Scanning papers or negatives?

[Henry Alive]

In the past few weeks I have been working in my Apug Portfolio. In order to put my pictures online, I have scanned my prints with an old and not very good scanner. I have never scanned a negative. As I am thinking to buy a new scanner I want to ask to the forum members what should I do. Should I scan negatives or prints? Additionally, I would like to get some scanner models recommendations from you. Thanks,
Henry.

 

[Andy K]

My personal preference is to see scans of prints, as I consider a print a finished work. When I see 'neg scan' next to an image in the gallery I see no point commenting as the photographer has not completed their work yet.

(obviously transparencies are a different case)

 

[donbga]

In the past few weeks I have been working in my Apug Portfolio. In order to put my pictures online, I have scanned my prints with an old and not very good scanner. I have never scanned a negative. As I am thinking to buy a new scanner I want to ask to the forum members what should I do. Should I scan negatives or prints? Additionally, I would like to get some scanner models recommendations from you. Thanks,
Henry.

You are better off scanning negatives and adjusting the scans to look like your prints - IMO.

 

[Jerevan]

I think it depends on your negative size and what scanner you are using. If you are doing small format and modest sizes (up to 8x10" paper), I prefer a print scan. Some of the processes (lith or any alt process) needs a print scan.

A flatbed scanner makes a half decent job with anything from 120 negative size and upwards, while my experience with 35 mm negs on a flatbed scanner has been less than satisfactory. Another idea is to photograph the 35 mm negative with a digi SLR and a slide copier, if you wish to digitize from the neg itself.

 

[Stregone]

I like scanning prints. It still won't be exactly the same without adjustment, but I think it works waaaay better unless you have a really really nice film scanner.

 

[rwboyer]

I do both but it is a completely different exercise. Scanning a print is much easier in a lot of ways. When you scan a negative you get a very very different interpretation of the negative than you get with a print or a scan of a print. You will find yourself perplexed the first time you try to adjust curves to "match" it to the print. If you have a really really good idea of how black and white paper works you will probably know "what" to do with your curves but will probably spend a lot of time figuring out "how" to do it if you want a reasonable simulation of what a print looks like. It is not just jacking around with levels. The curve shapes that I use to reproduce what a print looks like from scanned negatives are truly bizarre.

I actually do the complete opposite as well by making inkjet negatives for contact prints that have the exact curve and CI that I need when I want to use an alt process on a small negative original.

One of the best "home" scanners for 35/120 is a Nikon 8000/9000 - really nice with a huge DMAX. For large negatives and prints the Epson V700 is really nice for low $. Some of the Microtek stuff is acceptable for prints/large negatives and can be had for dirt cheap.

RB

 

[RalphLambrecht]

My personal preference is to see scans of prints, as I consider a print a finished work. When I see 'neg scan' next to an image in the gallery I see no point commenting as the photographer has not completed their work yet.

(obviously transparencies are a different case)

Amen to that! I thought I was alone.

 

[cbphoto]

I used a hybrid workflow for many years, and my opinion is that any scan below Imacon quality is a waste of time for PRINTING. For the web, do what's easiest for you. I do agree with Andy that the work is not finished until you have made a real print, so you might as well do that and scan it. Neg scans require a lot of tweaking, so you're doing the same work twice that way.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Print scans are kind of an existence proof that there is a real print somewhere in the world, but I wouldn't assume that a scan of a print necessarily looks more like the print than a negative scan adjusted to look like the print. They both take a fair amount of work, in my opinion, to go from the raw scan to an image on the web. Ultimately, there is no way that an image on an illuminated screen will ever look like a print on paper, so it's all illusion anyway, and is it more important to know that a print exists or to see an image that looks like the print? If you want to see prints, then participate in the print exchanges and traveling portfolio, and that will be way better than any kind of digitized image.

When I was using a flatbed scanner, I usually found the artifacts from print scans to be problematic enough that I preferred to scan negs and adjust them with the print in hand, and that I could get a screen image that looked more like the print from a neg scan than the print scan. Whether scanning artifacts are a problem for you will depend on the paper you use, the scanner, and how flat the print is.

For alt process prints, there really is no option other than scanning the print, because you aren't even going to get close starting with a neg scan. Also, they aren't going to be as glossy as gelatin silver prints, so the surface artifacts that show up in a scan are likely to be artifacts that are actually on the print, rather than scanning artifacts. Obviously, if one wants to show specific print effects like toning, bleaching, or lith printing, it's easiest to scan the print and accept the other sacrifices that come with that.

Part of the reason I gave up scanning for a copy stand and DSLR is that I could control the light, as I could with traditional copy work on film. I also happen to have good lenses for this purpose, so I figured I might as well get some more use out of them.

 

[Rick A]

I only own an HP all-in-one printer,copier, scanner, so i only scan prints. I've considered a film scanner, but don't think I really want, and definitly don't need one. I'll spend my money on the essentials(film, paper, chems)and camera gear.

Rick

 

[ntenny]

This may be strange, but I find it hard to get a scan of a print that really seems to match the original print. Maybe this is down to reflective viewing vs. an illuminated screen---the on-screen image seems almost always to have more shadow detail (for good or ill; I can see every little fleck I should have spotted, even if they're essentially invisible on the actual print), but adjusting to compensate for that leaves the midtones too dark, and compensating for *that* messes up the contrast.

There are days when I think it's easier to scan the negative and make it look like the print than to scan the print and make it look like the print! Is this just me?

-NT

 

[rwboyer]

This may be strange, but I find it hard to get a scan of a print that really seems to match the original print. Maybe this is down to reflective viewing vs. an illuminated screen---the on-screen image seems almost always to have more shadow detail (for good or ill; I can see every little fleck I should have spotted, even if they're essentially invisible on the actual print), but adjusting to compensate for that leaves the midtones too dark, and compensating for *that* messes up the contrast.

