Scanning vs printing

cerber0s · Jul 14, 2023

Some of you may have seen my thread about Agfaphoto APX 400 and Rodinal. I’ve taken a bunch of test rolls and developed each differently. Now, some of the shots I’m quite happy with, and I think they’d make for a good coherent series to put on the wall. The problem is, being experimental, some negatives came out a bit over developet, some under developed. I could correct that after scanning the negs, not using any fancy software or anything, so they came out OK on screen. My question is if I can expect to be able to achieve the same when printing them? I might haul out (not a small task) the enlarger and give it a go.

Don_ih · Jul 14, 2023

cerber0s said:
My question is if I can expect to be able to achieve the same when printing them?

The answer is: maybe. Thin negatives are difficult to enlarge and much easier to scan. Dense negatives are easier to enlarge (sometimes) than to scan. You'll need to find out on a case-by-case basis.

Nicholas Lindan · Jul 14, 2023

My answer: yes. If you can get a good scan - without any extreme measures - then you can print the negatives.

Every one has had negatives that are over/under exposed/developed; it has been happening since the dawn of photography. If you can see detail in the negatives then they will be printable.

[Soap box mode on]

To my eye a good silver gelatin print is superior to any inkjet print. YMMV and all that. Try both ways and see which method you prefer.

I find time in the darkroom to be enjoyable. Staring at a computer screen until my eyes water, getting carpal tunnel, and wrestling with a recalcitrant printer is, well, just like work. I do photography to get away from work.

A good sound system in the darkroom is a must, of course.

[Soap box mode off]

wiltw · Jul 14, 2023

My first darkroom experience was about age 12. In high school I was on the school newspaper photo staff and had the blessing to be identified by the exiting photo editor to be his successor for my senior year. So I have tons of B&W print experience. I ventured into digital photography first in 2001, and changed over to dSLR photography about 2004, with the 20D. I had always read about 'advantages of silver over digital prints' and tended to automactically believe what was written. But then after more than 15 years experience with digital, with my aging mother needing to be moved from her home, I rediscovered my negatives from high school shot on Tri-X film in the late 1960s, which I could scan and print digitally. I tested some of the theories that had been advanced...that inkjet ink all on surface-deposited ink could not equal the dimensionality of silver grains embedded all throughout the depth of the emulsion layer. I could not detect a difference with my own practiced eye! How much of what I had read was 'propaganda' to convert folks from silver halide imaging vs. my own eyes' inability to detect a difference?!

cerber0s · Jul 15, 2023

Thank you guys!

MattKing · Jul 15, 2023

I'm a lot better darkroom printer than I am a digital printer.
And I enjoy darkroom printing a lot more than digital printing.
The people I know who are good at both seem to spend amazing amounts of money on their paper, printers and ink.
Just as I now spend what seems to be amazing amounts to buy photographic paper, when I need to.

cerber0s · Jul 15, 2023

MattKing said:
I'm a lot better darkroom printer than I am a digital printer.
And I enjoy darkroom printing a lot more than digital printing.
The people I know who are good at both seem to spend amazing amounts of money on their paper, printers and ink.
Just as I now spend what seems to be amazing amounts to buy photographic paper, when I need to.

Yeah, high quality inkjet printing isn’t cheap. Probably cheaper than darkroom printing, but I haven’t done the math, so it’s just a guess. I don’t own a printer that is capable of high quality photo printing though, The one I have just about manages black text on white paper.

koraks · Jul 15, 2023

MattKing said:
I'm a lot better darkroom printer than I am a digital printer.

That's a pertinent consideration.

Some will churn out a consistent series of print from a variable set of negatives easier on the basis of scans, some will do a quicker job in the darkroom. Speaking for myself, it'll be easier for me to get the same job done in digital space and the outcome will be more consistent.

