Scanned film vs. traditional darkroom

[Mainecoonmaniac]

They both look great.

Yes. But it I think the printer has to know how a great look print looks like. Have a discerning eye. A photographer can get that by going to museums and galleries and look at great prints.

 

[removed account4]

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

maybe there is one, IDK i can't see it.
( btw i have been printing in a DR for almost 40 years and about 20 years in a LR )
and if i see images printed with one of those enlargers that used an image file
( light jet or whatever its called now ) 6: 1/2 dozen
btw i've gotten large prints made from film scans, negatives and prints held them in my hands
and stared at them .. maybe i am too accepting of inferrior products or too in love with myself ..
i can't see a difference... and on a screen on the inter web even less than no difference ...

 

[Wallendo]

The answer to the original question is dependent on the expertise and artistry of the person doing the scanning/manipulation/printing and the person doing the development/enlarging/filtering/dodging/exposure/development of the print.

Both techniques are just tools. Properly used, both can give excellent results. Improperty used, bith can give bad results. There are also specific circumstances where each technique has definite advantages over the other.

 

[Ai Print]

A very timely question. I just got done printing a set of 20x24"'s from a Tmax 100 4x5" negative that previously had only been scanned ( drum ) and then digitally output, mostly due to not having a darkroom for about 2 years.

There was a fair amount of contrast range to deal with even though I had partially lit it and then exposed for shadow detail without losing highlights. I found it to be not too bad to wrangle in post using photoshop and the client prints, 8x10' feet in this case certainly met the mark. So when I saw a had a fair amount of burning and dodging to do once I made an eval print in my darkroom, I have to say I was daunted.

But once I got going, made masks and purpose built dodging tools, boy was I off and running. I found it to actually be easier to make a silver print than a digital one, the tones just ebbed and flowed so naturally and with great local contrast in various parts of the scene. I am no slouch in using digital processing tools, have used photoshop since version 2.0. But the way a silver print looks of this image is all I will ever need to know that I will always prefer a darkroom print over a digital one for black and white.

Color is another matter, I shoot maybe 1-2 rolls of color film per year.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

photoshop since version 2.0.

You've been using Photoshop as long as I have. Weren't you amazed at Photoshop version 3 with a new feature called layers?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've personally known some of the "gurus" and top consultants for software to inkjet output. Even if they're now paid to promote that kind of thing, every one of them did better personal work in a darkroom. But an awful lot depends on your temperament, facilities, specific format, and so forth. When you can allegedly do "anything", there's a temptation not to do anything well. But a lot of that mentality is because people have simply forgotten how to do complex tasks in the darkroom. Yes, it takes more time, but so does gourmet cooking versus just driving through a fast food franchise. Slowing down has real benefits. It makes you think. Pulling a fresh print out of the washer has a certain magic to it. Despite the staggering sums of R&D investment behind digital printing at this point in time, the actual result still looks rather adolescent to me. True optical printing is still more nuanced, more authentic-looking. But that's a personal choice, and I realize that a lot of people simply can't afford the space for a serious darkroom at this point in history, especially for color work. In the final analysis, it's the familiarity of the craftsman with his own chosen media which tends to be more important than the specific media itself. The topic of print permanence one way or another is more involved, and plagued with BS.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I visited Clyde Butcher's gallery in Venice FLorida. He now does BW printing with an EPson I think it was. Booth scanned 8x10 negatives and new digital shots taken with a SOny A7rIII or equal with special lenses, , 4 foot wide prints are gorgeous. He still does wet processed which are more expensive. But the digital ones are just terrific too.
https://clydebutcher.com/pc/photographs/

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's an older fellow with a resort gallery in this area who now does his big monochrome prints inkjet, and does it quite well. The reason is that he lost his lease to where he had his darkroom, and had no choice. So in anticipation of this, he had a number of his best negatives drum scanned. Clyde Butcher is also getting old; and I suppose it could get tricky at a certain point to handle huge sizes of wet paper. But when I mention "monochrome", I really mean monochrome - just a basic black and white. If you expect inkjet to simulate the very subtle effects possible with toners on chemical papers, you're in for a rude surprise. Yes, you can change ink color somewhat, provided that is the overall color of the ink applied to the paper. But approximating anything resembling delicate split toning seems quite a stretch. I know people with extremely expensive press capabilities that can do that kind of thing via scanning; but inkjet is like a toy process by comparison to what they've got.

