Scanned film vs. traditional darkroom

OK, this is not quite your standard "film vs. digital" question because film is involved in both branches of the comparison.

The question is, how does a print that is generated by scanning film (along with doing the digital processing of the film, such as converting the negative to a positive image, retouching, etc.) and printing the scan with a high quality desktop printer compare to a print generated entirely in the darkroom?

A related question: How does a digital image generated by scanning film (along with the software processing required) compare to making a wet print in the darkroom and then scanning the darkroom print?

Obviously, I am assuming that the same negative is used in both branches of a comparison.

I'm not a scanning whiz. I've had great results with a Nikon Coolscan with 50 plus old Kodachrome.

To your question, I have found on a few attempts that by scanning 120 negatives, on a Canon flatbed, I can try a lot of things fast, and make a print as a proof of sorts.

Having said this, I challenge anyone who has access to a nice darkroom, to make "digital contact sheets", with a flatbed scanner, that are as quick, and useful, as a standard RC silver gelatin contact sheet. I can process a 8x10 contact start to finish, including Selenium toning, dry to dry in 10 minutes.

If I had a LVT machine (take digital files and makes a real negative ) I would be tempted to do all kind of whiz bang stuff in the computer the lay it down on real paper.

Somebody needs to make a machine that costs under 2000 dollars that will lay down a digital file, one sheet at a time, in the dark, 11 x 14 max. Something that on close inspection you can't see dots like some minilabs.

It really changes whether you're talking about color or B&W. For simplicity's sake, we'll assume you're also only talking about conventionally available materials (i.e. no dye transfer prints or Cibachrome, as you can't really do them anymore...easily).

Color RA-4 prints are really something. They also tend to be a bit more forgiving to grain in the smaller formats than a digital scan. 35mm film enlarges quite well, where as scanning this film tends to appear a bit grainier, and less detailed. Medium format film tends to scan better, and prints just as well so the differences line up a bit there. However the long and short of it is you can make fantastic scans, or you can make fantastic prints... So to me the real differences are with the materials and archival quality. RA-4 prints are a flimsy paper material, and have fairly poor archival qualities. I think some estimates give them about 60 years when using the latest papers. Where as archival pigment prints from Epson give you an enormous range of papers, and the current HD/HDX line up of inks are rated to 200 years for color (400 years for B&W). Depending on the image and the paper you use, you can get an image that is a bit pictorial and soft, to razor sharp. The detail differences are going to be slight. It will really come down to the quality of the scan. I fully believe that scanners now are capable of capturing all the character and information that you might have in a piece of film. There is not much more in a 35mm negative than what you can pull out with a 5000ppi scan. Especially with better scanners, such as Drum, Imacon, Nikon Coolscan, even Fuji Frontier at a slightly lower resolution gives fantastic scans. So, though RA-4 prints are quite beautiful and fun to make, for color I have to give the edge to archival pigment. Scanning film gives you enormous flexibility from start to finish.

For B&W it's kind of reversed in my mind. Though scanning film and printing using the latest techniques is quite capable, and even archival these days....darkroom printing and processing is where it's at. With B&W film there is an entire world of film developers and processing techniques that all contribute to the art and craft of B&W image making. In my experience these techniques are somewhat lost when scanning. For instance, the differences between running film in XTol vs PMK Pyro are just less apparent in a scan. Darkroom prints also have cultural cache, and though people try to fight it, these things matter. People will always respect a hand made print more. With B&W, there are no compromises. Fiber papers are already fantastic, and the archival qualities are unrivaled. The only drawback I can think of is the darkroom footprint is pretty difficult for most folks, and dust spotting is not for everyone.

I personally own and operate a film lab, we specialize in scanning. Sadly we were not able to install a printing darkroom, so we make prints with an Epson P6000, and an R3000. We scan with 2 Fuji Frontier SP-3000s, and a camera scanning rig based around a D810. We are incredibly happy about the work we do from a quality standpoint. However I personally miss the B&W darkroom. My Epson prints are stunning, but I miss the experience and hand-made process of the darkroom. For color, I am not going back to the RA-4 darkroom. Canson papers and Epson inks give me everything I want, with no spot toning.

