Choices, when actual printing is not possible

[hoakin1981]

I will be developing my first 35mm B&W rolls soon and in the near future 120mm ones will follow.

I start by saying that I totally understand/agree/confirm the fact that an actual well printed photo easily surpasses in IQ any kind of scanning of the same negative. Now that this is out of the way, I have to face reality. And the reality is that I simply cannot do my own printing at this time.

Its not so much a matter of cost (trust you can start printing with $300 more or less, correct me If I am wrong), but one of practicality. I do not have the space needed, perhaps in the future I will, but I currently don't.

So, what are my options:

1. Give the negatives to be scanned from labs. Well, I seriously doubt the quality obtained and the cost is not negligible especially in the long run.

2. Buy a decent flatbed scanner like the Canoscan 9000F MarkII. The cost is bearable and the quality is "enough" for some usages.

3. Buy a drum scanner. Not possible, too expensive, even used.

4. Buy a Macro lens for my DSLR. More expensive than the flatbed scanner, not sure about the quality produced. Certain positive that you have the lens for Macro photography.

What I need to achieve is:

• To be able to check the actual photo shot. Did I nail the focus, how is the exposure, is the composition good, how is the tonal range? Etc. Basically need to be able to evaluate each frame.
• I need to digitize the best shots in order to self-publish a book at some point.
• Create some sort of digital archive/backup in case the negatives were lost/stolen/burned/buried etc.

Basically the 3 above. Actual printing from the negatives for a portfolio usage will be done by a proper lab to achieve the best quality possible. I am leaning towards No.2, sure the quality is not comparable to an actual print but I believe would serve well enough for my 3 intended goals.

Any feedback/advice on the matter would be most appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[jp498]

Personally I'd do 2 and 4. 4 for volume scanning can get slow and tedious. 35mm is harder to scan in high quality as it's little compared to the 120 or LF films. Higher res means more magnification for cheap lenses in scanners, etc...

You really should at least use someone elses darkroom or have a temporary one so you know your film if developed OK for optical printing. You mention you are new to film and will be developing your own. You need some wet print feedback that your negatives print OK on grade 2 or 3 paper. Otherwise you could go for a long time shooting film that won't print will but can scan acceptably. Once you know how the negatives need to look, you don't need that.

Another fun thing with 120 film at least is alt process contact prints. A 120 strip cyanotype is a beautiful little bookmark or photo booth sized portrait to carry around or display in an intimate space. No darkroom needed.

 

[mauro35]

I started by developing 35mm black and white film myself and at that time actual printing was not possible. My option was to buy a dedicated film scanner. This can be a bit more expensive than a flatbed scanner, but I believe the gain in quality is worth for the use I make of my negatives. I was perfectly happy with that and it did serve the purpose very well, especially if you want to be able to critically evaluate the results of your exposures and at the same time have decent quality files.

 

[Kyle M.]

I'm in the same boat (nowhere to setup an enlarger) I scan all of my 35mm and 120 negatives with an Epson V600. I got it from epson refurbished last july for $140, and I am perfectly happy with it. I have had many a 4x6, and 8x10's ink jet printed from my 2400dpi scans and can't complain about the quality. Theres a link to my flickr in my signature if you want some examples.

 

[markbarendt]

Option 5 + option 1.1

Make contact proof prints, then send out only the negatives you really like.

I'm sure you can find similar stuff in the EU.

A contact print frame - Dead Link Removed

A stack of paper - Dead Link Removed

Developer - Dead Link Removed

Fixer - The fix stock that you use for your film should be fine, just keep the working solutions separate, one bottle for paper, another for film.

Three trays big enough to soak a print in flat, plastic or glass from a thrift store.

A safe light is handy when you are learning, also fun because you get to see the image come up, but not absolutely needed.

A dark bathroom.

Set up the print frame with the film, turn off the light, pull a sheet of paper out and put it in the frame, close the paper box, turn on the light for 5ish seconds, adjust time as needed, fully dependent on how bright your light is. Develop 1-1/2 minutes, rinse 1/2 minute, fix for the time recommended, wash for 2-3 minutes, hang with clothes pin to dry.

This will give you a good reference point for camera exposure and contrast/development changes too.

