Using Black and White film digitally
InsuredDisaster
Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
I'm hoping that there are lots of photographers with extensive film and darkroom experience on this site, but I might be better off hunting down another forum. Lets see.
I like black and white prints. I was looking at one of those plugins that imitates black and white films. In this case, it was Alien Skin's Exposure 2. It claims to offer some of the most realistic grain available. It would mimic a variety of films as well. I tried it out and it seems pretty cool, except for the $250 price tag. It also occured to me that these plug ins were probably great, but they try to imitate something that I've rarely seen up close.
The other thing is that I heard that BW film has a much wider exposure latitude than digital and it doesn't blow out highlights as badly. So I thought I'd give real BW film a try.
I ran into some problems. First, I couldn't find the film at all. Then when I finally found the film, I couldn't find anywhere to develop it. I could get the C-41 stuff, but I want the true stuff. So I now bought the developing equipment, and a friend loaned me his Nikon F50 which he never uses any more. I shot 3 rolls of film and developed them. They are hanging now.
Here are my questions/concerns:
1. I plan to have a photo center scan the negatives for me. Will these scans retain the highlights that the BW film will hopefully give me?
2. Once I get these onto my computer and edit them and all, can I run them over to the above center and retain the full benefits of BW film, PLUS the benefits of easy edits with photoshop? Or will I only gain partial benefits, or none at all?
3. Or to gain the full benefits, will I have to take the next step and actually print these photos out at home?
I've heard of this argument that film has more "megapixles"/resolution than digital, and maybe yes, maybe kno. I don't really care. My main desire is for a bit better dynamic range and less "clipping," I might be mistaken. That's the "benefit" that I want. THe other thing that interests me is to be able to see all this grain hoopla and compare my digital BW conversions to the real thing.
So far, I had a bit of fun, and I'm out about $100. It remains to been seen just how good the first three rolls turn out, as I plan to haul them to the scanning lab tomorrow.
Thank you
I like black and white prints. I was looking at one of those plugins that imitates black and white films. In this case, it was Alien Skin's Exposure 2. It claims to offer some of the most realistic grain available. It would mimic a variety of films as well. I tried it out and it seems pretty cool, except for the $250 price tag. It also occured to me that these plug ins were probably great, but they try to imitate something that I've rarely seen up close.
The other thing is that I heard that BW film has a much wider exposure latitude than digital and it doesn't blow out highlights as badly. So I thought I'd give real BW film a try.
I ran into some problems. First, I couldn't find the film at all. Then when I finally found the film, I couldn't find anywhere to develop it. I could get the C-41 stuff, but I want the true stuff. So I now bought the developing equipment, and a friend loaned me his Nikon F50 which he never uses any more. I shot 3 rolls of film and developed them. They are hanging now.
Here are my questions/concerns:
1. I plan to have a photo center scan the negatives for me. Will these scans retain the highlights that the BW film will hopefully give me?
2. Once I get these onto my computer and edit them and all, can I run them over to the above center and retain the full benefits of BW film, PLUS the benefits of easy edits with photoshop? Or will I only gain partial benefits, or none at all?
3. Or to gain the full benefits, will I have to take the next step and actually print these photos out at home?
I've heard of this argument that film has more "megapixles"/resolution than digital, and maybe yes, maybe kno. I don't really care. My main desire is for a bit better dynamic range and less "clipping," I might be mistaken. That's the "benefit" that I want. THe other thing that interests me is to be able to see all this grain hoopla and compare my digital BW conversions to the real thing.
So far, I had a bit of fun, and I'm out about $100. It remains to been seen just how good the first three rolls turn out, as I plan to haul them to the scanning lab tomorrow.
Thank you
0
Comments
Second - what a fun experiment! I use to do all my own developing and printing of B/W film and I really liked it. The only part I didn't like was the part you already finished - develping the negatives (no idea why, but I hated that part). For another $100 you could probably get the rest of the equipment you need to do the prints. Personally, i loved doing the prints myself.
Anyway, just wanted to say
I'm trying to merge the film in with digital if possible. I'm willing to spend a buck a roll on the film, or even 4 bucks for some of the more expensive BW films, and I'm willing to develop it. Its easy enough with my piss poor dark room set up. That of course adds the cost, but so far, I think both the film shooting and the developing return a decent amount of fun for the cost I've invested.
At this point, I'm leaning towards scanning the negatives. I've got about 2,000 images on my computer, which probably came from over 20,000 shot in the last 6 months or so, and out of those 2,000, I've only printed (8X12 size), or intended to print maybe 15-20. Most are emailed around to family or friends, so for me, its important to be able to have electronic copies considering I might print so few. Of course, I enjoy looking at my photos on the computer for memories sake, but I'm not going to be framing them.
I'm trying to involve my girlfriend (rather than ignore her) in my photography, and she's leaning towards traditional printing for the fun factor. Here is a breakdown between the two:
(I'm in China, I'm guessing many of the name brand things carry a cost premium)
Traditional: $450-500USD
Pros: Fun factor continues, maximum potential for high quality BW (I'm guessing)
Cons: High start up cost, plus continued costs to print contact sheets and print photos. Tremendous challenge, perhaps impossible to maintain precise temperatures with no A/C and fairly warm temps (30+c, 90+F). Only two choices for dark rooms are A/C but no running water, or no AC with running water, but incredibly small space. Once printed, BW prints are not store electrically, though can be for minimal cost.
Scan to digital
Pros: Allows easy archival for me on computer, and keeps them in with the rest of my photos. Minimizes per photo cost. I did find a place that perhaps could probably print 8X10's (or bigger) from the negatives should I decide that I really want fully traditional BW from start to finish.
Cons: Current lab may offer poor quality scans (though for the traditional printing costs, I could buy my own Nikon cool scan for not much more) I beleive that the scans the guy will give me are only 1mb in size but some negative scanners give you file sizes above 30mb. Is this true?
So if anyone does have some knowlege that might help me, am I confused on anything so far? I'm hoping that scanning to digital will still give me most of the benefits of black and white film plus the benefits of digital editing. Or will I lose any benefits of BW film once I scan.
Everything depends on the quality of the scans. If they are using a good scanner that can record the entire tonal range of the negative with a tone curve matched to the film type, and you receive them as 16-bit grayscale TIFFs, you might have enough image information be able to have as much flexibility as you would in the darkroom. But, if they are running an automated scanner that they set up generically, saving out 8-bit JPEGs, you might not see great B&W because too much info in the negative never made it into the file, particularly if the tone curve is wrong or highlights or shadows get clipped because they run the film through without paying attention.
You can store scans in the same collection as your digital camera files like so many people do. My scanner TIFFs are in the same Adobe Lightroom database as my digital camera files and are edited with the same tools.
Film having more megapixels is theoretical. If you have very low ISO fine grain film in a camera with a sharp high-end lens on a tripod, maybe film has more megapixels. But as you put the camera in a hand, slow the shutter speed, use grainy high-ISO film, etc. the amount of actual sharpness in film drops and drops, and the grain is present. With digital cameras having image stabilization, incredible high-ISO performance, and noise reduction for any remaining noise that gets through, digital is blowing past film in terms of effective resolution. With the lack of grain, digital is also much easier to sharpen.
While highlights "roll off" more smoothly in film, whether film or digital highlight control is basically about proper metering and exposure. You can blow out B&W film too. At least with digital I can see a highlight clip warning on the spot.