Scanning a print will not yield best results. If I wanted to display prints I had made in an online format I would photograph them and display them with the label indicating that they were reproductions of prints.

From the tests I have done, there is quite a difference between a scan and a print, although it doesn't really show up until you print larger. Scanners do not image the grain in spite of what everyone blathers on about on the interwebs. I chuckle when people say that their Epson scans the grain. Ain't even close.

Here is an image of a scan from a Nikon 4000 at 4000 dpi compared to a scan of a print matched for size. You can clearly see the difference. Of course this would be something like a 26 or so inch print, but you can clearly see how a darkroom print done right looks like. I think this is a 400 speed film IIRC, so something with less grain would be even more dramatic I think.

Again though, it just depends how big you are going to go whether or not you will actually see a difference. I can't really talk about color prints, although I've seen some extraordinary Cibachromes and I haven't seen a digital print that was the same. I couldn't qualify why though since I am not experienced with color printing in the darkroom and it has been a while. I suppose it would be similar to black and white. If you ever get the chance, look at a Christopher Burkett print.

Here is the comparison image. Neither side is sharpened or manipulated. If you download this image and shrink it in Photoshop you will see that at a certain point it won't matter-

Piezo converts will tell you how great inks are. But I think it is self illusion to justify high price. .

I do both. Inkjet prints and darkroom prints. I have inkjet prints and darkroom prints at the wall, framed in the glass.
It doesn't have to be piezo $$$$, but if everything is done right then inks are good for the wall, framed and under the glass.
For holding in hands - no comparison. Only darkroom prints to me.

To show scanned results I prefer to scan darkroom prints.
Why? Most of the photography I care and in the books or on the net is the scans of the prints. Because photography I finding interesting was done before scanners.
Beginners and not so are often asking - how do I get this film look.
But it isn't film look, stupid , it is print.

For years I’ve used an Imacon Flextight scanner and an Epson 3880 A2 printer. If I hang a print made with this combination next to a darkroom print, on normal viewing distance, nobody will be able to tell which is which with 100% certainty.
The problem with a comparison like this is, that there are differences. The paper is different, a darkroom print does not use ink, it will be almost impossible to make exactly the same print (contrast etc) with the two different techniques. So people will see differences, but in fact a digitally made print can be just as good.

PS, until digital

Frank53 said:

For years I’ve used an Imacon Flextight scanner and an Epson 3880 A2 printer. If I hang a print made with this combination next to a darkroom print, on normal viewing distance, nobody will be able to tell which is which with 100% certainty.
The problem with a comparison like this is, that there are differences. The paper is different, a darkroom print does not use ink, it will be almost impossible to make exactly the same print (contrast etc) with the two different techniques. So people will see differences, but in fact a digitally made print can be just as good.

Click to expand...

One other positive for the really high end pigment inkjet for black and white is the great variety of papers available.
I've never had good luck getting a scanner calibrated for color negative film. I don't have the money to invest in a real professional scanner. Since I have everything when I shoot color negative film I print conventional RA4.
When I shoot digital I use a Canon inkjet that gives great results. I've never used any paper other than the standard high gloss photo paper .

If scans are sharpened properly I find those from my 3600 dpi scanner adequate for quite large prints.
IMO they do show differences in grain between developers, as can be seen here:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/scans-retain-developer-properties.156243/
OTOH, silver gelatin prints from microfilms like CMS 20 show more detail.

