To scan or to print that is ... an old question ;-)

Gimenosaiz · Jun 20, 2017

Hello!

This started in a thread about the Bergger 400 that I started some months ago. Here:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

If someone wants to share their impressions politely, they will be welcome

I must confess that I decided to purchase an enlarger after debating about this. Still learning of course. I try to be honest to myself. I try to edit a scanned negative just a little. If the negative is awful ... well, I can try to recover it just for the memory it could catch.

Just an example of my first prints (RC, I'm afraid ... multicontrast Fomaspeed):

And the scanned version:

I'lll try again with another paper (fomabron is the one I use now).

Thanks
Antonio

howardpan · Jun 20, 2017

Well, I started with digital but I only shoot with film and print in the darkroom now. I simply enjoy the process of making something with my hands, solving problems along the way. I never thought I would handle the entire process myself. And now, I am learning how to mount my own photos. It is more special when I do it myself.

baachitraka · Jun 20, 2017

If you feel the photo you got from darkroom is bit flat, you may try some contrast filters. To my eyes print on RC looks beautiful.

klownshed · Jun 20, 2017

Gimenosaiz said:
RC, I'm afraid

There's nothing wrong with RC!

baachitraka · Jun 20, 2017

You can make lovely prints with RC paper

Gimenosaiz · Jun 20, 2017

baachitraka said:
You can make lovely prints with RC paper

Hi!
Of course you're right. What I don't like of this one is the glossy effect!!!

Saludos!

baachitraka · Jun 20, 2017

I don't want loose the reflectance by choosing any other surface than glossy . But then matte is equally good.

If you choose Fiber based (FB) you may have that glossy surface but texture will be different compare to RC.

* I prefer FB for its texture. But you may need to consider about getting it flat after drying.

Ian Grant · Jun 20, 2017

Learn to print with RC papers they are cheaper and easier, however maybe try some FB for your best prints. THe difference in Gloss beteew RC and air dried FB is enormous. You've done wel with that print, it's a learning curve but rewarding in the long run.

Ian

Kino · Jun 20, 2017

I think you'll find that the inherent logarithmic response from photographic papers is far more pleasing than the endless fiddling that ensues with a scan...

Ko.Fe. · Jun 20, 2017

Then I ventured to bw film, it was around 2011, I received as the gift all of the darkroom, including enlarger. But I vent scanning instead and did it for three years. Until I started deliberately going on exhibitions where darkroom prints were on display and I started to buy books with film bw photography and they are all print of the darkroom prints. And then I realized, I don't want scans anymore for bw film. Real prints looks different.
Yes, if I want it quick and easy on 8.5x11 with maximum of details, I do it with digital and print on archival paper with archival inks. But I don't scan my bw negatives now, I select a few and print in the darkroom.

It is hard to judge darkroom prints scans on the web. Too many factors are involved to have real picture delivered. To me it looks great. Nice and clean.

R.Gould · Jun 20, 2017

Very nice print, you can make lovely prints with RC, so don't apoligise for it,and it is by far the best paper to learn on, maybe, as Ian says, print some of your best prints on FB paper, as far as the glossy RC paper goses, I never liked glossy RC, for me to glossy, I prefered the Lustre type surfaces, which has a sheen without the high gloss, You will find that air dried glossy FB paper is an entirely different beast, closer to the sheen of RC lustre surface, tghe main thing is to have fun and enjoy you darkroom sessions
Richard

Cholentpot · Jun 20, 2017

There's no shame in RC!

I scan and chose my prints based off the scan. It's my contact sheet. I then do a contact sheet with the exposures I choose. I've never used fiber yet, RC does a fine job for me.

klownshed · Jun 20, 2017

Ian Grant said:
THe difference in Gloss beteew RC and air dried FB is enorm

From my (limited) experience with Fibre based gloss, it looks more like RC Pearl than RC Gloss to me. I prefer RC Pearl to RC gloss, which is a bit too glossy for me. But I've only directly compared Ilford MG IV FB and RC papers.

Comparing my prints on fibre and RC, I found that I much preferred the look and feel of FB paper right up the point it was framed and then I couldn't really tell the difference anymore.

Fibre is lovely, don't get me wrong, but most of the benefits (IMHO) are tactile. The texture is so nice.

But RC is so much easier to work with, needs a fraction of the washing (and water!) and it dries flat. Fibre is great if you have the facilities to make the most of it (i.e. to wash and dry it properly), but RC is perfectly good for me and I don't feel the aesthetic (rather than romantic) benefits of fibre are worth the extra hassle.

