Hyrid Process

[Pioneer]

I shoot a lot of color slides. I am absolutely hooked by the stunning photos. But I rarely print or project these any longer. Instead I tend to scan them, or have them scanned during development. My question is this.

Am I wasting money shooting these slides when I digitize and print digitally after the film is developed?

 

[pschwart]

If you like to shoot film, do it. It's hard to beat the quality of a good transparency, especially if you are shooting medium format. If only $$$ is the deciding factor, that's another story ...

 

[lenny]

This is too wide a question. Are you asking if there is the same quality in a digital photo as there is in a scanned slide? What's the criteria, what's the goal of these prints?

 

[Pioneer]

Yes, as lenny so neatly put it, is there the same quality from a digital photograph as there is from a scanned slide?

Right now I print digitally. Once in a while I will select one or two that I think are particularly good and I will enter them in local photo contests. For this they are usually printed up to 16x20, matted and framed. I occasionally post some pictures on forums but not often and I do not have a Flikr page.

 

[omaha]

Since returning to film last year, I've concluded that for me, for certain situations, a hybrid process is exactly what I need.

When I'm shooting a serious portrait, its on Portra shot with my RB67.

There are things that film can do that DSLRs can't. I find that it handles highlights dramatically better, and has far more exposure latitude. I also find that the colors I get off of Portra give me a much superior foundation for downstream digital processing.

 

[Pioneer]

I still like to print black and white like I always have but I am also enjoying the hybrid processes myself. There are people here who know so much about scanning and digital printing I find it almost intimidating. My question is a bit rhetorical. But there is a part of me that wonders if I am complicating things too much by having one foot in the analogue world with the shooting and developing, and the other foot in the digital world for editing and printing.

EDIT - Maybe it is only that I am feeling a bit of the summer doldrums as August come creeping up.

 

[lenny]

Yes, as lenny so neatly put it, is there the same quality from a digital photograph as there is from a scanned slide?

Right now I print digitally. Once in a while I will select one or two that I think are particularly good and I will enter them in local photo contests. For this they are usually printed up to 16x20, matted and framed. I occasionally post some pictures on forums but not often and I do not have a Flikr page.

The answer is simply: No.

However, I will add some caveats. It depends on how much quality you want in your prints, and what style you want to print. If you want to print images that look like an Annie Liebovitz, it doesn't matter what you use. Robert Frank, a brilliant photographer, wasn't a genius in the darkroom either. On the other hand, if you want to print like Paul Caponigro, or Carleton Watkins, O'Sullivan, Frederick Evans, Edward Weston, etc., then you should be using film.

I suppose one could also go from a digital camera to digital negative and then to a platinum print, or some other alt process. I think that Sandy does some of that (in carbon, of course) and he would be able to speak to the differences better than I. You may get the quality of printing but not the resolution.

Personally, I wouldn't shoot with a 35mm camera. I don't like the form factor and I don't like the process. If I acquire a digital camera it will at least be a med format back. At the moment my favorite tool is a 4x5 camera and some b&w film... but that's me. If you ask other large format photographers most of them will tell you they like the slower pace, the more considered photograph, and the control. I like the depth of field...

It all depends on what you are trying to create.... some images are about the light, a sense of atmosphere, and some are not. If you want to be a master printer, then the answer is film, and a good scanner.

Lenny

 

[Pioneer]

Thanks for the feedback lenny. That's interesting. I love slides, especially medium format work. I do shoot some large format but have not stepped up to using color slides. I am probably afraid to after what happened when I seen my first medium format slides.

 

[L Gebhardt]

If you want to be a master printer, then the answer is film, and a good scanner.

I still think the truly best black and white images are printed directly from film to the light sensitive paper. Of course there are many things that digital processing can do that you can't in the darkroom. So in many cases the digital output approach is better. But if a negative is easy to print I like the results better with an all analog process.

 

[pschwart]

Paper choice plays a huge part in the character and impact of a print. One reason to use alt processes or print digitally is that there is a much wider selection of papers. Unfortunately there isn't much available for silver gelatin -- glossy, matte, perl, some textured surfaces, and there are some good papers coated on rag stock. Many of the great papers are long gone.

 

[lenny]

I still think the truly best black and white images are printed directly from film to the light sensitive paper. Of course there are many things that digital processing can do that you can't in the darkroom. So in many cases the digital output approach is better. But if a negative is easy to print I like the results better with an all analog process.