RalphLambrecht · Jul 15, 2023

cerber0s said:
Some of you may have seen my thread about Agfaphoto APX 400 and Rodinal. I’ve taken a bunch of test rolls and developed each differently. Now, some of the shots I’m quite happy with, and I think they’d make for a good coherent series to put on the wall. The problem is, being experimental, some negatives came out a bit over developet, some under developed. I could correct that after scanning the negs, not using any fancy software or anything, so they came out OK on screen. My question is if I can expect to be able to achieve the same when printing them? I might haul out (not a small task) the enlarger and give it a go.

underdeveloped negs are very hard to print if you are aiming for high-quality prints. overdeveloped negs, on the other hand, print OK(just have longer exposure times)

cerber0s · Jul 15, 2023

A side question. I’m finding it difficult to determine the quality of a negative, and the same negative looks different depending on what background I check it against. What’s the “proper” way? White paper background, or light table? Something else?

Don_ih · Jul 15, 2023

Looking at the negatives on a light table or one of those light tablets is the best way to judge, probably. If you don't have a loupe, you can use a magnifying glass or a camera lens. A thin negative with good contrast can be easy to print. You want both detail and contrast.

Nicholas Lindan · Jul 15, 2023

Underdeveloped you can get away with. Underexposed you can get away with. Both together, though, is the kiss of death.

cerber0s · Jul 15, 2023

It printed OK, but a little flat. I also tried printing a couple that came out better in the development, they were easier. I do uave dust issues though… and some water marks one one if the negs. Oh well…

cerber0s · Jul 15, 2023

Compared to the scan. My developer is getting ild too, so maybe the print could have come out better.

cerber0s · Jul 15, 2023

Could the print have come close to the quality of the scan if I’d exposed the paper less, and run it through the developer longer, or with higher concentration?

koraks · Jul 15, 2023

cerber0s said:
a little flat.

Indeed, there are no real blacks in your print. What grade did you print this at? If you can go higher, it's worth a shot.

Btw, it's debatable how deep the blacks need to be in a print, especially a portrait. To a large extent, the eye adjusts to the density range it's presented with and accepts it as normal.

cerber0s said:
some water marks one one if the negs.

I mostly see severe newton rings in your print. Are you using a negative carrier with glass, and have non-AN glass installed? Is this what you may be mistaken for 'water marks'?

cerber0s said:
if I’d exposed the paper less, and run it through the developer longer, or with higher concentration?

Always develop paper to completion! Depending on the paper and developer used, this is between 1 and 4 minutes, most of the time. Very concentrated developer on RC paper will develop to completion in a minute, with FB paper and concentrated developer usually 1m30 or 2m00 is allowed, and anything upwards depending on developer activity.

Never pull a print from the developer 'because it looks good right now', unless you're lith printing (and you're not) or you have a very specific purpose in mind (not applicable here, it seems). If your print comes out too dark when you develop to completion, give less exposure. If that makes the contrast too low, increase contrast grade. If you print at grade 5, develop your paper to completion and your prints are still flat, you're SOL and need to work on making better negatives

cerber0s · Jul 15, 2023

koraks said:
Indeed, there are no real blacks in your print. What grade did you print this at? If you can go higher, it's worth a shot.

Btw, it's debatable how deep the blacks need to be in a print, especially a portrait. To a large extent, the eye adjusts to the density range it's presented with and accepts it as normal.

I mostly see severe newton rings in your print. Are you using a negative carrier with glass, and have non-AN glass installed? Is this what you may be mistaken for 'water marks'?

Always develop paper to completion! Depending on the paper and developer used, this is between 1 and 4 minutes, most of the time. Very concentrated developer on RC paper will develop to completion in a minute, with FB paper and concentrated developer usually 1m30 or 2m00 is allowed, and anything upwards depending on developer activity.

Never pull a print from the developer 'because it looks good right now', unless you're lith printing (and you're not) or you have a very specific purpose in mind (not applicable here, it seems). If your print comes out too dark when you develop to completion, give less exposure. If that makes the contrast too low, increase contrast grade. If you print at grade 5, develop your paper to completion and your prints are still flat, you're SOL and need to work on making better negatives

Thanks!

The paper is Ilford Multigrade IV.

