Real B&W

[rgs]

I know that's a provocative title but no insult is intended for digital B&W conversion. These just started life in B&W. I have been scanning some older 4x5 B&W negatives on my Epson 700. Here are some of the results. Comments welcomed. Enjoy.

[PhotoEcosse]

It is, as always, difficult to comment on landscape photographs without knowing what the "actual" landscape looked like. (Or, indeed, when assessing any photograph on a computer monitor over the internet).

My first impression was that the photographs lacked the rich tonal gradation that one would expect from a well processed digital image but that might, of course, merely reflect the lighting in the original scenes. (or, indeed, inadequacies of the scanning process.)

When I was using FP4 or even HP5 in MF film cameras (everything from C330f, through RB67, Pentax 67 to Rollei 6003) I would have expected much better rendition from black and white film. (but not, in relation to comments on another thread, necessarily better than I can now get from a D800 digital image processed from a colour Raw file in Lightroom and SilverEfexPro2).

But my only real test of a mono photograph is to compare a 20x16 print made on an enlarger from a film negative in a wet darkroom with a similar size of print made from a digital file on a decent inkjet printer. After all, at the end of the day, it is the print in the hand that matters.

What I can safely say is that the best prints from film that I have seen surpass 99% of the prints from digital that I have seen - and the best prints from digital that I have seen surpass 99% of the prints from film that I have seen.

.

[PhotoEcosse]

....just as an addendum to the above, as I sit here in my study I have, on the opposite wall, a framed print of a Cairngorm landscape I took in the early 1970s. It was taken on either an RB67 or a Pentax 67 (I know that because the negative is that size). Printed in my own darkroom on, I suspect, Ilford Multigrade paper. either using the standard multigrade filters or perhaps using the colour head and dialing in the filtration (can't remember now - I used both methods in those days).

But the point is that I have tried to replicate that print by scanning the negative (I use an Epson V750 which is only one step up from your own) and, short of scanning at ludicrous resolution which would result in multi-Gb files and crazy processing times, I cannot scan it so that I get a digital file that I could then process to provide a print (or a computer monitor image) that in any way approaches the quality of the original print from the negative.

But what I can say, with a fair degree of confidence, is that if by some magic I could be transported to the same scene with the same light conditions with my D800 digital camera, I could certainly produce a digital file capable of being printed to a standard that would compete for image quality with the photograph on my wall.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I like the second and the fourth very much, especially the layering of mountains in the second, but the trees in both look rather dark.

Jeremy

[nma]

Commenting on images such as these is always a delicate matter. When they first came up on the screen in their small size, I thought wow, real B&W! The compositions feature some wonderfully strong shapes. Nice work there.

When I open them to their larger size #2-4 seem to have limited mid tones, a characteristic which does not print well. #2 is my favorite; I think it has real potential to make a strong print. The composition is very nice, with the mountain background sort of echoing the rocks in the foreground. But the foreground rocks, IMHO, are too dark and worse, they have a compressed tonality. There are details in the rocks that would enhance the perception of this image. The tree is another strong element in the picture but I think it should have more visible detail. On my monitor  it is nearly a silhouette. I think it would strengthen the picture if there were shadow detail in the tree trunk and leaves.

[rgs]

I agree with the comments about being too heavy. I was disappointed in what I saw after first posting them. I thought they had looked better on my screen. Here are a couple of revisions that have had some local clarity added, been lightened (just slightly), and had some shadow areas darkened slightly. These being my first attempts at older B&W scans, I may go back to the beginning and take another run at them. I haven't printed them yet and, as Photoecosse has rightly pointed out, the print is the real test.   

[JFR]

Getting out all the resolution of film with a relatively small area like a 6x7 negative on a home scanner is not easy/possible. Bigger negatives are a bit easier (because they stay flatter), but you still can't get everything out. But if you were to shoot 8x10, you would only need more resolution if you were going to make really large prints.
Still, I shoot 4x5 now and don't often see the need for more resolution, but will ship negatives out for drumscanning if I need it. In the end it comes down to expertise. You need to learn how to expose a negative correctly, just like you need to learn to use Photoshop. In the end, I like developing by hand more than I did stitching for hours on end.