs - actually B&W whereas Kodak version are orange! My Fuji Frontier lab comments that XP2 is the best they have seen for printing and scanning.