Why use B&W film for scanning?

[arie07]

Do not have anymore access to a wet lab or fiber based paper but love b&w images. I do shoot digital or film and

scan my 35mmm or 645 MF negatives and have them printed in a minilab in sizes up to 30" x 40" (70 x 100 cm)

Having said so, I am asking the forum readers to let me know what reasons can they think of for shooting b&w film

instead of just work my color images to get B&W prints.

[tim gray]

A couple reasons of why I do it (I still do make some prints in a darkroom though):

 

- First and foremost, I like the look of traditional B&W film.

 

- I like the flexibility/consistency/accountability that processing my own film gives me.

 

- I like the affordability of processing my own film.

 

Since C41 development is a little trickier at home, so far I've just done B&W developing at home. Note this can be done

with very little space/money. It works for me.

 

One should certainly point out a few of the advantages of shooting color and converting to B&W later:

 

- easier/cheaper/more available third party processing.

 

- ability to use photoshop to do the B&W conversion - like carrying a bag of filters with you.

 

- ability to use scratch and dust removal systems like ICE.

 

Mind you, the C41 B&W films (Kodak BW400CN and Ilford XP2 Super) give you the first and third point there while still

being black and white. They have other advantages, like super low grain and big latitude...

[starvy]

i am still new in many ways and i really like the look of black and white film compared to the desaturated digital colour whether raw or jpeg.

[iliafarniev]

Hard to say. Artistic types, purists and old dogma fags continue to insist on true bw but in todays reality average editor may get a heart attack and kick the bucket if you give him a shot on tri-X pan or something. If he still know what it is, I mean...

[ian_mazursky]

Ilia,<br>

I dont think that necessarily true, many of the mags and the like have partially returned to tradition.<br>

We have seen a lot more scanning of B&W and color negs in the last 2 years than in the past 5.<br>

Most destined for publication. The quality from a B&W original neg cant be duplicated in digital or even from a color neg.<br>

The grain, sharpness, edge definition.....etc. are all unique to each file and developer combination. I personally use 4x5 and 12x20 film. It

creates a unique look that isnt easily replicated.<br>

<br>

<br>

-Ian Mazursky<br>

[SCL]

I've got several hundred feet of Plus-X and Tri-X...in the freezer, gotta use it up sometime.

[marc_bergman1]

One of the reasons for using B&W film is that it is a known quantity. Those that have used different B&W film with different developers have a good sense of the look of the developed film.

 

Once you have a good sense of the film look it can affect your shooting in a positive manner.

 

One of the things I am looking at with my new scanner is whether I have to use different developing times. I am also looking at how different films scan.

 

There is nothing wrong with using color negative film if you can imagine how it will look when changed to B&W. I did some work yesterday in converting some slide film scans to B&W. I liked the results but it will take some time to pre-visualize the look I will get.

[marek_fogiel]

The main reason is in the tonality of the traditional B&W film - both in terms of sharpness and resolution, unless you go to

6x7 and beyond, a good 35mm digital trumps film, but in tonality it is pure crap. So the real point to shoot the traditional

B&W film, is to get the tonal transitions and broad dynamic range, which digital still cannot give you today. Converting from

colour - film or digital - kills the rich tonality, so It defeats the purpose.

[Ed_Ingold]

Black and white film has a much wider dynamic range compared to the best color negative film - 12 stops vs 10 stops. This is due, in part, to a broad toe on the characteristic curve, which also indicates excellent shadow detail. B&W film has a much higher resolving power than color film of comparable speed. Finally, the B&W film is roughly twice as sensitive to blue light as to red or green (50/25/25), whereas color film is equally sensitive. This adds a luminance to flesh tones for portraits and darkens greens for landscapes - which many people find pleasing. B&W is also far cheaper and easier to process at home than colo film.

 

Just my two cents.

[iliafarniev]

Edward. I think you credit bw negative film with way more d-range it actually has. The T-Max 100 and 400 may be

developed to 6 stops range but what kind image will it be? Standard recomended developments do 4 stops usually.

 

Dynamic range of pro d-cams sensors and in medium and large format d-backs may go to 12 stops range.

 

Most scanners hardly do more then 5, you need few scans assembled to achieve visual equivalent in prints.

 

Uniqueness - yes, but all others are actually just as unique as any other. Yet uniqueness is not a best seller as we

all know.

 

Agree on cost effectivness.

 

I think there is little or no reason to shoot bw film for scanning exept for somebody may simply like it, wich is all right.

 

There is no merit no virtue in offensive personal remarks.

[larrydressler]

Because B&W Film with proper scanning has Soul.<div></div>

[mendel_leisk]

One reason I can think of is if you prefer to process your own film: b/w and white being much simpler and the

traditional domain of home processors.

 

If you're relying on others to process, I'd say go with color negative film: it's the "usual" for one-hour-photo, more

readily available, usually comes back from the processor dead-flat (which really helps for scanning), and allows you

to post process as if you were using different black-and-white filters (darken blue skys, etc).

 

And, you're not commited to black and white, you have the color info, if you decide to go that route. The only

downside is dealing with the mask, which can be done.

[robert lee]

"... reasons can they think of for shooting b&w film instead of just work my color images to get B&W prints..."

 

Because I can't develop C-41 at home as easily.

[iliafarniev]

C-41 is not so much more dificult to make at home actually

[digitmstr]

This a bit of subject but if you shoot digital you can convert to B&W (there are many threads on various techniques on doing this) and then, print a "negative" on transparency and then, contact print is on real photo paper. If works great! If you don't want to do contact you could make a smaller negative to match your enlarger size but, I wouldn't do anything smaller than 4x5 or at least 6x9.

