tjkoko
Member
Is there some article that explains the up and downside of scanning negatives and printing them - as opposed to chemically producing prints in the darkroom?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Not that I know of, but having done darkroom printing for the first 10 years then scanning for the ten years after that to the present day, I can tell you what I think and why I scan.
I developed some nasty health problems from exposure to chemical fumes, despite having an extremely good and costly ventilation system in my darkroom. Some people are more sensitive to this than others; I've been in poor health all my life, so messing with chemicals was probably not a good idea especially since I began doing it at 15 and did it for 10 years after.
As for quality, I was very, very good in the darkroom. My prints from scans are better, but it took a few yrs practice in Photoshop to get that good, and it took the industry to get inkjet technology improved to the point where the printers could give wet-print quality.
We're there now. You do need a GOOD film scanner, not a flatbed (especially for 35mm film. Flatbeds do fine for 4x5, ok for medium format, crap for 35mm), and a good printer with archival inks like the Epson Ultrachrome inks. AND a good monitor.
Expect to spend $1000 on a monitor. Cheaper ones are not made for graphics work and even when calibrated with third-party calibrators like the Eye-One Display do not display tones and colors accurately enough to match the printer's output. Been there, done that.
I use an NEC Spectraview monitor, which self-calibrates with their sensor and software that adjusts the screen internally (cheap monitors cannot be adjusted internally so calibrators adjust your graphics card's lookup table, which lowers accuracy). I used a Spectraview 2190UXi for 4 yrs and its is getting close to the point where it cannot be calibrated anymore (screens dim as they age), so I replaced with the PA241W, which is an incredible screen.
It doesn't matter how nice you can make the image look in photoshop on the screen if your prints do not match the screen. Don't skimp on a screen! Use a cheap computer if you have to save money, but don't skimp on the screen.
Ok, upsides:
Repeatability. If you need multiple prints of an image that needed a lot of dodging and burning, making them identical is hard and takes practice to do in the darkroom. In photoshop you do the work on the file once and every print is identical!
Control: You have far more subtle control of color and tone in Photoshop compared to the darkroom, and can dodge and burn more accurately and can do it on more areas and smaller areas. Downside is, you can be obsessive/compulsive and drive yourself crazy trying for perfection that is out of the hands of mere mortals. I do that a lot.
Safety: No chemicals. No toxic fumes, no ventilation system needed, nothing soaking into your skin.
Archives: Scans give you backup copies of your film that can be copied onto multiple hard drives and stored offsite for redundent backup. If your house floods or burns down, you lose your film forever. Downside: you need to actually keep multiple copies of your files in different locations for this to work. If you keep your only digital files in your house, they suffer the same fate as the film.
Paper choices: There are more choices for inkjet, like watercolor, etching paper, RC paper, and traditional fiber paper. You can also take your files to a lab for printing on regular silver-based photo paper! Downside: Inkjets are still not as archival as silver based black and white prints but those from good printers are probably equal or better than color prints on traditional paper.
I developed some nasty health problems from exposure to chemical fumes, despite having an extremely good and costly ventilation system in my darkroom. Some people are more sensitive to this than others; I've been in poor health all my life, so messing with chemicals was probably not a good idea especially since I began doing it at 15 and did it for 10 years after.
As for quality, I was very, very good in the darkroom. My prints from scans are better, but it took a few yrs practice in Photoshop to get that good, and it took the industry to get inkjet technology improved to the point where the printers could give wet-print quality.
We're there now. You do need a GOOD film scanner, not a flatbed (especially for 35mm film. Flatbeds do fine for 4x5, ok for medium format, crap for 35mm), and a good printer with archival inks like the Epson Ultrachrome inks. AND a good monitor.
Expect to spend $1000 on a monitor. Cheaper ones are not made for graphics work and even when calibrated with third-party calibrators like the Eye-One Display do not display tones and colors accurately enough to match the printer's output. Been there, done that.
I use an NEC Spectraview monitor, which self-calibrates with their sensor and software that adjusts the screen internally (cheap monitors cannot be adjusted internally so calibrators adjust your graphics card's lookup table, which lowers accuracy). I used a Spectraview 2190UXi for 4 yrs and its is getting close to the point where it cannot be calibrated anymore (screens dim as they age), so I replaced with the PA241W, which is an incredible screen.
It doesn't matter how nice you can make the image look in photoshop on the screen if your prints do not match the screen. Don't skimp on a screen! Use a cheap computer if you have to save money, but don't skimp on the screen.
Ok, upsides:
Repeatability. If you need multiple prints of an image that needed a lot of dodging and burning, making them identical is hard and takes practice to do in the darkroom. In photoshop you do the work on the file once and every print is identical!
Control: You have far more subtle control of color and tone in Photoshop compared to the darkroom, and can dodge and burn more accurately and can do it on more areas and smaller areas. Downside is, you can be obsessive/compulsive and drive yourself crazy trying for perfection that is out of the hands of mere mortals. I do that a lot.
Safety: No chemicals. No toxic fumes, no ventilation system needed, nothing soaking into your skin.
