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

[wyofilm]

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.$$$!

Thanks! I'll take a look at auto-sharpening.

Hmmm ... My wedding band is platinum ... nope, that would be wrong.

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks! I'll take a look at auto-sharpening.

Hmmm ... My wedding band is platinum ... nope, that would be wrong.

Divorce is expensive -- you'd be making cyanotypes on cardboard for the next decade!

 

[wyofilm]

Yep! Always important to look at BOTH sides of the ledger.

 

[Bob Carnie]

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.

I have done both PVAC and now PS and ink print... We are in a equal position these days regarding correct balance, contrast and tonalities.... I think the inkjet papers are much better than Cprints.. Wider gamut which equates to a more estended colour palette, specifically the slight variations capable within any colour range.

the tipping point for me was when I moved from an Epson Scanner to a Creo Eversmart Supreme.. also learning how to maximise the incoming image or content and making sure everything was recorded for future manipulation in PS. If you get awesome scans then I believe you will love scanning and then printing the colour images...

 

[StepheKoontz]

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 digital capture looks very different from what I get from scanned B&W film. Also there isn't a digital camera that works well with many of the symmetrical wide angle lenses made in the rangefinder era, which all have ZERO distortion. They have a different perspective than retrofocus wide angle lenses have.

 

[StepheKoontz]

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.

I scan all my B&W film as a proof and to see what a "straight print" will likely look like. If I find I need to do local contrast adjustments or "dodging and burning" in PS, I know I'll need to plan to do the same in the darkroom, which is helpful.

That said and to answer your question, I find scans are grainier than analog prints turn out being, YMMV

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Check this interesting article comparing digital negs to analog negs.

http://www.thelightfarm.com/Map/DigitalNegatives/DigitalNegativesPart1.htm

 

[mshchem]

What would really be cool. Is if for a very affordable price, one could send a memory card to Kodak, and they would lay the images down in ultra high resolution onto Ektachrome, and return mounted slides. Then in 60 years our kids would have what I have, beautiful slides that my father shot and preserved on FILM.

 

[summicron1]

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.

I think it depends on the scanner -- I had a Minolta Dimage scanner a long time ago that was very slow but was very sharp and the scans looked great, very sharp.

It died and was a pain to use--took forever to warm up, was very slow -- so I bought a Canoscan 9000 flatbed scanner which is faster and easier, but the resolution for 35mm negs is pretty bad for anything but using the images for facebook and so on. That's fine with me, however, because I mostly just use the scans for proofing, maybe sending shots to friends, posting a shot on facebook, and so on.

The prints i make in the darkroom are a LOT sharper and better to look at. They also have the advantage of being created by a true master of the darkroom ... me.

 

[artonpaper]

I mostly scan prints for the internet, and film negatives for creating negatives on an inkjet printer. When I occasionally print a digital black and white file directly, I'm always pleasantly surprised how good the results are. I've scanned every format from 8 x 10 down to 35 mm, all look great. I'm using an Epson v850 Pro scanner, and an Epson R3000 printer. When creating scans for printing, I shut off the sharpening and do that in Photoshop as needed. As for color, digital color is the best rendering in my opinion. It doesn't suffer from dye errors and is so clean looking. When it comes to B&W gelatin silver prints, (GSP) I feel a good GSP is better looking because the image is not sitting on the surface of the paper and light penetrates the shadows far better. I love Pt/Pd, but mostly for the process, it's how I do most of my printing these days. I've printed the same image from a Leica 35 mm negative scan in palladium, and on inkjet paper, and I also have a selenium toned GSP of it. The GSP is the best for sharpness and the tonal range.

 

[jtk]

Scans and prints are totally different phenomena.

To make a legitimate comparison it's necessary for an experienced person to print that negative through decent optics (many enlarging lenses are outright lousy) AND for an inkjet-experienced person to start with a fine scan (ie with 35mm not a flatbed scan) and print via dedicated inkjet photo printer (not a multi-purpose printer ).

Since there are dozens of excellent, archival inkjet papers and very few GSP papers, the comparison is tough...the inkjet printing person would have to abandon the best archival (e.g. cotton) inkjet papers in order to make fake versions of GSP, which only approximate a few inkjet papers and only rival their quality if made by someone who is actually skillful.

IMO people who print B&W via inkjet typically have wonderful experience with fine darkroom printing and recognize the greater subtlety and control, not to mention tonality, that good scanning and inkjet printing offers.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I did this exact test... I took a medium 4 x 5 film and did the following..... I made a 30 x 40 enlarger print on Ilford Multigrade FB paper, then I did a high resolution of the negative... I then made a lambda fibre base print the exact size on Ilford Gallerie silver digital paper, then with the same scan made a Ilford barytya inkjet print to the same size... The year I did this I did a tour to three locations in the States and two in Ontario and showed the prints side by side to over 400 photographers... the question I asked in all locations was could anyone tell which print was done which way.... Guess was not acceptable the person had to definitely identify each process... I would say that 5% of the photographers or less could tell me exactly which paper was what process, in fact only a couple with authority.. this was in 2006 .. at that point this question was solved for me . Today we have more silver papers, we have more inkjet papers and we have now digital negative (ink and Silver) to contact onto all kinds of process.

