rob scott Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Ok, I'm sure this has been discussed, but bear with me... I'd like to concentrate on 35 mm B&W film photography (SLR and RF) and I'd like to process my own film and then, ideally scan the negative (converting to positive) and print from a standard computer printer, after making some adjustments with a proprietary image software. I'm shooting T-Max now, but I'm open to suggestions on other films, as long as they are in the slower speeds. --what "bathroom scale" developer system? --what computer-based scanner/printer? Surely, this can be done... Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mawz Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 My current setup uses a cheapo plastic tank for developing and I scan with a Minolta Scan Dual III. I've had excellent results. Really, all you need for developing is a tank, reels, film clips, a sqeegee, thermometer and measuring glasses for mixing chemicals. I use old 2l pop bottles for chemical storage. For B&W it's not worth investing in a scanner with DigitalICE, sicne that does not work on B&W film anyways (Excepting C-41 Chromagenic B&W films). The only issues with developing is that scanners don't like dense negs, and do somewhat exaggerate grain, so unless you like grain, avoid Rodinal. My development setup won't do you much good, as I shoot mostly fast film and develop to enhance grain. The only slow films I use are APX100 and TMax, and I only shoot TMax because I keep getting deals on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_duvick Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I use a Minolta Scan Dual IV and get great results with T-Max 100. It scans better than anything else I've tried. With 400 the grain is noticable of course, but still acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discpad Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 You might want to consider shooting chromgenic (B&W C41) film, since it will scan much better with the Digital ICE. B&W film has a problem scanning, since the silver is still in it, and not bleached out; and Digital ICE can't handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob scott Posted July 30, 2005 Author Share Posted July 30, 2005 Thanks to all. I'm amazed at the amount of information that is available on this site. Any suggestions on brand of C-41? Kodak? Ilford? Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob scott Posted July 30, 2005 Author Share Posted July 30, 2005 While I'm asking simple questions, does B&H offer a "starter kit" for developing? I'm sure the answer is, "yes," but is it wiser to buy parts a-la-carte? My father was a professional photographer (dead now), and unfortunately, I just used to go in the lab, process my film, print off the enlarger, and stick the product in the dryer drum. Did I think to ask the ole' man to teach me the secret recipes? No! Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I've gotten great results using Kodak BW400CN ... I scan it as colour, convert to monochrome in Photoshop, and twist the tone curve madly using Photoshop to get a result which has higher midtone contrast than the film has in itself. Because it has such fine grain, really gross s-curve type adjustments can be done without problems. Don't be fooled by the low contrast of the film into believing that you can't get high contrast from it - you can, and the grain is still fine, as long as you don't underexpose it. I shoot it at EI 200. This film is one of my main reasons why I haven't succumbed into an all-digital photographer ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I'm using Neopan 400@ 1000 in Emofin. Low contrast negative, deep shadow detail, modest grain. If traditionally enlarging it'd need grade 4. I've done the neg-as-pos thing successfully but it's not as good as Vuescan in one step, which is faster and sharper. Vuescan's cheap, you want it for whatever scanner you decide upon. I use a Nikon V, 4000ppi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mawz Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 My experience is that B&W film scans just fine, with a couple of exceptions (notably HIE). There's no reason to bother with Chromagenic films just because DigitalICE works with them. It's nice, but not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 It's not just the ICE. And it's not a "bother". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klix Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 If you want to shoot B&W film knowing that you will scan it, IMO your best bet would be to shoot C-41 B&W. It just scans better in my experience. Having said that, I do prefer to shoot silver halide B&W just because I like the "wet" darkroom experience. I've narrowed done what works for **ME** (others will have their own favorites) - film: PanF, HP5+, APX100, Neopan 1600, and sometimes, Tri-X; developers: Diafine, HC110 and XTOL. I scan using a Canoscan FS4000, scanning as a color positive into Photoshop CS, inverting, then saving a "baseline" 16-bit tiff file. Then I make adjustments and save an 8-bit file for printing. I print to a Noritsu 2901 printer on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. I typically print 8x12 and 12x18. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeseb Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 good advice here. I shoot mostly MF B&W but have lately dragged out the Nikon for more 35mm. I am shooting mostly Tri-X, TMax 100, and Ilford FP4+, and developing in Xtol at various dilutions in a Jobo ATL-1500 processor. I scan with a Nikon LS-8000 film scanner using NikonScan software. I have VueScan, but I'm not the fan of it that many here are. (Pretty clunky in my view.) Most of the images in my portfolio (q.v.) were made with one of these films; tech info is listed for most of the images. TMax scans wonderfully--grain is almost invisible--but this film requires care to get the best results. It hates overdevelopment, and needs adequate exposure. Thinner negatives scan better, since scanners just don't pick up detail in dense highlight regions very well. The ideal "scanning" negative seems to be fully (ie slightly over-) exposed and underdeveloped a bit. Use a wetting agent rinse after washing the film, and then wipe carefully with a photo sponge. Hang to dry in the bathroom after running a hot shower for a few minutes to generate dust-settling steam. (I realize that wiping film with a sponge is heretical, but I've found that a squeegee doesn't remove all of the crap that you'll soon have to spot.) I have tried the chromogenic films, both Ilford and Kodak. They are fine films and grainless as stated here. I don't like them as well; for me they lack "something" that silver films have. Being able to digitalICE them hasn't been enough of an enticement to use them. Tri-X also scans beautifully. In Xtol it has very fine, smooth, beautiful grain. That film has unbeatable character. Good luck with your work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtk Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 All the silver films scan well with a little attention to the scanner settings and workflow, especially with Vuescan. The "bother" to C41 has to do with dealing with labs. For C41 color I'm going to use Costco in future because of the Noritsu scanners and obviously happy, intelligent staff. That's a plug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattalofs Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Matt's custom B&H starter kit: 1 * General Brand Large Changing Bag $21.95 1 * Paterson 2 reel tank with auto reel $20.95 1 * Paterson auto reel (now you can do 2 rolls at once) $6.89 1 * Diafine Developer Powder (quart size) $4.95 1 * Kodak Kodafix liquid fixer $6.99 1 * Kodak Photo-flo 200 (16oz) $6.99 Assorted things from the house: small scissors to cut leaders off undeveloped film 16 oz pyrex measuring cup small funel 3 1 liter water bottles for developer and fixer (diafine's a two bath devloper) coat hangar and clothe's pins for hanging negs rubbing alcohol (photoflo seems to work better when cut with rubbing alcohol) That's pretty much all you need. I use a minolta scan dual IV and fuji neopan films (100 Acros, 400 and 1600 @ 320, 500 and 1200 respectively). I find that slightly underexposed or lower contrast negatives scan best. Keeping the negs clean is the hardest part for me, although I think adding alcohol to photoflo seems to have solved that one. Enjoy! It's a lot of fun and frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dickhilker Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 When you get to the printing, you may be disappointed in the results from a standard computer printer. The Digital Darkroom forum has a lot of suggestions for getting results that look more like what you'd expect from a "wet" darkroom. The printer most agree does the best job is the Epson 2400, although the older 2200 is also excellent. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob scott Posted August 2, 2005 Author Share Posted August 2, 2005 I continue to be just overwhelmed with the constructive and generous suggestions. It'll take me a few months to get set up, but when I do, I'll post some photographs, using my own synthesis of your collective recommendations, and again thank you for the time that you've taken to on this string. Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now