what to scan...

[srbphoto]

Any opinions (haha) on which type of film to scan for the best black and white image.
Color transparency, Color negative or Black and White negative? Or does it make a difference?

Thanks

Scott

[JPlomley]

I'm going to shoot some Ilford Delta 100 Pro this weekend and have it processed by dr5 as a positive. Then compare it to the identical scene processed as a negative. By all accounts, the positive scans much better, but I need to test this for myself to be convinced..

[Bruce Watson]

Depends on the scanner, software, and how you process. I'm a drum scanner owner/operator, so my opinion is colored by this experience.

The problem with B&W film is silver. Silver is opaque; it scatters light in a way described as the Callier Effect. Callier Effect is directly related to density. It follows then that less dense film will exhibit less Callier Effect. How much less, that's going to depend on a lot of things including film and developer, your particular scanner and software, etc.

The problem with scanning trannies is density. They can be so dense that the scanner can't read through them -- so you get clipped shadows that are just black without any detail. This is primarily true of non-drum scanners. Drum scanners can see through just about anything a tranny can come up with.

The problem with scanning color negatives is visible graininess. Grain is directly related to density. In the case of color negatives, the most grain is in the highlights of the print where you can see it better (trannies show grain in the shadows where it looks "noisy" if you can see it at all).

I use B&W for a number of reasons, not the least of which are sharpness, high film speed, lower costs, and more control. I optimize my process for drum scanning, so my negatives are too thin to print comfortably in the darkroom. But they drum scan beautifully. Because of the highly columnated light used by the drum scanner, I tend to develop my film to about N-1 as my "normal" development.

Clearly, the choice you make is going to depend on what kind of images you make and what you value in a print. You know how to get the answers you seek -- try out the options and see what works best for you.

[Ted Harris]

It really doesn't matter if you are going to have the film scanned on a high-end scanner. You shoot the film you like best. In the past two weeks I have scanned Tmax 100, Tmax 400 (both souped in pyro) TriX and Ektapan processed in Rodinal, some older Royal Pan X and Super XX, Astia and Velvia. All were reasonably well exposed and all scanned without issues.

If you are planning on scanning yourself on a consumer scanner then be sure you expose properly and watch out for detail in the shadows, that is what defeats consumer scanners.

[Maretzo]

What about systematic overexposure by 1 stop? Will it bring sufficient details in the shadows without blowing up highlights, all that easily corrected with PS?

[srbphoto]

Initially I was going to have the scans done professionally for me (I have used Alpha CD Photo in the SF Bay area and have been happy with them). At some point I was thinking of getting a flatbed. I shoot 4x5 Tmax 100 (w/ edwal FG7)

[PViapiano]

Actual B&W negs have a different tonality than color negs or trannies that are converted. Although there have been many strides with conversion and film look plugins, I find that B&W negs look the way I expect them to and I prefer that look.

Occasionally, I find a neg or slide that has a certain something that makes it look good in B&W. Sometimes poorly exposed transparency frames can look great in B&W with heavy corrections that would otherwise look unsightly in their original form.

Here's an example (http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/2067660424/in/set-72157603308612045/) of an Astia frame which looks great in B&W, IMHO...;-)