best film for scanning

[shane_mullins]

<p>Hello,<br>

<br />I recently got myself an old medium format system (6 X 4.5cm). Although I've had some experience some 20 years ago processing and printing black & white, these days I do not have access to a darkroom. I have digital cameras and use computers. I'd like to be able to either process the negatives myself or get them developed through a commercial outlet so that I would then just scan the negs and process the images from there. I have a low to mid range scanner that I am hoping would do a reasonable job digitizing the negatives.<br>

Although my intention was to use this camera for black and white photography, I am aware that I could just use 120 color negative film processed as C41 negatives and turn them into black and white with software. Where I live it seems that there are more labs that process color negatives at a cheaper price than black and white film. I also read somewhere that colour negative film was better for scanning. I am an enthusiast that just wants to have a go with medium format photography in the hope that I can potentially get some quality benefit using the larger 120 film over 35mm digital. <br>

For general use, my question is what is the best type of 120 film to digitize using a flatbed scanner?<br>

Thanks.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I've had good luck scanning Kodak Portra films on an Epson V750 and Imacon 848 scanners. I shot test charts and subjects to dial in the scanner settings beyond the canned ones. It helps account for your stock, metering method and any local processor variability. Fuji Superia 400 scans pretty well, too.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Before I moved to digital, I had very good results scanning both Kodak Portra 160VC and TMax 100 B&W films with a Microtek 1800f scanner. Fuji color films, not so much. Even then, though, I got my best B&W results by scanning Portra films as color negatives and converting to B&W in Photoshop, as in this sample...</p><div></div>

[nealcurrie]

<p>TMX/TMY scan very well for me most of the time.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Some Walgreens and the like still do on-site development (and even scanning) of 35mm C-41 films, but none of mine locally do larger format film.</p>

<p>Fortunately in a college town with a photography program, the local camera store still does 120 and even 220 film.</p>

<p>I've had good luck with scanning B&W and color-negative C-41 films. Your most useful process, as said, is to scan in color and then do the modification to B&W -- it's like have a thousand different filters on your lens, even if you do it the easy way with Photoshop's own Image>Adjustments>B&W.</p><div></div>

[dhbebb]

<p>The crucial factor with your low to mid range scanner is the maximum density which it can handle. If this is 3.4 or lower, then you will get far better quality by scanning color negs or chromogenic b+w negs. If you shoot silver-based b+w film, you will need to get the exposure perfect and avoid excess contrast/overdevelopment - even then, you may find yourself struggling to render highlight detail on some shots.</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>For scanning medium format B&W film I have had the best luck with Ilford XP2 chromogenic film. It uses C-41 processing.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Scanned C-41 colour negative film can give a very grainy look with high-resolution scanners, although it's not so much of a problem given the fuzzy lenses used in most flatbeds. I'd second the use of T-Max 100 or something else fairly fine-grained like FP4-plus. Delta 100 can be a bit too contrasty for my liking, and needs careful exposure and processing.</p>

<p>You're obviously doing this for the fun of it Shane, so why give half the fun to someone else by farming out your processing to what's usually a variable quality C-41 dunking house that'll sooner-or-later cut your negs in the wrong place and overdevelop them? I'd dig out your old developing tank, get a bottle of HC-110 and some fixer, and go shoot some real silver-image B&W film.</p>

<p>BTW, a properly exposed and developed B&W negative should rarely exceed a density of 2.4 in the highlights, and any modern scanner should have no trouble scanning this. If the density is regularly much higher than this then the film is being overdeveloped. It's better to err slightly on the side of overexposure and under-development for scanning. Thin and contrasty negatives are exactly what you don't want!</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

Rodeo, scanned conventional silver films are far noisier than C41.

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"Rodeo, scanned conventional silver films are far noisier than C41." - I think you're confusing noise with grain Dave, it's not the same thing. And that's why I recommended Tmax-100 or FP4 plus, both of which can be made pretty much grainless in medium format if processed right.</p>

<p>My concern was for the processing really. Silver emulsions can be quickly and fairly easily processed at home, whereas C-41 either requires investment in a rotary processor, or to let some half-trained and disinterested minilab operator loose on your film. I always get a bit of a thrill in seeing a film emerge from the tank and I thought that Shane might enjoy that part of the process as well. After all a flatbed scanner ain't gonna reveal grain much at all, because the scanning lenses fitted by the likes of Epson are far too low in quality.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em> </em><em>Silver emulsions can be quickly and fairly easily processed at home, whereas C-41 either requires investment in a rotary processor, or to let some half-trained and disinterested minilab operator loose on your film. </em><br>

OP states he has no darkroom. An integral part of b+w processing is varying the dev time as necessary, for this you need to go to a pro lab, as indeed you do for any processing of sliver-based b+w film these days<br>

<em>After all a flatbed scanner ain't gonna reveal grain much at all, because the scanning lenses fitted by the likes of Epson are far too low in quality.</em><br>

How many Epson scanners have you tried? I have an Epson Expression 1680 Pro, which has been extremely effective at making 80 to 100 MB files from MF and LF material for printing up to 30 inches wide. Among current models, the V750 offers similar performance for quite a bit less money. No one would seriously expect a flatbed scanner to work well with 35 mm.</p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>I don't know that there's a "best" film for b&w scanning. I used Ilford HP5+ and TMax 100 and both seemed to work well. I think more depends on the skill of the person doing the scanning than on the particular brand of film. </p>

<p> </p>

[john_galuszka]

<p>Fujicolor Reala ISO 100 film scans very well.</p>

<p>For more information on scanning film to digital, see:</p>

<p><a href="http://home.uid.onemain.com/~jg1001986/extreme/nosee.htm">http://home.uid.onemain.com/~jg1001986/extreme/nosee.htm</a></p>

<p> </p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>I think a best film for scanning is one where the pixels are tight together. That provides the smoothest print. This suggests lower ISO films, in the 100 range is fine, and if possible, T-grained. I have scanned TMax and Delta and they both work very well. TMY2 is also good. I find HP5 and Tri-X lacking as the grains are very large. C-41 B&W is less than optimal as the dynamic range is quite low. My drum scanner makes files that are between 500mb for 35 and around 2 Gigs for med and large format. That's a decent-sized scan, IMO.</p>