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

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

Sometimes I scan negatives in (especially small formats) so that I can make a digital negative for alternative processes, such as carbon transfer, and kallitype.

 

[removed account4]

the OP posted this in the colorfilm paper and chemistry area ..
since i have no access to a color enlarger, and can not enlarge, print
or contact print color images i rely on a scanner to duplicate either negatives
or chromes. even if i bring the film to my printer, who still makes machine prints for me
she will have to scan the image into the computer/printer to give me a physical print ..
while i can understand making a scan and inverted ( or straight chrome ) or whatever
might be a drag if you print later ( b/w maybe color ) there are ways to print in the dark that have
nothng to do with ways to work in the light. and if i have to make an enlarged paper negative
or save a retina/sun print there really is no way for me to do that, even if i shoot a color negative or transparecy of it
and then it is back to scanning the negative or chrome whether i want a physical print or to view it.

 

[trendland]

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.

Yeah - I have got an idea of what you might meant here.
I did same experience with color correction from software.
Amazing colors, superb effects. That was great.Next day I wonder about this colors - a week later I wasn't amused about colors - today I wonder : I must be totaly drunk to find these software optimation/color management amazing!
And the conclusion ? Every new toy is a good toy - but it still is a toy !
Today - back to the root, far away from digital excursions I still love "True Colors". (original film colors, E6 for example)
In your case it shall be the same with :
" true analog workflow while printing"
Today I have no problem with scans in any way. But the original is the film to me.So I don't care about colors resolution a.s.o. it is only a copy for digital use. A copy of the original - and
hands of from digital color manipulation to me.

with regards

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you are real efficient at scanning, you have a career ahead of you - at a grocery check-out stand ! I prefer a darkroom.

 

[Cholentpot]

I scan so I can see what's worth my time in the darkroom. I enjoy both.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you are real efficient at scanning, you have a career ahead of you - at a grocery check-out stand ! I prefer a darkroom.

+1