Publishing a book.... scan prints or scan negatives?

[Sirius Glass]

Use prints only. One can burn or dodge prints to get the most out of the negative. Scanning the negative just provides straight prints which do not look as good a hand printed photographs.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Scan the prints.

If you are getting texture in your scans from the paper, you can scan the print twice, the second time upside down, then merge the two in Photoshop which eliminates the stipple reflections. I've done that numerous times. The quality of the scan you can get this way is pretty remarkable, and far preferable to a neg scan.

Good luck.

 

[faberryman]

Use prints only. One can burn or dodge prints to get the most out of the negative. Scanning the negative just provides straight prints which do not look as good a hand printed photographs.

You can manipulate film scans in Photoshop and Lightroom in ways impossible to duplicate in the darkroom. The road you go down will depend on whether you wish to demonstrate your darkroom skills or your computer skills.

 

[Ron789]

Wow.... it's really impressive to receive so much expert feedback on this subject!
Today I had an in-depth conversation with a good friend who published several (world class) photobooks and this also added some really valuable insights, very much similar to the feedback here on this forum.

First: from a pure technical perspective, negative scans may be superior, provided you can use first-class equipment and are an expert on the process or can make use of the services of such an expert. Every step beyond the negative loses some information, so the fewer steps you make, the more original image quality is retained. HOWEVER.... I'm not an expert on digital image processing and becoming one would take me lots of time and effort. And my digital equipment is not first-class. But after 40 years of darkroom printing I dare say I'm somewhat good at it. And my darkroom is really well equipped.

Second: apart from technical superiority there's personal passion and processing artefacts that, though maybe technically imperfect, make ones "signature". Darkroom printing is to me an important part of the creative process. I enjoy spending hours in the darkroom working to bring one print to (what I think is) perfection. But I get really frustrated sitting at a computer trying something that I can't get to work for me.

Third: each darkroom print carries forward more than a century of aggregated knowledge, experience and passion. With each print we make, we pay tribute to all those great photographers who passed on their knowledge, be it Ansel adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Doisneau and so many others. That legacy needs to be preserved and doing so adds value.

Based on these considerations, I will probably use a mix of print scans and negative scans for the dummies (for reasons of cost and convenience) but I'll use print scans for the final book. I'll need to spend time, invest in better equipment and/or hire expertise to do the high-quality scanning.

Thank you all for your feedback so far and feel free to add more. This is a learning experience to me and I really appreciate all the help I can get!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Printing the images first also helps with the editing process, which is a big deal if you ask me. Just another 2¢.

 

[Craig75]

Wow.... it's really impressive to receive so much expert feedback on this subject!
Today I had an in-depth conversation with a good friend who published several (world class) photobooks and this also added some really valuable insights, very much similar to the feedback here on this forum.

First: from a pure technical perspective, negative scans may be superior, provided you can use first-class equipment and are an expert on the process or can make use of the services of such an expert. Every step beyond the negative loses some information, so the fewer steps you make, the more original image quality is retained. HOWEVER.... I'm not an expert on digital image processing and becoming one would take me lots of time and effort. And my digital equipment is not first-class. But after 40 years of darkroom printing I dare say I'm somewhat good at it. And my darkroom is really well equipped.

Second: apart from technical superiority there's personal passion and processing artefacts that, though maybe technically imperfect, make ones "signature". Darkroom printing is to me an important part of the creative process. I enjoy spending hours in the darkroom working to bring one print to (what I think is) perfection. But I get really frustrated sitting at a computer trying something that I can't get to work for me.

Third: each darkroom print carries forward more than a century of aggregated knowledge, experience and passion. With each print we make, we pay tribute to all those great photographers who passed on their knowledge, be it Ansel adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Doisneau and so many others. That legacy needs to be preserved and doing so adds value.

Based on these considerations, I will probably use a mix of print scans and negative scans for the dummies (for reasons of cost and convenience) but I'll use print scans for the final book. I'll need to spend time, invest in better equipment and/or hire expertise to do the high-quality scanning.

Thank you all for your feedback so far and feel free to add more. This is a learning experience to me and I really appreciate all the help I can get!

I think your friend as summed up pros and cons of both approaches perfectly. Each approach has its merits and its downfalls. None is better or worse than other -its what you are comfortable doing through experimenting. I'd like to see "Ron" but another person would enjoy seeing the "image". It's just different ways of seeing.

 

[jtk]

I don't understand why anyone would avoid an opportunity, if they could afford the time or tools or if they trust and can afford a scanning expert, to go back to the negative...no matter how wonderful some previous print seems.

If you actually follow Ansel Adams' work you'll see that he rethought the print every time he went to the negative. His early work was (IMO) far inferior to that of his peers at the time...and to his photographic credit, his penultimate, magnificent published output from those negatives was the result of his personal enthusiasm for scanning (German Helle scanner...or Hell scanner).

Ansel never had the opportunity to print his work with today's fine Canon or Epson printers, but most Ansels-for-today are dedicated to them...there's plenty of evidence in the best museums and galleries.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Scan the prints.

If you are getting texture in your scans from the paper, you can scan the print twice, the second time upside down, then merge the two in Photoshop which eliminates the stipple reflections. I've done that numerous times. The quality of the scan you can get this way is pretty remarkable, and far preferable to a neg scan.

Good luck.

I have never heard this one.. old dogs learning new tricks.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have never heard this one.. old dogs learning new tricks.

I think the wording upside down is wrong, he means rotate the print 180 degrees still face down.

Ian

 

[ic-racer]

Scan the prints. Trying to digitally recreate the prints from negatives seems like a big waste of time.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I think the wording upside down is wrong, he means rotate the print 180 degrees still face down.