Yes, it’s the Newton rings, I didn’t know what they were called. Yeah, negative carrier with glass, but I have no idea what type of glass is in there, it’s a pretty cheap enlarger.

koraks · Jul 15, 2023

cerber0s said:
The paper is Ilford Multigrade IV.

Ok, with RC paper and paper developer diluted to the instructions on the package, usually development times will be 1 minute to 1m30s minimum.

cerber0s said:
Yeah, negative carrier with glass, but I have no idea what type of glass is in there

You need anti-newton (AN) glass at least for the upper sheet of glass. With 35mm you could try just leaving out the upper glass plate and see how that pans out; with roll film, just the lower sheet is often enough, depending on the construction of the negative carrier. With some films, the lower glass plate (on which the emulsion-side of the film rests) will also have to be AN glass; in particular TMAX films and most Kodak color films tend to have such a smooth emulsion side that newton rings can occur.

For small/modest enlargements from 35mm film, a glassless negative carrier is usually sufficient and IMO less cumbersome for several reasons. The availability of such a carrier depends on the enlarger type.

pentaxuser · Jul 15, 2023

cerber0s said:
Thank you guys!

From my selfish point of view there is nothing like a straight scan of a darkroom print when it comes to telling those of us who only darkroom print how a developer-negative-print sequence has worked such as your experiment with Rodinal stand development and its ability with increased film speed

pentaxuser

cerber0s · Jul 15, 2023

pentaxuser said:
From my selfish point of view there is nothing like a straight scan of a darkroom print when it comes to telling those of us who only darkroom print how a developer-negative-print sequence has worked such as your experiment with Rodinal stand development and its ability with increased film speed

pentaxuser

Yes, the lower dilutions certainly produced denser negatives, and might be more suitable for pushing film. I liked the scan of the face with the eye, but it might be difficult, at least for someone with my limited experience, to produce a good darkroom print. I am going to have one final go with Rodinal 1:200 before I give up on it for pushed development.

cerber0s · Jul 15, 2023

koraks said:
Ok, with RC paper and paper developer diluted to the instructions on the package, usually development times will be 1 minute to 1m30s minimum.

You need anti-newton (AN) glass at least for the upper sheet of glass. With 35mm you could try just leaving out the upper glass plate and see how that pans out; with roll film, just the lower sheet is often enough, depending on the construction of the negative carrier. With some films, the lower glass plate (on which the emulsion-side of the film rests) will also have to be AN glass; in particular TMAX films and most Kodak color films tend to have such a smooth emulsion side that newton rings can occur.

For small/modest enlargements from 35mm film, a glassless negative carrier is usually sufficient and IMO less cumbersome for several reasons. The availability of such a carrier depends on the enlarger type.

I might, might, have accidentally turned the negative upside down, emulsion side up. That could have produced more newton rings, right?

Don_ih · Jul 15, 2023

cerber0s said:
I might, might, have accidentally turned the negative upside down, emulsion side up. That could have produced more newton rings, right?

Newton rings won't form if between the emulsion and glass. The back of the negative against the glass produces them. So does that mean your negative holder is glass on the bottom only?

koraks · Jul 15, 2023

cerber0s said:
That could have produced more newton rings, right?

Yes, that's correct.

cerber0s · Jul 15, 2023

Don_ih said:
Newton rings won't form if between the emulsion and glass. The back of the negative against the glass produces them. So does that mean your negative holder is glass on the bottom only?

No, there is glass top and bottom, and the two pieces seem to be identical.

cliveh · Jul 15, 2023

Why not use a glassless negative carrier?

Scanning vs printing

cerber0s

Don_ih

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

wiltw

cerber0s

MattKing

Moderator

cerber0s

koraks

Moderator

RalphLambrecht

cerber0s

Don_ih

Nicholas Lindan

Advertiser

cerber0s

cerber0s

cerber0s

koraks

Moderator

cerber0s

koraks

Moderator

pentaxuser

cerber0s

cerber0s

Don_ih

koraks

Moderator

cerber0s

cliveh

Scanning vs printing

Advertiser

Moderator

Moderator

Advertiser

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency