Using scanners to proof BW negs

Does anybody use their scanners to proof negs? How does the scanner respond to BW negs versus multigrade paper? I'd imagine scanners have a linear response to negs while papers have a unique curve? Is it useful or it's better to proof with paper?

Not only is this off topic for APUG IMO, but it has also been beaten to death, usually quite contentiously. Check out the archives. They hold some good debate/discussion on this topic.

I tried it. Found it to be a real PITA and slower than popping into the darkroom.

If you want hard copy you need to print at 4 negatives/sheet of paper - because of the low resolution of printers there is no point examining a 1:1 contact sheet with a loupe! Even at 4-up the resolution is about what you get when examining an optical contact sheet with a 4x loupe. And at 4-up it takes 9 sheets of paper to proof a 36 exposure roll.

I keep my negatives in Print-File sheets, in 3-ring binders next to a punched glossy RC contact sheet.

I've done it.

The response between scanner/LCD and the actual paper is SO DIFFERENT, as a tool of proofing exposure, it's close to useless. I still do use it (but rarely) for cropping test and occasionally, to see the potential for density/contrast/localized_adjustment. Also, scanning is SO time consuming, it's really not a time saver unless you are just doing one or two.

2F/2F said:

Not only is this off topic for APUG IMO, but it has also been beaten to death, usually quite contentiously. Check out the archives. They hold some good debate/discussion on this topic.

Click to expand...

+1 and repost on DPUG, please.

I think we're just barely in the bounds of APUG, if the question is simply one of, essentially, using the scanner as a lightbox, a tool, in service to analog printing. I'll keep it open for a few more on point responses if anyone has any to offer, but I then close it once the question has been answered, as it could also be asked over at DPUG, as other's have mentioned without being closed.

Well, I think that even though this may have been discussed before, it doesn't belong on DPUG. After all, he's asking a darkroom related question and probably not going to get answers on DPUG. Scanning to get a quick look at the negative to see if it's worth pursuing (focus, sharpness, general exposure), is okay and I do it. At other times, I just pop it in the enlarger for a quick test, as long as everything is up and running (chemicals, etc).

Hi APUGers. Thanks for bring to my attention that this is an off topic question. I will take a look at the APUG archive regarding this topic. This is a gray area for me.

Thanks for the information

tkamiya said:

I've done it.

The response between scanner/LCD and the actual paper is SO DIFFERENT, as a tool of proofing exposure, it's close to useless.

Click to expand...

I find your response very helpful. I had a hunch that BW paper responds differently than scanners. I gather there are no short cuts for proofing negs for silver gelatin prints.

To elaborate a little on what I said....

I find scanner/LCD has a much MUCH wider tonal range than paper. I have a negative that covers very bright (window looking out to sunny outside with bushes visible) and dark inside the room. This image is on my gallery here at APUG. When scanning this negative, everything including what's outside, dark corner by the table, and even texture of wall at the upper corner (please see the photo for reference) shows up very well with no adjustment other than what scanner does on its own. Printing this on paper is entirely different altogether. Extreme sides are either all blocked up or have no details. Without very extensive burning/dodging, one or the other completely loses any hint of detail. Adjusting exposure time just moves this along. Using lower contrast filter just made it muddier.

I used scanner result to see what's possible then went to work in darkroom. When I didn't see much detail, I dodged/burned more - knowing it's actually all there. Scanner result didn't help me on how much to dodge or burn. I also played around with cropping a lot. I spent so much time with this both on computer and in darkroom because this print was to be submitted to a competition. It's a tool.... just another tool to use when needed. But it's not all that helpful considering the time it takes to do this for more than one or two negs.

Oh, let me not forget.... being able to see a large image is a great plus. I have trouble proofing with just contact sheet or light table when image size is ones from 35mm negatives. I like that part very much.

Anyway, good luck. I think this is an area that's very much each to their own. If it helps you, by all means....

I hope this thread is not closed. I have often wondered what others views are on this topic as well here but I've been too scared to ask. DPUG just doesn't have as many members to give answers on topics like this. Please keep this thread open.

I scan almost all my negatives. Whether I save them all in the computer or not is a different story. I use PS to play with cropping, contrast, dodging and burning etc. This gives me a good idea if an image is going to work without even stepping foot in the darkroom. Making contact sheets however is a must to get an idea of what's in the negative. Then by studying my "final digital scan" on the screen against the contact sheet I can go into the darkroom knowing better what needs to be done to make a final print. Scanning is important to my workflow, but not for seeing what's really in the negative if your printing traditionally. A contact sheet is a must.

Thanks again

Great image! From your post, I would think that the sensors on scanners have a greater dynamic range than BW papers. If that's the case, it shows how much skill it takes to make a full range silver gelatin print. I remember years ago working in a darkroom where there was a Kodak device called a PVAC where a color printer can adjust color balance and exposure on the device, then transfer the numbers to an enlarger to make a print that matches the screen on the PVAC. It sure saved a lot of test prints. I thought today's scanners and computers do the same. I love the darkroom and shooting film, but if there's a work flow that will make me more productive, I'm all for it.

Best,
Don

I only make contact sheets for larger negatives, such as 4x5 or 8x10. It has been a number of years since I included "evaluating negatives on a monitor" as part the work-flow. I highly recommend it.

A scanner and a print are very far apart I've noticed, although the scanner can be useful to check negative sharpness and overall range before print.

Also this forums fanaticism to digital is always disturbing. This is a darkroom question, plain and simple.

