Good Scanner Out-resolving a Wet Print

Can a good scanner out-resolve a wet print? This is a continuation (or fork) of an APUG conversation linked (there was a url link here which no longer exists).

I posed this question because I have scan-and-inkjet prints from 35mm Portra (the new emulsions) that look just as good as 120 prints. Others have commented that they notice a difference when wet printing, so I wonder if your experience has been that scanning film (whatever the format) provides better sharpness, detail, and larger prints than traditional darkroom printing.

They have different looks. I don't know that one is "better" than the other. I like printing color via inkjet because of A: the convenience, and B: the ability to make very selective modifications and corrections in Photoshop. Most precisely, the ability to deal with dust, hairs, and scratches. Of course, to get maximum results, you need a really good scanner.

As to your inquiry about Portra 120 vs. 35mm, I LOVE Portra as a film. I have made 16x20 prints from 6x7cm negs (my RB67) exposed through the first generation (non-C) 180mm lens and they'll knock your socks off - you can count bricks on the side of an apartment building I shot with it if you're so inclined. To make a fair comparison of the emulsion between 35mm and medium format, though, you need to eliminate as many variables as possible. Shoot the same subject, ideally with the same lens or at least equivalent lenses from the same maker (i.e. a Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar for 35mm and a Zeiss 80mm f2.8 Planar for Medium format, or a Pentax 50mm f 1.4 and 75 f2.8) so that the subject is the same relative size on each negative, get a high-quality scan done by a third party of each negative, and print them both. Then have a high-quality wet print made of both. I don't know how/where you are getting your wet prints done - the difference in quality you see (or lack thereof) may be as much a result of who is doing your wet prints and the equipment they have as it is a result of inherent quality difference.

There are a lot of variables there. You could make an excellent Lambda/Lightjet/Chromira wet print from a drum scan, or you could make an excellent Ilfochrome projection print or C-print from a negative. Both require good technique and judgment about what makes a great print, and each has its own look.

One possibility that I like about inkjet printing for color is the option of using different paper surfaces. Except for dye transfer (and one case I've heard of involving specially ordered paper from Kodak), there's no other easy way to get color on baryta or art paper.

I have drum scanned 35mm Ektar at 5000ppi and made 11x14 prints from the same negative. My results were inconclusive as far as resolved detail. The wet prints were much better than scans on a Canon scanner at 4000ppi, and certainly better than the Epson scanner. I think you would need to make a 16x24 print from each to see which is resolving more detail. Someday soon I plan on doing that test, along with comparing a D800 to both.

However, as David mentioned, I now generally prefer the inkjet prints because of the availability of a baryta surface paper. I like making the darkroom prints better. I just wish the paper selection was better.