B&W prints from scanned color slides?

[Jon Warwick]

I have used B&W negative film (mainly Acros 100 and Delta 100) for many years to produce "traditional darkroom" black & white prints to 24x20 inches.

Given my aim these days is to make large prints (say, > 50"x40" off 5x4), I am now going down the digital route ...... ie, via a drum scan and a digital print.

However, my question is ..... if I know that I'm going to be scanning and printing digitally anyhow (and effectively abandoning the traditional darkroom), is there much advantage / disadvantage of continuing to use B&W negative film?

Does it make sense to shoot with something like Fuji Velvia 50 slide film, and have a pro lab do the drum scan and convert the file to produce black & white prints?

With a color slide such as Fuji Velvia 50 (and then drum scanning it and converting the file to produce a B&W print), I'm assuming the benefits are (1) I'd get less grain and potentially higher sharpness in the final print from Velvia 50 compared to scanned B&W negs?; also, (2) the original material (ie, the color slide) would allow me to meaningfully study the image in proper detail with a strong loop on a light-box before deciding whether to scan & print; and (3) given I don't process films myself, it would be cheaper for me to be shooting E6 compared to B&W, the latter requiring a contact sheet.

I'm assuming the benefit of sticking with the B&W negative (over something like Velvia 50) is basically its wider exposure latitude?

Does anyone have experience of drum scanning and converting color slide to create B&W prints? Do the final prints "look" the same as drum scanned B&W negatives? Any feedback on relative advantages / disadvantages would be appreciated. Many thanks.

[Kirk Gittings]

Jon, When shooting color film specifically for b&w conversion, I shoot color negatives. The lower contrast of the cn film compared to most transparency films allows me to pull better shadow detail out of contrasty lighting situations. However IME many drum scan technicians are less competent with color negatives. Lenny might shed some light on this.

[Joanna Carter]

my question is ..... if I know that I'm going to be scanning and printing digitally anyhow (and effectively abandoning the traditional darkroom), is there much advantage / disadvantage of continuing to use B&W negative film?

If you want to be limited to the dynamic range of something like Velvia 50 then it is perfectly possible to scan it and produce B&W images. However, if you want to produce rich, fully toned B&W prints, even digitally, then you need to use, at least, colour neg or, better still, Acros or Delta B&W.

The problem lies in the range of the film: Velvia 50 - 3 stops, Velvia 100 - 4 stops, Astia 100F - 6 stops, Acros, etc - 14 stops using zone system.

[Eric Leppanen]

...is there much advantage / disadvantage of continuing to use B&W negative film?

Kirk and Joanna have already covered my main points, but I'll submit my post anyway since I have already typed it up!

The primary advantage of using B&W film (particularly fine-grained varieties such as Acros or TMX which scan quite well) is its relatively enormous exposure latitude (enhanced by the ability to push/pull). The primary drawback is having to use B&W filters (yellow, orange, etc.) when appropriate, which can significantly reduce shutter speed. As far as grain during drum scanning is concerned, I think the difference between the two film types is negligible. Some have argued that B&W film scans better because there are fewer film layers, no dye clouds, etc.

As a fairly traditional B&W landscape/architecture shooter I worship at the altar of shadow detail; opening up the shadows while holding the sky (particularly cloud detail) is always one of my biggest preoccupations. This is relatively easy to do with B&W film, while chrome film (especially high contrast versions like Velvia) is the anti-christ (unless an ND grad filter works, there frequently is no way to hold both shadows and sky). Take a look at Ron Flickinger's B&W page (http://www.radiantlandscape.com/photo.php?m=g&q=3.1.1); most of these B&W images were originally shot with Velvia 100F, and have lots of blacked out shadow areas (this is not unique to his Velvia-based images; he apparently likes high contrast B&W images). I much prefer images with well defined shadow areas and highlights, which I personally find less garish, more elegant, and more challenging to pull off.

So while converting chrome to B&W can work, you'll be limited to low contrast lighting conditions (subjects in complete shade or overcast, or shot during the first few minutes after sunrise or before sunset) if you want to consistently hold shadows and highlights. Personally, I think a better comparison is whether to shoot color neg versus B&W, since color neg has much more latitude. The concern here is color neg is relatively desaturated compared to chrome, and may have less tonal separation when converted to B&W (the more color saturation you have, the more tones you potentially have). I'm very curious about the new Kodak Ektar film that is just coming out; in theory this film could be a candidate to replace chrome in many cases since it supposedly has greater color saturation and finer grain that any available color neg film, while hopefully retaining a great degree of exposure latitude. Kodak would have to make this film in sheet sizes, of course, which reportedly is being considered.