 

[gone]

If you have a bathroom, even a tiny one, you have space to print your negs. That's all I have, it's all many people have had for 100 years. I recently sold a good enlarger w/ lens and negative carrier for $70 shipped, so the cost is minimal too. Trays, chemicals, safe light are all pretty cheap.

 

[hoakin1981]

Thanks

for all the replies so far. Very interesting, I never considered the printing of contact proof prints option. Well, I have no idea of the total cost involved here to buy the necessary gear but it is worth checking out. I am afraid though that the total sum will get pretty close if not surpass a flatbed scanner.

So a couple of questions regarding these contact proof prints:

• You can evaluate an image effectively?
• Do you need a focus finder to do so?
• Do they work for both 35mm & 120mm, or you need another frame/papers etc.?

This would certainly solve the "would my negatives print ok?" question but sending only specific frames to be scanned from a lab is not so feasible I am afraid. Also, this does not solve the backup/archive problem. I mean just because one shot is not one of your best that does not mean its not worth saving.

 

[Jesper]

If you look at localdarkroom.com there is a public darkroom available in Athens. Could this be an option?

 

[nsurit]

I would never suggest you buy a scanner, however if that should happen, there are many who use them to generate enlarged negatives for use with alternative photographic printing processes, none of which require an enlarger or a really "dark" dark room. Alt processes might be an avenue to explore. Some information can be found here: http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/become-a-member/newsletter

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

for all the replies so far. Very interesting, I never considered the printing of contact proof prints option. Well, I have no idea of the total cost involved here to buy the necessary gear but it is worth checking out. I am afraid though that the total sum will get pretty close if not surpass a flatbed scanner.

So a couple of questions regarding these contact proof prints:

• You can evaluate an image effectively?
• Do you need a focus finder to do so?
• Do they work for both 35mm & 120mm, or you need another frame/papers etc.?

This would certainly solve the "would my negatives print ok?" question but sending only specific frames to be scanned from a lab is not so feasible I am afraid. Also, this does not solve the backup/archive problem. I mean just because one shot is not one of your best that does not mean its not worth saving.

Contact proof prints are made specifically to evaluate the negatives; that is their specific purpose. They are a fantastic way to insure that you are correctly exposing and developing your film, if you some day have the ability to print with an enlarger.
It's very common that people who scan their negatives make negatives that work well with their scanner. That doesn't always produce the best results for printing optically because the two mediums do not respond to the tonality of the negative the same way.

Contact printing requires only the following:
1. A dark room with a flat sturdy surface big enough to work from.
2. A sheet of glass.
3. A light bulb of low wattage and a timer.
4. Three trays with developer, stop bath, and fixer.
5. Running water to wash your contact prints.
6. A line and some clothes pins to hang the prints to dry.

It's very easy to do, and a very rewarding way of looking at your photographs.

 

[hoakin1981]

Contact proof prints are made specifically to evaluate the negatives; that is their specific purpose. They are a fantastic way to insure that you are correctly exposing and developing your film, if you some day have the ability to print with an enlarger.
It's very common that people who scan their negatives make negatives that work well with their scanner. That doesn't always produce the best results for printing optically because the two mediums do not respond to the tonality of the negative the same way.

Contact printing requires only the following:
1. A dark room with a flat sturdy surface big enough to work from.
2. A sheet of glass.
3. A light bulb of low wattage and a timer.
4. Three trays with developer, stop bath, and fixer.
5. Running water to wash your contact prints.
6. A line and some clothes pins to hang the prints to dry.

It's very easy to do, and a very rewarding way of looking at your photographs.

Thanks for the info. So you don't necessarily need a contact print frame? Because from what I see this is the biggest cost involved.

 

[markbarendt]

[*]You can evaluate an image effectively?

Yes, it gives you a "positive" that can be viewed with a magnifying glass if needed. This often allows you to understand many issues that are not as easily judged as a negative (I know it is easier for me to judge positives). No, it doesn't show everything, but it is a great first cut and a huge step forward for most people.

But surprisingly some of these itty-bitty 35mm contact prints are beautiful little jewels, suitable for framing, all by themselves. In 120 there you will probably find a lot more that can stand on their own too.