 

[peoplemerge]

So I'm not going to answer the OP's question, which is basically "how does a wet print compare to a print from a digital scan?"
Instead, I'm going to answer the question I wish he asked, "talk to me all about how you use wet prints and how you prints from digital scans as an alternative to spending money on a shrink to keep you happy"

This last year I've bought a drum scanner and built a darkroom, both to supplement my artistic processes. I do medium format fine art photography, in studio, of pugs.

The differences between the media, for my purposes, methods, and abilities, are stark and hard to compare. The key to the way I work is to sensitometrically dial in a negative to the tone of the print. I have zero patience for fussing in the darkroom over a wet print by dodging and burning. My print is exposed for about 5 seconds, almost wide open, though I can tolerate 2-3 iterations to tune a split grade print. RA4 goes in trays and is love-it-on-Endura-or-leave-it; if I don't love it, I'll correct by taking a better photo and better negative.

Or I scan and go digital. I also love the wet mount process and all of the frustration you overcome to get a clean scan. If I ever had to scan a street photo, or do some heavy manipulation like I did with a mixed lighting of a friend's wedding, it's photoshop where I'm happy to tinker until I'm satisfied. Nooooo, I'd never want to touch that in the wet darkroom.

In the end, I end up with 5x more wet prints than I do on my Epson R2000, and they're all beautiful, but they never go on the same wall together. Wet has such depth and character, inkjet has such a crispness from all that work I had to do in PS. I don't intent to put my work next to the others here done by master printers. But I love the results I get from both.

 

[Bob Carnie]

There's an older fellow with a resort gallery in this area who now does his big monochrome prints inkjet, and does it quite well. The reason is that he lost his lease to where he had his darkroom, and had no choice. So in anticipation of this, he had a number of his best negatives drum scanned. Clyde Butcher is also getting old; and I suppose it could get tricky at a certain point to handle huge sizes of wet paper. But when I mention "monochrome", I really mean monochrome - just a basic black and white. If you expect inkjet to simulate the very subtle effects possible with toners on chemical papers, you're in for a rude surprise. Yes, you can change ink color somewhat, provided that is the overall color of the ink applied to the paper. But approximating anything resembling delicate split toning seems quite a stretch. I know people with extremely expensive press capabilities that can do that kind of thing via scanning; but inkjet is like a toy process by comparison to what they've got.

I just saw a current video on facebook of a technician in Clyde Butchers lab pulling off enlarger silver murals, like many of us who make our living from photography we do both to survive, Today an 8 ft ink jet mural, tomorrow a 7 foot Lambda mural , next day inkjet negatives for tri colour gum over palladium, next day PS to pull it all together,,, next ten days talking with clients and hoping the next quarter has work to pay the bills ... and on it goes.

I think Clyde Butcher does both and good for him.

 

[Bob Carnie]

There's an older fellow with a resort gallery in this area who now does his big monochrome prints inkjet, and does it quite well. The reason is that he lost his lease to where he had his darkroom, and had no choice. So in anticipation of this, he had a number of his best negatives drum scanned. Clyde Butcher is also getting old; and I suppose it could get tricky at a certain point to handle huge sizes of wet paper. But when I mention "monochrome", I really mean monochrome - just a basic black and white. If you expect inkjet to simulate the very subtle effects possible with toners on chemical papers, you're in for a rude surprise. Yes, you can change ink color somewhat, provided that is the overall color of the ink applied to the paper. But approximating anything resembling delicate split toning seems quite a stretch. I know people with extremely expensive press capabilities that can do that kind of thing via scanning; but inkjet is like a toy process by comparison to what they've got.

Drew - it always seems with your responses that you know a guy.... who does it better than us mere mortals..... I know a lot of guys and gals who are spectacular printmakers who use our puny equipment.

