what are your favorite black and white films for scanning (non-chromogenic)?

[joshua daniels]

I'm trying to do small, informal survey on bw films that are optimized

for scanning. My best results have been with Kodak TMY and Fuji Neopan

400 and 1600. I'd like to expand the repetoir! I'm using a Minolta

Scan Multi Pro. Best results have been either with a Nikon Coolscan V

(preceding the Minolta) scanning bw as color neg. or with the Minolta

using Scanhancer. I'd like to hear other people's experiences and favs.

[ivan_dzo]

Anything really fine grain. The developer is also really important. The finest is Acros or TMX, but I prefer the look of Delta 100. I've compared most films with virtually all more common developers and the best is Xtol 1+1. Neat xtol is even finer grained but the detail is slightly mushy. So I keep mixing developers but return to Delta 100 in Xtol 1+1 or 1+2. The best of all of course is Techpan but that's not available [except in my freezer :-) ]

[lex_jenkins]

TMX scans the best for me using an old Minolta Dimage Scan Dual. With most other films the grain is exaggerated, altho' the essential characteristics of the films are preserved.

[peter_daalder]

I've had great results with Ilford Pan F 50 ISO, developed in ID-11.<br>Scanned with a CanoScan FS4000...

[jbq]

I prefer TMX.

[raphael_bustin2]

Whatever film you choose, be prepared to do some experimenting with scanner settings. You may find (for example) that it's beneficial to scan negatives as positives, and invert the image in Photoshop. This is what's worked for me, on using NikonScan and silver-based BW films.

 

One advantage of chromagenic BW is that you can use digital ICE when scanning it.

[andrew_hull]

Tri-X in Microdol 1:3. Scans well, prints well.

[jordan_w.]

As another poster mentioned, aim for fine grain and a somewhat flat negative (be careful not to blow out the highlights). I've had bad luck scanning negs developed in Rodinal, except for the very fine-grain stuff (like Efke 25), but that may be "just me".

 

Also, beware of judging the "scannability" of a combination from JPGs posted on the Web. They can be very deceiving -- the type of scanner, sharpening method, and Photoshop skills of the user can make a big difference.

[scott_eaton]

I still have no flippin idea why many of you choose to scan TMY and TMX. Yeah...TMX has fine grain. Big deal.

 

The Tmax films along with Acros have lousy mid density range, and density range is what gives classic B&W film it's unique 'glow' that so many of the you rave about. It's lack of density range that is the reason many B&W photographers complain about the chromogenics.

 

Scanning B&W film is controversial enough, but why are you cutting off your finger by using castrated films like TMX and TMY? 90% of the scans I see on Photo.net from TMY and TMX are so bloody murky and dull they look worse than under-exposed chromogenics (lexx knows what I'm complaining about and is one of the rare exceptions), and the remaining 10% would be slaughtered by scanning E100G or Provia and desaturating.

 

At least use something with some balls to it like Tri-X, HP5 or FP4.

[william_john_smith]

I can only speak for one developer/film combination: Agfapan 100 with Rodinal. I have

been using the same combination for over 25 years in both the wet and scanner

darkrooms without changing a thing, same development times etc. I use Vuescan with

Nikon LS9000, been using Nikon scanners since the first one came out. The Nikon

software is not even worth taking out of the shipping package in MNSHO. <BR>Vuescan

has a setting of "Reversal BW" for slide film which i have used with some success. I have

found in my case that scanning the negative as a slide with no color changes and then

doing all the changes in Photoshop works best for me. Vuescan will also produce a RAW

scan, I use that sometimes.

<BR>I did develop and scan a couple of rolls of Tri-X for a friend and they came out fine.

[bernhard]

TMX has a repuation of low density (low Dmax) and this may be true if you develop it in certain developers like D76 according to KODAK specs. But this material is capable of a lot more as you can see from the attached characteristic curve from Kodak showing a straight line to a Dmax of 3.

 

I personally like TMX exposed at ISO64 and souping it in Rodinal 1:50 for 14 minutes @ 20ﾰC with 3 gentle agitations every 3 minutes.

 

If you have troubles scanning slides stay away from this.

 

If you tend to blow out highlights when exposing slide film and rely on soft rolling highlight shoulders of print films to do the highlight job for you, stand clear.