Ian

I meant upside down, which is rotating the print 180º, but with less words.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have never heard this one.. old dogs learning new tricks.

Yup. I get surprised every now and then with something that I never knew even though I have been doing this a long time. The problem is we aren't aware of what we don't know. The solution is to know people who do know what we don't know and that we aren't even aware of knowing. Know what I mean? The other problem is getting people to tell you what they know. A lot of people don't pass knowledge around because they know what they know, and it doesn't benefit them in any way to share it. In fact it just creates problems for them. Look at the Kachel fiasco when he was sharing his SLIMT techniques here. Pitiful. I learned a lot from that.....

You probably have a good scanner like a Creo so the process should be pretty painless. For people using consumer flatbeds, like me unfortunately, it is a little more complicated since consumer flatbeds don't scan exactly the same every time. I put marks around outside the print to line up later in Photoshop. Blend the layers with darken as well and it eliminates the little reflections off the stipple. If you look on my website the M images were all done this way and I think the quality of the scans speaks for itself on how effective this is. Those images are printed on Kentmere VC WT which has (had, rip) a pretty pronounced pebbled surface, then the prints were waxed which made it even worse. I thought about making a tutorial here at one point, but that was years ago and scanner talk was a bit verboten.

 

[jim10219]

My day job is prepress at a print shop. We've printed many books over the years, and it's my job to get the files ready for the press. I also have a degree in graphic design. I've done everything from producing the photographs and layouts of books to scanning old, out of print books, page by page, so they can be republished, directly from the scans. So basically, this is what I do for a living.

And I say, either way is fine. Go with whichever one looks better or is easier for to you. Except under extreme circumstances, printing presses won't be able to achieve the resolution or depth of color of a decent photo inkjet printer. You usually limited to around the equivalent of 270-360 dpi, won't use as nice of paper as most photographers would use with their photo inkjet printers, and are limited to just a 4 color process for photos (my current inkjet printer has 10 inks, so it has a much, much wider gamut). A lot of how it looks depends on your budget and the size of your run. The type of press, quality of paper, and expertise of all of those involved can have a pretty large impact on the final product. But generally speaking, if it looks decent on your home printer (assuming your home printer and paper don't absolutely suck), it has a good chance at looking good on the press.

It's important to use a local printer, and not go online for the cheapest deal you can find. Make sure your publisher understands this. Here's why: A local print shop should send you a physical proof before sending everything to plates. That will be your chance to look over everything and make sure your method worked. The proof will usually be done on an inkjet printer, which means it will look nicer than the final print, but the colors of it should be calibrated to what the press is capable of. So if the proof doesn't look perfect, change it, because it's not going to get better once it hits the press. Those online printers will usually send your a "digital proof" which is basically useless, because it's the same thing you just sent them. One common issue I face with photographers is they often don't use calibrated printers or monitors when making their work. So they come to us and say our colors are off, but it's their colors that are off. We pay big bucks to make sure our colors stay accurate. So if you notice the proofs are off, try to correct them the best you can on your end before going further. And try to find someone with a calibrated setup you can use, if possible. If you still wind up having issues with the colors, it may be a good idea to take a sample photo down to the print shop so the prepress guy/gal can look at it and know what you're wanting. We regularly print some posters for a local painter who photographs his own work. He brings us the actual paintings to color match from the photos he took, which makes everything a whole lot easier. We also often have people come in for "press checks" which is when someone comes to verify that everything coming off the press looks fine before we get the press rolling. Those online presses may charge less, but there's no telling what the final book will look like until it's too late. They may even "guarantee" their work, but that guarantee may just mean they'll remake it just as bad every time, until you give up and just accept it. The online printers may be good for novels and stuff where the quality of the image isn't super important, but for a photography book, you'll want high quality photos if you expect people to be interested in it.

 

[Vilk]

test proof proof proof test test test proof proof test proof... then test and proof again there are too many variables in the printing process to offer a foolproof one-size-fits-all recipe

one problem with scanning the negs is the grain: at some settings and with some material a high resolution scanner can capture and enhance film grain to the point making the scan unusable, especially with 35mm that you also plan to include. the optical pathway can minimize this damage in a wet print. you could scan to explore the various manipulation options digitally, quick and cheap, settle on one or two, then use them as guides in the darkroom

if i were to offer any advice at all--take your time! print alternative versions and spend a few weeks, months even, looking and not looking at them in turn... the "right" print has to settle down, mature in your visual memory, pass the test of time... the time to edit should be proportional to the proposed lifetime of the image... an experienced editor at a newspaper can make good-enough decisions in seconds, which is comparable to the viewing time of the result... a "poetic" book is edited at a slower pace, doing justice to the emotional, intellectual and aesthetic "density" of the material... pretty much like a book of poetry

fwiw

 

[wiltw]

Does the question not require an answer of 'It depends....!" ?!

1. If you scan a 4" x 6" print at 600 dpi, you end up with 2400 x 3600 pixels in the output file
2. If you scan an 8 x 12" print at 600 dpi, you end up with 4800 x 7200 pixels in the output file
3. If you scan a 24mm x 36mm neg at 4800 dpi, you end up with 4535 x 6803 pixels in the output file
4. If you scan a 43mm x 56mm (645) neg at 4800 dpi, you end up with 8126 x 10583 pixels in the output file

And then there is the very valid consideration of just how much resolution you need when it is going to be reproduced via the offset press, as pointed out already in post 38

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I would say negatives since negs are the first generation of the image. Prints are the second generation. I think the quality reflected scanning isn't as nice as transparent material like negatives. When I did commercial work, my clients preferred transparencies for sharpness.