Another really fun way to use contacts is to treat the contact sheet as a little anthology. Shoot a roll to chronicle one of your outings and contact that set as the finished product.

Multiple contact sheets can be made of the same sets at varied exposures to explore how deep the shadows are and how much detail is in the highlights. This is very helpful in the beginning.

One of the best things is that contact printing provides an objective standard to measure yourself against. It will show you distinctly, the differences from frame to frame, and that can help you fine tune your camera exposure/metering techniques. It can show you film development issues, and it provides a great quick reference to a given set of photos.

[*]Do you need a focus finder to do so?

No. The film sits on top of the paper, no focussing required.

Using a single light bulb would probably provide a slightly shaper image than say a florescent tube or set of lights.

[*]Do they work for both 35mm & 120mm, or you need another frame/papers etc.?

8x10 paper will work fine for both, just cut the negatives appropriately. There are little tricks, some people rewind 35mm film after the 35th frame because 5 frames wide x 7 strips tall fits nicely on an 8x10 contact sheet.

Your imagination is the only limit here.

 

[markbarendt]

Thanks for the info. So you don't necessarily need a contact print frame? Because from what I see this is the biggest cost involved.

True.

The frame can make it easier, but it is not required.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thanks for the info. So you don't necessarily need a contact print frame? Because from what I see this is the biggest cost involved.

No need for a contact printing frame at all. The purpose of the glass is to keep the negatives flat against the photo paper underneath, to insure good contact between the two emulsions (for sharpness).
I recommend a heavier piece of glass if you have access to it at a local hardware store or something. Regular window glass will do, but it's not very heavy.

One caution - put some fabric tape around the edges of the glass so you don't cut yourself using it.

 

[Mark_S]

I don't know what sort of photography you do, but one possibility is to move to a larger format than 35mm and contact print - possibly even using an alternative process like Cyanotype. This requires minimal special equipment, and could easily be done in a bathroom.

As far as the options that you outlined, I would probably contact print my negatives, select one or two per roll to send out and get professionally scanned, and then fiddle and play on the computer with the images. If you find that you are doing this a lot, then it will become clearer if you want to purchase a scanner, or get access to a darkroom or what.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I can't have a darkroom, either, because all my rooms have very large windows that can't be blocked for light.

The flatbed scanner is the best option, or alternatively a dedicated dual film scanner if you can find/afford one.

It's better to get the best scanner that you can possibly afford from the outset. Otherwise, you'll probably end up buying a better one soon, costing you more in total.

The DSLR option is very slow and tedious. It only works well if you are going to digitise a few B&W frames.

 

[Karl A]

You can evaluate an image effectively?

--Yes, at least to decide if it is worth enlarging or scanning.

Do you need a focus finder to do so?

--No, but if you mean a loupe, then yes an inexpensive one would be helpful here

Do they work for both 35mm & 120mm, or you need another frame/papers etc.?

--Yes they work for 35mm and 120, but sometimes a slightly bigger size like 8.5x11 can help if you want the whole 35mm roll on one page (not crucial in reality)

Also, this does not solve the backup/archive problem.

--Yes it can, when you consider that the negative is your backup and your contact sheet is your reference. No computer needed. Welcome to analog photography.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I will be developing my first 35mm B&W rolls soon and in the near future 120mm ones will follow.

I start by saying that I totally understand/agree/confirm the fact that an actual well printed photo easily surpasses in IQ any kind of scanning of the same negative. Now that this is out of the way, I have to face reality. And the reality is that I simply cannot do my own printing at this time.

I can hopefully offer some experience on this. Last year, I took a 6x7 neg (shot with a tripod, mirror up, cable release on a Mamiya RZ) and made both digital and analog prints.

Analog was printed 16x20 on Ilford MGFB with the LPL 4x5 enlarger, processed and selenium toned.

Digital was scanned on the Canon 9000 with a fluid mount setup, spotted and toned, then printed same size on an Epson 2400 with a Carbon 6 setup.

Results? The prints are virtually identical. There are some extremely minor differences due to the base colors of the paper (bright white Ilford vs. natural rag paper) but there is no practical difference in the sharpness or clarity.