Archives: Scans give you backup copies of your film that can be copied onto multiple hard drives and stored offsite for redundent backup. If your house floods or burns down, you lose your film forever. Downside: you need to actually keep multiple copies of your files in different locations for this to work. If you keep your only digital files in your house, they suffer the same fate as the film.
Paper choices: There are more choices for inkjet, like watercolor, etching paper, RC paper, and traditional fiber paper. You can also take your files to a lab for printing on regular silver-based photo paper! Downside: Inkjets are still not as archival as silver based black and white prints but those from good printers are probably equal or better than color prints on traditional paper.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Just out of curiosity, Chris, do you choose to continue to use film (even though you don't wet print) because you prefer the look and don't feel you can achieve something as good from digital?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Several reasons. I like the look of black and white film, and I've never been able to get quite the same quality of color from digital that I get from color transparencies for my color work.
Another is that I loathe electronic computerized cameras. This isn't just a complaint about digital SLRs, I hated the AF 35mm cameras too because everything was set on LCDs with thumbwheels and I grew up on old fashioned cameras. Not all cameras with auto features suck, I love the Olympus OM-4T (I have 3 of them) because its incredible spot metering system is so seamlessly integrated in a traditional camera design. I can operate it without thinking about how to operate it. Same with my even more basic Leicas and Hasselblad. I have never gotten to the point with digital SLRs where I could work them without thinking about the camera instead of the photograph.
Digital can give great quality. These were done with a Kodak 14n, which I no longer have.
Those are good, but I find getting a good black and white conversion can be hard. Getting good tonality from BW film is easier and film captures a greater tonal range in higher contrast light.
Color transparency in medium format is incredible, and I have just not been able to get the level of beauty from digital that I got from film in the shots below.
Another is that I loathe electronic computerized cameras. This isn't just a complaint about digital SLRs, I hated the AF 35mm cameras too because everything was set on LCDs with thumbwheels and I grew up on old fashioned cameras. Not all cameras with auto features suck, I love the Olympus OM-4T (I have 3 of them) because its incredible spot metering system is so seamlessly integrated in a traditional camera design. I can operate it without thinking about how to operate it. Same with my even more basic Leicas and Hasselblad. I have never gotten to the point with digital SLRs where I could work them without thinking about the camera instead of the photograph.
Digital can give great quality. These were done with a Kodak 14n, which I no longer have.
Those are good, but I find getting a good black and white conversion can be hard. Getting good tonality from BW film is easier and film captures a greater tonal range in higher contrast light.
Color transparency in medium format is incredible, and I have just not been able to get the level of beauty from digital that I got from film in the shots below.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
As good a sales pitch for colour positive MF I've ever seen. Nice Chris.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Thanks Eirik 
Moriturii
Well-known
So I need to spend 1000 dollars on a screen, 500+ on a proper scanner, god knows how many thousands for a inkjet printer and don't get me started on the ink itself?
I'll just pick up a full darkroom that people give away for free and be done. I've seen a few Leica Focomat 1c's for 50 bucks lately around where I live, should pick up one day. The couple of thousands of dollars I save should be enough for paper and film for a decade or so.
I'll just pick up a full darkroom that people give away for free and be done. I've seen a few Leica Focomat 1c's for 50 bucks lately around where I live, should pick up one day. The couple of thousands of dollars I save should be enough for paper and film for a decade or so.
btgc
Veteran
Film gear we pick up now for pennies in days of it's fame were as expensive as quality screens and cameras now. Same as with cars, we can choose one or another - both brand new mercedes and 10 years old mazda will move us from point A to point B, there's nothing wrong with it. But there's some difference and it's up to you (me, them) if you feel this difference and what's important, are ready to pay for it.
I occasionally wet print but must admit, while this is interesting, challenging and exciting, I do not like chemicals - neither skin, eyes or lungs. Hybrid workflow is real advantage for me.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This may be part-way to what you are looking for: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps hybrid darkroom.html. I wrote it before we got the M8, let alone the M9, but it does deal with how and when Frances and I chose a 'hybrid' route for colour and wet processing for B+W.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Matus
Well-known
No, not really. Just get a decent screen - $1000 gets you a pro model, but for around $500 (and maybe even less) you can get perfectl usable screen. Just make sure it is not a "PN" type of screen (99% of the market) but something like "IPS" that has better color reproduction and large color palette. Just GOOGLE this stuff for awhile. I got myself refurbed IPS screen - NEX MultiSync 2170NX 3 years ago for 180€ and it is more than I need. I am an amateur, I do not make mony with my pohtos (You will need the calibration tool though (like Spyder 3 or similar).
Do not get a scanner first - send you slides/negs out for scanning with something "good ebough" like Canon coolscan 5000 / 9000. I pay around 1€ per image for scanning and the qaulity is plenty. Imacon scans can be had for 7€ euro (in Germany) - those are 16bit raw files from 4x5" slides. Scanning yourself takes a lot of time and experience. Again - later it may make sense for you to buy one (that will give you headaches), but first things first.