 

If you don't like TMX's straight line tonality or don't know how to use photoshop curves to make the tonality bend to your will, stay ... you get my drift.

 

Otherwise you have a material that (for me) is a lot like slide film, good density range, fine grain and smooth tonality but B&W and negative and hence much better highlight separation.

 

And sometimes a PITA to scan if you exposed or developed a touch to much.

 

Developed in your college dark room vanilla brew and scanned with cheapo scanners and bundled one-click scanning software it's a waste of time.

 

So in a nutshell a film for guys with balls to use with a developer with balls but without grain like balls. :)

[helenbach]

If you are shooting film for optimum scanning then the development process is as important as the choice of film, just as with traditional printing. I believe that it is worth considering reversal processing for silver-image B&W (note the qualification), depending on the capabilities of your scanner. It's a matter of getting an optimal match between the dynamic range of the scanner and the density range of the film. If you develop B&W neg to high densities you get high graininess, by and large. It is possible to develop to a reversed image with a high density range and low graininess.

 

If you are producing a reversal B&W image for scanning instead of projecting, you don't need to worry about the image colour. This gives you freedom in the choice of second developer - you can go for sharpness and low graininess. The possibilities are endless.

 

Though reversal processing at home is possible, and it allows you to tailor development to your scanner, sending it to dr5.com is a lot simpler and guaranteed to be high quality. So my suggestion is that you give dr5 at least one trial after browsing the film choices on the website. I've had good results from 320TXP, TMX and HP5+ with Nikon 4000, 5000, 8000 and 9000 scanners. I have no connection with dr5, by the way.

 

Best,

Helen

[jtk]

IMO they're all the same, processed reasonably well and treated skillfully.

 

I happen to like grain sometimes (Rodinal-pushed Neopan 400 @ 800), but that tends to bloom if you're not careful...so to manage that I simply use Vuescan's slight grain reduction setting. Doesn't affect grain sharpness at all.

 

If someone's always processed crudely, looking for high contrast on grade 2, they might want to rethink, prioritizing shadow/highlight detail. It's worth remembering zone system ideas.

[mark_gooby2]

I must agree with Helen. I've been using DR5 for years and David Wood does such a great job

getting the most out of every roll I send him. I've had particularly good results using Delta

100 and Efke 50. The Delta has lots of detail in the shadows and highlights with smooth

gradations and very little if no grain. I've scanned both Delta negatives that I processed

myself and Delta positives from DR5 and hands down, the positives scan much better.

 

Mark

[lex_jenkins]

The main advantage to scanning TMX is that the grain isn't exaggerated. Otherwise, yup, T-Max films are tricky to scan. I still prefer to make flatbed scans of my best prints. I don't have the knack for recreating the effects of local contrast, dodging, burning, etc., digitally.

 

Even with the best of scans it's still necessary to make a lot of decisions during post processing. Sometimes using one particular channel comes closer to recreating the desired look than the combined channels or simple desaturation.

 

Also, regardless of which film you choose, scanning b&w film generally works best with thinner negatives. So you might want to change your development technique, especially if you're accustomed to developing for printing using a dichro or VC enlarger. Decreasing development a bit not only makes negs easier to scan well, it also reduces the grain a bit.

[jim_a]

Joshua,

 

No magic bullets. The most important part is your skill at scanning and using Photoshop. I've found that *for me* either Tri-X or Neopan 400 is a good film. For 100 it's Ilford Delta, but I don't shoot much of that. I use D-76 1:1. Tried XTOL last year and hated it. Experimented again with HC-110 but that couldn't beat good old D-76 either.

 

I've come to appreciate the Silverfast software I use on my Microtek 4000tf.

[victor_moss]

Acros in Xtol 1:1 gets my vote. TMX in same soup is good too. For higher speed film Neopan 400 is good but grainier. Btw, I use Multi Pro too.

[erik scanhancer]

I got best results with Agfa APX25 developed in Rodinal. For daily use I work with TMX100,

developed in TMX developer. It's easy to scan. But the results from the APX25 are just

breathtaking. It's no longer in production unfortunately. I have some in my freezer though.

You could have a look at the 25 ASA film from Rollei. Or their multi-purpose film at a low

sensivity. Those films have a totally clear base, so you get very clean blacks. The Scanhancer

LEK mods work very well in conjunction with the Scanhancer and B&W too.