 

[KenS]

Since my 'retirement' and my relatively recent 'investment' in my "Epson 850 Pro' I have found that I now REALLY appreciate being able to enlarge my 4x5 negatives to 8x10 and printing the result onto 81/2 x 11inch Pictorico 'film' (using the 'correct' ink colour) for making prints with the archaic print processes using my UV light-box, it greatly reduces the 'cost per print' over using 'real' 8x10 inch 'silver-based film' negative exposed using my much experienced Burke and James 'woodie'.... Since the archaic prints are made with a 'relatively smooth' water colour paper you would be hard pressed to see that the print was not made using an 'original film' negative

Ken

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I just saw a current video on facebook of a technician in Clyde Butchers lab pulling off enlarger silver murals, like many of us who make our living from photography we do both to survive, Today an 8 ft ink jet mural, tomorrow a 7 foot Lambda mural , next day inkjet negatives for tri colour gum over palladium, next day PS to pull it all together,,, next ten days talking with clients and hoping the next quarter has work to pay the bills ... and on it goes.

I think Clyde Butcher does both and good for him.

Bob, When I was in Clyde's Venice gallery, I was given a tour by his supervisor who was busy inking the spots off some 5 foot wet print. Took me through the darkroom and the digital printer setup that Clyde had mark up with instructions to others where to set the settings. He was explaining how Clyde uses the Sony digital A7riii with medium format cambdo actus lenses and holders and stuff. He is getting pretty old and the big cameras are too much for him. But he still has wet prints done as well as digital prints from negatives or digital. Quite a guy. His theory about making the flat Floridian landscape into something spectacular is to treat the big cumulus clouds as mountains. Good advice. Just looking at his work makes the point very well.

Do you have a link to that video?

 

[Pioneer]

I absolutely love viewing what master printers can do.

But I have reached the age where I have no problem leaving those museums and galleries, taking myself home, and working with my contact print frames, my inexpensive scanners and my less than perfect printers and making myself happy. Since I do not have to make a living at this; as long as I continue to improve over what I did last year I am happy.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Bob, When I was in Clyde's Venice gallery, I was given a tour by his supervisor who was busy inking the spots off some 5 foot wet print. Took me through the darkroom and the digital printer setup that Clyde had mark up with instructions to others where to set the settings. He was explaining how Clyde uses the Sony digital A7riii with medium format cambdo actus lenses and holders and stuff. He is getting pretty old and the big cameras are too much for him. But he still has wet prints done as well as digital prints from negatives or digital. Quite a guy. His theory about making the flat Floridian landscape into something spectacular is to treat the big cumulus clouds as mountains. Good advice. Just looking at his work makes the point very well.

Do you have a link to that video?

sorry I do not it was on darkroom fb group that I am part of.. I am going to steal his design for a print washer.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I absolutely love viewing what master printers can do.

But I have reached the age where I have no problem leaving those museums and galleries, taking myself home, and working with my contact print frames, my inexpensive scanners and my less than perfect printers and making myself happy. Since I do not have to make a living at this; as long as I continue to improve over what I did last year I am happy.

If I did not print for others as a living... this is what I would be doing - photography is a fantastic life long obsession.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Stop squirming, Bob. I know you do good work, both optical and digital or inkjet, and now hybrid, personally. But you also need to recognize that I swim in the same pond as a number of other photographers who are considered the top of that very field, both technically and artistically. This is the epicenter of all that, worldwide. A bit of interaction with someplace like Photo Central, as nice a venue as that is to have around, doesn't give you a taste of any of that. There's a lot more going on than you might be aware of. For all we could care around here, it's NYC that's out in the boonies. Of course, I'm being sarcastic, and not trying to be mean about this. Creativity isn't geographically limited. But wouldn't you likewise admit that inkjet isn't exactly the best tool for highly nuanced "monochrome" images? You stated it yourself not long ago.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

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-

View attachment 215176

Yep, you're exactly right about the actual physical differences between scanning a negative + printing and proper analog printing. That being said, the enlargements that you show are equivalent to a person sticking their nose right up against a poster sized print in a gallery and then enhancing that view with a high powered magnifying glass. Hardly a typical viewing experience. If I were a photographer (and actually... I am) and wanted people to appreciate my idea of artistic expression, I would be perfectly happy with the viewer sitting on one of those nice wooden benches 10 feet from my well light inkjet renditions of a fine film negative.

