I've come to the realization that scan*&ing ruins the printing experience.

[rpavich]

I have been printing for a while now, I'm not a pro but do enjoy the whole process beginning with a contact sheet. I USED to scan my negs (I think out of habit) before sleeving them and beginning the printing process but I sold my scanner and decided to go all analog.
Well, recently I developed some rolls of film and on one roll was the last image of a series of shots from previous rolls and these previous rolls had been sca*&ed, shared, and put on Flickr.

So when I printed this "extra" image, not only were my buddies yawning but I sort of yawned also, we'd seen variations of this image and it didn't have the punch, or impact that it would have had if nobody had seen it before.

So, I guess long story short, I realized how sca*%ing was sort of ruining my experience, I remembered how it felt to print and show images that I'd already "let out of the bag" as it were.

Now, I scan prints if I want to share them with folks whom I'm not geographically close to but the real thrill is holding this marvel of chemistry and light in my hand.

 

[BMbikerider]

That cannot happen. Scanning makes no alteration to negatives so it must be your perception.

 

[rpavich]

That cannot happen. Scanning makes no alteration to negatives so it must be your perception.

I'm sorry, I don't know what your comment means.

 

[tim_walls]

That cannot happen. Scanning makes no alteration to negatives so it must be your perception.

I think you're slightly missing his point, which is not that scanning somehow changed the negative, but rather his experience of printing something he'd already seen on a screen was less enjoyable.


I don't think it has much to do with scanning though. It's more "half the fun of analogue photography is in the discovery of what you captured". That's not a feature of scanning though, you could feel the same about printing the same negative a second time.

(Actually, in my experience, it is worth revisiting those negatives that you scanned but thought weren't up to much at the time using a real enlarger; I've yet to discover an affordable scanner that can capture half the range or in particular shadow detail of a traditional workflow.)

 

[rpavich]

I think you're slightly missing his point, which is not that scanning somehow changed the negative, but rather his experience of printing something he'd already seen on a screen was less enjoyable.


I don't think it has much to do with scanning though. It's more "half the fun of analogue photography is in the discovery of what you captured". That's not a feature of scanning though, you could feel the same about printing the same negative a second time.

(Actually, in my experience, it is worth revisiting those negatives that you scanned but thought weren't up to much at the time using a real enlarger; I've yet to discover an affordable scanner that can capture half the range or in particular shadow detail of a traditional workflow.)

You are right, and now that I think about it, printing the same neg more than once or twice sort of has the same effect.

I enjoy not seeing everything right away; you said it "half the fun of analogue photography is the discovery of what you captured".

 

[BrianShaw]

You are right, and now that I think about it, printing the same neg more than once or twice sort of has the same effect.

I enjoy not seeing everything right away; you said it "half the fun of analogue photography is the discovery of what you captured".

I'd say it slightly differently since it is also true that half the fun of digital photography is in the discovery of what you captured... except with digital photography that discovery happens faster and often at a higher frame rate.

How about this: Half the fun of analog photography is the history, chemistry, and physicality of the media.

 

[BrianShaw]

Dang... where is that edit feature?

Add "and anticipation of visualization" to that suggested rephrasing.

 

[rpavich]

I'd say it slightly differently since it is also true that half the fun of digital photography is in the discovery of what you captured... except with digital photography that discovery happens faster and often at a higher frame rate.

How about this: Half the fun of analog photography is the history, chemistry, and physicality of the media.

Dang... where is that edit feature?

Add "and anticipation of visualization" to that suggested rephrasing.

True!
I really appreciated it when I was reminded of how it was before. I don't regret for one second selling my negative scanner.

 

[iandvaag]

"half the fun of analogue photography is in the discovery of what you captured"

Half the fun of analog photography is the history, chemistry, and physicality of the media.

+1

I agree rpavich, there's nothing quite like seeing a print of an image that you've never seen before.

I find that seeing the print come up in the developer (b&w) builds anticipation because you can't make out the image very well under the safelight, but RA-4 can be particularly thrilling when you turn the lights on after the blix since I really don't know what to expect. I find colour negatives so hard to "read" that I'm often quite surprised when I first see the print.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

This is so APUG...

I experienced 100% the same as OP. Learned in 2012 how to BW on film, but was too lazy and in-confident to try enlarger kit which was given for me for free. I scanned until I started to buy bw film books (like HCB, GW books) and visiting museums with darkroom prints on display. In no time I realized what scans has nothing to do with bw film photography and started to print under enlarger. I do like and prefer to share scans of the prints now. And some of my prints are in Russia, Belgium and Australia now... I hope, I could still afford it, my plan is to try to enter local art show next year with one photo project.

 

[faberryman]

Why don't you print first and then scan your negatives as the final step. Even better, scan your prints, so you capture the effects of your darkroom manipulations.

 

[rpavich]

Why don't you print first and then scan your negatives as the final step. Even better, scan your prints, so you capture the effects of your darkroom manipulations.

