Why use silver based BW if you scan?

[octavio bustard]

I shoot BW and output digitally w/ scanner and printer. I've been

using XP2 Super as I've found it scans SO much better than

traditional silver based films. Something to do with the fact that

the silver content of traditional films scatters the scanner beam,

while dye based C41 films dont have this problem. Can anyone tell me

why many people still seem to be resistant to using c41, even when

outputing digitally? Ignorance? Archival issues? Acutance?

[jorge_oliveira2]

At least on reason is archival issues. If you use the highest quality paper and inks, it's still less than silver paper.

 

See:

 

http://www.popularphotography.com/assets/download/57200314937.pdf

[lex_jenkins]

Perhaps some people find XP2 Super relatively inflexible. Unlike traditional b&w films it is not particularly responsive to changes in development. Some photographers rely on methods that are heavily dependent upon a specific look achieved through highly personalized exposure and processing techniques.

[ed b.]

Films developed in staining developers scan much better than films developed in non-staining developers. Dye films will never have the longevity of silver films.

 

I have a new digital camera, but I worry about the lifetime of the CD-R's I use to store my images--I have some that were burned 4 years ago that are unreadable now.

[david_goldfarb]

Different films look different. Not all B&W films have the same characteristic curve or spectral sensitivity range. Choice of development method offers further possibilities for changing the film's tonal quality. These differences would be very difficult if not impossible to reproduce digitally, despite attempts to do so with Photoshop plugins and such.

[robert_davis2]

Kind of hard to use different developers or developing methods with C41 film. Worse you're stuck with a relatively small number of films. What you're asking is like asking why would anybody go to the trouble of making home made rye bread when they could just buy wonder bread from the store. Different people. Different tastes.

[continuity]

It's pennies a frame when you bulk roll and dev. at home, using traditional B&W.

[wind.dk]

I find the concept of setting up a C-41 process in my bathroom less than appealing. My ballpark temperatures may work well with HP5+ and DD-X, but I'm not about to try it with XP2.

 

And the longevity...

 

And some of the negs are still going through a traditional enlarger. That is, since the day before yesterday, when I tried it for the first time.

 

(And I can assure you I'm not going to do many digital prints from now on. Traditional darkroom not only delivers better results - from about the third attempt on give-away equipment - it's also a lot easier, and cheaper not to forget.)

 

Anyways, scanning is mostly a problem with very fast films, which I only use 70-80% of the time, so it doesn't concern me much :D

[rustys pics]

Why not cook everything in a microwave oven? It's faster, uses energy more efficiently, and takes up less space.... why DO people still use those old fashioned ovens and stove tops???

Because everything has the same flavorless taste cooked in a microwave?

Connect the metaphorical dots where you will.

[scott_eaton]

<b>Can anyone tell me why many people still seem to be resistant to using c41</b><P>

 

It's basically the same reason that the majority of B/W scans I've seen in this forum over the past few months look downright dreadfull even though the poster thinks they are wonderfull. The rational being; because the image is taken with conventional B/W film and hand processed it's somehow special. The real truth being the shooter should have used basically any drugstore C-41 film, desaturated, and would have an image that looks 1000x better.

 

<P><B>Perhaps some people find XP2 Super relatively inflexible<P></b>The control issue is a good point, and control in my mind is the only real justification for using conventional B/W films. My issue with this though Lex is how many of those fiddling with B/W processing actually have *true* control over the B/W development process that would exceed the control over using C-41 or slide film and using Photoshop for tonal control? See my point? There's even a smaller pool of B/W shooters who have mastered how to scan concentional B/W films with adequate results.

 

<p><b>These differences would be very difficult if not impossible to reproduce digitally, <P></b>The only unique characteristic of B/W film the parades over color film emulsions is density range, so lets please stop making up magical/mystical properties of B/W film that don't exist. If that same unique tonal range can't be recorded with the chosen path of reproduction, which in this case is scanning, then what good is it?<P><B>And the longevity... <P></b>All color films are based on the same dye sets that chromogenic B/W films are. Conclusion: all professional photographers who use E-6 and C-41 film should also switch to conventional B/W because of longevity. My response as above applies as well; who cares how long film lasts if the image can't be extracted with a film scanner or isn't worth extracting in the first place?????<P><B>Traditional darkroom not only delivers better results <p></b>Is this global declaration based on personal experience, or do we see Tim's comment about ignorance in full demonstration? I produce some pretty knock-out images from a $80 inkjet printer one fine art paper that would destroy 90% of what I've ever seen produced in a wet lab, not that I disagree that conventional B/W film really does been when conventionally printed. If computers don't produce photography as some of you say....then neither do darkrooms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<P><B>B/W

 

 

Films developed in staining developers scan much better than films developed in non-staining developers</b><P>Another partitial myth, that also ironically eliminates the reason for using B/W film in the first place. Staining processes reduce density range in exchange for increased shoulder compression, which basically is an attempt to get classic B/W films to act like print films. Personally I'd rather shoot print film in the first place rather than resort to a process that destroys the single unique advantage of conventional B/W film and produces what is likely the single biggest category of murky and unremarkable images on record.