If you go the color neg route, you'll have to hire a drum scanner operator who does color neg well. Many digital labs are oriented toward chrome film, and produce grainy, less-than-optimal color neg scans. Most digital labs in my experience do a decent job of drum-scanning B&W film, but are not as good at printing since B&W involves a different aesthetic than color work. Pick your labs carefully.

[arkady n.]

Does anyone have experience of drum scanning and converting color slide to create B&W prints? Do the final prints "look" the same as drum scanned B&W negatives? Any feedback on relative advantages / disadvantages would be appreciated.

I mostly shoot Fuji slide film on my 4x5. The primary reasons for me are the standard development (I don't have to test film and adjust its speed to the lab's development) and the fact that for some reason my flatbed scanner does a much better job on color slides than on color negatives.

The final "look" really depends on how the color image is converted to BW. This has always presented a difficulty for me, since there are too many settings that I can tweak. There are also multiple free and non-free conversion presets, plug-ins, add-ons, etc, that can be found on the web.

Here are 3 photos that I took with color slide, scanned, and converted.

[Lenny Eiger]

Jon, When shooting color film specifically for b&w conversion, I shoot color negatives. The lower contrast of the cn film compared to most transparency films allows me to pull better shadow detail out of contrasty lighting situations. However IME many drum scan technicians are less competent with color negatives. Lenny might shed some light on this.

OK, I'll step in. Eric's got it right... b&w film has a lot of range. Much more than color film converted to b&w or chromogenic film. That said, there are a lot of folks who want a fairly contrasty image. That's a lot easier to do than a less contrasty, more towards platinum look.

If you want to scan color negs on a drum, you need to choose one that has aperture control. The main, popular scanner that does not have aperture control is the Tango. WCI has one, along with many labs that purchased this scanner because of the established Heidelberg name. A fine scanner in other respects, it is the wrong choice for color negs. That's the main question one needs to ask before sending one's color negs to be scanned.

The technical issue here is grain anti-aliasing, an effect that occurs when the aperture size is smaller than the RMS granularity, or grain size. It essentially "over-samples" and the effect is to over emphasize the grain. It's quite dramatic. An Aztek Premier can simply adjust the aperture to match the grain size and there is no issue with getting a superb scan from a color neg. (I do it all the time.)

Lenny

[Bruce Watson]

I'm a drum scanner owner / operator. I've been drum scanning my own B&W and color negatives for five or six years now. I've made prints to 125 x 100 cm (about 50 x 40 inches) from some of them. Mostly Tri-X and 160PortraVC.

My answers to your questions inline below:

...if I know that I'm going to be scanning and printing digitally anyhow (and effectively abandoning the traditional darkroom), is there much advantage / disadvantage of continuing to use B&W negative film?

Advantages include the different spectral response. Less expensive film and processing. Sharper images (far fewer layers in the emulsion). The ability to easily manipulate processing. The ability to manipulate exposure (say, using a red/orange/yellow filter to increase the tonal separation between a blue sky and the white clouds). You can do similar things with a photo editor but it's not quite the same. From a scanning stand point B&W film can be scanned with a single channel (usually green) to a grayscale file, 1/3 the file size and therefore usually significantly less expensive scan to purchase.

The only real disadvantage is Callier Effect due to the metallic silver making up the image in B&W film. And that's not much of a disadvantage unless you are really cooking your film and going for very high densities.

Does it make sense to shoot with something like Fuji Velvia 50 slide film, and have a pro lab do the drum scan and convert the file to produce black & white prints?

We can't tell you what will work for you. You'll have to try it and decide whether this technique is right for you, your images, and your workflow.

With a color slide such as Fuji Velvia 50 (and then drum scanning it and converting the file to produce a B&W print), I'm assuming the benefits are (1) I'd get less grain and potentially higher sharpness in the final print from Velvia 50 compared to scanned B&W negs?

For a given ISO, color films (tranny and neg) have somewhat higher RMS granularity ratings than do B&W negative films. No, I'm not kidding. Ask Kodak or read their tech. sheets.

The appearance of less grain from tranny films comes from the fact that graininess is directly related to density. In a negative film, the greatest density is in the image's highlights where it's easy to see in the final print. In a positive film, the greatest density is in the shadows where it's much harder to see. This gives the illusion of less grain.

