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.
Scanning vs printing
-
A
- Thread starter cerber0s
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Omega D5500 with Dichroic Head, Australia
- Started by andrewherrick
-
For Sale Two Graflex 6x9 film backs for Graflex RB 6x9 (2x3)
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nokton 40mm f/.14 SC for Leica M cameras.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Under Offer Nikon F2AS + Nikkon 50mm f/1.8 Ai - CLA'd in July 2025.
- Started by Alex Varas
Forum statistics
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
Advertiser
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]
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]
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?!
Last edited:
MattKing
Moderator
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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
Advertiser
Underdeveloped you can get away with. Underexposed you can get away with. Both together, though, is the kiss of death.
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!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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Yes, that's correct.
No, there is glass top and bottom, and the two pieces seem to be identical.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |