Has anyone ever printed (darkroom) and scanned the same negative?

[Ariston]

I'm curious to know how different the results are, from a sharpness and grain perspective. I know that scanning can introduce noise that looks like grain, so I am wondering how much cleaner, if at all, darkroom prints are by comparison.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I would say that in general darkroom prints are more forgiving, especially with grainier films etc. However, I scan film for web use - see my gallery here - or my website - and the results can be very good. Jpegs though do not always show fine details of contrast and tonality very well.

 

[MattKing]

Lots of times.
Darkroom printing is a lot simpler for me, but I don't know whether I would describe the prints as "cleaner".
They are just different.
I was going to try to find an example for you of a negative that I have both scanned and printed in the darkroom, before scanning the print.
But I don't really have many examples where I have done that.

 

[jeffreyg]

While the prints are somewhat different with the right paper they come very close. When framed under glass it can be difficult to tell the difference on many. I see it as two different mediums and always represent each for what they are. I don't scan prints only film. For exhibition or a sale I print on Hahnemuhle 100% cotton papers.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[glbeas]

I have a couple in my gallery, “Dick Creek Road” scanned and “Dick Creek print” where I scanned then printed and posted the comparison. Mind you there can be a lot of variation in the results by using different curves, clip points, levels, compared to different papers, exposures, contrasts and enlarger systems.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have bw negatives from 70ies. They have scratches, big and many.
Scans were not good for obvious reason.
I printed in dr, way better, it appears to be not on emulsion.
It is often more clear in dr, because I focus on grain only/

Sometimes I have difficult for dr negative and scan, pp instead with awesome inkjet film.

And you could only get lith in dr, btw.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I think you'll have to look real close to see the grains. I think sharpness can be better if you sharpen post. One thing I don't care for about inkjet prints for a long time is the color cast. Calibration is needed to get a neutral color. If you hold a loupe up the the digital print, you will see dots of color with most printers. I've seen shows where I was blown away by digital prints. However, I saw a show of a photographer that had all BW prints and the tone varied slightly from print to print. I was a some photo galleries in San Francisco last weekend and quite a few print displayed are digital prints.

 

[logan2z]

I scan all of my negatives to digital contact sheets (and for sharing online) and then decide what to actually print. The prints always look considerably better, but I'm not going for the highest fidelity scans.

 

[rst]

... And you could only get lith in dr, btw.

So true. I did a lot of lith prints but now no longer have a darkroom. I missed the mood of lith prints but could not get even close to it with photoshop and the like (which might be because I am not good in PS). In kind of urgent need of something similar, I wrote a little program which digitally simulates lith prints. Although the results are way better than I initially hoped for and although I have results of my program very close to scanned lith prints ... it is nothing compared to a real lith print in your hand. Only a lith print is a lith print. If it ever happens that I have a darkroom again ...

Cheers
Rüdiger

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I've posted this before, but here goes: shot a test negative on TMY400 with a Mamiya RZ on a tripod. Made a 16" silver print from the 6x7 negative, then scanned and made a print of matching size from my Epson. Other than the warm tone of the digital pigment and paper, they were identical in terms of sharpness and grain. Digital prints are terrific. I just find that dealing with scanners and Photoshop and inks and printers is way more of a hassle than making a silver print.

 

[Agulliver]

I have an Epson flatbed scanner and a Durst 35mm enlarger. I don't currently have a way of making traditional darkroom prints from medium format negatives unless I crop them....so they get scanned.

I certainly have scanned and later optically printed 35mm negs. I find two observations. Where the negative is under-exposed, under-developed or shot in low light (gig, club) it's easier to get a pleasing image with the enlarger and chemicals. I also find that with a "good" negative, the final print looks just that little bit better when made in the darkroom. I've tried my own home inkjet prints on an inexpensive printer and a couple of labs. Digital prints from neg scans can look very good, but there's something about the old fashioned way.

 

[rst]

... I just find that dealing with scanners and Photoshop and inks and printers is way more of a hassle than making a silver print.

I felt the same when I still had my darkroom. E.g. When doing a darkroom print I very rarely had issues with dust. But once I put my negative into a scanner it seemed to collect all the dust in the room. For every negative anew - it sometimes felt as if it be constant creation of matter, like in glove compartments of cars. Now with digital camera scanning all the dust issues are gone. I have many negatives where I do not have to remove any spots at all. So in that regard I am back to where I were with my enlarger.

Cheers
Rüdiger

 

[rst]

... Where the negative is under-exposed, under-developed or shot in low light (gig, club) it's easier to get a pleasing image with the enlarger and chemicals.