While I do both digital and chemical printing, for me there is a difference. A digital print seems to “sit on” the paper, and when hit by light from a certain angle also have an annoying sheen. A darkroom print seems to be embedded into the paper. I am referring to BW prints. Color prints may be different.
For knocking off a couple prints for friends quickly, digital wins. Also for desktop publishing.

hi alanrockwood

IDK i thnk it is a crap shoot and both processes might be a compromise to the beauty of a hand made darkroom print.
in the end, i think it all depends on what YOU like and what YOU can see and the rest doesn't matter.
there are people who say they can tell the difference between all sorts of prints. maybe, IDK im not in their head.
but im guessing from an inexperienced user of the technology just like with an inexperienced darkroom worker
its easy to tell good from not as good...
me? i can't tell the difference unless someone points out that something is mushy
or looks over sharpened or like cr@p, i figure its supposed to be the way it is IDK.
maybe its an a trick or hex someone has put on me back in the day, i was dating someone who dug fractal art...
so like you know, when people present me with prints made from this process or that, i'm open to suggestion
no clue, but then again i do have a ring on my finger that glows that i can't remove and am kind of twitchy and once
in a while i see a really beautiful image, and i've been told sometimes
my arm bends at the elbow flaps a little bit and i cluck like a duck.

have fun !
john

guangong said:

While I do both digital and chemical printing, for me there is a difference. A digital print seems to “sit on” the paper, and when hit by light from a certain angle also have an annoying sheen. A darkroom print seems to be embedded into the paper. I am referring to BW prints. Color prints may be different.
For knocking off a couple prints for friends quickly, digital wins. Also for desktop publishing.

Click to expand...

Seems like you've not seen digital prints made on appropriate paper.

I can't comment on giant blow-ups as I can't afford to make monster prints, nor do I have the space or interest for monster prints. The biggest I've worked with is 13 x 19. But majority of my work is 11 x 14.

But it just depends on the neg or chrome when it comes to wet vs digital. When it comes to sharpness, it all depends on the scan.

Here are 2 examples of wet vs digital. One with a terrible neg, one with a good neg.



I made the wet print when I was a teen in the 1970's. If I made it now I probably could do better, but I could do nothing close to the digital version. You can't translate 2.5 hours of L.R. to the 20 second exposure of the wet darkroom. Sure you can add masks, but it all degrades the image.


Inkjets have their downfall. They are susceptible to solvents ruining them. They have good water resistance when cured. They are not as good with water as silver prints, but are about 85% to 90% as good with water. (generally speaking when we are talking about just soaking inkjet prints in water.)


RC inkjet do better in water than fine art inkjet, but the fine art inkjet still does remarkably well once cured.



Above: 1 year sun test of Epson pigment inkjet print with gloss optimizer. The gloss optimizer extends to the marks on the side of the photo. 'S' = sun for 1 year. 'D' = dark storage.



Pigment inkjets are pretty light fast, but will start to fade in the sun a little after 1 to 1-1/2 years, but just sightly. After 2 years + the fading gets worse. Dye transfer prints will fade in the sun very quick, within a few months very badly. Dye transfer prints have very poor water resistance and will start to lose noticeable dye within 30 minutes of water submersion.


Fuji 'C' prints are not as good as pigment inkjet prints for fading, but are about 85% to 90% as good. Fuji 'C' can be considered as pretty archival as long as not displayed in light all the time and generally on par with lower level pigment inkjet prints. Metal prints are about 75% - 80% as good as inkjet for fading. The top Cibachrome material was excellent for fade resistance. A dye transfer print should never be displayed long term. Just take it out to look at it and display a copy of it. Dye transfer prints will fade in normal room light.

Inkjet prints problems with fine art papers is the fragility. They will mar up if you run a fingernail over them, the watercolor papers will flake off if handled rough. The matte BW inkjets can mar up very bad if handled. You got to sleeve or glass em quick. Even with sleeving they can mar up just from trying to get in the sleeve and from running through the printer. The amount of retouching and post processing you can do with inkjet / digital is extensive. No so with wet prints...even with 10 Ansel Adams on the job.

Printers, paper and ink matter a lot with inkjets.

Someone should invite Sandy King and Bob Carnie to this thread. Between the two of them I am sure you would get your answer.

