Thanks! I'll take a look at auto-sharpening.
Hmmm ... My wedding band is platinum ... nope, that would be wrong.
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.$$$!
Divorce is expensive -- you'd be making cyanotypes on cardboard for the next decade!Thanks! I'll take a look at auto-sharpening.
Hmmm ... My wedding band is platinum ... nope, that would be wrong.
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 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.
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.
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.
It is easier just to learn to look at the negatives.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.
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.I’m hoping that a good scanned negative will also print well.
...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.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.
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 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.
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.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.
You go the extra mile.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?