C-41 B&W films as source for scanning images

[Frere Jacques]

Mike-

Some of us are still in the hybrid analog/digital world with you!!!

I dug out two rolls of T400 CN I shot a few years ago when it first came out & ran them through my Nikon 4000 and Silverfast AI. I scanned the same photo twice -- same level correction on both, one with no additional modifications, the second with ICE and GANE turned on. Take a look:

http://www.kezman.info/t400cn/300.html

The good thing to report is that ICE and GANE work with T400CN!!! If you have very dusty environment/negatives (and who doesn't....?), you can use some of the advanced features of our scanner to help! You also don't have to pay for special processing of B&W negs.

T400 CN was nice, but it didn't convince me that I needed to switch. Shortly after, I tried Ilford FP4 and Pan F 50 and I was hooked!!! Pan F 50 looks GORGEOUS scanned -- rich, dense and smooth grained.

If you would like to see any more scans from my T400CN or some higher res shots, just let me know.

Happy scanning!!!

-JMK

[Frere Jacques]

Mike-

I am betting it is GANE that is clipping the highlights as it reduces the grain patterns. I will do some more tests tonight & post them! My T400 does not have an orange mask -- maybe there was a processing error.

I was a confirmed Kodak shooter for 10 years. I don't know why I decided to try Ilford. When I did I found FP4 works very well in my AE-1, BUT Kodak is better in my F100. Go figure...

It sounds like you shoot medium format -- have you heard about the up coming ZD from Mamiya...? MF on a budget!! It is still some months away and hopefully Mamiya can deliver a great camera!

I will try to post some more scans tonight.

-Jim

[mikeseb]

Excuse me if I've posted this in the wrong place; I wasn't sure quite where to put it!

I have been experimenting with C-41 B&W films; I have heard that they make great negatives from which to scan for digital printing. (Until I can find $30k for my P25 behind the sofa cushions I'm mired in the analog/digital straddle-swamp!)

Anyone here have any experience / advice with these films as a scanning source?

I have posted a related thread in the very lonely "Wet Darkroom" forum also.

Thanks for any advice you can offer.

Mike Sebastian

[mikeseb]

Frere Jacques:

thanks for your reply. The difference between the two images was impressive; saved a half hour of photoshop spotting! I noticed that the highlights in the "treated" image seemed to have been clipped a bit; is this an artifact of Digital ICE or GANE? (My Nikon 8000 has only ICE, which I've never used).

I shot and processed (Jobo, Photocolor C-41) a roll each of T400CN and Ilfor XP2. Unless I have done something wrong, the Kodak film has the usual color-negative very strong orange mask that makes viewing and scanning much harder. Plus I overexposed about half the shots on that roll. The Ilford film had a fainter purplish mask that allowed the negatives to be viewed and scanned much more easily--they looked like "regular" B&W negatives.

I have had good results scanning TMax 100 (my preferred medium-speed film), Ilford HP5, and TriX. The latter especially is just silky and luminous when scanned. I have been disappointed with FP4 for its relatively large and coarse grain compared to TMax at comparable ISO rating. (Developed in XTol.) I tried Bergger 200 on a lark; it was just awful all around.

Would love to go digital, but $30k buys a lot of film and chemistry!

Thanks for your advice and information.

Mike Sebastian

[mikeseb]

I knew from Kodak's website that their chromogenic B&W film would have the same orange mask as their C41 color films; I wasn't sure if my film was "too" orange or not. I have heard that all C41 processing kits are not created equal and that maybe I had done something wrong using Photocolor's 2-step C41 process on the T400CN, but I am still looking into this.

I have heard mention on various online forums that T400CN is very hard to print on conventional B&W papers in a wet darkroom because of its mask, in contrast to Ilford XP2, which to the naked eye looks more like a silver-based B&W film and which is much easier to print on conventional papers. In either case, scanning them as color negatives should enable me to produce good prints by digital means, so this is not a concern. Makes gross visual evaluation of the negatives nigh-impossible, however.

I love medium format for all the usual reasons, even more so because it fits my personality inclinations towards deliberation and contemplation (as opposed to actual action!) I have a recently-bought COntax 645 system that I love; my hope when I bought it (before I knew it was to be discontinued!) was that I'd one day be able to afford a digital back for it. More than anything else, I am hoping that the Mamiya med-format digital will put price pressure on Phase One, Leaf, and all the others who currently charge $30k for a med-format digital back. If I didn't think I'd take a bath selling my Contax gear, I might consider buying the Mamiya system if it actually lives up to its hype eventually.

Best,

Michael Sebastian