The quest for the B&W (silver based) film scanner

[luisarguelles]

Hi all, more than 90% of my photographic work is made with silver

based film (usually Tri-X), and I'm making my homework in oder to buy

a good film scanner. I know that the Minolta 5400 (first model) was an

excellent option, but sadly, it's no more availble in Spain. Price

limit is about 750-800 Euros. Any hint?

[jtk]

Nikon V using Vuescan. It's the magic combination.

 

But if you bought a 5400II and it happened to have no fatal mechanical problems it'd also scan B&W well.

[jim_a]

<a href="http://www.jimarnold.net/4000tf/">My "review" of the Microtek 4000tf with Silverfast</a>

[rich815]

All will work well with the right scanning workflow. Most importantly is to consider that often a B&W neg that is good for the wet darkroom can often be too dense and contrasty for the easiest and nicest scans. Broadly speaking I find that a flatter and less contrasty neg scans a bit better and with less trouble. This may require you to re-think a little how you expose your negs, and your film development technique, if you are now deciding to mostly scan as your "darkroom". But really, I've used many scanners from Epson flatbeds with trannie adapters to dedicated film scanners from Minolta, Nikon and Canon. All are capable of great results---there is no "magic bullet" scanner that will give you turn-key perfect B&W neg scans every time. Get a good scanner from one of the good players (Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Microtek, etc.), take some hints from people here and elsewhere but only when you personally experiment and tweak your workflow will you learn what you need to do to get what you want out of your B&W work. Sort of like what the best B&W photographers have done for years with traditional wet darkroom technique. Sorry to seem vague and without a "just do this" attitude in my advice. I find its just not that simple---that is if you expect the most from your art and want more than just --good enough-- results.

[nikos peri]

<i>Nikon V using Vuescan. It's the magic combination.</i><p>

What? I'm having a hard time believing that. I shoot Tri-X, and scan the 35mm on my Nikon V and the MF and LF on an Epson 4870. The results are usually disasterous from the Nikon.<p>

I use Silverfast and Epson software with the Epson, and NikonScan with the Nikon. Will have to try Vuescan on the Nikon, but it yielded nothing earthshattering on the Epson when I tried it out.<p>

I feel for Luis... but the silver lining is that thanks to the crappy results I got from going digital with the negs, I've rebuilt an entire darkroom to wetprint. ;-)

[luisarguelles]

John, are you speaking about the V LS-50?. How are the results without Vuescan?. I don't like very much the user interface of this software. Two years ago I had a Minolta Dual Scan II that worked very good with chromogenic film (XP2, for example), but was a pain with any silver-based B&W film. Noadays I use an Epson 3200, but while the tonal range is lovely, I need more sharpness in 35mm format (but not grain!)

[luisarguelles]

Jim, thanks a lot for the "Microtek" advice, but after some Web research it seems it's no more available in Spain. I think it's a pity, because I saw some B&W scans in photosig and results are impressive.

[catcher]

I have a Minolta Scan Dual IV and find that it does a great job with its own software as long as you scan in 16 bit linear and then invert in photoshop. If I let the scanner software have its crack at the black and white negatives it blows out highlights and drops shadows. But in raw mode, then inverted and adjusted in photoshop I can bring out all the shadow/highlight detail I could in a wet darkroom.

[luisarguelles]

Richard, thanks for your reply. You are right, and every scanner has its own workflow. However, there are some scanners that, despite your best efforts, will not yield good results from conventional B&W film. For example I tried all my tricks with my old Minolta Dual II without success, so I would like now to buy one that can offer me at least some good "starting" scans.

[custom film holders for fl]

Luis - if you really want the first version of the Minolta, what about buying one off of ebay?

<p> Doug<p>

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mainintro.html">Dougs

MF Film Holder for batch scanning of 120/220 medium format film with flatbeds</a>

[luisarguelles]

Thanks Doug, yes, it probably will be the best strategy. Already found one!

[rich815]

Luis, sorry to hear of the trouble. My first film scanner was a Minolta Scan Dual II and although I sometimes had some trouble with detail in the shadows (and that's why I upgraded to a Nikon LS-4000) I got some fairly decent B&W scans with it using the Minolta software (at the time Vuescan did not support the Minolta DSII).

 

All the image in this folder were shot on Fuji Acros with my Contax G2 and the negs were scanned with the Minolta Dual Scan II:

 

http://contaxg.com/folder.php?id=728

[luisarguelles]

Richard, let me tell you that your scans are excellent. The following are two links as samples of my experiences with the Minolta Scan Dual II:</p>

First one (Ilford FP4): http://www.photo.net/photo/3540576&size=lg

</p>

Second one (XP2 Super): http://www.photo.net/photo/3540579&size=lg

</p>

Both were taken with a G1 and Planar 45mm f/2.

[rich815]

Thanks for the compliment Luis. Your examples look exactly like what I get from overly dense, overly contrasty negatives. In general I find if I develop N-1 or about 20% less time than recommended (especially if the conditions were contrast and bright to begin with) I get negs that are much easier to scan and do not have those bullet-proof highlights or dense shadows.

 

That 45mm lens is awesome, its my favorite! But its can give such contrasty results sometimes I find I need to be especially careful in my development to not add to that even more with over-development. For XP2 I used to shoot at 250 or 320 but that was for wet darkroom printing. Now I shoot it at 400 when I know I'll be scanning them.

[bobmichaels]

Luis: I have some prints Richahd Sintchak made many years ago scanning 35mm b&w with a SDII and printing on an 1160. They hold their own with anything I currently see people do.

[ilkka_nissila]

Richard, you should consider selling some scans for Fuji to use in their advertising. Really nice! Maybe I should give traditional black and white film a try.

[eric_kim]

I hope you can get some darkroom experience before you try to find the good scanner for bw. It is more like going to the live concert before you go to audio stores to find the best speaker. Having some example prints of your bw negatives will also help you when you compare the scan images from different scanners.

 

I've used Leica V35 enlarger for bw prints for a year and looked for the good scanner for bw for the web posting. I'd tried Nikon CS 4000, V and Minolta 5400. To me, it seems that scan images from 5400 and Vuescan combination are closest to the bw prints from the wet darkroom even if the focus on the film edge is still not as sharp as the prints.

 

Other users may have good bw scan results from Nikon scanners too.

[luisarguelles]

Eric, I think your analogy works very well. I have almost 30 years of B&W lab experience under my belt :)