There are days when I think it's easier to scan the negative and make it look like the print than to scan the print and make it look like the print! Is this just me?

-NT

There may be technical reasons for this including your scanner but... as somebody else already mentioned - a reflected print on paper vs a transmitted light image is a different beast. I personally never have trouble scanning prints but then again my scans if printed look pretty much like the print but onscreen is a whole different ball game.

Did you ever notice your prints look different in different light? Same thing only far far far more different.

RB

 

[hoffy]

I only own an HP all-in-one printer,copier, scanner, so i only scan prints. I've considered a film scanner, but don't think I really want, and definitly don't need one. I'll spend my money on the essentials(film, paper, chems)and camera gear.

Rick

Amen to that!

Why get hung up on a top of the range scanner (flat bed or neg), when the end result is only posting on the net. My Scans are crappy, but frankly, that is not the reason I do analog.

Funny thing, though, is I needed to submit some images for a book that a friend is making.......I had to get them professionally scanned....$5 was in reality a small price to pay.

BTW, how did this one get past the analog only police?

 

[2F/2F]

Sorry to throw another option in, but all things considered, my favorite method when a print must be digitized is to shoot a digital pic of the print. Barring that, I like scanning the print. I only scan negs to work on them in Photoshop, not to post them on the Internet (with the exception being cheap drugstore scans of "less-than-critical" pix that I just want to post online). If you already have the print, I find it more straightforward to just scan or shoot the print.

If it was for a business Website, to advertise my SERVICES, rather than a specific PRODUCT, and I wanted the utmost in quality, then I would have professional film scans made and manipulate them solely for digital use on the Website to advertise. However, if I was selling limited edition PRINTS online (which no one should buy anyhow, IMO), there is no way I would show anything but a reproduction of the print itself.

 

[darkosaric]

I usually scan print, rarely I scan negatives -and I don't feel good then, it feels like unfinished business, as was told here already .
One more thing is when I scan prints - I get also this nice black edge (usually I print full frame).

 

[wogster]

In the past few weeks I have been working in my Apug Portfolio. In order to put my pictures online, I have scanned my prints with an old and not very good scanner. I have never scanned a negative. As I am thinking to buy a new scanner I want to ask to the forum members what should I do. Should I scan negatives or prints? Additionally, I would like to get some scanner models recommendations from you. Thanks,
Henry.

There are good reasons to do it both ways:

Scanning from a print means that you have already adjusted the print for use, a simple scan of the print, shouldn't require a lot of adjustment, as long as you realise that the print and scan will look slightly different.
In fact if scanning a lot of prints, it can mean setting the scanner once, and not touching it again. Unless your film size is 4x5 or larger, a scan of a print can be often done at a lower resolution, then a film scan. Scanning of 35mm needs a very high resolution, which can make for an expensive scanner.

Scanning from a negative means that you don't need to make a wet print first. However the adjusting of the scanner to get a good scan can take as long as to make a wet print.

What some people do, is a low resolution negative scan of the roll to determine what images they would like to print, then make a wet print, and do a good scan of the wet print.

 

[BetterSense]

I like to scan prints way better, especially over scanning 35mm negatives. No grain aliasing, less dust problems, and you can use practically any flatbed scanner to get really good results.

 

[oldnick]

to me prints are lot easy to scan, not so much to tuning. Usually i scan negs first, to web and preview, lot easier to decide what print.

 

[Henry Alive]

I want to thank everybody for the comments.
Henry.

 

[brianmquinn]

I do a basic scan of all of my negatives and make digital contact sheets. It helps with keeping track of my shots as well as letting me play around with crops and contrast before I head off to make the wet print. If you do this a while you will see that the starting digital image almost never looks like the final wet print. I also agree the the true look and feel of print, even with the best scan, can not truely be duplicated on a computer monitor. At least I have never been truely sadisfied with any of my prints when viewed on the computer. That could be due to the fact that for the most part I do not like glossy paper and almost all my prints or on some sort of textured surface.

 

[JohnArs]

I always do a scan of the neg or pos never from a print.
Thad way I do not loose sharpness 2 times only one time and if the neg gets lost or scratched I still have a high res scan from it!

My 2 cts. Armin

 

[Steve Smith]

Although there are a few negative scans in my gallery, I prefer to scan an 8x10 print. A fairly average scanner can do a good scan of a print whereas you need a near top of the range scanner to get a good negative scan.

Also, if you have done any dodging and burning, this will not be evident in a negative scan.


Steve.

 

[donbga]

However the adjusting of the scanner to get a good scan can take as long as to make a wet print.

If that is the case you are doing something very wrong.

 

[cmo]

That depends on what you want to invest. Cheap negative scanners are just awful, even middle-class Nikons are not perfect, and they require digital processing because a negative print always needs some digital work.

If you want to get the most for your money a new 50-100 USD flatbed scanner for your prints up to A4/letter size is a wise choice. I have a cheap Canon Lide scanner for my prints.

 

[naugastyle]

If that is the case you are doing something very wrong.

For me, "as long as" doing a wet print is a huge exaggeration but it does still take time & patience to adjust a scanned print. Even after adjustments it rarely looks right to me. Especially if toned, that really throws it off.

I like scanning my prints for Flickr, and leave them looking as prints in the most basic sense--I show the border and the shadow from the paper on my scanner background. But they so rarely look right to me that I've wondered about scanning the negatives and adjusting so they look like the prints instead...I mean, I have the comparison sample in hand to work with, I should be able to get that right more easily. Often the biggest problem with the scanner prints is getting the paper color correct while also getting the midtones correct.

It's been bothering me for a while. I used to scan my color prints before I got a negative scanner and that was always easy. B/W is mysteriously not.