The question was scanned slides vs digital camera. Darkroom printing wasn't one of the choices. I've made many fine prints in the darkroom. I prefer either alt process or inkjet now, mostly because of the papers available, as Philip has already mentioned, and the longer tonal range. However, if you like the results from darkroom printing then by all means enjoy it... it's a grand tradition.

Lenny

 

[Pioneer]

I still think the truly best black and white images are printed directly from film to the light sensitive paper. Of course there are many things that digital processing can do that you can't in the darkroom. So in many cases the digital output approach is better. But if a negative is easy to print I like the results better with an all analog process.

Like you, I certainly enjoy printing black and white in the darkroom, and I do it quite often.

I tried printing color in my darkroom a couple of times. Didn't work out too well for me and I haven't tried since. Still have some paper. But I do shoot color negative and slide film and scan. The very great majority of my color prints come from scanned slides and negatives which are then printed digitally. I love the choice of paper and the printer does a pretty good job.

I have always felt that the scanned slide looks better than my purely digital output, but I have never really studied it (usually have better things to do.) Though the way you hear people talk on these forums sometimes does makes you wonder. Does the output of the newer digital cameras really outdo what you can get from a well done medium format or 35mm color slide?

Not really the end of the world of course, just a silly idle thought.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Like you, I certainly enjoy printing black and white in the darkroom, and I do it quite often.

I tried printing color in my darkroom a couple of times. Didn't work out too well for me and I haven't tried since. Still have some paper. But I do shoot color negative and slide film and scan. The very great majority of my color prints come from scanned slides and negatives which are then printed digitally. I love the choice of paper and the printer does a pretty good job.

I have always felt that the scanned slide looks better than my purely digital output, but I have never really studied it (usually have better things to do.) Though the way you hear people talk on these forums sometimes does makes you wonder. Does the output of the newer digital cameras really outdo what you can get from a well done medium format or 35mm color slide?

Not really the end of the world of course, just a silly idle thought.

I have just recently given up printing color in the darkroom. The main reason is I like the fiber based inkjet papers better than the RC color darkroom papers. They are in fact closer to my darkroom black and white prints.

I think the D800E output is comparable to scanned medium format film for reasonable print sizes, say up to 16x24. Actually I generally think the color is more accurate, but not always better. The resolution with good lenses is equivalent or better at sizes my 3880 can print.

 

[L Gebhardt]

The question was scanned slides vs digital camera. Darkroom printing wasn't one of the choices. I've made many fine prints in the darkroom. I prefer either alt process or inkjet now, mostly because of the papers available, as Philip has already mentioned, and the longer tonal range. However, if you like the results from darkroom printing then by all means enjoy it... it's a grand tradition.

Lenny

My comment was only sparked by your assertion that to be a master printer you need to scan. I know what you meant, and I actually agree for color work.

 

[lenny]

Does the output of the newer digital cameras really outdo what you can get from a well done medium format or 35mm color slide?

I wouldn't think so. I output med format at 8,000 ppi, for a total of about 2.2 Gigabytes at 6x7 size. That's 22,000 pixels on the long edge. It's 396 megapixels vs 36. Even if you allow for all sorts of differences in lens resolution, etc., its still so much larger that it makes a difference. If you are using a Mamiya 7, for example, you won't get anywhere near the quality with a digital camera.

Many of these comparison are done with resolution, both actual and totally made up, but IMO, resolution isn't really the issue. It's the ability of a sensor to faithfully reproduce the information. The larger the sensor, the more tonal information you have for a specific area. That's one reason why large format camera results are so much better even tho' the lenses aren't as tight when it comes to quoting lines per millimeter. A postage stamp sized sensor will not compete with a piece of 4x5 film, no matter how good it is. It won't compare to decent medium format, either.

Of course, in your question, you have be be more specific with the term "outdo". What quality are you looking for? For some the issue would be sharpness (not me), for others it might be accurate color, depth of field, the ability to handle very subtle lighting effects (yes me), etc. The tool has to match what you are after.

