Best BW film for scanning

[Steve Pelton]

Greetings all,
I am looking to get the best possible scans of B&W with an Imacon 343.
I have tried Delta 100, HP5, TMX 100 & 400 and Acros. I have souped them in TriX dev and Xtol. So far Acros/Xtol has given the best contrast for scanning but I think there is still room for improvement. Before I spend the next month trying different film/dev combos, what are you guys using? What density of negative should I be targeting, and is this different than for a wet darkroom?

thanks,
Steve Pelton

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know that any one film is inherently better than another for scanning. But regardless of that, in general I think you'll be better off developing to a lesser contrast for scanning than you might have for darkroom work. I no longer do plus development at all and have reduced my N time by 10%. The 10% is more or less an arbitrary compromise between developing everything at N - 1 which seemed a little extreme but still making sure that the negative is on the flat side. Maybe others have a more scientifc approach but this has worked pretty well for me.

[Ron Marshall]

Exactly what Brian has said. Negatives slightly thin and slightly flat, as compared to the optimum for silver printing have worked the best for me.

[Ed Richards]

Some of us have found Tmax in Xtol 1:3 to be esp. good for scanning. 100 if do not need the speed, 400 if you do.

[Helen Bach]

I beginning to think that Fuji Pro 160S is the best B&W film for me.

Best,
Helen

[Bruce Watson]

Exactly what Brian has said. Negatives slightly thin and slightly flat, as compared to the optimum for silver printing have worked the best for me.

I'll third that. Unlike Brian though, I now develop everything to N-1. My film would be a pain to print in a darkroom. For the record, I'm using 5x4 Tri-X souped in XTOL 1:3. This fall/winter I'm going to be investigating 400Tmax, first in XTOL 1:3, then maybe in Pyrocat-HD.

I'm thinking of making the switch for the improved reciprocity performance of 400Tmax. If it scans a little better (which it might, or might not) I won't complain.

[Ron Marshall]

I beginning to think that Fuji Pro 160S is the best B&W film for me.

It's a wonderful film that has weaned me off of chromes. Scans very well.

[Leonard Evens]

If you develop b/w film normally, the density range is well less than anything a modern scanner can handle. So, theoretically you should be able to increase the density range by overdeveloping and do better. That way you won't end up with values spread out too far in the range 0..255. But, in practice, it doesn't seem to work out that way. Perhaps, overdeveloping increases graininess too much, and perhaps scanning software is not optimized for developing b/w film that way. In practice I use normal development, but when I've underdeveloped by mistake, I haven't had any problems scanning.

Some poeple mentioned densities. I use Vuescan, which allows you to read what are purported to be raw densities above base rather than RGB values in the range 0...255. As best I can tell, it gives the kinds of values I would expect, so, even if it isn't exactly right, I think it is close. Which other scanning packages allow you to display actual density values?

[Helen Bach]

If you develop b/w film normally, the density range is well less than anything a modern scanner can handle. So, theoretically you should be able to increase the density range by overdeveloping and do better. That way you won't end up with values spread out too far in the range 0..255. But, in practice, it doesn't seem to work out that way. Perhaps, overdeveloping increases graininess too much...

...which is exactly why I put a lot of effort a while ago into finding a good reversal process for B&W film tailored for scanning rather than projecting. That is one way of increasing the density range without the increase in graininess that comes with simply increasing the development of a negative*. Because the image is not intended for viewing the image colour is not important, so the choice of second development method is wide.

*The increase in the graininess of the original negative image is offset by the reduced amount of contrast, and hence graininess, amplification that is required to get to the print, of course.

Best,
Helen

[Bruce Watson]

What density of negative should I be targeting, and is this different than for a wet darkroom?

To optimize a B&W negative for scanning it should be somewhat less dense that a negative optimized for the darkroom.

B&W negatives build up density by building up metalic silver. Scanning and darkroom printing both suffer from the Callier effect. That is, the light projected through the film is scattered by the metalic silver. What you get is a non-linear loss of local contrast. That is, the contrast in the highlight areas (dense on the negative) is less than the contrast in the shadows. Another way to say it is the highlights tend to block up.

If you go more dense, you get more density and thus more Callier Effect. You also start to get interesting but not very pretty artificacts in the negative. In particular, graininess increases with density. The grain structure gets mushy as well. Ugly.

The reason going to lower density works when scanning is the nature of the beast. If you set your black and white points properly most modern scanners/software will fit your density range (whether 0.3 or 3.0) into the scanner's digital range (0-255 if 8 bit, 0-4095 if 12 bit, etc.). It's an exact fit by definition.

That said, if you are ever going to use the negatives in the darkroom, then optimize for darkroom work. If it will print easily in the darkroom, it will scan just fine.

But you don't have to believe me. Or anyone else. Run some tests and see it for yourself. Why guess when you can know?