That is very interesting because I have the opposite observation. Scanning can be very forgiving, especially when your negative is underexposed. I once had my camera sent around for some one film and 36 photographers project. In the end I sat in my darkroom trying to deal with 36 images of 36 photographers on that roll of film. Some of the worst exposures - mostly underexposed - were from people who claim to be good at guessing the correct exposure time. I usually ask them how they print to get good looking images? „Oh I scan my negatives“ is the usual answer. Btw, almost all images on that roll could get scanned nicely. However, one image (mine) was totally overexposed. I had prepared for a different image and then saw something interesting and in the hassle of the moment forgot to adjust the exposure time. I ended up with an image which was way overexposed. It scanned horribly but was so easy to print ...

Cheers
Rüdiger

 

[Ariston]

That is very interesting because I have the opposite observation. Scanning can be very forgiving, especially when your negative is underexposed. I once had my camera sent around for some one film and 36 photographers project. In the end I sat in my darkroom trying to deal with 36 images of 36 photographers on that roll of film. Some of the worst exposures - mostly underexposed - were from people who claim to be good at guessing the correct exposure time. I usually ask them how they print to get good looking images? „Oh I scan my negatives“ is the usual answer. Btw, almost all images on that roll could get scanned nicely. However, one image (mine) was totally overexposed. I had prepared for a different image and then saw something interesting and in the hassle of the moment forgot to adjust the exposure time. I ended up with an image which was way overexposed. It scanned horribly but was so easy to print ...

Cheers
Rüdiger

I actually just had this same problem. I am trying to work out a development time for UFX at 800, and I overdeveloped and came up with dense negatives. The scanner produced a lot more grain/noise than I normally get from this film, even at 1600. I assumed the scanner's light has more difficulty penetrating the dense negative, which is what led me to start this thread. Unfortunately, I don't have an enlarger to compare with.

 

[KenS]

I'm curious to know how different the results are, from a sharpness and grain perspective. I know that scanning can introduce noise that looks like grain, so I am wondering how much cleaner, if at all, darkroom prints are by comparison.

Since my 'retirement' I have taken more to scanning all my sheet film and printing onto Pictorico OH film to make prints using the 'archaic' print processes.... more of a 'work effort'... and MORE 'time' consuming but (somehow) much more 'satisfying'

Ken

 

[Mick Fagan]

I'm curious to know how different the results are, from a sharpness and grain perspective. I know that scanning can introduce noise that looks like grain, so I am wondering how much cleaner, if at all, darkroom prints are by comparison.

I think the most important aspect, is the contrast of the scene and the subject. If you have a high contrast scene, with a fairly high contrast subject and you have a correctly exposed and developed negative, then my results show that there is not much difference. Mind you, I am coming from a very low number of times I have done both a print and a scan of a negative.

When the contrast of the light and the subject are flatter, then one starts to see a difference in outcomes. My results are that the flatter the contrast and subject, the harder it is to get the print to look like a negative scan. There have been an exception or two, but in general, that is my take on it.

I agree with Rüdiger 100% in that where the negative is too thin, too thick or incorrectly developed, negative scans seem to consistently give better results for an end product.

Attached are two negative scans. The church is a brilliant negative, I have been able to get a brilliant darkroom print as well.

The fence negative is not a brilliant negative, the scan is heaps better than what I can get from the darkroom and I tried hard to get a good print as I like this a lot. While I may not be the worlds best darkroom printer, I am at least serviceable, but I couldn't get what I got from the scan in the darkroom.

The church negative seems devoid of grain and other imperfections, which I put down to the contrast of the scene, the contrast of the subject and the correct exposure and development of the negative. Super clear day at the time of exposure and crystal clear atmosphere also helped.

The fence negative is grainy, the scan looks grainy, the contrast is certainly lower and that was lowered more by very high winds blowing soil into the atmosphere. The fence seems to merge into the background sky, which also doesn't help, in short, it isn't that good.

The fence negative had correct exposure and was developed correctly, which leads me to suggest that the contrast of the scene and subject, are quite dominant in determining whether or not a negative scan will be a better way to get the best image rather than a darkroom sourced image.

To source the background information of these two images, go here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/users/mick-fagan.7922/

Mick.

 

[Agulliver]

I actually just had this same problem. I am trying to work out a development time for UFX at 800, and I overdeveloped and came up with dense negatives. The scanner produced a lot more grain/noise than I normally get from this film, even at 1600. I assumed the scanner's light has more difficulty penetrating the dense negative, which is what led me to start this thread. Unfortunately, I don't have an enlarger to compare with.

About three years ago I shot a roll of film in and around Camden Town, which I had bulk loaded and clearly not had the lid on my Watson loader fully closed when I loaded that cassette. The 24 exposure film was about half fogged with 8 frames almost black to look at including the rebate area. I could just about see that there were images but neither my scanner nor enlarger could do much. Eventually I photographed the negatives with my phone (of all things) back-lit by a lamp designed to combat "seasonal affective disorder". And in that way I saved the images - though they were far from perfect.

