Wet Print vs Digital Print from negative/scanned negative - Thoughts/Comments

[Newt_on_Swings]

Ive been scanning with a HP G4050 flatbed, and I scan routinely at 2400 dpi. (I think its 4000dpi max? but never saw a difference only longer time) The film is placed in a raised carrier off the scanner glass. Vue Scan is the program used.

The resolution of 35mm and 120 film scans I get, are never as high or crisp as my prints unless I retouch them. I use a similar setup, LPL670xl, Rodagon 50/2.8 or Componon S 50/2.8 for 35mm, (new Componon S 80/4 on the way for 6x6) in the glassless carriers, on Ilford VC RC pearl mostly, at 8x10 and 11x14. I always check level for enlarger head and baseboard before sessions, and use a Mircromega grain finder for focusing. Prints are developed in dektol diluted usually 1:2, or 1:3.

From the posts so far, I think it maybe a combination of changes in post that create a more apparently sharpened image, editing tools like the sharpness slider in camera raw, or any number of filters or sharpening masks tweak the acutance. and as you said the print looked more contrasty, contrast plays a big part in perceived sharpness as well. besides printing on different grades, compare the same images on matte, semi gloss/matte/pearl, and glossy surfaces and you can see the differences clearly on how paper type can affect contrast, which affects the crispness the image looks. The images on matte paper look naturally flatter and less contrasty.

One other thing, with large blow ups, the head height and column vibration play a big part with sharpness. the slightest shake can be transmitted and create a blurry print. Even if you think its rock solid, there is still shake. wait for a few seconds after focusing and loading paper before you expose.

 

[2F/2F]

The problem isn't with The Analog Print itself and what it can achieve. It is with what it generally does achieve in common practice. It is with all the little details – equipment- and other-wise – that need to be paid close attention to and kept in spec. There are scores of things things that can degrade the optimum quality of an analog print. Analog printing does not forgive these things easily. Digital allows a lot of slop on the part of the user, while still giving passable results. There are things that are obstacles to obtaining maximum quality when scanning as well, but nowhere near as many, and they are easier to overcome by the average photographer.

So, in a way, I will say, "yes." It is definitely more likely for the average photographer, i.e. the photographer who doesn't dedicate a lot of time and effort to high-quality printing, to get better results from digital. But for the obsessive and skilled hobbyist or professional, there is no debate. Film looks better in every way. Maybe future generations, who are raised thinking that the "look" of digital imagery is "normal" will feel differently. But not me. I've made prints from computer files that I thought looked great, but never one that looked hands down "better" than a hand-made analog print.

So, I'd say to go with digital if you don't want to learn to get the best results from analog. If you do want to get the best results possible, stick to analog, and keep trying. It takes practice, and lots of trial and error. You can start by having your enlarger and enlarging lens professionally serviced, and then by purchasing a glass negative carrier and a high-quality easel. If you really want to be amazed, though, you have to go to at least medium format.

Here is an experiment you can try. Take your neg to a professional lab and have it printed in a glass negative carrier to three sizes: 8x10, 11x14, and 16x20. Have them do a drum scan of the same neg, and output it to digital fiber in the same three sizes. Have them do a flatbed scan, and do the same three sizes of prints. Then you can compare both of those results to the digital and analog prints you made at home, and stick with the process you think looks best.

 

[removed account4]

the a + d results are always different.
D just magnifies what is there
A interprets what is there ..
there is a huge difference.....

if your enlarged-prints aren't sharp
there is a problem with way you are enlarging them
maybe it is the lens, maybe it is the way you are focusing
maybe it is HOW you are focusing your image ( on the same paper printed on ? )
maybe something else ...