Lenny

 

[L Gebhardt]

I'm purely talking about resolution here, but for an Epson inkjet printer there is very little visible difference between 300ppi and 720ppi (the max the drivers use, as far as I know). Therefore anything over that is not used. So in prints up to a certain size you won't see the benefits of the slide scans. I've tested it with down sampled drum scans and I needed magnification to see the very faint differences. At small print sizes it's a wash in my opinion. At large print sizes it's no contest, the extra resolution of the drum scan really tips the scales in favor of scanned film.

 

[lenny]

I'm purely talking about resolution here, but for an Epson inkjet printer there is very little visible difference between 300ppi and 720ppi (the max the drivers use, as far as I know).

I would agree with those numbers...

However, it doesn't really come down to resolution for me, as I stated earlier. My thought exercises is a new telephone pole in the image somewhere. All one has to do is imagine the amount of tonal information that's available with a pretty good lens, with the pole being 1/4 inch wide worth of film on a 4x5. Not bad, if enlarged, let's say, to a reasonable 16x20. Plenty of shades of red and brown creosote, etc.

Of course, the obvious next step is to figure how much more tonal information is on an 8x10, where the same pole, in the same place in the image would be an inch wide. We can go back and forth about numbers, but the reality is that it is just so much more as to be not comparable at all (or whatever other cliche one wants to use).

Going the other direction, the same pole using a 6x7 would be 1/16 of an inch wide. On a 35 mm sensor/piece of film, the pole would be 1/64 of an inch wide. How much tonal information would be available then? Where are all those millions of shades of reddish brown. Especially if we are still going to 16x20. It's amazing 35mm works at all. Well, it doesn't really, at 16x20. (Just fine at 8x10 or so... ) Further, most of the digital sensors aren't even a full 35mm size. It might be more like 1/125 of an inch. It's ludicrous compared to an inch of film.

Of course, for street shooting, its terrific. Printing commercial-type contrasty, sure. However, it you are shooting the fog at dawn and want every bit of delicacy of the soft light breaking through the trees, then digital isn't going to do it. Not yet, anyway...

Lenny

 

[L Gebhardt]

But isn't color just one more form of resolution? Meaning in a 16x20 print the telephone pole would be 2 inches wide, or 2/20 or 10% of the horizontal resolution. From 8x10 film it's only a 2x enlargement, which means you need to scan at 600ppi to print at 300ppi anything more than that will be lost in the printing process (assuming the printer tops out at 300ppi for this example). To render the pole at 2" from a D800 printing 16x20 (which is using 30MP from the camera) your pole needs to be 600pixels across, which it is (6140 pixels across at that aspect ratio). It doesn't really matter that the image on the sensor is only 3mm, so long as the lens can resolve fine enough. So the digital image will have the same number of pixels sent to the printer. In theory each can have the same full range of colors as a scanned image. In reality the Bayer array prevents this, but a Foveon sensor doesn't.

Note, I used the 8x10 size of the pole from your example, but in the 4x5 example the pole would be 1/2" not 1/4".

 

[lenny]

But isn't color just one more form of resolution? Meaning in a 16x20 print the telephone pole would be 2 inches wide, or 2/20 or 10% of the horizontal resolution. From 8x10 film it's only a 2x enlargement, which means you need to scan at 600ppi to print at 300ppi anything more than that will be lost in the printing process (assuming the printer tops out at 300ppi for this example). To render the pole at 2" from a D800 printing 16x20 (which is using 30MP from the camera) your pole needs to be 600pixels across, which it is (6140 pixels across at that aspect ratio). It doesn't really matter that the image on the sensor is only 3mm, so long as the lens can resolve fine enough. So the digital image will have the same number of pixels sent to the printer. In theory each can have the same full range of colors as a scanned image. In reality the Bayer array prevents this, but a Foveon sensor doesn't.

Note, I used the 8x10 size of the pole from your example, but in the 4x5 example the pole would be 1/2" not 1/4".

I apologize, I don't have the time to respond fully at the moment. However, I will add this: I shot an image with 6x7 4x5 and 8x10, with the cameras on tripods next to each other. Shaded light, a bunch of chisels and some smooth wood in the garage with the door open. I used the same film, developed them all the same, scanned them all as close as I could. Delta 100 in Xtol 1:1.

I printed them all on the same piece of paper. Each one had 10 inches high or so, a crop representing a 40 inch size. By your account, I believe they would all be the same. I think I am right about this. However they are not the same. It is clear that the 6x7 tears itself apart at that size. The smooth wood isn't as smooth as the other. The 4x5 is pretty good, good enough for me to use, and the 8x10 has it all, of course. This wouldn't be the case if a 30MP camera could match a med-large format piece of film.