 

[removed account4]

Yep, you're exactly right about the actual physical differences between scanning a negative + printing and proper analog printing. That being said, the enlargements that you show are equivalent to a person sticking their nose right up against a poster sized print in a gallery and then enhancing that view with a high powered magnifying glass. Hardly a typical viewing experience. If I were a photographer (and actually... I am) and wanted people to appreciate my idea of artistic expression, I would be perfectly happy with the viewer sitting on one of those nice wooden benches 10 feet from my well light inkjet renditions of a fine film negative.

yeah .. you are right, patrick's demonstration have pretty much blown me away ... basically for a
scanner to actually show film grain it would have to be like resolution of like a zillion.. ( its mind boggling! )
and i agree 100% with your stance about viewing distance... and have stated that often.
but one thing you seem to forget is that ...
while you and i and maybe a few others ( LOL ) might do the viewing distance thing and be OK with that,
photography, whether it is digi or ana, is full of people who love details and technology and as some people put it
"geeking out" and put their noses upto the glass and inspect every detail and every square inch of a print.
it keeps them happy, i don't get it though.. i've just shrugged it off to just photographers being photographers
you know, like uploading a 1000dpi 30x40 image to a website ... to admire the details of the image ..
but one can never see more than a small part of the image at a time because it is so big.
again, i don't get it, maybe the joke's on me and you and the minority of people who don't do these thing? ​

 

[Bob Carnie]

Stop squirming, Bob. I know you do good work, both optical and digital or inkjet, and now hybrid, personally. But you also need to recognize that I swim in the same pond as a number of other photographers who are considered the top of that very field, both technically and artistically. This is the epicenter of all that, worldwide. A bit of interaction with someplace like Photo Central, as nice a venue as that is to have around, doesn't give you a taste of any of that. There's a lot more going on than you might be aware of. For all we could care around here, it's NYC that's out in the boonies. Of course, I'm being sarcastic, and not trying to be mean about this. Creativity isn't geographically limited. But wouldn't you likewise admit that inkjet isn't exactly the best tool for highly nuanced "monochrome" images? You stated it yourself not long ago.

Currently I have a show hanging at my gallery its callled Noir... in it are silver gelatins and inkjet baryta prints.. I doubt anyone can tell which are which, I would not be able to tell I had not been the one who printed them.
The only holdback , reservation I have with inkjet is its longevity, I am actually still burned from my experiences with Cprints and Cibachromes.... silver gelatin has never let me down.... I doubt that in my lifetime I will or in fact anyone will have the true answer.. we have to wait 100 years for the proof in the pudding... I will be 166 years old then and living with Yoda in a cave .. it won't matter to me then.

 

[Bob Carnie]

just an aside... I recently saw the Ed Burtynsky show at the Art Gallery of Ontario... included in the show were three INCREDIBLE images... taken with a high end camera that allowed Ed to separate the scene into 5 distinct strips to be then mounted back into one master image... each strip was vertically 60 inches by about 15 ft, so combined the image was 15 f thigh by 25 ft wide. I actually worked at a mural house in the 80's that would separate out 8 x10 colour trans to make 72 inch by 10 ft high strips to combine to prints somewhat the same size as Ed's prints...
The prints I saw at the AGO were indeed better than what we did back then , and I will say our lab was one of North Americas top Mural houses of the day. What was different was that Ed was able to basically capture 8 x10 quality with each strip and then multiplied it by a factor of 5, whereas what we use to do was divide an 8 x10 quality by 5.. These prints of Eds are by far the most detailed murals I have ever seen and I think allows us to see where we actually are in this GREAT DEBATE . The prints that were normal mural size in single shot IMO were equal but not better than what anyone here could accomplish with an 8 x10... except Drew of course... but you must remember he invented photography.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Yep, you're exactly right about the actual physical differences between scanning a negative + printing and proper analog printing. That being said, the enlargements that you show are equivalent to a person sticking their nose right up against a poster sized print in a gallery and then enhancing that view with a high powered magnifying glass. Hardly a typical viewing experience. If I were a photographer (and actually... I am) and wanted people to appreciate my idea of artistic expression, I would be perfectly happy with the viewer sitting on one of those nice wooden benches 10 feet from my well light inkjet renditions of a fine film negative.