Horses for courses. If all our negatives were perfectly or even well exposed and developed, we'd be able to scan and print every one of them with excellent results. I admit to scanning for convenience purposes and because much of the time I just put photos on the web and social media. Special pictures get printed with the enlarger.

 

[destroya]

I have a few that i did tests on. a lot has been said that I agree with so I wont rehash the same stuff. just a few observations. A lot depends on the printer. when I finally broke down and got a real printer, a high end one to do color, the B&W prints got much better. I use the B&W mode on the driver, which only uses the 4 black and grey inks, and the results are matching and now, with experience, exceeding my dark room prints. while the process is much different, I like the extra control I get in post processing the scanned neg. makes dodging and burning much easier to do and see the results. I can print a small crop on 8x10 sheets and see the results in a minute. much faster than having to go the whole print, develop and dry way with a wet print. dont get me wrong, I love a good wet print on fiber glossy paper. but I now use metallic glossy ink jet paper and the results are just as good.

for me, it comes down to the quality of the scan. a flat bed scan does not do it for me. and using a 4 color inkjet printer is not going to give you anything worth hanging on the wall. so for inkjet, you gottta pay to play so to speak.

so, yes you can, in my eye's opinion, match or exceed a good darkroom print. but in the right hands, its really hard to beat a great wet dark room print. but you can come close at home with an ink jet much easier. just my 2 cents.....

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've noticed that my scanner can pull out detail they I couldn't pull out in the darkroom.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I've noticed that my scanner can pull out detail they I couldn't pull out in the darkroom.

Andrew: I've noticed the same thing when scanning old Ektachrome slides. Also, my underwater shots that were bluish when looking at the slide, increased the color saturation of other colors dropping a lot of the blue when I switched on Color Correction in the Epson V600 scanner. There's a lot of stuff "hidden" in the film that's available when you start using the sliders.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Of course

Just today

here is a print and a scan print

If anyone can say why PLEASE

Print NOT as sharp "F"



View attachment 233968

View attachment 233969

A print from a negative is a reproduction of the negative. When you scan it to print, it’s reproduction of a reproduction.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I'm curious to know how different the results are, from a sharpness and grain perspective. I know that scanning can introduce noise that looks like grain, so I am wondering how much cleaner, if at all, darkroom prints are by comparison.

Yes. Lots. There’s lots of variables at play. How large are you making the optical print? From what film format? How much resolution do you have when you scan? What tone curve are you using with the scanned negative? Etc.

In general, 35mm printed onto an 8x10 via enlarger onto pearl RC paper and a high resolution scan that has been properly linearized and inkjet printed onto luster RC inkjet paper will be similar but different in terms of tonality, but in terms of grain, actually not that different.

You tend to see a lot of people who aren’t that wild about scans base their position on getting a relatively low res scan with a tone curve that isn’t doing it any favors, and zooming way in and then asserting that they don’t like scans because they’re too grainy, or a lot more grainy than the optical scans. The issue is they’re not looking at it in a similar medium. If you take that scan and put it on paper with similar tonality, unless it was a very terrible scan to begin with, the grain just isn’t that different at that visible resolution.

I’ve seen prints that I could have sworn were optical darkroom prints that turned out to be scanned and inkjet printed, and I’ve seen prints where I thought it was an inkjet print and it was actually a darkroom print. I’ve also seen prints where I thought for sure was shot on film and printed in the darkroom and it turned out to be shot digitally and inkjet printed, and vice versa.

There’s lots of variables at play, and a fair amount of overlap between the two, especially with modern tech. It’s more and more been less and less about the tools used to get there and more about the final image, especially with the younger generations that are making. They view film and that workflow as a choice and a tool alongside other choices and tools, whereas the older guys tend to look upon anything involving digital anything as something that is impure and/or inadequate for some arbitrary reason or another.

The reality is, they’re just different. There isn’t anything inherently wrong with either. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Pick the one that meets your needs best. Only you can decide that. There’s nothing wrong with you’re choice.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I think you'll have to look real close to see the grains. I think sharpness can be better if you sharpen post. One thing I don't care for about inkjet prints for a long time is the color cast. Calibration is needed to get a neutral color. If you hold a loupe up the the digital print, you will see dots of color with most printers. I've seen shows where I was blown away by digital prints. However, I saw a show of a photographer that had all BW prints and the tone varied slightly from print to print. I was a some photo galleries in San Francisco last weekend and quite a few print displayed are digital prints.

On newer inkjet, black and white prints are done with monochrome inks/pigments for exactly that purpose.

 

[jtk]

Using a common Epson 2200 and Epson flatbed of that era I scanned and printed 120 to 16X20, Vs Beseler/Rodenstock and found them essentially equal to darkroom. I sure nobody could spot a difference.

I think many of the inkjet papers have more potential than do papers with light sensitive emulsions layered on top .