# Back into the world of B&W



## llamov (Jun 18, 2014)

I was a professional photographer more than 2o years ago. I also taught classes in black and white photography. After I closed my studio, I sold all my gear and went on to other things.

I now find myself with a desire to make images once more, but I have little knowledge of digital equipment and processes other than an inexpensive digital point and shoot. I have no darkroom or darkroom equipment. I do still have all my stainless steel tanks and reels for developing film.

What I'd like to do is once more start shooting 35mm Tri-X in a Nikon F3, FE, or FM and developing the film in HC-110. This is the equipment and the materials with which I'm most comfortable. My problem is, how do I go about from there making images for my computer or making prints. 

Does scanning the negs result in anywhere near the quality I used to get in the darkroom?

Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## timor (Jun 18, 2014)

Welcome to the forum. Welcome back to b&w film. You will find this field very much changed from your times in business.
I don't know much about scanning the negs, but this technology is used by many with success. However good scanning is as hard as making FB prints. So after learning this and investing a big chunk of cash in a good scanner, good computer, calibrated screen and software maybe will be wise to think of shooting medium format from the start. That would give you quite an advantage in quality.


----------



## Designer (Jun 18, 2014)

Medium format cameras are going for a fraction of what they once did, and the film costs only a little more than 35mm.  AFIK


----------



## limr (Jun 18, 2014)

I can't compare the quality of scanning/digital printing to wet printing because I haven't done darkroom printing work, but I can tell you that the so-called "hybrid workflow" works well for me, and is becoming more common among those of us "deviants" who still use film.  Scanners can get quite expensive if you want a drum scanner or top flatbed scanners, but even the lower end scanners can give good, high resolution images that print well. Epson and Canon both make good flatbed scanners. 

It can also be very convenient to see and work on images without printing them all. Personally, I scan my negatives at a lower resolution the first time around. It's more than enough for digital images if I want to share online, for example, and it is a lot less tedious (36 frames of 35mm at a high resolution can take quite a while!) For the ones I want to print, I can scan at a higher resolution, edit, and send them out to be printed.

If you already have the cameras and developing equipment, and if you can afford a $200-scanner, it might be worth it to at least investigate the analogue-to-digital process. If you decide it's not good enough, you can always sell the scanner and get some new darkroom equipment (which is selling relatively cheap these days.)


----------



## IzzieK (Jun 18, 2014)

Welcome to this forum...


----------



## webestang64 (Jun 18, 2014)

I prefer printing in the darkroom. Color film is now to be scanned, never B&W, but that's just me. That said, you could scan 3 different ways. Flatbed, not good for 35mm, but my Epson V700 scans 120 and 4x5 very nicely. Cheap newly made film scanners.....they are junk. Used Nikon or Konica/Minolta film scanner...? I use them, you still can get them repaired and get software but no factory support. I use a pro-grade scanner at work. Noritzu 1800 series, wicked.....cost new $25k, seen them on the Bay for around $10k. Or find a lab that will scan it for you, normal price per roll to CD.....$5-$10.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 18, 2014)

llamov said:
			
		

> *35mm Tri-X* *HC-110*.
> 
> Does scanning the negs result in anywhere near the quality I used to get in the darkroom?



MOST of my film work was Tri-X, 35mm, souped in HC-110 Dilution B. Some in Rodinal, some in D-76, but mostly, HC-110. I have an average-grade, old Minolta scanner. I've recently begun scanning negatives made in the mid-1980's. I've sent out a few scans and had them printed on Fuji machines and paper. I think the BEST thing about this hybrid approach is that I am in full control of my dodging and burning and contrast control, much,much more so than with wet darkroom printing.

A few years back, I flatbed scanned some 6x9 cm negatives made in the 1920's and 1930's and into the early 1940's, printing on my EPSO 1280. I had never printed any of those negatives "wet", but they made outstanding 16- to roughly 19 inch-long enlarged inkjet prints. Really,really nice Black and White. Those were scanned with an Epson Photo 3200 flatbed scanner.I have no direct comparison of that old film wet vs inket printed, but people were "wowed" by the prints.

You might be amazed by some of the new film, like Kodak's Ektar 100 color negative film, or T-Max 100. I think T-Max 400 in 35mm is close to older 120 rollfilm in terms of grain, with T-Max 400 in 35mm size looking as good as say Verichrome Pan in 6x6 on 120 rollfilm, to me at least.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 18, 2014)

Tri-X--->Nikon and you'll be good to go! I usually get color film developed and most places scan the negs, I often opt for the higher res option depending on what I photographed and what I intend to do with the images. 