Ditto with the above - a full range scanner on my scanner results in WAY more range represented in the scan than in a print on grade 2 would give you. Once you have your flat scan, a little work on curves and levels can give you a rough approximation of what you might get in a print around grade 2, or whatever grade you want depending on the curves you apply. Is it the same? No. Is it worth the hassle to save me time in the darkroom? No. I do it because I want digital versions of some of my images to post online.

I have to say that I'm not a master printer, but many of the negs I scan and also print at grade 2-3 look reasonably similar without any real effort other than me quickly adjusting my scans to look appealing to me. But the work I do in photoshop on a scan doesn't really translate to the darkroom.

If you are planning on spending a fair amount of time in the darkroom making a great print, you won't really save yourself any time by having a digital proof. There could be an argument made for playing around with *where* you might like to dodge and burn or playing around with the global contrast, etc., to see how you like something. It's pretty easy to do that digitally and in a nonlinear manner. But you'll still have to figure out how all those adjustments translate to the darkroom. And you'll probably only be able to do that once your in the darkroom printing. And as far as using a scan as a proof to see if a negative is even printable (too underexposed, etc.), well frankly it's easier just to read that directly off the negative and skip the scan or print completely.

I did, initially (10 years ago), see the digital scan as a great posibility for assessing a negative to print, but I soon found that it wasn't telling me anything of any use for aiding printing beyond the normal tools, obviously others mileage varies, but my experience didn't fit my 'workflow'.
Therefore, I can't see the benefit of trying to compare the two methods of image production when the methods are unrelated in how the image is resolved. The digital file won't necessarily tell you what is possible with the negative in the darkroom, a loupe, lightbox, proof and/or a couple of test prints in the darkroom will tell you that. I have scanned with dedicated film scanners and printed digitally with the best papers and printers, as have many of you, but most of the time it is the darkroom print I have in mind as the point of reference for the digital, not vice-versa.
Mark Walker.

I do scan most of my negatives (and transparencies), but I don't find it works very well as a precise guide to darkroom work. Like several others, I mainly use the scans to post shots in my PBase galleries and to make a general evaluation of composition and focus. And obviously one can spot the "oh shucks, I forgot the filter factor," "doh, what's that elbow?" stuff. I work mostly with medium format and an occasional 4x5 shot which are pretty quick and straight forward to scan on a flatbed. For 35 mm, I have a (very) low end scanner, but it's a slow PITA at best. When I've shot 35mm color negatives, I've generally paid a few extra dollars to get the scans on CD along with the processing to avoid even messing with them.

Some others mentioned an apparent ability to see a wider dynamic range with a scanner, which at first hearing surprises me. But last summer with my little infrared project, I did indeed find one negative in particular that I seemed to be able to do more with scanned than wet printed. I'm thinking that's probably just an indication I need to dig a little deeper into my printing methods.

Well, I, for one, am happy that the -Regulators- let this thread go. I do very little digital, I have a point and shoot for posting on e-bay, but that's it. I've been toying with the idea of investing in PS just to work with negatives, but I think I've been dissuaded of that notion. I'm new here at apug, and I love it, but I will say that the venom that comes out on some postings surprises me. Maybe this wasn't a purely analog thread, but it was of analog interest. Purity of thought....hmmm....???

The reaction to this thread has been non-venomous, but I agree it only hurts this site to be too thought policey about mentioning digital. I find the scan is so difft and so ugly usually, that it doesn't help me evaluate a neg better than a contact, even in 35mm.

That said, there are cheap alternatives to Photoshop, that will let you do 90% of what it does w/out the big investment. Definitely a topic for DPUG, but I use Nikon Capture NX2 as a cheap alternative to PS.

I started the thread and I've never found any APUGers venomous on any post. It's just passion for analog photography which I find great. I think photography and the world is becoming more interconnected. It's hard to have clear deliniations between digital and analog photography. We all have to admit that there have been mispostings and APUGers have been kind in redirecting or closing the post. My view is that digital is not bad, but something is lost with the digital process with fine art photography. It wasn't my intention to cause controversy. I think too hard of a line regarding hybrid digital/analog photography will discourage postings that will benefit APUG posters.

Let's talk about method then....

Can anyone here think of a good method to proof negatives, especially small ones like 35mm negs? I often run into this issue. Let's say I have a 36 exposure roll of the same or substantially similar images on all 36 frames. My task is to pick the "best" one to produce the greatest print. I can make contact sheets but the image size is tiny. I can look at the original negative on light table but the size is still small. I can scan and view on screen but it's time consuming and what I'll see is as much a raw image as negs will be. Printing all of them is way too time consuming, expensive, and wasteful. I have a stereo microscope (10x to 40x with under the table lighting) but handling negs on that is rather difficult.

What do you do to make this possible?

Magnify the contact print.
I bought a loupe for 2 dollars which serves this purpose very well.

Or get an 8x10 enlarger and put ALL your 36 frames in the negative carrier and project it onto a 16x20 inch paper

OK, venom was too harsh a word. Sorry. I was only guessing that the thread was reported to the moderator. Could be wrong about that. Any way, I appreciate the info I was able to glean.

I use a scanner for cataloguing film after development and before I cut it up and put it away. I only do this with 35mm because I have a Nikon 4000 and it does entire rolls in one go. It allows me to keep track of everything I shoot, which is really all it is good for. Using a computer for keeping track of images saves me beaucoup time looking for negs. The only other use I have for scanners is for scanning prints to put online.

Why not just close every thread containing pictures? I mean, how could you possibly show images on a screen without using a scanner? This "rule" is so silly that it makes me want to leave the forum before I've even got to know it very well.

How does it hurt to talk about scanners? All of you are sitting infront of computers, which are not in any way compatible with analog photography. How about writing letters instead?