Well, I don't care for scanning negs anymore. I sold the scanner. I guess I could have done that but at the time I was getting them through the scanner before sleeving; my scanner was a minilab scanner that did a whole roll at once. Easier to scan first.

 

[jim10219]

You might want that negative scanner back when you discover alternative processes.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

I just switched from scanning prints myself to having the lab scan my negs and they give them to me on a neat CD, the scan quality is much better, they use a Fujifilm SP-3000 and i'm quite happy.
Also it costs me just 4 Euros for the developing and 4 Euros for the scans versus 18 Euros if i want prints.

I've gotten some very nice prints from old family photos from the 80s-90s, but a CD is much more neat.

 

[David T T]

I love the scans I get from the tip top Frontier and Noritsu scanners used by my good local labs. For both color and B&W. I get the highest possible resolution possible scan, and if you think about it, that negative will never be that clean again. Folks say negatives are more archival than digital files...true story! But it's also true that scanning early and well adds another layer of preservation, and all of the purists that harp on the preservation qualities of film should have at least the rolls they are confident about scanned at very high quality.

 

[Svenedin]

I agree. It is more fun to scan the finished print than the negative. I only scan negatives if I want to share pictures of an event very quickly and yes when I then print those negatives with the enlarger they are a bit boring because the "discovery" has already been made to some extent. Having said that, there is still joy in seeing a well made print. I do think the archival point is well made; I have damaged a negative in the past and that made it impossible to print properly via the enlarger. Fortunately, I had already scanned that negative so it was "preserved" in pristine state. I just don't have time to scan negatives AND print via darkroom processes.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I high resolution scan every image I feel has a chance from all my series, I make second generation film of alternative processes and then print.

The only exception moving forward is my goal to use a 11 x14 camera and make 2 x mag silver prints from those negs.

Scanning in no way spoils the enjoyment of photography for me.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I scan negs as a way to proof them without wasting material and time, and to catalog them. The negs accumulate in Lightroom before I print them. Nothing compares to the print. I scan the print then and that replaces the neg scan in Lightroom. Print scans are also what get posted on the internet.

I don't develop film right away either, so the time between making an image and making a print typically is quite long, usually months. I think the time that passes allows a more realistic evaluation of the images.

 

[Maris]

I don't get it. Why would a person intent on making photographs scan negatives? Sure you could show those negatives as screen-lookers on a computer monitor but you may as well gaze at them on a light box with a lot less trouble. And if you want positive photographs then it's really easy to re-photograph those negatives with paper-backed film, also known as photographic paper. An enlarger makes the process simple and the subsequent develop, fix, wash steps must be very familiar to someone who already processes their own film.

 

[aparat]

I don't get it. Why would a person intent on making photographs scan negatives? Sure you could show those negatives as screen-lookers on a computer monitor but you may as well gaze at them on a light box with a lot less trouble. And if you want positive photographs then it's really easy to re-photograph those negatives with paper-backed film, also known as photographic paper. An enlarger makes the process simple and the subsequent develop, fix, wash steps must be very familiar to someone who already processes their own film.

Yes, of course, in principle you are right. However, there are a lot of circumstances under which darkroom printing is rather difficult. One has to have designated space, access to running water, reasonable climate control, etc. A lot of people live in small apartments that they share with their families or roommates. Community darkrooms are mostly gone. Scanning gives one a reasonably viable option for enjoying film photography.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Now, I scan prints if I want to share them with folks whom I'm not geographically close to but the real thrill is holding this marvel of chemistry and light in my hand.

+1

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I don't get it. Why would a person intent on making photographs scan negatives? Sure you could show those negatives as screen-lookers on a computer monitor but you may as well gaze at them on a light box with a lot less trouble. And if you want positive photographs then it's really easy to re-photograph those negatives with paper-backed film, also known as photographic paper. An enlarger makes the process simple and the subsequent develop, fix, wash steps must be very familiar to someone who already processes their own film.

Not everybody has a darkroom or enlarger that they can make prints with. For those of us in that position, we either pay somebody to make an analog print, or we get a positive of the negative ourselves by scanning it. Not knocking analog prints, but anybody who's proficient at scanning can get a digital version of the negative that has all the resolution, dynamic range, and color that you could reasonably get with a well made analog print. For us hybrid guys, half the fun is the process of scanning the negative and turning it into a well made digital print.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Not everybody has a darkroom or enlarger that they can make prints with.

Back when I was a lad we'd tape some light cardboard up 'gainst the wall, light a match, and project the image with a magnifying glass. Tell that to kids these days and they won't believe you.

 

[Svenedin]

Back when I was a lad we'd tape some light cardboard up 'gainst the wall, light a match, and project the image with a magnifying glass. Tell that to kids these days and they won't believe you.

Was it nitrate film?

 

[removed account4]

different things for different people.