How does scans of BW negatives compare to silver gelatin prints?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

A lot of people are shooting analog cameras and are scanning images for the internet. How do those scan compared to images printed in a darkroom?

Just curious.

 

[Vaughn]

Apples and oranges, or exact duplicates, your choice.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Apples and oranges, or exact duplicates, your choice.

So the comparisons of scanned film developer combos are useless to a darkroom printer?

 

[Luckless]

So the comparisons of scanned film developer combos are useless to a darkroom printer?

Depends on the quality of the scan and what information you're looking for.

If you photograph the same scene on a bunch of HP5, use a different developer on each example frame, then scan them such that you can demonstrate a visible difference in effect [along with a clear description of what's going on/why the difference exists] then I would find that rather useful information to start with.

If you can show the scans of all the frames developed in different chemistry, along with consistently processed darkroom prints from said negatives, then you can show off even more useful information.


However, if your scanning process results in mud that all looks the same, then obviously there isn't much to be gained from the whole process.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

There are likely to be a lot of nonsense following this thread...but...

Both are perfectly reasonable ways of getting to a print. Both will have inherent differences in the end, and it's up to you to quantify what is 'good' or 'bad'. I personally prefer the look of a glossy fiber based paper to most glossy papers for pigment printing. That being said there are many more high quality paper choices for pigment than darkroom. The matte papers for inkjet are much better, and there are some excellent semi gloss stocks. Certain people will also always appreciate the 'handmade' quality of a darkroom print. On the other hand it's WAY easier to dust in Photoshop!

For color, I have moved entirely to scanning for pigment printing. Even still, RA-4 prints have their own quality that I haven't been able to replicate completely.

 

[Vaughn]

So the comparisons of scanned film developer combos are useless to a darkroom printer?

Sure, but that is not what you asked. You asked how scans compare to darkroom prints. They don't. One does not exist in the physical realm and one does.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Sure, but that is not what you asked. You asked how scans compare to darkroom prints. They don't. One does not exist in the physical realm and one does.

I should have worded it, “how do scans viewed on an lcd look different from a silver gelatin print”.

 

[runswithsizzers]

If I hold a print up next to my computer monitor screen, my eye+brain chokes when I try to make any meaningful comparisons. How does one compare a reflected light image to an image which is transmitting light? That does not compute.

For me, the only reasonable comparisons would be to either:
A. Scan the negative and PRINT it, then compare that to the optical print. Or,
B. Make an optical print and scan that, then compare it, side-by-side on a computer screen to the scanned negative version.

 

[MattKing]

I should have worded it, “how do scans viewed on an lcd look different from a silver gelatin print”.

A better comparison might be between a computer monitor image and a projected transparency. Both use transmitted light.
I find that the process of making a scanned image look good on the screen leads me to a result that differs from the result obtained from the process of making an optically printed image look good on the paper. In many cases the differences are subtle, but in some cases the differences are large - it depends on the image.
For me, it is much more of a hassle to get a good scan and a good screen image from that scan. But I've been darkroom printing for a lot longer than I've been wrestling with the digital photography world.

 

[markbau]

I do not understand why you would shoot film, only to scan it and put it up on the web. If the final destination is digital, why wouldn't you take the picture with a digital camera? Seems like a nonsensical workflow to me.

 

[Kino]

A better comparison might be between a computer monitor image and a projected transparency. Both use transmitted light.

OK, this is splitting hairs and it's not all that important, but the computer monitor is transmitted and the slide is reflected light from a screen unless you directly view the slide itself...

In any event, we are stuck with compromises all the way around in the World; we cannot share our analog images online without somewhere going through the digital realm.

You should know, in your heart of hearts, IF the scanned images of film approximates what could be made in an analog print or faithfully represents the transparency scanned.

If yes, I have no problem saying it's analog; if not, then it's hybrid.

YMMV

 

[faberryman]

You should know, in your heart of hearts, IF the scanned images of film approximates what could be made in an analog print or faithfully represents the transparency scanned. If yes, I have no problem saying it's analog; if not, then it's hybrid.

How can a scanned slide or negative be analog? It's digital.

 

[Kino]

OK, a good representation of analog; satisfied?

 

[Kino]

I do not understand why you would shoot film, only to scan it and put it up on the web. If the final destination is digital, why wouldn't you take the picture with a digital camera? Seems like a nonsensical workflow to me.

Because it's more than just workflow and convenience. If you don't understand that, then you're in this hobby for reasons other than what I understand or appreciate.

Do as you please...

 

[removed account4]

I should have worded it, “how do scans viewed on an lcd look different from a silver gelatin print”.

