Scanned Tri-X or Scanned Portra for B&W prints?

[rjpillers]

I'm still low on the digital darkroom learning curve, so please excuse any

non-sense I may come up with here.

 

I use 35mm film cameras primarily and I usually use Kodak's Portra films. I have

the film developed and a CD made to use as a digital contact sheet. When I find

something I like, I scan the negative with a Coolscan scanner, and then print on

an Epson R2400.

 

Occasionally, I find an image I prefer to print in B&W. So I simply use PS

Elements to subtract the color from the scan, and then print (with the usual

fussing with contrast, etc.) But lately I've been reading the photo.net forums

more, and every so often I read a comment saying something like "There's nothing

close to a B&W print from a Tri-X negative...").

 

Here's my question: Do you think I will see any substantial difference between a

B&W print made from a scanned, inkjet printed Tri-X negative or a scanned,

inkjet printed Portra negative? Or, alternatively, is it possible that the

"digitizing" process reduces any benefits the Tri-X negative might hold to

something inconsequential?

 

I use Tri-X and Portra here simply as place-holders for any B&W or color

negative film you might have experience with. And assume, for sake of a

simplified discussion, that I'm actually high on the learning curve when it

comes to scanning and printing either film.

[danielleetaylor]

I can say that I've had success converting DSLR images to match the look of Acros. I can't say for certain if Portra can be made to match Tri-X because I've never tried it. You should just pick up a roll of Tri-X, shoot a few scenes side-by-side with Portra, then see if you can match your Portra scans to your Tri-X scans.

[evan_goulet]

"There's nothing close to a B&W print from a Tri-X negative..."

 

And, that includes prints from scans of Tri-X negatives.

 

Scanning enhances grain through aliasing, so I think you wind a lot more texture in scans of Tri-X versus scans of Portra. I have converted scans of Portra in medium format to black and white, and they are definitely smoother in texture than those from Tri-X. This will probably be exaggerated in 135 format.

[roger_smith4]

If you're low on the learning curve I'd start with Portra and work on different techniques for B&W conversion. Look up Russell Brown's technique, channel mixer, and try Lightroom's tools if you have it.

 

Tri-X will introduce a different set of issues on the scanning end.

[rjpillers]

Thanks everyone for the advice. Based on your comments, I'll first get myself farther up the learning curve using Portra film and Lightroom. Then I'll do some side-by-side comparisons with Tri-X.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Three cheers for photo.net!

[Ed_Ingold]

I get good results scanning Tri-X on a Nikon film scanner, using either NikonScan or Silverfast AI6. It's important to scan at 16-bit depth with Digital ICE off.

 

8-bit scans are too contrasty. Digital ICE uses infrared to detect dust, but silver-based images are opaque to infrared (causes bizaar grain and dark scans that don't match the preview). This means you must clean negatives well, but expect to spend some time in Photoshop removing dust.

 

I think the term "aliasing" is misapplied to grain in scanned images. Aliasing occurs when a repeated pattern with finer details than the pixel spacing creates a moire pattern. Grain is hardly "regular" in that respect. However, grain has a structure on many levels of resolution. Under a microscope, B&W grain appears like clumps of filaments. These clumps appear differently at different magnifications. The "Holy Grail" of a conventional darkroom is to achieve sharp grain over the entire picture - a goal seldom achieved. Scans are much sharper than you can get from a consumer-level darkroom enlarger. Seeing grain in scanned images from corner to corner comes as somewhat a surprise to people coming from a darkroom (and into the light).

[rjpillers]

Edward,

Thanks for the interesting insights. I'll pay attention to your suggestions when I try out my scanner on some Tri-X I'm about to expose.

Jamie

[roger_smith4]

If you're going to scan B&W film, try not to overdevelop and you may need to increase hardware scanner exposure to reduce scanner noise in the highlights- watch the histograms closely and do some test scans at different exposure settings.

 

With color negative film one exposure should work in all situations. 16 bit scans and 8 bit scans should be visually indistinguishable but the former has a lot more headroom for editing.