Hi
firstly when you say:
I'm not sure if this subject has been covered ad nausem, but I've scoured this site and the entire information superhighway and could not find an answer.
your right, this question is as old as RA-4 and other printers and scanners, and has indeed been done, re done and argued at great and passionate length. When you "scoured" did you use any search tools, or did you just browse forums and read read read ? I ask this because as a researcher and library worker I found many students were completely unable to find any articles of interest despite there being several thousands pertaining directly to their research topic. I'm not being hyper critical here, just curious as to your possible search strategies.
for
instance:
using key words "scan and print compared to traditional print"
To your question, I have had some smaller experience in printing 4x5 onto multigrade paper using a Durst enlarger (more with 35mm).
I mainly contact print on 4x5 and find (personally) that nothing from an enlarger looks as nice but sometimes I'm nearly as happy with prints made by scan and print.
Inkjets can do quite nicely with black and white, RA-4 well with colour.
Hello all, I have a question or two regarding the quality and acutance of optical printing versus scanning.
My question is this: How do traditional optical RA prints from a MF or 4x5 negative compare to negatives scanned in an Epson v700/v750 and then printed on an inkjet printer? Let's say the final print is 16x20.
quite well ... although different. You will ask "what is different" and answering that is rather like me answering how one pineapple varies from another and then you determining what I mean by sweet.
If you have some experience on condenser vs diffuser heads you will perhaps be able to make that comparison of "different" and see where I'm heading.
I find the Epson scans look more like diffuser heads and that the Nikon scans look more like condenser heads when printed.
That is not to say that an Epson scan will look just like a optical enlargement print made on a diffuser head enlarger. But to give you a basis for comparison.
If you prowl through
(there was a url link here which no longer exists) of mine, "Canadian wood" has (old Tri-x 4x5 in pyro)for instance been printed contact, 12inches wide optical and 16 inches wide scan and inkjet. I like the contact and the inkjet best. "ueno shrine" and "Butai" have only been printed contact and inkjet and I am very pleased with the prints.
The colour have only been printed on RA-4 and all were scanned with an Epson 4870
Keep in mind that 20 inches is only a x4 enlargement. Most will agree that a Epson is good for 2200dpi scanning, so between x5 and x7 enlargement is well within the scanners ability. I have been satisfied with photoshop upscales of the scans (with careful treatment).
I currently use a Super Chromega Dichro and I am considering purchasing the V700/V750. I'm a high school teacher so Imacon scanners are way out of my budget.
although if you are not scanning hundreds, perhaps a scan or two done professionally will not be ... then you could make a comparison.
I would say that there is a reason why the Epson flatbed scanners are about the only man left standing in the lower price (below $2000) point. They deliver the results and very few people need / desire / require / can identify the differences.
Any thoughts or help would be much appreciated.
glad to offer what I can