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

Gimenosaiz · Jun 24, 2017

LAG said:
I agree!

Bill Burk said:
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

jnanian said:
+1

LAG said:
I agree!

Hi!
Ups! Thank you very much!
I hope they love their photos in the future as they do know!!!

Un abrazo!
Antonio

Gimenosaiz · Jun 25, 2017

klownshed said:
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.

Hi!

I agree with your comments! I'm learning to use Photoshop because I love to play with my digital pics!
Thanks!

Cheers!
Antonio

Gimenosaiz · Jun 25, 2017

LAG said:
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!

Hello!
I mostly agree with you. If I had the time I'd print most of my preferred negatives. I hope to do it in the near future. In the meantime I'll keep on scanning because I love to use my film cameras for many reasons ... that are more evident in medium and large format: DoF and space.
Thank you for your opinion and thoughts!

Cheers, regards
Antonio

tomfrh · Feb 15, 2018

I've never seen much point in using film to produce digital images. I generally shoot film to project (slides), or to print. Where I want digital image I use digital camera.

Mainecoonmaniac · Feb 15, 2018

I do both digital printing and darkroom prints. I find printing in the darkroom and darkroom prints much more satisfying. I print color digitally because it's so much easier. I plan to go back to C printing sometime in the future.

Sirius Glass · Feb 15, 2018

tomfrh said:
I've never seen much point in using film to produce digital images. I generally shoot film to project (slides), or to print. Where I want digital image I use digital camera.

+1

I will let you know when I buy a DSLR or a digital back.

Bill Burk · Feb 15, 2018

This thread is about one person’s road. If you can’t get in the darkroom but you have an eye for black and white... what are you going to do? The best you can.

Luckless · Feb 16, 2018

Also nothing says that the digital reproduction of the film has to be the end of the road for the image. I've not had reliable access to a suitable darkroom setup due to budget and space limitations, but I can develop and store negatives at home, and still reasonably explore my film work through scanned copies (The computer workstation was going to be part of my setup anyway, and the scanner has seen a lot of use in preserving family memories by copying old photos).

Eventually I'll have a box of selected negatives already lined up and ready for when I do get a darkroom setup going, and can spend more time exploring that. Till then, I'll be happy with the digital previews of them while I decide which images are going to be worth my limited darkroom time.

Ces1um · Feb 16, 2018

To print or to scan? Tough question. Both have pros and cons.

I loved printing my work back when I had access to a darkroom. The issue I came across was I would only print the photos that immediately jumped out at me. Sometimes you have to let an image grow on you before you decide that you do like it. Those ones never got printed because the negatives went into a box. I also had issues with storage- what do you do with every photo you print? If you're shooting a roll a week and only print one image, you've got 52 images to find a home for by the end of the year! Sure I could put them in a box, but why did I print it to begin with to hide it away?

Scanning- I always feel like I've done a subpar job when scanning. Like the settings could have been better, my glass should have been cleaner, I should have taken more care with dust. I never say, "Boy, I did a great job scanning that.". I find it's less rewarding. That being said, I scan all the photos I've shot, and they end up revolving through and being seen as my desktop screensaver or on the appletv as it's screensaver. I do like that aspect. I also like that they take up no physical space. I like that I've been able to straighten the horizons, correct some contrast issues, etc... and I like that I can email the file to the local photo lab and I can print out the ones I truly love to be displayed in a frame on the wall. Someone above said they didn't see the point of scanning film, why not just shoot with a digital camera. On the face of it, I agree with them BUT I use my film cameras only because I absolutely love the advance lever. To me, pushing that lever is what photography is all about.

I think the process of printing my own was vastly more rewarding and made me value my images more. I think I get more use out of my digital images and more enjoyment out of all of them rather than a select few.

chris77 · Feb 16, 2018

just in order to improve your visual result.
when i have tried fomaspeed variant matt in moersch neutral developer, i have stopped ordering fiber paper for a while.
saturated, wonderful surface, neutral (!) black.
i cannot imagine to get more out of rc paper.
cannot show you, as i dont scan or take take snapshots of prints if i dont have to.
just my 5cents.
cheers,
chris

jim10219 · Feb 16, 2018

To me, they're not in opposition to one another. Sometimes I print. Sometimes I scan. It all depends on what I want to do. Sometimes scanning into Photoshop where I can make heavy manipulations easily is the best course of action. Sometimes an inkjet print is what I want, or in the case of slide film, about the only good way to enlarge it. Sometimes I will scan a negative in order to make another negative for an alternative process contact print. Sometimes only a darkroom wet print from an enlarger will do. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. That's why I own so many different cameras from 110 to 4x5 film as well as digital. It's not a question of which is better. It's a question of which will give me the final results I want.

faberryman · Feb 16, 2018

Ces1um said:
To print or to scan? Tough question. Both have pros and cons.

If you want to put your film work up on a website or social media, you are going to have to scan it. If it is not worth printing, it probably not worth posting.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency