There's nothing like a Print

[Ian Grant]

I'm going through my past 30 years of work for a variety of reasons and will be scanning the more important images both for my website, a digital archival and some publications.

For technical & quality reasons I far prefer negative scans which is what I'm doing however I'm printing first. In essence I'm really going through the images not previously selected for exhibition etc and finding the way I see and select what negatives to print now has changed slightly, I make different choices.

In the past I've really only printed larger than 10x8 on 16x12 paper, and larger sizes, that's too expensive for editing now.

So I've been printing 7x5 prints and initially using a 5"x 80m roll pf Polymax II Glossy RC I was given about 12 years ago - it may have been a few years old then but prints perfectly, same contrast grade as some modern fresh Adox MCP 312 and about the same speed.

I've now bought a roll of Ilford Mutigrade IV RC Express PF 12.7cm (5") x152m enogh for nearly 840+ 7x5'sa and another Ilford Mutigrade IV De Luxe RC 12.7cm x 76m 420+ 7x5's so along with the Polymax I have left that's some serious printing. I don't normally use RC papers but for this project it's the only option. Then I can make new exhibition prints were needed on my remaining stock of Polywarmtone and fresh Mutligrade Warmtone FB.

Total cost in paper for over 1200 prints has been £55 (approx $80)

Ian

 

[markbarendt]

I like it!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Technical reason, yes. But it has nothing to do with quality. If you are gearhead, yes, scan gives technical quality for you. But if you are dealing with photography as art, here is nothing but analog print.
I do scan, yes. Instead of contact printing. It is better IQ for this technical reason. But even scan of contact print is above of negative scan in terms of art. For me, as non gearhead, but person who prefers analog prints and paintings as art. If final result is considered as art it is result with quality. Scan with all unnecessary details is nothing but technicality.

 

[David Brown]

But if you are dealing with photography as art, here is nothing but analog print.

Respectfully disagree.

I totally agree with Ian that there is nothing like a print. But let's not hijack this thread into another digital vs. analog nonsense.

 

[Ian Grant]

Technical reason, yes. But it has nothing to do with quality. If you are gearhead, yes, scan gives technical quality for you. But if you are dealing with photography as art, here is nothing but analog print.
I do scan, yes. Instead of contact printing. It is better IQ for this technical reason. But even scan of contact print is above of negative scan in terms of art. For me, as non gearhead, but person who prefers analog prints and paintings as art. If final result is considered as art it is result with quality. Scan with all unnecessary details is nothing but technicality.

I have to disagree, you are missing my point. First I didn't say a scan gives better technical quality, for me the importance is the final analog silver based prints (or Plat/Pall etc), secondly my negative scans have to match my analog prints which I can assure you they do because I don't reinterpret them in a different way. I just prefer scanning the negative rather than the print.

Respectfully disagree.

I totally agree with Ian that there is nothing like a print. But let's not hijack this thread into another digital vs. analog nonsense.

You're right David in fact I'm doing the exact opposite of Ko.Fe who is using scans first as Contact prints. I'm making prints first doing scans later for reproduction of existing analog prints, the fact that I choose to scan negatives rather than prints is a personal choice. To show our images we are obliged to scan or re-photograph with a digital camera.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Perhaps I should add that the reason for printing is also for editing and sequencing, I'm filling in gaps in ongoing projects often only partially printed. Doing contact scans like Ko.Fe would be quite useless and irrelevant.

With prints I can lay them out move them around and it's fun.

I've started with a project begun about 30 years ago and found I've subconsciously chosen to steer the work in a different direction, a switch in focus, all from the same original negatives.

Ian

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I prefer analog print for sharing as my final product. Would it be for showing in hands or on-line. So, I do scan my prints.
I can't make my negatives scans looks like my prints
Scan of 8x10 lith print from regular negative.

 

[pentaxuser]

As a Scotsman, Ian, what caught my eye was the figure of 4.5p per print. Now that has to appeal to the Scot in all of us

pentaxuser

 

[dpurdy]

For me the most important part of the process is a finished print. My prints are silver or platinum from my darkroom. I have no interest in top quality scans so all my scanning is done from finished prints on my old Epson 3200 flat bed. I am happy with that for the most part. I occasionally process some film for other photographers and I will make silver contact sheet and then scan that on my epson and send them the scan in email. None has ever been unsatisfied with that.
Dennis

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

[...]But if you are dealing with photography as art, here is nothing but analog print. [...]

Pardon!?

 

[Tis Himself]

Obviously, as stated, there is "some serious printing" to be done. I interpret this to mean serious as in a large quantity. Since there's multiple decades of negatives to sort through, I doubt that anyone could remember each frame until they see it to jog their memory. Printing the forgotten negatives, IMHO, is perhaps the best way to determine if it/they are of the caliber one would want to exhibit. One thing for sure, the cost of the paper can't be beat!