Do NOT get your own printer right away - only do that if you will be printing A LOT (and selling). Again - find a decent lab that uses good quality printers and colors. There are MANY.
You will need a decent computer with lots of RAM and (preferably) a photoshop. There are cheaper software tools though (and something like GIMP is for free and still very powerful). Again - I run Photoshop CS3 on 3 years old 13" MacBook and use the external monitor for the work. It is just fine.
tjkoko
Member
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you all, especially Chris C., for the great information as it has saved me lots of time, $$'s and headaches i.e. skin rashes!
-T
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you all, especially Chris C., for the great information as it has saved me lots of time, $$'s and headaches i.e. skin rashes!
-T
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Thanks for the reply, Chris.
filmfan
Well-known
Staring at a computer screen vs. working creatively in the darkroom... I know which one I would rather do any day.
IK13
Established
It is quite ignorant to say that. Creative is creative, no matter the tools being used.
Joe Vitessa
Well-known
I don't think this has anything to do with creativity. It's all about the physical process of moving about or sitting on your butt in front of a computer screen (like I'm doing now).
I scan and print electronically, but I do miss the physical nature of the darkroom. Not to mention the community of working with others in our town darkroom vs. the isolation of the computer. Such is the direction our world is headed...
Joe
Roger Hicks
Veteran
'Ignorant' is, I think, the wrong word. Certainly, the darkroom engages considerably more of the senses to a far greater extent, and like many others, I find that creativity comes easier when I feel more alive -- which I don't when sitting in front of a screen fighting with Adobe. I don't fight much with Photoshop 4 any more, but whenever I get an 'upgrade', it's like an opera army: three steps forwards and two backwards.
Cheers,
R.
tjkoko
Member
...digital versus chemical, wow...
During the analog days I worked on the Sidewinder missile, brought up mainframes to 1052 state, engaged in bullet casting and reloading. And now, this digital stuff. Lots of considerations here as to my desired degree of control...
jbrianfoto
Established
I started out with a good scanner, and a good printer, but found the ink was way to expensive for the amount of prints I ended up with. Also the digital file size was so great that I had a hard time moving it around and storage space suddenly became an issue. Then I started to think about why I wanted digital photos - it was (for me) to post to the web and to email to my fmaily. Now I get very nice results from shooting copies of my negatives on my digital camera mounted to a copy stand using a micro lens and a short extender. After a little bit of tweaking I am getting very nice results. Let me know if you are interested and I'll provide more details (and tell about some of the troubles I ran into).
konicaman
konicaman
I like the combined work flow. I have been doing wet printing for some 20 years but don´t have space for a dark room right now (half a square yard of bathroom, kitchen with very large windows). Actually I feel that I am in better control with the combined process than with wet printing. Quite some stunning results from el cheapo Epson Stylus Photo 1440.
To the OP - you might like this site:
http://figitalrevolution.com/
To the OP - you might like this site:
http://figitalrevolution.com/
Field
Well-known
I scan instead of making contact sheets... Scanning is not that hard actually (if you are technology inclined at all). The learning curve is just irritating and many hours for several days. Funny enough it would probably only take a few minutes of the software for the better programs was not so irritatingly backwards. I just scan at 100dpi which is good enough for internet etc. You can do work in scanning programs to change exposure etc but... Photoshop does it a thousand times faster. Operating on pictures post-scan is way quicker.
It becomes expensive to scan when you need drum roll scans in order to blow a medium or large format negative to a very large size. Not that paper is cheap but... for the price of one negative on a drum roll scan you can get 20 sheets of huge paper. Funny thing is though technically you skip diffraction issues when you do digital. I wish I could compare enormous prints, digital vs. enlarger for sharpness.
Time wise enlarger printing is MUCH faster. I mean... if you have ever printed from a large art printer like Epson 9900, it takes FOREVER. Worst part is you can not have several going at the same time like you can with prints in a darkroom.
Chris what is your opinion on dodging and burning quality in photoshop vs. the darkroom? I have yet to compare the two. The exposure control seems to work well, but say Chris what are your thoughts on brightness and contrast in photoshop vs. darkroom? I lack the $ and time to print out scans that I have done to give a close inspection on those two points.
It becomes expensive to scan when you need drum roll scans in order to blow a medium or large format negative to a very large size. Not that paper is cheap but... for the price of one negative on a drum roll scan you can get 20 sheets of huge paper. Funny thing is though technically you skip diffraction issues when you do digital. I wish I could compare enormous prints, digital vs. enlarger for sharpness.
Time wise enlarger printing is MUCH faster. I mean... if you have ever printed from a large art printer like Epson 9900, it takes FOREVER. Worst part is you can not have several going at the same time like you can with prints in a darkroom.
Chris what is your opinion on dodging and burning quality in photoshop vs. the darkroom? I have yet to compare the two. The exposure control seems to work well, but say Chris what are your thoughts on brightness and contrast in photoshop vs. darkroom? I lack the $ and time to print out scans that I have done to give a close inspection on those two points.