I think it all depends .. It depends on what was used to make the image on the lcd and how hte sgp was made. I'm not sure how to word this but when I enlarge a negative onto paper sometimes i get a grainy print, when i scan and enlarge a file to be looked at on a screen ( the same size as the print ) it doesn't seem to have the same sort of grain.
I figure they are 2 different things digital imagery and physical hand printed imagery. What I do wonder though is if a negative exposed in the Vintage camera Kodak Brownie that has appeared on the footer of my Photrio page ( with a current bid of $4021.41 !! ) will make a better more Effective image ( or either type ) than the version of the same camera I have in my garage in a box of stuff I got for free.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I’m curious about the comparison of digital proofing and analog printing is that I used an old Kodak PVAC. It’s in analog computer that soft proofs color prints. This saves test prints. Never got good at it, but I saw some old pros that nail the exposure and color balance every time with it. I love printing in my darkroom, but it requires a lot of time. Scanning is convenient. I’m hoping that a good scanned negative will also print well.

 

[MattKing]

OK, this is splitting hairs and it's not all that important, but the computer monitor is transmitted and the slide is reflected light from a screen unless you directly view the slide itself...

Okay - then make use of a back projection screen then!
More generally, my point was that the method of presentation is quite critical when you are attempting to compare results. So if you are making comparisons to a print, then you should use another print in order to ensure that the comparison is truly informative.
Otherwise, your comparison may end up being just a comparison of methods of presentation.

 

[Kino]

Okay - then make use of a back projection screen then!

True! Forgot about that method of presentation...

 

[Vaughn]

I should have worded it, “how do scans viewed on an lcd look different from a silver gelatin print”.

Well, my prints have a raised relief -- hard to get that look on a computer screen. Others have describe the significant differences between viewing light reflecting off the photographs' paper vs viewing light emitting imaging devises. Apples and oranges, like I said earlier -- or one can try to make them as similar as possible...whatever floats ones boat.

What you might be aiming at is that scanning negatives and analysing them can be a useful tool for determining how they will print on silver gelatin. First one determines the characteristics that make a good negatives for printing (by scanning negs that already have made good prints). Basically, replacing a densitometer with scanning and digital tools.

 

[faberryman]

OK, a good representation of analog; satisfied?

You mean a digital representation of analog. You just can't admit to yourself that a scan is digital. Do you even actually make wet prints?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

[Well, my prints have a raised relief -- hard to get that look on a computer screen. Others have describe the significant differences between viewing light reflecting off the photographs' paper vs viewing light emitting imaging devises. Apples and oranges, like I said earlier -- or one can try to make them as similar as possible...whatever floats ones boat.

What you might be aiming at is that scanning negatives and analysing them can be a useful tool for determining how they will print on silver gelatin.

exactly!

 

[Vaughn]

Yes, that can easily be done. One is limited to the resolution and capabilities/characteristics of the screen to duplicate a silver gelatin print for a visual check, but there are plenty of digital tools to create curves and all that sort of thing...I'm getting out of depth here.

I started out with silver gelatin printing in 1977, using LF since 1979. I have been making carbon prints since 1992 and platinum/palladium prints since 1998. All sorts of film, several types of developers, all types of light...matching all the variables (SBR, film, exposure, developer, developing) with the process to be used for printing. Taking notes has helped. Pyro developing threw a curve at me, but one can learn thru experience to judge all that on the light table, and gain a good idea of how neg will look in print form. But I will admit I am of the School of Chance when it comes to creating. To determining development time, I'll lick my finger and stick it up to see which way the wind is blowing. Then I'll pick a time/temp and wonder why my finger is wet.

 

[wyofilm]

I'm not sure how to word this but when I enlarge a negative onto paper sometimes i get a grainy print, when i scan and enlarge a file to be looked at on a screen ( the same size as the print ) it doesn't seem to have the same sort of grain.

Just yesterday I was more/less thinking about what the OP asked. I scanned a neg about week ago and immediately printed it on my cannon about 7" by 7". Looked grainy. Through a loop the neg didn't look grainy to me. I would say the print didn't match my expectations. Some time agoI had an 8x10" photo scanned and printed by HarmonLab (a silver gelatin print). There the print matched my expectations w/ regard to grain. I usually darkroom enlarge, which forms my baseline expectation.

This is my limited experience. I think it is an interesting question. It would be interesting to hear what others say. It might be fun to make some digital enlargements for Pt/Pd prints, for example. I've done a few Pd/Pt with 4x5 negs, but larger would be fun ... without buying into larger format cameras!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

You can print with digital negs made on your inkjet printers and OHP film. It’s the hot thing now. Some are even doing silver gelatin contact prints too.

 

[Vaughn]

Just yesterday I was more/less thinking about what the OP asked. I scanned a neg about week ago and immediately printed it on my cannon about 7" by 7". Looked grainy. Through a loop the neg didn't look grainy to me. ...

When I scanned a carbon print on a scanner, I was disappointed -- then I learned about to turning off the auto sharpening (Epson V850 or whatever). Might be an issue.

I'll be coating some paper with pt/pd tonight -- to print some 11x14 negatives. It takes a bit of metal.$$$!