Film choice for scanning

[arb_inv]

Hi

 

I am traveling to Asia shortly and want to shoot entirely in b&w. I thought I would ask what you would recommend for film type given I

want to produce for scanning?

 

I will likely shoot a dozen or so roles and will get professionally processed and scanned. I am thinking to maybe go with just 400 film

albeit most likely it will all be outdoor.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Andy

[SCL]

<p>Personally I'd go for something in the 50-100 ISO range unless you're planning to use filters. 400 is certainly almost universal, but especially in daylight, one has to close down the diaphragm rather significantly and that precludes using wide open apertures to isolate one's subject.</p>

[john_wiegerink1]

<p>Now, this is just my opinion, but I like Acros 100 for scanning and it isn't fussy as to the developer it's processed in and scans excellent. In 400 speed I'd say Tmy2 or maybe Delta 400. Both are excellent, but, again, in my opinion no match for Acros 100. You don't say what format your shooting? John W</p>

[arb_inv]

Hi I am shooting 35mm

[john_wiegerink1]

<p>Arb,<br>

Since you say it will mostly be outdoor shooting I'd go with Acros 100 for sure. But, I like as fine a grain negative as I can get while still maintaining excellent sharpness and Acros delivers that. If you don't mind a little more grain then go for something like TMY2 or Delta 400. The other nice plus with Acros in the reciprocity factor. You can mount your camera on a tripod or sit it on a wall, ledge, trash can or whatever and take long, low-light exposures and not have to worry about reciprocity exposure compensation. Oh, and did I say Acros scans are great? Of course you could go with a slide film also and convert to B&W. That way you'd have the best of both worlds. John W</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>I'm getting the feeling you don't shoot much (if any) B&W. If true, asking the forum for a good film to use will not do you much good.....as opposed to picking up a random film and just shooting it. That is, it's not based on any of your experience and you really have no idea what the results will be.</p>

<p>My suggestion is to ask for a reference for a decent place to get your film developed and then ask *them* what the best results are with. Your shooting will be the wild card and you may asd well make the developing people a constant.</p>

<p>Just my two cents.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I like just about any film except Delta 3200. </p>

[arb_inv]

<p>Well actually I have shot literally several hundred of rolls of film a good chunk of which were B&W. The issue is I probably shot the last roll (film) well over 10 years ago and have never scanned a single negative. I knew all the film options (at least back then) as I worked in a studio / pro lab for 6 years in my late teens / early 20s but again they have likely changed and never did anything with a view to digitising.<br>

So Peter, random film is not really what I am looking for, rather am looking for optimal way to shoot whilst travelling (ie not studio) for future scanning / digitisation.<br>

- Andy</p>

[Mike Gammill]

Fuji Acros would be a good choice if you don't need more speed. If long exposures are not a problem then again it's the

Fuji. I like Tri-X for ISO 400 and it scans well.

[craig_shearman1]

<p>First of all, I would strongly caution against going on a major trip with a camera, film, etc. that you've never used before. This has always been one of the top rules of photography -- get to know your tools before you take them on a trip, assignment, etc. that can't easily be repeated. Granted, there is nothing particularly difficult about the basics of shooting B&W film. But in general you run the risk of coming back with unusable pictures, or at least ones that aren't what you'd like them to be. Instead, use what you already know.<br /><br />If you do want to shoot B&W and have it developed professionally, I would recommend Ilford XP2. Since it's a C-41 chromogenic film it can be developed anyplace that develops color negative, and color neg/chromogenic scans better than traditoinal B&W. Automated dust removal like Digital ICE will work on it but not on traditoinal B&W. It is difficult to find labs today that can do a good job developing traditoinal B&W unless you go to a custom professional lab and pay accordingly. If you were going to develop yourself I would say Tri X or Tmax 400.<br /><br />XP2 is 400 speed and I recommend that you stick with 400. I've considered 400 my standard speed since shooting thousands of rolls of Tri-X back in the day. No need to go with anything slower unless you have a specific purpose. Gives you much more margin for error with keeping shutter speeds high and stopping down for depth of field. If you need to shoot wide open, move to the shade where you'll have better light anyhow.<br /><br />XP2 works just like traditional B&W film when it comes to filters. So if you want to try a yellow filter, red filter, etc., it's a good choice. If you are not going to use B&W filters and you're ultimately going to scan rather than print in the darkroom, then there's no particular point to shooting on B&W. Just shoot color negative and convert to B&W after you scan.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Doesn't it much depend on how it gets developed? Since you're not going to be in control of the development, I'd check with whoever does it and ask them for advice what they see as the best film to use with their processing and scanning.<br>

If most of what you do is outdoor, I'd opt for a ISO100 film - personally I've not used enough of those to give a solid advice, but in terms of scanning, not FP4, Delta 100 or APX100 have given me major issues. I use the indicated times from the Massive Dev Chart and unless I make a mess of things, getting good scans from those negatives isn't much of an issue.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Arb Irv, my mistake. The way you worded your question was as if you were a novice of film.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>XP2 indeed wouldn't be a bad idea either. I'm not sure if I interpreted your original question right in the sense that you will be using one single lab for development and scanning. If yes, then align with them; if they tell you for them it makes no difference, just choose a ISO100 or 400 film from a good known vendor (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji), and you'll be OK. If you'll use various labs, including some while travelling, XP2 is a safer bet as C41 processing is more widely available.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I didn't see the part about your professional studio/lab experience until after I posted, so my apologies there. Given that level of experience and expertise, I would recommend that you shoot Tri-X/Tmax or Ilford equivalents and develop/print traditionally in a wet darkroom. You already know how to do that, and it's the simplest path to the best results in B&W IMHO.<br /><br />If you want to soup and scan, I would still go with the XP2. Consensus seems to be that the silver in traditional b&w film doesn't scan as well as the color dyes (or neutral dyes in the case of XP2) in C-41 film.<br /><br />If you want to soup and scan but don't want XP2, then at least develop the negatives yourself rather than sending them out. Short of going to an expensive professional lab you will get more dependable results and save money.<br /><br />My strong preference is still for 400 speed. The Tmax and Ilford Delta 400 films have grain equivalent to 100 or so in traditional film. </p>

[peterbcarter]

<blockquote>

<p>Consensus seems to be that the silver in traditional b&w film doesn't scan as well as the color dyes (or neutral dyes in the case of XP2) in C-41 film.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Where on earth would you get such an idea?</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Another vote for XP2. Scans beautifully and makes good optical prints, if you ever have the luxury of a darkroom. </p>

<p>You can overexpose XP2 a couple of stops and still have excellent negatives, so that buys you a lot of flexibility. (Supposedly it's OK down to EI 50, which is three stops overexposure, but I never go there.) It doesn't like underexposure, though.</p>

[andrew_brown7]

<p>I like slower films of 100/125 ASA. I use whatever is cheapest, and they all seem pretty good : FP4, Kentmere, Fomapan etc. If you're outside in the sun, then a slower film gives you a bit more leeway. I have always found too much grain in the faster film, even 400 ASA. I'm starting to do all my film with Stand development and that seems to keep the grain under control, plus you can make tea and watch the TV while it's doing it's stuff.</p>

[PatB]

Xp2 is a good suggestion if you are not going to

develop films yourself but rate it at 320iso and/or

slower to get good resullts. I shoot it at 200iso

personaly.