I had been using a darkroom at a local university in a building which got renovated so I'm getting B&W developed/scanned too. Even when I was using the shared darkroom I usually got the film developed so I could look thru the negatives on my lightbox at home, since my time up there in the darkroom was limited. Seems like everyone's process is a little different depending on each person's lifestyle (work, school, kids, family).

I've scanned in some of my darkroom prints and then printed those - the quality is comparable as far as the image (sharpness etc.) but of course there's a big difference in the paper, gloss etc. I had printed one of mine and from across the room I thought wow it looks just like the original - from a distance! Comparing them up close of course they look quite different, not better or worse just different. But I haven't found it too difficult to go from a film image to a digital copy.


----------



## llamov (Jun 19, 2014)

As far as format, much of my work as a professional as well as my personal stuff was shot on a Mamiya RB-67. Looking on Ebay I see these wonderful old cameras are now being sold at really cheap prices. One of these coupled with the 127mm lens would more than satisfy my needs. I'm retired now, so finances are an issue. I'll have to check on the price and availability of film in both formats. I'm pretty much resigned to the reality of beautiful, hand made silver prints being no longer possible for me. I'm just hoping to make images on 35mm or 6x7 film and posting them online. Noritsu, or other high end printers are probably not in my future, nor do I really need them. I also would like the ability to scan and post online some of my work shot in the 80's and 90's. I have boxes and boxes of fiber based prints as well as hundreds of rolls of film that are just sitting on shelves waiting to be tossed after I'm gone.


----------



## limr (Jun 19, 2014)

llamov said:


> As far as format, much of my work as a professional as well as my personal stuff was shot on a Mamiya RB-67. Looking on Ebay I see these wonderful old cameras are now being sold at really cheap prices. One of these coupled with the 127mm lens would more than satisfy my needs. I'm retired now, so finances are an issue. I'll have to check on the price and availability of film in both formats. I'm pretty much resigned to the reality of beautiful, hand made silver prints being no longer possible for me. I'm just hoping to make images on 35mm or 6x7 film and posting them online. Noritsu, or other high end printers are probably not in my future, nor do I really need them. I also would like the ability to scan and post online some of my work shot in the 80's and 90's. I have boxes and boxes of fiber based prints as well as hundreds of rolls of film that are just sitting on shelves waiting to be tossed after I'm gone.



I would never suggest that the $150-200 flatbed scanners would do the same work as the higher end scanners, and if I wanted top quality printed work, I would have my negatives scanned on a high-end scanner.

Having said that, to archive negatives in digital format and to post online, and possibly for the occasional printing, a flatbed scanner is definitely more than adequate for those needs. They can be had brand new on Amazon for less than $200, or you could get an affordable used one that would normally go for $600-700 new.

120 film isn't much more expensive to buy than 35mm. Check out prices on B&H, Adorama, Freestyle, even Amazon sometimes.


----------



## PWhite214 (Jul 22, 2014)

Here is a screen shot of a Tri-X 35mm negative scanned on an Epson 4490 Photo flatbed printer.  I bought VUESCAN, VueScan Scanner Software for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux, scanned to DNG, opened in Irfanview and inverted to a positive.  Irfanview is a free photo viewer/editing software, IrfanView - Official Homepage - one of the most popular viewers worldwide.  This is a digital equivalent to a 'straight out of camera' or contact sheet.




Scanning was pretty quick and easy.  I bought "The Vuescan Bible" and just followed the setup.   Color has been a little more difficult, but I am learning.

BTW, the 4490 is discontinued, but there are plenty on the auction sites.

Phil


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 22, 2014)

llamov said:


> Does scanning the negs result in anywhere near the quality I used to get in the darkroom?



Yes. In fact better. This is because along with scanning comes digital manipulation of the scanned data which allows you to achieve a level of precision unattainable in the darkroom.

Here's a scan from a 120 neg:



This neg was scanned using an old Canon 8600F flatbed scanner that cost about $149.00. B&H is selling the newer version (9000F mkII) right now for $177.00. It wouldn't do as good a job with 35mm. You can find dedicated 35mm film scanners used and inexpensive that will do a very good job. You might however have an entertaining time getting them hooked up and running with a newer computer.

If you're looking forward to your hands smelling like fixer again by all means enjoy yourself. It can be great fun to relive the good old days. If on the other hand you're looking for a way to take excellent B&W photos and enjoy your retirement (and not spend too much money) have you considered a nice compact digital camera? I don't want to start up the interminable film versus digital mess but if you're not going to actually make B&W silver prints and you do in fact want images you can post on the internet then why film? Nostalgia is a good answer, but something like a nice Panasonic LX-7 will otherwise do the job a 35mm film camera would do for a lot less cost and effort.

Joe


----------