[robert_davis2]

"Conclusion: all professional photographers who use E-6 and C-41 film should also switch to conventional B/W because of longevity. My response as above applies as well; who cares how long film lasts if the image can't be extracted with a film scanner or isn't worth extracting in the first place?????"

 

No professional photographers have a great self interest in producing items that self destruct. If the film scanner can't extract the image is that the fault of the film or the scanner? Not to mention what isn't worth extracting today maybe tomorrow. Let the future decide if it's trash or if it's a Mona lisa.

[scott_eaton]

The "fault" lies with the photographer. Not with other photographers who don't appreciate a badly scanned image just because it's taken with conventional B/W film which is becoming more frequently the case. I realize this is a B/W deciated forum with a logical slant towards hand processing and printing, but it doesn't change the truth that conventional color materials inherently scan better than conventional B/W.

 

As for the 'future deciding', I know better than to ask to see some of these 'images'. An image on film that can't be printed/scanned today isn't going to find some magical process in the future to make it easier to scan or print. If you can't get good scans from conventional B/W, either switch to color materials, or go back to conventional printing. That's neither a bias nor slander against either process, but merely the reality of the situation.

[._._z]

Deciated?

[george_wilt]

Hi Scott.

 

Sensible response as usual. I have been using Ilford XP film since it's introduction. Those first negatives were developed in Ilford chemistry and they can easily be scanned or enlarged conventionally. If there is any fading it will never be noticed.

 

At about that same time a company that later came to be known as RT introduced C41 chemistry that could be used at any temperature from about 65F to about 80F and produced excellent results and I used that for several years until they disappeared. I have been using commercial labs since then but would like to do my own XP2 again.

 

Anyone know of any C41 products that can be uaed at ambient temperatures?

[richard_cochran]

I haven't noticed a problem scanning conventional B&W. OK,

you can't use infrared-based automatic dust reduction, but

when I develop at home, I can keep my film clean. Other

than IR dust reduction, I find that "real" B&W film

scans every bit as nicely as chromogenic. Yes, I've

heard some people have trouble with it; I don't know

if it's their scanner, their software, of their techniques,

all I know is that I don't see a problem.

<p>

The main reason I use it? With around $0.25 worth

of chemistry, I can develop it at home in less time than it

takes to drive to a photo lab. Total cost of film+developing

is under a nickel a frame of 35mm. And unlike the photo lab, my

kitchen sink is open all hours of the night and weekend. The

results are nicer, since I NEVER get any scratches from

a roller processor's dirty rollers. The full

control, beautiful acutance, and archival permanence

are just side benefits.

<p>

I just don't see a reason to switch to something that's

so much more expensive and less convenient.

[jan_brittenson]

I judge C41 and E6 by their color rendition more than tone. Tonally neither is interesting and "general-purpose" taken to the extreme. Of the two though, I far prefer the contrast of E6 over what I find to be flat and dull C41. To me, characterless = pointless, undirected. When shooting color though, I find tone is much less important and E6 can be used to good effect. C41 just never does it for me. But that's just my personal preference. If you shoot predominantly candids of pink or pale caucasians in noon sun, perhaps it will do a good job.

[matthew_stanton2]

"B/W Films developed in staining developers scan much better

than films developed in non-staining developers"

 

"Another partitial myth, that also ironically eliminates the reason

for using B/W film in the first place. Staining processes reduce

density range in exchange for increased shoulder compression,

which basically is an attempt to get classic B/W films to act like

print films. Personally I'd rather shoot print film in the first place

rather than resort to a process that destroys the single unique

advantage of conventional B/W film and produces what is likely

the single biggest category of murky and unremarkable images

on record."

 

The highlight compression is mainly an issue with pmk on

multigrade paper because of the yellow green pmk stain

corresponding to the low contrast filtration colour. Scanning

does not produce this problem and produces results closer to

printing pyro negs on graded paper. Pyrocat hd produces

excellent highlight separation on multigrade or graded papers

because of its brown coloured stain. So what is with the blanket

condemnation of pyro developers?

 

Properly processed pyro negs printed on graded paper have

fantastic highlight separation, rich midtones plus the benefit of

higher apparent sharpness than a C-41 film due to the

adjacency effects inherent to pyro-type developers. I don't see

why edge effects would not in many cases be of benefit to those

who scan negs as well as those who print them conventionally.

Perhaps someone can enlighten me?

 

I am assuming Scott, that you have scanned many pyro negs

yourself in order to arrive at your conclusions?

[frank.schifano]

Lots and lots of high falutin' talk on this subject going on here, but in the end the answer is very simple. Some people, and I'm no exception, just plain like to run film. There's really nothing like seeing your film come out of the tank or tray as well made negatives. It's like a drug that keeps you coming back for more.

 

Is there any advantage to scanning a traditional B&W negative over a C-41 B&W negative for digital output? In terms of image quality, I think not. Consumer grade film scanners, even the high end variety, are optimized to work best with C-41 and E-6 films. There's no getting around that. So if your goal is to make the best possible final image from a scanned negative, then you really have no choice but to use a C-41 film.