Of course, the other factor is black and white. It's far more sensitive than color, which may be why we are seeing different results in some way..

Lenny

 

[L Gebhardt]

I would expect the same results you found. I thing film has an inherent resolution due to the grain and structure. My guess is the 6x7 enlarged to 40" well exceeded that. Even scanned at 8000ppi you just run out of information captured.

I think a more realistic test for me is to pick the output size, say 20x24 or 16x20, and then make the best prints you can from each of the formats. I've done that comparing scanned 5x7 to the D800 and upto 16x20 it's really close.

 

[omaha]

IMHO, color is way more important than resolution, and color negative film is unsurpassed in this regard.

 

[lenny]

I would expect the same results you found. I thing film has an inherent resolution due to the grain and structure. My guess is the 6x7 enlarged to 40" well exceeded that. Even scanned at 8000ppi you just run out of information captured.

I think a more realistic test for me is to pick the output size, say 20x24 or 16x20, and then make the best prints you can from each of the formats. I've done that comparing scanned 5x7 to the D800 and upto 16x20 it's really close.

Larry, with all due respect, I think I am after something different. I am not at all interested in disparaging what anyone else is doing, including you. However, I'm interested in printing as well as Frederick Evans. I've been there a few times. An overwhelming amount of tonal data leads to a sense of 3-dimensionality in an image, where someone feels like they can step into it. There are tactile qualities like chalk, and chocolate, to name a couple that are available. It isn't the look of an Ansel Adams print. I've been a professional printer for more than 30 years and my eyes are tuned to the spread of tonalities, and the smoothness of the transitions between them. I wish there was a measure of how many tones there are with different systems, but there isn't. I have actually done the tests and for what I am after this stuff doesn't work. I am not interested in "pretty close".

All that said, the apochromat med format back looks interesting. Coupled with digital negs and a platinum print, it's probably much closer to "possible". Unfortunately, last I looked it about about $40K, to replace the kind of quality I already have with a 4x5 and the scanner I have already paid for.

Lenny

 

[Pioneer]

If I may, another reason for my question is this; am I not losing image information in the scan process? I have always understood that the more steps there are between the capture and the print, more and more image detail and information becomes lost. It is for that reason that i spend the time aligning my enlarger, and I use the best enlarging lens, at the best aperture. But in the scanning process I do not have as much control of this.

 

[omaha]

Anything digital is always, by definition, accompanied by losses. You can't take a continuous, physical reality and convert it to bits without losing something in the process.

Of course, the flip side of that is that you can always digitize to a point where the "steps" are below any threshold of human perception, so the losses become meaningless.

But I think all of that misses something. The film guys have been working at things for well over 100 years. They've figured some stuff out in the process. I just think film handles highlights and color way, way better than digital. That's why for anything serious, I shoot color film. That naturally comes at a huge cost in terms of convenience and expediency, but I think its worth it.

As far as B&W goes, I like B&W film for its own sake. I find the process to be very pleasing and relaxing. But I don't think there is any real, visual advantage to it. Maybe this is a function of my own limits as a wet darkroom printer, but the results I get from B&W digital are much better than those I get from my wet darkroom, and since I like to print really large, digital is dramatically easier. This image is hanging on my wall, printed at 24" on the short side. I couldn't begin do to that with an analog process.

 

[lenny]

If I may, another reason for my question is this; am I not losing image information in the scan process?

It depends on the scanner you use. Not with a drum scanner.....

I have always understood that the more steps there are between the capture and the print, more and more image detail and information becomes lost. It is for that reason that i spend the time aligning my enlarger, and I use the best enlarging lens, at the best aperture. But in the scanning process I do not have as much control of this.

With an enlarger you are going thru another lens, that will cause degradation. Further, when you enlarge it and there is a natural dispersing that happens. You would have plenty of control if you knew how to scan properly.... and you would have less loss going straight to a sensor vs going thru another lens.

A flatbed scanner goes thru a lens as well, and usually a pretty poor one. Careful sharpening is required. A lot of folks learn how to do this and get results they are happy with.

But now we are back to comparing darkroom vs scanning and printing out with inkjet. Arrrggghhh! However, briefly, there isn't the loss that you imagine.

Lenny