WHAT TO EXPECT FROM A SCANNED NEGATIVE

[W6PJJ]

I have been here before asking questions regarding what model scanner I should purchase to scan my 35mm and 2.25 negatives. Well, now I have another question. If I were to take a 2.25 negative and through traditional darkroom methods enlarge it to a 8 x 10, I could safely say my print is a 95% of what can be rendered from the negative under normal practices. Now, I take the same negative and scan it with a very high end optical scanner. Can I expect to achieve 90% composition of the image? I wonder what lab tests have been performed to validate what percentage of recovery is possible under most ideal conditions?. There may be a rule of thumb here but I have not been successful in my attempt to locate this type of data on the WWW. I'm all ears...

 

[Moopheus]

If you're going to compare the scan to a print, then I think it you'd have to consider your printing options also, but I suppose what you're thinking of is something that would give a result "most like" a traditional c-print? Say, for sake of discussion, a Chromira or Lightjet-type print?

 

[Jordan]

What exactly do you mean by "recovery"?

There are learning curves associated with both darkroom printing and film scanning, and operator skill plays a HUGE role in what kind of results you're likely to achieve.

 

[lenny]

If I were to take a 2.25 negative and through traditional darkroom methods enlarge it to a 8 x 10, I could safely say my print is a 95% of what can be rendered from the negative under normal practices. Now, I take the same negative and scan it with a very high end optical scanner. Can I expect to achieve 90% composition of the image?

It's quite difficult to beat a contact print. However, depending somewhat on the scanning, one's abilities, etc. it is likely that you can "recover" more using a high end scanner than you can in the darkroom with an enlarger. I think 95% is a little optimistic, considering one is going thru another lens, projecting onto darkroom paper with limited dynamic range, etc. But that's just semantics.

As Moopheus suggested, more clarification is necessary to answer you with a number. If I understand your intent, however, would I be correct in saying you want to know if the digital scanning and printing of a neg can be "as good" as what one can see in a darkroom? If so, the answer is an unqualified yes.

However, then you have to decide what your aesthetic is, whether you like prints made by digital means or not. Try and find an expert printer and take a look... They range all over the map, depending on all sorts of things. Finally, there are plenty of folks who really like darkroom prints and see no need of change. I'm not one of them but their views are just as valid. It's personal preference.

Lenny
EigerStudios

 

[sanking]

In terms of detail and clarity nothing compares to a contact print on high resolution glossy paper. On the other hand, printing by contact will most likely not give you as much control of tonal values as you can get by scanning and adjusting values in Photoshop.

Having worked a lot with both ULF negatives contact printed and with scans of these negatives converted to digital negatives and also contact printed, there is no clear winner but if one has great exposure and development technique I will side with the contact print from the in-camera negative.

However, anytime some enlargement of the negative is involved I am with Lenny in that you can get a better print by scanning with a high end scanner and printing digitally than by printing in the darkroom. Or, by scanning and making a digital negative to print with a process like carbon or pt/pd.

I recently re-printed some 5X7 negatives made in the 1980s, and originally printed in silver. I scanned the negatives with a high end flatbed (EverSmart Pro) at 2540 spi, and corrected the files in Photoshop. The digital prints I made on an Epson 3800 using QTR were much better than the original silver prints I made back in the 1980s. No question about it.

Bear in mind, anytime a comparison of this type is done the relative darkroom and digital processing skills of the individual must be taken into consideration. I am certain that it would have been impossible for me to equal the quality of the darkroom silver prints the first time I scanned and printed digitally.

Sandy King

It's quite difficult to beat a contact print. However, depending somewhat on the scanning, one's abilities, etc. it is likely that you can "recover" more using a high end scanner than you can in the darkroom with an enlarger. I think 95% is a little optimistic, considering one is going thru another lens, projecting onto darkroom paper with limited dynamic range, etc. But that's just semantics.

As Moopheus suggested, more clarification is necessary to answer you with a number. If I understand your intent, however, would I be correct in saying you want to know if the digital scanning and printing of a neg can be "as good" as what one can see in a darkroom? If so, the answer is an unqualified yes.

However, then you have to decide what your aesthetic is, whether you like prints made by digital means or not. Try and find an expert printer and take a look... They range all over the map, depending on all sorts of things. Finally, there are plenty of folks who really like darkroom prints and see no need of change. I'm not one of them but their views are just as valid. It's personal preference.

Lenny
EigerStudios