If you are in Atlanta and can get down to the High Museum to see the astonishing work of Abelardo Morrell, you will see silver and digital prints side by side. There is absolutely no difference in the quality. In fact, if there weren't labels next to the prints, you would not be able to distinguish between the two.

Not trying to start an off topic debate, just my personal experience and observations. I still do both for various projects and reasons.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

No need for a contact printing frame at all. The purpose of the glass is to keep the negatives flat against the photo paper underneath, to insure good contact between the two emulsions (for sharpness).
I recommend a heavier piece of glass if you have access to it at a local hardware store or something. Regular window glass will do, but it's not very heavy.

One caution - put some fabric tape around the edges of the glass so you don't cut yourself using it.

Most glass shops have a thick, heavy glass that will do all the work for you. Be sure to get it a few inches larger in each dimension to give some wiggle room. They can sand the edges nice and smooth, too.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Yes it can, when you consider that the negative is your backup and your contact sheet is your reference. No computer needed. Welcome to analog photography.

Indeed. Scanning is tedious work and only done after contact sheets have been made and allowed to "ferment" for a while. I kind of view both film and scans as backups for each other. By scanning, you're really keeping a backup of the best work in case the negs get burned up. And, of course, when the hard drives melt down, you can pull the film and start scanning again…

 

[markbarendt]

I can't have a darkroom, either, because all my rooms have very large windows that can't be blocked for light.

That's quitter talk.

When I was a kid the first prints I ever made were contacts. Just did it at night, hung a small dark blanket over the bathroom window, tossed a towel at the bottom of the door and used the light on the ceiling as the source.

Even though my dark room is pretty darn dark I still wait for night to do things like cut color roll paper down to size.

I'm not saying a scanner is a bad idea, nor trying to pressure you to contact at home and I agree that nice tools are all ways easier and cheaper to use in the end; just saying that in a pinch it would not be a big stretch to contact print in a hotel on vacation, let alone at home.

 

[MattKing]

This is the contact proofing accessory that I use: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/43109-REG/Print_File_080_0410_Custom_Proofer.html

I understand that your location in Greece may make this a bit harder to acquire than it would be for me, but they work really well.

In my experience, scanning 35mm is quite frustrating, and requires expensive equipment to get excellent results.

If you have a full frame digital camera, see if you can find a slide copying accessory that will fit it.

 

[BetterSense]

Why even bother with contact prints? I proof my negatives on a light box with a loupe. I only print the ones I really want to. You can do the same, or you can make contact prints if you really want, although I don't find it worth the effort giving my dismal shooting ratio in 35mm.

I have scanned negatives in my V500 and found the quality only suitable for the web or for postcards. Incidentally, you can scan a good 35mm contact print in reflective mode and get an image quite usable for the web. That is the limit of my scanning experience.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Why even bother with contact prints? I proof my negatives on a light box with a loupe. I only print the ones I really want to. You can do the same, or you can make contact prints if you really want, although I don't find it worth the effort giving my dismal shooting ratio in 35mm.

I have scanned negatives in my V500 and found the quality only suitable for the web or for postcards. Incidentally, you can scan a good 35mm contact print in reflective mode and get an image quite usable for the web. That is the limit of my scanning experience.

How do you know whether you have negatives that print well unless you do the contact prints? That's right, experience, of which the OP has none.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

That's quitter talk.

When I was a kid the first prints I ever made were contacts. Just did it at night, hung a small dark blanket over the bathroom window, tossed a towel at the bottom of the door and used the light on the ceiling as the source.

Even though my dark room is pretty darn dark I still wait for night to do things like cut color roll paper down to size.

I'm not saying a scanner is a bad idea, nor trying to pressure you to contact at home and I agree that nice tools are all ways easier and cheaper to use in the end; just saying that in a pinch it would not be a big stretch to contact print in a hotel on vacation, let alone at home.

Well, if I ever start messing up my home to make photos, I think it'll be an obsession rather than a hobby

A long time ago, I was a member of a photo club with an excellent dark room. Sometimes I miss it, most times I don't. I spent far too much time in the fumes and darkness.

As regards contacts, I just stick the sheet holding the negatives to a window and shoot it with a DSLR. Invert in PS et voilà!