 

[jim10219]

I think what the OP is getting at, is can he scan proofs to get a reasonable approximation of what to expect from a darkroom print. And the answer is yes. But it requires a calibrated workflow. You can do a lot more in software than in the darkroom. And you will have to alter the scans in software at least somewhat to get an example of what you can expect in a darkroom. So the trick is figuring out how far you can take a scan in software, and still mimic that in the darkroom. That just takes experience and lots of trial and error.

Your best bet to start off with, is to make some acceptable looking prints in the darkroom with some under exposed negatives, over exposed negatives, and properly exposed negatives. Then scan those negatives into the computer. Now, create some presets that allow you to recreate the looks of those prints using those scans. Then you'll have some options you can use run through, to get a good idea of what's capable in the darkroom, just by scanning the negatives. You'll be able to tweak them a bit in software, as needed, to see test possible outcomes. But any major tweaks beyond your presets may not be possible. Only experience will tell you where you limits are, and what you can expect. And while it's not a perfect system, it should give you good enough insight into what's possible, and how difficult it will be to achieve your final goal, that you'll get a fairly good idea of what negatives are worth trying to print, and which ones aren't worth your time. Which, I assume, is what you're trying to achieve here.

 

[faberryman]

I think what the OP is getting at, is can he scan proofs to get a reasonable approximation of what to expect from a darkroom print. And the answer is yes. But it requires a calibrated workflow. You can do a lot more in software than in the darkroom. And you will have to alter the scans in software at least somewhat to get an example of what you can expect in a darkroom. So the trick is figuring out how far you can take a scan in software, and still mimic that in the darkroom. That just takes experience and lots of trial and error.

Your best bet to start off with, is to make some acceptable looking prints in the darkroom with some under exposed negatives, over exposed negatives, and properly exposed negatives. Then scan those negatives into the computer. Now, create some presets that allow you to recreate the looks of those prints using those scans. Then you'll have some options you can use run through, to get a good idea of what's capable in the darkroom, just by scanning the negatives. You'll be able to tweak them a bit in software, as needed, to see test possible outcomes. But any major tweaks beyond your presets may not be possible. Only experience will tell you where you limits are, and what you can expect. And while it's not a perfect system, it should give you good enough insight into what's possible, and how difficult it will be to achieve your final goal, that you'll get a fairly good idea of what negatives are worth trying to print, and which ones aren't worth your time. Which, I assume, is what you're trying to achieve here.

It is easier just to learn to look at the negatives.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I’m hoping that a good scanned negative will also print well.

I can hopefully give you the answer you were looking for. I made a 6x7 negative on a tripod and made a 16" silver print. Then I scanned the negative and printed it on a matt surface paper at the same size. In terms of sharpness, contrast and tonality, they were indistinguishable. The paper base was obviously different, but under glass you would have no way of telling them apart.

 

[Neil Grant]

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.

...when a silver-based print is viewed, the silver is simply blocking out light that would otherwise be reflected by the white base. This is not the case with an inkjet - where the dye not only blocks light but also actively absorbs it. This gives the print it's characteristic 'inky' quality. I find that printing with a diffused light enlarger I rarely have an need for any dusting/spotting.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I can hopefully give you the answer you were looking for. I made a 6x7 negative on a tripod and made a 16" silver print. Then I scanned the negative and printed it on a matt surface paper at the same size. In terms of sharpness, contrast and tonality, they were indistinguishable. The paper base was obviously different, but under glass you would have no way of telling them apart.

Thanks. I appreciate your answer. Goes to prove that you can’t go wrong with careful shooting and processing your film. I do both inkjet and silver gelatin prints. I like the convenience of digital print, but prefer the look of silver gelatin prints. But it’s very close.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Thanks. I appreciate your answer. Goes to prove that you can’t go wrong with careful shooting and processing your film. I do both inkjet and silver gelatin prints. I like the convenience of digital print, but prefer the look of silver gelatin prints. But it’s very close.

I do both. Honestly, the Eboni carbon prints I make have a gravure like quality that I really appreciate. Sometimes I will give them a very light spray with a luster varnish, which is very sexy.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I do both. Honestly, the Eboni carbon prints I make have a gravure like quality that I really appreciate. Sometimes I will give them a very light spray with a luster varnish, which is very sexy.

You go the extra mile.