I've experimented with some Cone papers and Cone inks in Piezography and whether its the extra effort you go through as your skills develop, or the technique... I think it gets harder and harder to tell. That said, the output is noticeably "better" to my eye though as suggested... direct attribution of why can be hard to quantify or really define in useful ways that take it out of the realm of opinion (the old "it's better because I'm doing it" thing). What I can say is that if you start with a good negative, you can do a lot. The pay off for a good negative, well tuned skills in post (whether wet or dry), and decent printing is pretty huge. There is something amazing in a giant wet print done well by a master (wet) printer. I'm not a master printer btw, and I understand that's a calling of its own. But doing my own work with my own negatives as a hobby, I'll stick with learning how to do the best I can out of digital prints as I've got a running start at doing a decent job already.

FWIW, I thought Sandy King had crossed the Rubicon and gone digital for quite a bit. They all do. I think even Joe Cornish has. For want of a good scanner.... and "good" beyond the Nikon Coolscan / Kodak Pakton F-135 or Epson V700 level starts to run a pretty penny.... good beyond this level runs big bucks either per photo (variable cost) or per machine (fixed cost). Either way, it can be the way to make a small fortune out of a larger fortune. In this way, it's beginning to get through my thick skull that there's a point to digital... for skipping the scan problems. I prefer negative film originals at the moment, but that's a taste / style thing, and because I enjoy the front end of the process more. Though I use a Jobo, I can finally admit here it's a matter of necessity for control, and yes, you CAN see the difference between developers with a Nikon scanner.

guangong said:

While I do both digital and chemical printing, for me there is a difference. A digital print seems to “sit on” the paper, and when hit by light from a certain angle also have an annoying sheen. A darkroom print seems to be embedded into the paper. I am referring to BW prints. Color prints may be different.
For knocking off a couple prints for friends quickly, digital wins. Also for desktop publishing.

Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up for me; tough one can print quite nice digital prints without any sheen. One thing a darkroom print, if crafted by a skilled worker, has over a digital print (B&W) IMO is that a silver print can seem to emanate light! I've seen this in a few of my own darkroom prints, but not in any digital print. IMO, both workflows are valid and useful...just different animals.

I have already seen this happen in this thread, so I'll note that the standard can't be "I can see a difference". You will obviously see a difference between two different processes. The standard is whether or not you're getting excellent prints that achieve what you're looking to achieve. Both pigment and chemical prints can be stunning. The rest is just a series of pros and cons from a technical perspective. If I were a collector I would want something archival, so for me that's a big deal. RA-4 prints don't pass that test. They are beautiful and I miss making them. If I had access to a print processor I probably still would just for fun, but not for edition making.

I'm an old dog and I've printed in the darkroom for over 30 years. For a long time, I thought digital prints weren't good for my work. I changed my mind a few years back after seeing a show in a gallery of inkjet prints. I thought the prints are just as good as silver gelatin prints. My brother gave me a Canon large format printer and I used it mostly for digital negs for alt process printing. That was until I saw the show with the digital prints. I make both silver gelatin prints and inkjet prints. I still favor darkroom prints because it's what I'm used to. With my printing setup, my big issue in terms of workflow is that the tone of my BW inkjet prints varies in tone from warmish to neutral and sometimes cool. It's very frustrating.

RA4 is at least as archival as inkjet, based on current testing. And to me, the Darkroom is the gold standard for both both B&W and Color. No inkjet can match an equally well-done RA4 print, in my experience.

My skills in the darkroom are much better than my skills in the digital universe, so my darkroom prints are usually better than digital prints I have others do.
I also get a lot of joy from the darkroom.
You can certainly see differences between the results, but those differences aren't necessarily difference of quality, but rather difference in qualities.
Besides the practical differences, you should probably pay attention to the differences that appeal to you. Some find working at the computer to be enjoyable and dislike the darkroom, while others are exactly the reverse.
Bob Carnie is a good reference, because he is clearly comfortable and highly competent in both processes, but you should keep in mind he is able to use high end equipment in both processes, and that makes a difference.
I have exactly one friend who works at a high level in both environments. Everybody else seems to have gravitated to one or the other.

