Scanning Slides vs B/W Film

[Grant]

I am heading off on my first holiday in quite a while. In the past I have
shot both transparencies and BW. The BW I have developed and printed in my
wet darkroom.

But now that I am considering going to a digital darkroom I have to ask the
following: With scanners getting better all the time and software able to
convert transparencies to BW should I still consider shooting BW film? What
does traditional BW capture that conversion from transparency loses? Are we
talking about detail in shadows?

In the short term shooting just transparency on my trip would save on
carrying an extra body and swapping lenses back and forth.


--
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
```````````````````````````````````````
Thanks in advance,

Grant

 

[Jim]

For starters, BW film lasts far longer than any color film. In all
likelihood, it will outlast any storage medium.

However, the dynamic range of current scanners exceeds that of BW film.

JIm

 

[Lincoln Michaud]

I am heading off on my first holiday in quite a while. In the past I have
shot both transparencies and BW. The BW I have developed and printed in my
wet darkroom.

But now that I am considering going to a digital darkroom I have to ask the
following: With scanners getting better all the time and software able to
convert transparencies to BW should I still consider shooting BW film? What
does traditional BW capture that conversion from transparency loses? Are we
talking about detail in shadows?

In the short term shooting just transparency on my trip would save on
carrying an extra body and swapping lenses back and forth.

Grant,

you will stir up some controversy with this question.

I have been converting color slide scans into b&w and really like the
results. Some say there is better tonality in b&w's, but I am hard
pressed to see any loss in a well converted slide.

My suggestion would be to convert some of your existing slides and see if
you like the results. As you say, the scanners are getting excellent and
with some practice you can save all the details that are in the image.
Without having done a direct comparison between converted slides and b&w
negs of the same composition, I cannot make a judgement as to whether the
negs contain more tonality.

I doubt that we will soon lose the ability to save digital files since
it is just a bunch of numbers. I have some Kodachome II slides from the
60's that seem to be in perfect condition, so you should be in good shape
there also.

You also face the possibilities of getting some exposure errors that are
easier to save in a neg. If it is an important outing, something to think
about.

Lincoln

 

[Robert Feinman]

I am heading off on my first holiday in quite a while. In the past I have
shot both transparencies and BW. The BW I have developed and printed in my
wet darkroom.

But now that I am considering going to a digital darkroom I have to ask the
following: With scanners getting better all the time and software able to
convert transparencies to BW should I still consider shooting BW film? What
does traditional BW capture that conversion from transparency loses? Are we
talking about detail in shadows?

In the short term shooting just transparency on my trip would save on
carrying an extra body and swapping lenses back and forth.

I would suggest you use color negative film rather than slides. You will
get about the same tonal range as b&w and the reduced contrast is easier
for scanners to handle.
Modern films of 200 speed and under are quite sharp and grain free.
I have a couple of examples of the degree of magnification that can be
achieved this way in the tips section of my web site.

 

[PJx]

I am heading off on my first holiday in quite a while. In the past I have
shot both transparencies and BW. The BW I have developed and printed in my
wet darkroom.

But now that I am considering going to a digital darkroom I have to ask the
following: With scanners getting better all the time and software able to
convert transparencies to BW should I still consider shooting BW film? What
does traditional BW capture that conversion from transparency loses? Are we
talking about detail in shadows?

In the short term shooting just transparency on my trip would save on
carrying an extra body and swapping lenses back and forth.

You may be the last man standing who shoots b/w.

I see nothing to be gained. Your digital darkroom will covert and
tint your color images to whatever flavor BW you desire in about a
millisec.

PJ

 

[Grant]

Lincoln:

Always good to stir up some controversy. I am not clear on your last
comment below?

grant

 

[Grant]

Thanks Jim. I need to run a couple of tests with my "old" HP 6200. I am
shooting with a Bronica medium format with changeable backs. I should be
able to find images I captured on slide and BW to compare after scanning.

grant

 

[Grant]

We did some renos on the house 2 years ago and I lost my temporary darkroom.
After 2 years digital has improved vastly. After reading various reviews of
printers and scanners and checking out newsgroups I saw the light that I
could combine my traditional camera and a digital darkroom.

The after testing my old Adobe Photoshop 5.0 LE that came with my Nikon 950
I saw the potential for converting transparencies to BW.

grant

 

[Grant]

Robert:

I have never shot print film, but might consider that in the future. Thanks
for the link to your website.

grant

 

[Wilfred van der Vegte]

Lincoln:

Always good to stir up some controversy. I am not clear on your last
comment below?

grant

I suppose he is aiming at the larger exposure latitude, that allows
negatives to capture a larger dynamic range and makes them less
sensitive to under- or overexposure.

 

[Lincoln Michaud]

I suppose he is aiming at the larger exposure latitude, that allows
negatives to capture a larger dynamic range and makes them less
sensitive to under- or overexposure.

*- Wilfred is correct, I could have been more clear.

I remember when I had the opportunity to climb Mt Kilimanjaro(1964) in
east Africa. I shot *1* roll of Kodachrome II. Can you imagine, the
chance of a lifetime and I only shot one roll (you can't see me but I am
kicking myself hard!) There was snow up there and it really screwed up
the meter on my old Nikon. A lot of the images were not usable. Moral:
maybe neg film could have been saved. Moral 2: Don't be stupid like me
and bring plenty film.

Lincoln

 

[BCampbell]

Actually there are at least two of us. I always use black and white film.
The film itself is less expensive so I save costs there and then I process
it myself in order to be able to adjust the development times to the
contrast range of the subjects. Black and white film also has about two -
three stops greater contrast range than slide film. I can't think of any
good reason to use slide film to make black and white prints. At a minimum,
if you like using and paying labs and don't care about your development
times use color negative film not slide film. It has a contrast range
approximating that of black and white film.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

I am heading off on my first holiday in quite a while. In the past I have
shot both transparencies and BW. The BW I have developed and printed in my
wet darkroom.

But now that I am considering going to a digital darkroom I have to ask the
following: With scanners getting better all the time and software able to
convert transparencies to BW should I still consider shooting BW film? What
does traditional BW capture that conversion from transparency loses? Are we
talking about detail in shadows?

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that sheer resolution is the
main thing you will lose - but that's probably because few scanners are
up to the job of discriminating. There is just no way that a three, or
more, layer emulsion can reproduce anything quite like the resolution of
a fine grained silver based monochrome film. Scanners are getting
better, but few can get everything recorded by a good lens on Ilford
Pan-F, developed in ID-11.

 

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I am heading off on my first holiday in quite a while. In the past I have
shot both transparencies and BW. The BW I have developed and printed in my
wet darkroom.

But now that I am considering going to a digital darkroom I have to ask the
following: With scanners getting better all the time and software able to
convert transparencies to BW should I still consider shooting BW film? What
does traditional BW capture that conversion from transparency loses? Are we
talking about detail in shadows?

In the short term shooting just transparency on my trip would save on
carrying an extra body and swapping lenses back and forth.

Given that you're moving to digital darkroom, the winning choice is
color negative film. It scans better, has much better dynamic range,
and is available in a lot more flavors. And is cheaper to process.
And does better on shadow detail than slides, by quite a lot.

 

[L Brown]

You may be the last man standing who shoots b/w.

I see nothing to be gained. Your digital darkroom will covert and
tint your color images to whatever flavor BW you desire in about a
millisec.

True, but at least you can develop B&W at home.

Apropos of nothing, 30 years ago I used to reverse B&W neg film to make B&W
slides - quite successful, but some loss of tonal range.