Digital BW, The Print

A scanner dedicated to film/slides is better than a flatbed with a n 
attachment. I'm told that the best is a Nikon 4000 - very pricey. I have a CanoScan FS 
2710 which is OK. For B&W film, it is best to use a chromogenic film because 
it is more  in the same dynamic range as the scanners. The best is Kodak 
Portra. Ilford XP2 doesn'r seem as clean. The chromogenic films use a C41 process, 
the same as color. Regular B&W film has silver in it which is too dense for a 
really perfect scan. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 02:30 PM 8/12/2003, you wrote:
>For B&W film, it is best to use a chromogenic film because
>it is more  in the same dynamic range as the scanners. The best is Kodak
>Portra. Ilford XP2 doesn'r seem as clean. The chromogenic films use a C41 
>process,
>the same as color. Regular B&W film has silver in it which is too dense for a
>really perfect scan.

Not true at all. If you are using ICE for dust removal, then, yes, you 
cannot use silver films. Otherwise, they are no problem. I use Polaroid 
scanners and I almost always use silver-based black and white film. Partly, 
I don't really care for the look of the chromogenic films and partly, I 
often use film types that are simply not available in chromogenic films. 
For example, I do a lot of infrared work with Kodak and Maco infrared 4x5 
sheet films. They both scan beautifully.

Stan

================================
Photography by Stan McQueen
http://www.smcqueen.com

I to have had good luck with all types of film.  I scan on a Nikon 8000 and it handles all types of film quite well.  I like the look of the chromogenic films for certain things, and it does have a couple of advantages over silver based films for scanning.  But, the final scanned image is equally as good with silver or chromogenic films.  Some of my silver negatives go back to the '60's, so I scan quite a range of B&W film types.  All seem equal as far as the final scanned image.
 
TB


Stan McQueen <stan@...> wrote:
At 02:30 PM 8/12/2003, you wrote:
>For B&W film, it is best to use a chromogenic film because
>it is more  in the same dynamic range as the scanners. The best is Kodak
>Portra. Ilford XP2 doesn'r seem as clean. The chromogenic films use a C41 
>process,
>the same as color. Regular B&W film has silver in it which is too dense for a
>really perfect scan.

Not true at all. If you are using ICE for dust removal, then, yes, you 
cannot use silver films. Otherwise, they are no problem. I use Polaroid 
scanners and I almost always use silver-based black and white film. Partly, 
I don't really care for the look of the chromogenic films and partly, I 
often use film types that are simply not available in chromogenic films. 
For example, I do a lot of infrared work with Kodak and Maco infrared 4x5 
sheet films. They both scan beautifully.

Stan

================================
Photography by Stan McQueen
http://www.smcqueen.com 


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>>For B&W film, it is best to use a chromogenic film ...
>> The chromogenic films use a C41 process,...

>Not true at all. If you are using ICE for dust removal, then, yes, you
>cannot use silver films. Otherwise, they are no problem. ...

I use both types of film with my Nikon 8000 and find each film has
advantages and disadvantages.  For taking fast, hand-held shots, T400CN is
my choice; for landscapes Tech Pan is my favorite (although I've been having
inconsistent development problems with it -- the subject of another post).

Speaking of chromogenic films, I recently shot a roll of Kodak T400CN and
tried an interesting method to improve its quality for landscapes.  Although
I like the T400CN when I need speed, I really don't like fast film grain for
landscapes and large prints.

So, here is a solution that worked rather well.  For a landscape that had
sky in it that I thought needed to be grain-free, I put the camera (medium
format Fuji 645 Zi) on a tripod and took 3 quick shots on T400CN.  I kept
the shots together on the film strip and scanned each one, with the grain
reduction option turned on.  In Photoshop, I combined the shots by using the
clone tool, after careful alignment (on a detail in the frame at 1600
magnification with the clone tool size a 1 pixel).  The first 2 were
combined at 50% in one continuous clone with a 999 pixel brush.  The third
was added at 33%.  The detail for the non-sky parts of the image can be
taken from any of the shots.  No multi-sampling is needed where there is
detail, although for a few things the multi-sampled file is even better for
non-sky parts of the image.

At any rate, the resulting sky is essentially grain-free.  Just as scanner
multi-sampling reduces random electronic noise, camera multi-sampling can
reduce random grain (film noise).  It's a bit more work, of course.
However, the approach allows me to have fast film in the camera for shooting
people (snaps of the kids on a family trip in this case), but still have the
ability capture high-quality landscapes without changing films or carrying a
separate camera.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com