RC is more than good enough for to make wet printing worthwhile and satisfying.

naeroscatu · Jun 20, 2017

Very nice print, keep working at it and try to print the same neg on FB so you can see the difference.

Ian Grant · Jun 20, 2017

klownshed said:
From my (limited) experience with Fibre based gloss, it looks more like RC Pearl than RC Gloss to me. I prefer RC Pearl to RC gloss, which is a bit too glossy for me. But I've only directly compared Ilford MG IV FB and RC papers.

Comparing my prints on fibre and RC, I found that I much preferred the look and feel of FB paper right up the point it was framed and then I couldn't really tell the difference anymore.

Fibre is lovely, don't get me wrong, but most of the benefits (IMHO) are tactile. The texture is so nice.

But RC is so much easier to work with, needs a fraction of the washing (and water!) and it dries flat. Fibre is great if you have the facilities to make the most of it (i.e. to wash and dry it properly), but RC is perfectly good for me and I don't feel the aesthetic (rather than romantic) benefits of fibre are worth the extra hassle.

RC is more than good enough for to make wet printing worthwhile and satisfying.

It depends on what paper, some RC pearl is much finer than others, I'd still say FB glossy about half way between RC glossy and RC. If you steam a FB glossy paper the gloss increases.

Ian

Cholentpot · Jun 20, 2017

klownshed said:
From my (limited) experience with Fibre based gloss, it looks more like RC Pearl than RC Gloss to me. I prefer RC Pearl to RC gloss, which is a bit too glossy for me. But I've only directly compared Ilford MG IV FB and RC papers.

Comparing my prints on fibre and RC, I found that I much preferred the look and feel of FB paper right up the point it was framed and then I couldn't really tell the difference anymore.

Fibre is lovely, don't get me wrong, but most of the benefits (IMHO) are tactile. The texture is so nice.

But RC is so much easier to work with, needs a fraction of the washing (and water!) and it dries flat. Fibre is great if you have the facilities to make the most of it (i.e. to wash and dry it properly), but RC is perfectly good for me and I don't feel the aesthetic (rather than romantic) benefits of fibre are worth the extra hassle.

RC is more than good enough for to make wet printing worthwhile and satisfying.

It's romantic I feel.

Sort of a Tmax 400 vs Tri-X. I feel that Tri-x is so beloved because so many learned on it. If people grew and learned on Tmax-400 they would feel the same about it. I learned film on Tmax. When I shoot Tri-x I feel like it's good and all but does not have the sharpness of Tmax nor the smoothness. I'm sure I would feel different if I started with 25 rolls of Tri-x instead of Tmax.

I started with RC because that's what's cheap and available. I don't see all that much difference in FB except for the feel and a little more work to get a print. RC at this point is stable and will last for years without fading (I hope). I'll dabble in FB at some point and I'm open to change my opinion.

pentaxuser · Jun 20, 2017

I much preferred the scanned print but I suspect that is down to the way the darkroom print was done rather than any inferior quality of darkroom prints per se. The print looks duller and flatter which might simply be due to the lower grade of paper.

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass · Jun 20, 2017

I tried scanning and printing. I worked it really hard, but in the end the quality at that time and the cost of ink made it not worth the effort. I brought and enlarger with near no information and it worked out. I am glad I choose to print and never looked back.

Chan Tran · Jun 20, 2017

For B&W? Printing in the darkroom for sure. The ink jet doesn't have very high resolution and troublesome to use. B&W darkroom supplies and equipment are cheap. Doing it is also fun.

Cholentpot · Jun 20, 2017

Chan Tran said:
For B&W? Printing in the darkroom for sure. The ink jet doesn't have very high resolution and troublesome to use. B&W darkroom supplies and equipment are cheap. Doing it is also fun.

I did the calculations many many times. Even using a cheap service to get an 8x10, B&W darkroom prints are far cheaper and look much superior. It's almost the same for 5x7. Larger than 8x10 no question at all.

Bill Burk · Jun 20, 2017

Antonio,

I've always enjoyed your photographs. You will create a trove of family treasures if you make prints of some...

Make enough to go around.

Cheers,

Bill

Ko.Fe. · Jun 20, 2017

Cholentpot said:
I did the calculations many many times. Even using a cheap service to get an 8x10, B&W darkroom prints are far cheaper and look much superior. It's almost the same for 5x7. Larger than 8x10 no question at all.

I also did it. My calculations, unfortunately, are different.