Sharpness is almost always better from a B&W film. There are a lot of reasons. One is that B&W films have far fewer emulsion layers. Another is that (non-chromogenic) B&W films don't go through the dye-coupler process to replace the metallic silver with dye clouds.

I suspect (having run lots of tests, but never this particular test) that you'll get better sharpness from 100Tmax, but you'll get the appearance of less grain with the Velvia.

Now, all that said, graininess is largely a moot point in LF. Even a 50 x 40 inch print from a 5 x 4 negative is only about a 10x enlargement. Modern films, whether they are color tranny, color neg, or B&W neg, make nearly "grainless" prints at this level of enlargement.

Graininess is pretty much a non-issue and should be among the least of your concerns with LF.

(2) the original material (ie, the color slide) would allow me to meaningfully study the image in proper detail with a strong loop on a light-box before deciding whether to scan & print

You can easily learn how to view and evaluate a negative on a light box. I do it all the time, color and B&W. Easier than learning to use a view camera. You don't *need* WYSIWYG. But you may *want* it. That's up to you.

(3) given I don't process films myself, it would be cheaper for me to be shooting E6 compared to B&W, the latter requiring a contact sheet.

Again, you don't *need* a contact sheet. Some practice will quickly get you to the point that you can easily evaluate film on a light table with a 10x loupe. No matter what kind of film it is. If you are willing to do the work to learn how of course. And again, it's easier than learning how to use a view camera.

I'm assuming the benefit of sticking with the B&W negative (over something like Velvia 50) is basically its wider exposure latitude?

The biggie for me would be the ability to capture far greater subject brightness range (SBR) scenes, yes. But there's something to be said for a lower density film to scan, even on a drum scanner. And as I said above, the B&W spectral response is also different and more interesting. You can control it more. B&W film is cheaper. Sharper. Less grainy for a given ISO. Processing is cheaper. Easier to manipulate. Etc.

Does anyone have experience of drum scanning and converting color slide to create B&W prints?

I've done some. Didn't like the results much myself. I found that to get the best out of it, I had to treat each and every tranny as an individual. I couldn't find a "one size fits all" color-to-B&W conversion method (and I tried lots). Each tranny wanted something a little different, which is a PITA.

Do the final prints "look" the same as drum scanned B&W negatives?

No. They are different. Not to say bad necessarily, especially with small SBR subjects. But different.

You can easily test this yourself by shooting the same things with different films and comparing away.

Any feedback on relative advantages / disadvantages would be appreciated. Many thanks.

Much as I wanted to standardize on a single film for everything, I found that I got better results for my work if I used the tool designed for the job. That is, if I use B&W film for B&W prints, and color film for color prints. But just because that's the way it works for me doesn't mean that's the way it will work for you. Because clearly YMMV. Eventually you'll have to do the work and see for yourself what works best for you.

[mrladewig]

I think you'd be fine to use E-6 films and then swap them, but you'd face a much higher expense per shot this way. You could use C-41, but face the same increase in expenses and the slight complexities of scanning C-41. If you really want to print B&W the cheapest route would be to go with B&W film, even if you were to send it off to the lab for standardized processing. There are 4 labs in my area that will process 4X5 B&W film.

I think it is very possible to create a good quality B&W conversion from E-6 or C-41 film within scanning software or photoshop, and if I shot a color image that really seemed like a fit for B&W, I'd swap it. Like Bruce has pointed out, sharpness (within the film) and grain really aren't big issues for 4X5 because we don't make huge enlargements. The biggest down side to E-6 (besides cost) is limited dynamic range, but there is a BIG difference between Velvia/E100VS and Provia/Astia/E100G in dynamic range. The second group of films have a much wider dynamic range, but still don't have as wide a range as negative films. Color negative I think might not be the best choice for B&W conversion simply because you have almost have to go through 2 conversions to get there.

One more bit about the E-6 films. So far in my learning/experimentation process, I've found that not only does Astia/Provia/E100G have a larger dynamic range than Velvia, but they also scan with the appearance of less grain. So if you are purely concerned with grain, Astia and E100G are great films for portraiture and Provia provides improved saturation without losing much dynamic range. If the scene is particularly flat, then Velvia's high contrast can really help bring out details.

If you'd really like to shoot B&W with the ability to view it as a positive, why don't you look at dr-5 lab in Denver. They do Scala processing as well as B&W positive processing for other B&W films from what I can gather on their website.