 

[Ian Grant]

For me the most important part of the process is a finished print. My prints are silver or platinum from my darkroom. I have no interest in top quality scans so all my scanning is done from finished prints on my old Epson 3200 flat bed. I am happy with that for the most part. I occasionally process some film for other photographers and I will make silver contact sheet and then scan that on my epson and send them the scan in email. None has ever been unsatisfied with that.
Dennis

There's quite a simple explanation as to why I prefer to scan negatives. I've been scanning my images for over 20 years and need high quality results for publication and prefer as much control as possible. All my personal work prior to this current task has been printed on Fibre based papers and there's also a few Plat/Pall prints,

I don't find Fibre based prints scan particularly well and all my exhibition prints are larger than A4 anyway so can't be scanned on a regular A4 scanner, However I 've always found Glossy RC prints scan very well but the cost of reprinting just to scan is prohibitive. So for me a negative scan is the best option for reproduction.

Ian

 

[jeffreythree]

I agree there is nothing like a print. I also like 5x7, or 5xwhatever, for my budget. I need to look into some of those 5" rolls, especially now that I have some panoramics to print. A vertical pano of a tree just does not look good on a screen.

 

[Vaughn]

I agree there is nothing like a print. I also like 5x7, or 5xwhatever, for my budget. I need to look into some of those 5" rolls, especially now that I have some panoramics to print. A vertical pano of a tree just does not look good on a screen.

Many years ago I was given a 5"x200' roll of color RA4 paper -- I had lots of fun with it! I was given it due to a hole in the bag...I had to toss the first several feet of it to get to the unfogged portion. I never made it to the end of the roll. I think I printed this on that paper (messy print I had on my wall for a long time!) My boys 18 years ago.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Pardon!?

Pardon, it is APUG here.

 

[Bob Carnie]

To the OP 's Titile

The print is the only reason I do photography, plain and simple.

 

[removed account4]

have fun printing ian !
i am SURE you will find hidden gems that
you originally over-looked and now
20 + years later you look at the image with distance
and different eyes and say " i really like that "
john

 

[Diapositivo]

Ian, aren't you embarking in a project for eternal people? 1200 prints only to catalogue them and selecting them? Naaaa .

If I were you I would setup a three-layered procedure:
1) Scan and convert. Examine scan, see what has potential for a great print possibly more clearly than from the negative or the contact proof.
2) Print only the negatives that your know are going to work for your project;
3) Re-work the scan to have the scan match the print.

That will also leave you with a complete archive of your negatives without having to print the entire huge lot.

I agree that scanning the negative instead of the print is better technically and easier and cheaper if the print is big.

And if it wasn't off-topic here on APUG I would also advice to save the raw scan, the negative, so that you don't have to scan the negative twice. But it's off-topic so I will not suggest it.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, aren't you embarking in a project for eternal people? 1200 prints only to catalogue them and selecting them? Naaaa .

If I were you I would setup a three-layered procedure:
1) Scan and convert. Examine scan, see what has potential for a great print possibly more clearly than from the negative or the contact proof.
2) Print only the negatives that your know are going to work for your project;
3) Re-work the scan to have the scan match the print.

That will also leave you with a complete archive of your negatives without having to print the entire huge lot.

I agree that scanning the negative instead of the print is better technically and easier and cheaper if the print is big.

And if it wasn't off-topic here on APUG I would also advice to save the raw scan, the negative, so that you don't have to scan the negative twice. But it's off-topic so I will not suggest it.

That's one way of working but not my way. I did think about scanning first and posted a thread about it last year but I prefer reading my negatives, something Ive been doing for over 40 years.

To the OP 's Titile

The print is the only reason I do photography, plain and simple.

You've summed it u well Bob. I only make images/negatives to print, scanning of some form is a necessary evil later.

Of course Fabrizio I'm not planning to necessarily produce 1200 separate images, in fact I have enough 7x5 to do 1500 and a lot of other RC paper to use up as Exhibition prints are all made on FB papers. One large body of work exhibited quite a few times is going to a Museum and the relevant negatives to the relevant archives, I had public funding towards the project. It's the same with other bodies of work. So it makes sens to fill in a few gaps.

I'll make some small hand made books so some images will get printed a few times, it's a good way of selecting, editing and sequencing images. Perhaps far morev importantly it's reconnecting me directly with some stalled but essentially ongoing projects.

Ian

 

[blockend]

I went to a Martin Parr exhibition last week, and there were 4 ft digital colour prints pinned to the wall, and 5 x 7" monochrome silver prints in frames. Both looked great.