Scanning film to build a catalog for darkroom printing.

[Bill Burk]

In a recent thread at APUG, Ian Grant explained how he scans his negatives to build a catalog for darkroom printing.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Ian hopes to reduce darkroom waste, by recognizing when a particular negative is not worth printing.

There are many benefits to gain from scanning the negatives in your collection.

Offered as cons are some aggregate problems: Ken Nadvornick gave a list among which he suggests with less print material being used in the darkroom, less will need to be made.

I've also expressed some personal cons. Insecurity. I am afraid, for instance, that auto levels in Photoshop will outperform my darkroom abilities. I am afraid that seeing a photograph on screen will sate my desire to see it in print.

Also a con, the short life of computer applications. I programmed a photograph filing system in Visual FoxPro, on a 386-40 computer running Windows 95. Because I hard-coded the display frames to fit within display limitations of the time, it looks funny when run today. Then I followed-up with Microsoft Expression Media, which has already ended its run.

Pros that were given:

Easy to find negatives when it comes time to print.
Discover worthwhile negatives you forgot about.
Easy to find best of a sequence.

 

[jeffreyg]

Bill,

I'm not really concerned with the cons. I shoot 2 1/4 and 4x5 black and white and have gotten pretty good at readind the negatives on a light box but from there I find that scanning the negatives I think will work is helpful. I can judge cropping and burning and dodging to some degree as well as seeing a larger image than I would with a contact sheet. Also I can do it at any time without setting up and cleaning up the darkroom just to check what I shot and in some cases seeing if I should reshoot. It is also a convenient way to catalog and share images without packaging and mailing. Images that are most promising can be printed with the computer and stored as TIFFs, JPEGs, PhotoShop etc. and can be viewed on different devices. That said I prefer the darkroom over digital but do both as each has its benefits as you mention.

As I see it digital and analog are two different mediums and one is not better than the other after all many artists sketch with charcoal and paint with acrylic and/or oils.

HOME

 

[Bill Burk]

I have some mechanical issues.

For example, my scanners require negatives that are evenly spaced.

Some cameras do not cooperate: The winding mechanism of the Retina I is inconsistent and leads to varying gaps between shots, sometimes a sprocket jump.

Sometimes I do not cooperate: I to cut my negatives in strips of 6 and when there is a blank shot, I like to cut the frame so it leaves a tab of clear film next to the good image. The negative holder doesn't fit well, because it expects the frames to be cut clean on the dividing line and there is a calibration window to the side of the first frame.

I also worry about the drunk chick syndrome. If you setup a procedure to scan every negative... then you handle every negative. My computer room is not clean as my darkroom, and each handling carries a risk of scratching to the negative.

 

[Ian Grant]

The first time I had negatives scanned before printing I was in Southern Turkey staying with a fellow Forum member. I made some images at the Greek-Roman remains of Patara which I processed in his darkroom. The next day we scanned two negatives to make digital inter negatives for Platinum/Palladium prints which were produced later that day.

It was some time before I returned to the UK & my darkroom, however before scanning I'd realised I had some excellent negatives that would print easily and well, the scans & Plat/Pall prints backed that up. When I returned to the UK I made some prints on Forte Polywarmtone and decided to buy an Epson V750 scanner.

Since then I've scanned a lot of the negatives from my Exhibition sets and found the scans remarkably good representation of un-dodged/burned prints from the same negatives.

I guess it's that experience that has lead me to decide that in future I'll scan "the questionable shots and look for overlooked gems" (Bill's words) and then decide if I want to print them.

It's worth adding I have a large body of work and over the past few years only a small proportion has been printed, the cost of making test prints for evaluation would be prohibitive.

Ian

 

[Bill Burk]

I guess it'd that experience that has lead me to decide that in future I'll scan "the questionable shots and look for overlooked gems" (Bill's words)

I have to give credit to Patrick Robert James, post 26 is where the word "gems" first came up.

Sometimes I wonder what treasures lurk in the negative vaults of "all the great photographers we have ever known". It boggles my mind for example to think we could possible have 100,000 W. Eugene Smith photographs that have never been seen.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I've been scanning negatives for a while to look for the gems. But I don't do it in any sort of systematic way. Usually right after the film has dried, but before I've take the time to make contact prints is when I get the urge to scan. I usually just make low resolution scans on the Epson 4870. I look at them and try crop options in Photoshop. I typically toss the scans after this exercise. If I want real scans I drum scan them, but I usually just head into the darkroom for the promising ones.

 

[removed account4]

hi bill

i have a lot of film that i have in negative sleeves. some of it is 35, 120 - 4x5, 5x7 and then 8x10 ( both film and paper negatives ).
sometimes i find negatives that i made that i didn't have the ability to print, but i had the ability to record ( "problem negative" )
and seeing them scanned gives them a second life for me or i printed 1 frame from the 6 or whatever and overlooked the one i should have printed ...
and a scan-proof reminds me that i should wet-print it... i also have some film that was destroyed - some were the best negatives i exposed of a certain subject matter ..
and the negatives turned into a blob of emulsion stuck to both the film base and print file. BUT ! i do have a contact sheet, and scanning THAT
has both been a blessing ( now i can have a lab print a 20x24 or bigger print if i want ) and it also reminded me how important contact sheets are ..
so rather than spend all my time in the darkroom making contact sheets of everything i have exposed since i was 5 ( and spending the $$ on paper, and chemistry
and my time ) ... i just scan the film ...
some of my old-film is a little under-developed so it scans perfectly with a sheet of white paper behind, others i have to put in a film holder and turn on the
scanner's lid ...
i've realized cataloging the film is extremely important ...
( i back everything up on hard drives too )