 

All the noise you might hear about control over the quality of the negative image in this situation is just a bunch of hot air in my opinion. Once you've scanned the negative, you have much more control over the final image by manipulating it digitally than you ever had in a traditional darkroom. Just remember though that you need to have a good negative to start with, and that what's good for printing by conventional means may not be the best for digital imaging.

 

As for permanence, well there is little dispute that a well made and properly stored traditional silver negative is probably about as permanent an image as you can get. C-41 and E-6 films have nowhere near the shelf life of a traditional B&W negative. Is that important to you? I don't know. Only you can answer that question. Digital storage media are even more insidious. They just go bad all at once. All it takes are a few scrambled bits and the whole disk/tape/CD/DVD or whatever is toast. In my work as a systems programmer I see this happen all the time. That's why we keep backups of backups, and keep copies of our most critical data stored offsite.

[tonghang_zhou]

With a silver B&W film like HP5+ or Tri-X, I can rate it any where from ASA 160 to ASA 1600, in 1/3 stop increments, depending on the lighting or the application, and I have different developers to handle the push or pull. I don't know how one can do this with a C41 film. This is a big advantage of B&W.

<p>

If I want to use C41 B&W, I probably won't use XP2 Super. I'd probably just go with common color C41 film, and desaturate if it looks better that way, otheriwse just leave it color.

<p>

BTW, I just had 2 rolls of Fuji color film processed at Walgreen 1-hr. Both rolls got scratched by 4 horizontal lines. Too bad I can only do silver process myself.

[thomas_sullivan]

...it's better in every aspect. I have no problems scanning the stuff...

[everheul]

If I'm in a hurry, and hav'nt the time to set up the enlarger, I'll scann B/W negatives and have not had any major problems. I usually use tri-x and pmk pyro. If I want B/W slides (which seem to scan better than negatives on my scanner) I use the DR5 process. This is a plus for me, since I like projecting slides.

[ed_workman]

Acutance.

Overlapping dye clouds have the appearance of minimal/no grain. They are also incapable of sharp edges in images of objects which DO have sharp edges. I hated the look I got on 120 film.

[sjmurray]

"I've found it scans SO much better than traditional silver based films. "

 

I have not found any problems scanning traditional black and white negs. I can make inkjet prints that are sometimes better than the silver prints I made. I think the reason Scott sees so many badly done scans from B&W negs is that most of these people have simply not learned to use the tools yet; neither the processing nor the scanning. They'd probably be making lousy prints with an enlarger too.

 

Choice of film/process cannot save you if you don't know what you are doing. If you know what you are doing you can make beautiful prints using any method or technology.

[rustys pics]

From a purely practical standpoint, C-41 processing from large retail outlets will probably be rare by 2008. Digital cameras will take over and color film developing will be obsolete. In that case, if you want to use film, you'd better be able to process it yourself. Ironically, digital will kill off C-41 much faster then traditional black & white, which has been a niche market for some time now....

[andy_piper2]

Tim: Three reasons (at least):

 

1) I can process traditional B&W myself, even at 2 a.m. Yes, I could (and have) do my own C41 processing as well, but the chemicals go bad faster and are not economical. I can let my DDX concentrate sit for a month or two without it going bad. And I can use that same DDX for 10-20 different kinds of silver film, not just the available 3-4 C-41 B&W films.

 

2) I find XP2 to get very grainy and noisy in the shadow areas (something common to all C-41 films including color). Overexposure can help the shadow noise, but fouls up the tonal separation in the bright tones. My scanner prefers negs to be as thin as possible, which is precisely where XP2 (and the other chromos) fall down.

 

3) I try to avoid ISO 400 films anyway unless it's really dark. My Leica shutter tops out at 1/1000th second, and my lenses usually hit peak performance at f/4 or so. In sunlight, 400-speed films limit my options to 1/500 @ f/16 or 1/1000 @ f/11 - too restrictive. Pan F at 1/500 and f/5.6 is my default exposure, with a lot of room for variation (1/1000 @ f/4 to 1/60 @ f/16). When it does get dark, I shoot Delta 400 at 800 without the shadow noise of XP2.

 

Given especially 2) above, I actually don't find XP2 to be particularly good for scanning at all - although I can get good results out of any film. OTOH Pan F in DDX or AgfaPan 100 in Rodinal, shot at 1/2 stop underexposed from their rated speeds, almost seem to scan themselves, with long rich seemingly endless light tones that just kiss white, and noise-free detailed shadows.

 

Ignorance isn't a factor. I've shot XP2 and its predecessor on and off ever since it was introduced - 20 years ago.

 

Archival concerns are overblown. I just scanned some 25-year-old color C-41 negs and the 2003 scans/prints looked better than traditional prints did when I made them in 1978.

 

The only acutance problem I've ever had with XP2 are those damn grain speckles in the shadows.

 

But I prefer the wider universe of silver films (for as long as they stick around).<div></div>