Keep in mind that there are digital methods of printing on RA and silver gelatin prints. I still love the look of "optical" prints. Prints made from the original negative or transparency with an enlarger. Right now, there are little options for printing transparencies since Cibachrome is dead and also Kodak isn't making interneg anymore

MattKing said:

My skills in the darkroom are much better than my skills in the digital universe, so my darkroom prints are usually better than digital prints

Click to expand...

You have a timeless skill that will endure. You don't have to constantly learn color calibration and new software. Your darkroom skill will only deepen while those on the digital treadmill don't have that luxury.

Mainecoonmaniac said:

You have a timeless skill that will endure. You don't have to constantly learn color calibration and new software. Your darkroom skill will only deepen while those on the digital treadmill don't have that luxury.

Click to expand...

Certainly, darkroom skills endure and deepen. The rest is nonsense.

faberryman said:

Certainly, darkroom skills endure and deepen. The rest is nonsense.

Click to expand...

Nonsense or not, digital cameras are here to stay. But I think there's room for both. But before falling for the digital magic, be aware of the pitfalls like anything else.

I work with both enviourments, like many here I am not linked to one way being better than the other, and I never trust second hand information or do I trust manufacturers claims...

RA4 prints are beautiful whether made by a skilled enlarger operator or skilled digital operator. I got burned in my first 15 years of colour printing as this product does fade and I have seen it in my life span of printing for others. Epson and Canon both seem to be making huge timeline claims on their product line, if you believe them I have a bridge I want to sell you. ( I am making hand made pigment prints now as I do not believe the hype of inkjet lasting 300 years, reminds me of Cibas 200 year guarantee(anyone remember that) and if so if I can find the responsible party I have a bone to pick with those marketing boneheads.

I switched from RA4 to inkjet for three reasons.... One the wet chemicals really stink and need lots of volume to keep the lines going, and today the Inkjet papers have a broader Palette of colours possible and more selection of papers. ( I just saw Ed Burtynskys show and he has switched to inkjet for the bigger prints he is showing.) This is significant as he owns both RA4 and inkjet like I did.


I did a test (seems like 10 years now) where I took 8 x10 BW negative and made an enlarger print on Ilford MG4, then I scanned the negative and made a Lambda Fibre , and a Inkjet on Bayrta paper. To be fair I had a competing printer in Toronto make the first print from the enlarger setup and then I matched with the scanned versions... These prints were at 30 x40 inch size and over a period of 1 year I showed the prints to different larger groups, Springfield Mass, and other east coast groups as well as groups in Toronto, I only asked one question and it was can anyone tell me which print was which... Sounds easy you say well no , over 300 people replied everyone had a different viewpoint and there was only one person out of 300 actually told me exactly which was which and that was Les McLean. the tip off was the enlarger print was soft in one corner... Other than Les people could only guess and most were not correct.

This was a very valuable lesson for me , and it is the reason I keep making inkjet , silver prints... People have their needs and we can satisfy them with multiple options.
A competent enlarger operator has their sets of skills , that many here can relate too. . But a competent digital PS expert has the same but different skill sets but IMHO both are equally talented. I am kind of not answering the OP's question but
reacting to ( are Digital Prints better than Enlarger Prints) the simple answer , they are both good and both have their merits.

They both look great. You have more options with digital prints, though, they are easier to make (yesterday's master printer can only dream about what today's digital dilettante can accomplish) and once you've downloaded your paper and equipment's profiles the prints are infinitely reproducible with no effort and perfect fidelity. Darkroom prints are more "artisanal", each one is a separate performance. That's their only categorical advantage, AFAICT, but it makes them intrinsically more valuable and is the personal reason I'd buy one. I wouldn't knowingly pay for someone else's inkjet print qua art object. I mean there are a lot of excellent photos accumulating out there and I'm not wealthy enough to not discriminate intensely.