Scanning negs vs scanning silver gel prints

[banandrew]

Hi all, I'm new here on dpug so I thought I'd say what's up.

I wanted to ask you experts about your workflow for scanning black and white and processing. I love printing in the darkroom, and the way the prints look. But I'm having trouble replicating that look from scanning negatives. I'm using an Epson V550 + Vuescan + Lightroom for all editing (I don't have photoshop). Primarily 35mm but also medium format. If I scan the silver gelatin print, then I don't have any problems, it looks just right with a black/white point adjustment and perhaps a slight tweak of the tone-mapping curve in Lightroom. However I just can not replicate the tones when I do it with a scanned negative. Not to mention scanning negatives always seems to butcher the grain and sharpness somehow.

Anyone have any suggestions? I should also add, scanning negatives is preferable to me because there's less issues with dust, etc., plus it skips the darkroom phase if my ultimate goal is to digitally print or share. Right now I'm working on a book with digital + analog prints, and everything needs to eventually be digital to send to the printer, which is why I'm going through this process.

 

[jeffreyg]

I print in the darkroom as well as with scanned negatives 2 1/4 and 4x5 with my old faithful Epson 4870 and SilverFast Ai Studio 8 software. My approach is to get the best wet print I can and to make the best digital print I can without worrying that they are exactly alike. I just consider them two different mediums. I have printed and hand-made a couple of books and print pt/pd from film negatives, enlarged film negatives and digital negatives. I make each look as I wish and don't worry about one conforming to another. The book images were all scanned negatives printed on double sided paper so they were uniform. I bound them, covered and made the covers. Needless to say it was a lot of work especially since I had never done it before and made up my technique as I went along.

Enjoy your project'

http://www,jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[pschwart]

Upgrade your tools, then practice, then make a book

"scanning negatives always seems to butcher the grain and sharpness"
- Get a dedicated scanner for 35mm, or bite the bullet and get a MF film scanner. You will still need to use glass carriers if you want scans to be
sharp edge to edge.

- "can not replicate the tones"
Scan a bit flat to ensure you are capturing everything before editing the image. Photoshop offers finer control than Lightroom.

- don't forget that the paper you print on will greatly influence the look of the image. If you want to match digital to wet prints, use similar papers.
You may need to tone the digital print or print as a duotone to get a good match.

- I'll second Jeffrey's advice. Unless you are selling digital and wet versions of the same image, it's not necessary to match. It's possible for digital
prints to surpass what many can achieve in the wet darkroom.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It's possible for digital
prints to surpass what many can achieve in the wet darkroom.

I doubted this for the longest time but it's a true statement, wherby'surpasses' ca simply mean'also fantastic in a different medium'
good luck with your project and do't forget to work very closely with the printer on this.

 

[Alan Klein]

I don't think you'll get the same amount of real data scanning a wet print from the negative than scanning the original negative.

Just one reminder. You can't use ICE with BW negatives. Do dust removal in post.

 

[banandrew]

Hey y'all, sorry for the absence. Thanks so much for all the advice and insight! Sounds like I'm just going to have to accept that they won't come out the same (perhaps because my skill/tools are not up to snuff). That's ok by me, it's all a learning experience and I'm not expecting perfection anyhow (although I will strive for it). I don't have any glass negative carriers so I guess I'll just have to live with what I got

@Alan Klein, Ya I figured I'd be sacrificing some detail and information if I scan a wet print vs. scanning a negative. About the ICE, it actually me about a month to figure out that it was ICE that was messing up my B&W negs for a while I also found that the Epson dust-removal setting liked erasing point light sources, typically in night-time shots, so I disable that one as well.

 

[Alan Klein]

Sorry, by wet print I meant traditional chemical print not to confuse anyone with a wet negative scan which I've never done. They say it's better than a "dry" negative scan but others would have to comment on that.