 

The good thing about doing it this way is that all your editing has been done digitally and when you make the photo print you have no waste of paper, chemicals, etc... To me, that's the best marriage of the two technologies: digital editing and analog printing.

[Ed_Ingold]

The characteristic curve of Tri-X film, published by Kodak, is consistent with a 12-stop input dynamic range. This is accomplished by inherent compression, exhibited in the lengthy toe and shoulder curvature of that chart.

 

Many people confuse DMax values for scanners as the dynamic ranged. DMax is nothing more than the maximum density from which the scanner can extract a useful signal. The dynamic range extends to the light areas too, and approaches 12 stops for a 14 to 16 bit scanner. Secondly, the dynamic range of B&W film is proportional to the range of ordinate of the characteristic curve, which is considerably less than 12 stops (5 stops is more typical).

[Lou_Meluso]

Leo, my experience is that due to the structure of color films they tend to look slightly grainier than the same speed B&W film. B&W emulsions are not multi-layered like color films, thus they appear slightly sharper in the scan. You can control the "look" of the image more with B&W through developer selection and processing approach and match it more closely to your scanning hardware capabilities. It is a lot less expensive and since I process at home it is faster and I can process anytime day or night.

[digitmstr]

>>let me know what reasons can they think of for shooting b&w film instead of just work my color images to get B&W prints.<<

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your question or assumed that your were shooting digital color images.

 

If you are talking about shooting COLOR FILM vs B&W FILM then, the answer is simple: the quality of B&W film and subsequent chemical treatment during development is totally different than those available in color emulsions. B&W has certain unique characteristics which are not the same in color film.

 

Now, you could scan a color image and then convert in the digital format but, at that point I do argue that you are better off shooting a color image directly with a DIGITAL camera.

 

So, for me, it's like this: if I shoot film I do either B&W or color. Otherwise, I shoot digital and do as I please later (i.e. convert any image I might want in B&W from the original color RAW file).

[eclecticbuzzard]

The classic look of b&w film was always at the core of the fine art photography market (as well as other markets) and I, for one, don't want that to go away. Aside from being artistic, pure and dogma faggoty, there really does seem to be some kind of indescribable difference between a completely desaturated color shot and one created with b&w film.

[don_e]

"I am asking the forum readers to let me know what reasons can they think of for shooting b&w film instead of just work my color images to get B&W prints."

 

"Why use B&W film for scanning?"

 

There is no reason to do so unless you like shooting b&w film, or have the time and patience to work out a good scanning/editing routine for b&w film (I'm still working on that, myself). The results are not so bad and a lot of the dissatisfaction is likely due to not being able to run ICE.

[iliafarniev]

Edward. Can you link us to Kodak site where Tri-X film characteristic curves shown "consistent with a 12-stop input dynamic range" as you put it?

[Ed_Ingold]

This is the characteristic curve published by Kodak for Professional Tri-X film developed in D-76, showing a 15 stop dynamic range (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f009_0491ac.gif)

 

The same film in T-Max developer has a better toe area yet (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f009_0491ac.gif).

 

Hint: The scale is logarithmic. Divide the horizontal range by 0.301 (log 2) to show the range as f/stops.

[mark_l3]

I routinely dilute develop bw film and can easily get 15 stops. Neither color film nor digital can hold a candle to the tonal ranges or sharpness of bw film, think about this- with bw film I capture and manipulate information from a vast range of tonality (the original scene), with digital or color film you convert to bw from a small very limited range (color film or a digital file), couple this with the fact that bw film holds so much more information and follow the logical conclusions. Granted, this limited range can sometimes work when you don't need much information to get the image you want, and many people settle for this in all images, it's all in what your standards are I suppose.

[Phil_Light]

The science seems to support the scanning of negatives with a good range of densities as the preferred source to

creating a good digital end result. Much needs to be clarified in the quality of that scan however (RGB and

uncompressed 16bit+ preferred). The only place I seem to be realizing a distinct advantage in digital files over

scanned negative files is in the use of RAW files on the high end tonalities (whites). These are actually RGB files

anyway. With RAW formats it is possible to bring down detail-less white values into a reasonable scale of tonality

which actually shows/defines detail within a digital image. With scanned negatives, if there is no detail in the most

dense highlights, there is not going to be any detail in the evetual image created from the scanned negative nor any

in the print produced from that negative either. With care I think it is possible to produce very usable images from

either source. I just prefer the aesthetic that seems to be inherent in the image created from a negative. This <A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/1596395&size=lg">image</A> created from Tri-X 6X7 negative

scanned and was done so in a larger pixel display size for most display sizes. I think this image has a quality that

even a moderately good <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/2946689&size=lg">digital source

image</A> lacks? Maybe it's all in my head? But, I still prefer the aesthetic of the source negative even in the

eventual digital image displayed by a browser.

[iliafarniev]

Thanks for the links Edward. I don't think your interpretation is correct. The scale is logarithmic but so are the ev

values set on cameras. The exposure difference achieved by stopping the lens down one stop, say from F2,8 to F4.0

equivalent to one number on horizontal scale, say from 0 to -1G. Speaking technically the the characteristic curves

of the film presented do not show dynamic range but exposure latitude which is usualy 3 to 4 for this kind of bw films

and can be developed to 5 or 6 by adjusting development process.