Scanning analog Negatives.... or scanning printing negatives...

[IngMacca]

Hi,
very short question but probably very not-so-simple question.
Is better to scan analog negatives or better to scan post-enlarger printing?
In my opinion the result starting from printed paper is very very better, for some reason negative scanning in quite troubleful and the result is not so good.
The point is that often i dont' want to waste paper and time, and I'd prefer to get a digital version directly for the negative...
Maybe is there a technique (or photoshop processing...) that allows you to post-produce a scanned negative and get a result similar to a printed one?

Thanks a lot!

 

[ced]

I think the fact that you skip one step in the process and also that the result is cleaner/sharper & quicker!
Sure you need to get the hang of it and it may require you to do some calbrating like photograph a reflection greyscale alongside the type of subject you like to photograph.
Post scanning in PS can be a tremendous aid in getting the result you want.

 

[ced]

I think the fact that you skip one step in the process and also that the result is cleaner/sharper & quicker! Scanning is the best.
Sure you need to get the hang of it and it may require you to do some calbrating like photograph a reflection greyscale alongside the type of subject you like to photograph.
Post scanning in PS can be a tremendous aid in getting the result you want.

 

[Greg Heath]

I used Hugin software last night.Here are the Tutorials and Download area:

http://hugin.sourceforge.net/tutorials/index.shtml


I scanned a 4x5 negative in thirds and then only used 2 parts of the negative and stitched them together with an Epson V500 and a DIY cardboard mask. I posted this on Apug last year and got an earful from people telling me it's not "film". I am glad that there is a place for this kind of stuff.

This was 2 parts of what I scanned and now Hugin reassembled it pretty darn good. I cannot tell by looking at it. Here is the final image and I scanned it on my Epson V500 and homemade mask modeled after the 6x9 scanning plate. I basically sketched it out on a piece of black cardstock and don't forget you have to drill those little holes near the top of the scanner cardstock so the scanner can identify what kind of mask it is. I will add some more photos tonight. Yeah. It's still a pain in the neck, but it works pretty well and it's alot cheaper than buying a ton of paper just to scan.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/kb2qqm/36362871134/sizes/h/


Greg

 

[Les Sarile]

Is better to scan analog negatives or better to scan post-enlarger printing?
. . . .
Maybe is there a technique (or photoshop processing...) that allows you to post-produce a scanned negative and get a result similar to a printed one?

How was the print from the negative made?
If the print was made by a minilab then likely they scanned it and then printed it from the scan. If so then scanning the original negative has potentially a lot more detail and color information then scanning the print.

If the print was made in a darkroom, at poster size on the finest paper by a very good technician with a great eye for color that agrees with you then scanning the print may almost be as good as scanning the original negative. It may save you some time but then scanning a very large poster size print will come with a lot of other problems.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I like darkroom prints, I like to scan them to share what I like. Every time I'm trying to scan and print it is waste of time.
Except color film.