That image is a 35mm neg, so technically you would see a difference without a magnifying glass. If I wasn't lazy, I do the experiment myself, but I frankly don't care. Lol. Just based off of general experience, and as a half-a$$ed guess, I'd say at around 11x14 a reasonable difference would start to show without pressing one's nose to the glass for someone that can see it.

When all is said and done though, the most important thing is to just make good images the best way you are able. Who cares about the rest.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Bob. I'm still hoping to visit your digs some day, and see some of Ed's work too, though a bit of it has been shown in this area. But I have to be careful. There might still be an arrest warrant related to my family along the border. It seems some relatives of mine decided to remain loyal to King George and sneaked across into Canada. I don't know how long the statute of limitations is, but a couple centuries might not be enough to clear up the problem yet. You seem to have a lot of misinformed stereotypes about us. We even have a local ice hockey team. No, I never watch them - jes sayin'. The ice is of course, manufactured; that is what technology is really for - basically useless diversions, like cell phones, icy surface in temperate climates, figuring out way make ink dots smaller and smaller, even though people making real money with dots, like Damien Hirst, tend to make them bigger and bigger. Hmm, meanwhile I'm sitting here on another cold rainy day with some framed Cibachromes against the wall that were hung in indirect mountain sunlight for thirty years, and still look like they were made yesterday. Note that I stated, "indirect". That was the whole secret - sunlight bounced off walls so that most of the UV is already absorbed, or else ordinary tungsten lighting. Halogens, low-voltage track lighting, direct sunlight, fluorescents, or any of this new e-lighting loaded with UV... no, no, no. Let's hope that LED architectural lighting comes to maturity with that issue mitigated. UV will get to inkjet prints too. Just read the patents of what's in those inks. It's just a matter of time. But given the fact that really big prints are the current fad, and that those are almost inevitably going to get wall displayed under either sunlight or some kind of abusive halogen system, the long-term odds aren't good. The old adage still applies as a selling point : "Heck, your sofa and curtains are going to fade too, so why not replace your print when you replace those?" Maybe when you do turn 166, you won't be as irritated with us Westerners, and I'll get invited to your birthday party?

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Hi Bob. I'm still hoping to visit your digs some day, and see some of Ed's work too, though a bit of it has been shown in this area. But I have to be careful. There might still be an arrest warrant related to my family along the border. It seems some relatives of mine decided to remain loyal to King George and sneaked across into Canada. I don't know how long the statute of limitations is, but a couple centuries might not be enough to clear up the problem yet....

Hi Drew, I just checked with a good friend in federal government. It turns out that you're right. They do seem to be a bit sore... still. Your FBI most wanted poster has been up in regional Post offices for a couple of centuries now. I must say, you've aged well for 200 years worth of enjoying maple syrup soaked pancakes while cheering on the Canucks or Maple Leafs while high on Canadian whiskey... or whatever. I didn't know they played hockey in the 18th century...

 

[guangong]

Reading more recent responses, I suppose that if what you are doing isn’t work (in the negative sense of the word) and there are no obligations other than to yourself, choose whatever method pleases you at the moment. Some folks consider a print a failure if not mural size. My friend photographs birds, and is not satisfied with anything less than a 16x20 print. Perhaps because of my etching experience, I prefer smaller prints and usually smaller than 8x10. But then, another friend, the late Bob Conover, made huge etchings that dwarfed any 16x20 print. I do some digital because of convenience and use of computer programs for other purposes. However, I enjoy the tactile experience with chemicals, water and light. Some folks lean towards electronics, others to physical manipulation. There is room for both...sometimes in the same person. Doesn’t have to be either/or.