Epson C88+ is under $100, pigment inks are next to nothing and 8.5x11 100 sheets of archival paper is around $50. 100 sheets of 8x10 FB are $100+.
If I have to buy same printer every five years it is $20 per year. So, basically we are comparing Letter sized prints for fifty cents per print, with one dollar 8x10 print. And running water from the tap isn't cheap where I'm.

Larger than 8x10, I just can't afford it as darkroom paper on FB. With current pricing for FB paper people like me are priced out from darkroom and pushed to ink printers. Plastic RC... I'd rather print it from printer on real paper. Actually, something happened and I just can't print on RC anymore. Many of my RC prints are turning grey within few months. It could be same everything. Paper, chemicals. One day prints are fine, week later same everything, prints are turning grey. While FB is not a problem, same chemicals, water, place, enlarger and me

Sirius Glass · Jun 20, 2017

Ko.Fe. said:
Many of my RC prints are turning grey within few months. It could be same everything.

The paper was not properly fixed. The paper needs more time in the hypo and more time being washed.

klownshed · Jun 21, 2017

I scan and print and wet print.

I have a wide format printer at work and photo paper on rolls works out very economical.

I also have a little 6x4 printer for quick prints which is fantastic for family. I can run off a print of my children for my mother in seconds. It's a great way of sharing photos.

But I enjoy printing in the darkroom. A lot. I get much more of a sense of satisfaction from my wet prints knowing that I've put in so much time and effort, all the way from taking the photo to processing the film and dodging and burning for hours to get the print I want.

In terms of quality, there's not much in it once framed and on the wall. If I didn't enjoy wet printing so much I'd be more than happy scanning.

I'm an experienced computer user and have even using photoshop since version 1 and can edit a scan in no time. I'm quick and know what I'm doing. When I print, I have a professsional grade printer with good inks and great paper. The results are great.

Learning how to accomplish the same thing in the darkroom is a hobby.

Cost doesn't really come in to it when it's a hobby. But don't compare a print from a crappy consumer scanner printer on a crappy consumer inkjet with a FB wet print and assume digital is crap.

The best of digital is amazing quality.

I scan every negative and don't bother with contact sheets. I wet print a small percentage. I digitally print much more. I can print much bigger digitally and the quality is superb. I also have a digital camera and make prints from digital photos too.

There's a real quality to a wet print, but as I mentioned above comparing RC to FB, when you frame them much of the difference diminishes.

I print digitally for convenience and speed and wet print my best photos when I have the time to enjoy my hobby.

I don't have an aversion to digital which seems to be almost obligatory around here. Wet printing doesn't have to be 'better' to be valid. I never feel like I have to justify one over the other to myself.

And even when I wet print, it's very convenient for me to have all my negatives scanned and catalogued digitally.

Best of both worlds.

LAG · Jun 21, 2017

Gimenosaiz said:
If someone wants to share their impressions politely, they will be welcome

I must confess that I decided to purchase an enlarger after debating about this. Still learning of course. I try to be honest to myself. I try to edit a scanned negative just a little. If the negative is awful ... well, I can try to recover it just for the memory it could catch.

I'lll try again with another paper (fomabron is the one I use now).

Scan or print?: Whatever you decide will be fine Antonio!
Editing a scan (or print): There is nothing wrong with it either, it's up to you!
RC o FB: Choose the one that suits you best!

The thing is (in my humble opinion of course) that it does not make much sense this kind of debates when both (print & scan) end up going through the same "d_g_t_l bulldozer" (with all that implies that journey) just to be shown on a screen (not to mention the visual differences here as well, blah, blah, blah). Besides, on one hand, there's also the point of (a) showing your photographic idea with a specific material and (b) the point of trying to show your conclusions or ideas about that material on the other hand. While, the first one it is the author's personal decision which must be respected, the second one (for me) it is of zero value to draw decisive conclusions from certain sensitive material judging a positive d-g-t-l image (whether edited or not, whether scanned or not and with the same respect.), instead of doing it taking a closer look to the original version itself with your own eyes/hands, just as we would all do in our darkrooms.

Nowadays, in my personal case, I do have a scanner (basic a simple) for prints - or any other paper documents -, but when I need a d_g_t_l result for any negative that I must show on any screen I do what I like most, I "photograph" them (now that I have the opportunity), but

In any case it's clear to me what's the quality of the material I am dealing with.
In any case it's clear to me what's the quality I want to show.
In any case it's clear to me what's the photographic idea I want to show.
In any case I enjoy doing both, and
In any case it's quite clear to me which one of the two: The print.

All the best!

To scan or to print that is ... an old question ;-)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency