mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
Hi...
After a lot of years in the Darkroom as a working Photojournalist, I don't print in the soup anymore.
Can those of you who DO... tell me how your prints compare to B & W prints, made from negative scans in the 2.5MB to 5MB range [high quality scans]?
Thanks & ciao,
Mike
Illustrative, sample prints are welcome to mlg3633@yahoo.co.uk
After a lot of years in the Darkroom as a working Photojournalist, I don't print in the soup anymore.
Can those of you who DO... tell me how your prints compare to B & W prints, made from negative scans in the 2.5MB to 5MB range [high quality scans]?
Thanks & ciao,
Mike
Illustrative, sample prints are welcome to mlg3633@yahoo.co.uk
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
Hi Mike
I don't have any scanned material (from a print made from a scanned negative) to show right now...
In terms of tones, the "wet" bw print tends to have richer tones than that of a digitally (but non-inkjet) produced print made from a scanned negative. Perhaps it's the scan quality of the negative which accounts for this. I find the resulting scans to be grainier than what I'd expect to see, for example, from a medium speed negative. A silver BW negative appears to scan with more grain- it may be that the grain structure is exaggerated, or it could be that the scanning process adds some noise which make the picture look grainier. Scanner noise also makes the picture look grainier.
With some tweaking and scanning trickery, it would probably be possible to control the tonalities.
Then again, most of the 'grain' is seen in the monitor of the computer. We tend to view the picture at much higher magnifications. For instance, a normal 15-inch monitor which show a picture which is already bigger than an average 20x25 cm (8x10 inch) enlargement. At this viewing size, no grain is apparent. A print enlarged to the same magnifications seen on screen (when the grain becomes offensive) will probably show the same grain pattern.
My prints made by the Fuji Frontier digital printer doesn't really show distracting grain. It has grain which matches what would normally be seen in postcard, A5, or A4 prints if these printed directly from the negative through an enlarger. The blacks and greys come out quite neutral too- if the image files were properly edited.
I've also submitted digital files from scanned BW negatives (instead of prints) for publication. They don't look any grainier or less sharp. They (to my not-too-critical eye) look much like the other published photos which originated as bromide prints- even when printed on glossy magazine pages.
Jay
I don't have any scanned material (from a print made from a scanned negative) to show right now...
In terms of tones, the "wet" bw print tends to have richer tones than that of a digitally (but non-inkjet) produced print made from a scanned negative. Perhaps it's the scan quality of the negative which accounts for this. I find the resulting scans to be grainier than what I'd expect to see, for example, from a medium speed negative. A silver BW negative appears to scan with more grain- it may be that the grain structure is exaggerated, or it could be that the scanning process adds some noise which make the picture look grainier. Scanner noise also makes the picture look grainier.
With some tweaking and scanning trickery, it would probably be possible to control the tonalities.
Then again, most of the 'grain' is seen in the monitor of the computer. We tend to view the picture at much higher magnifications. For instance, a normal 15-inch monitor which show a picture which is already bigger than an average 20x25 cm (8x10 inch) enlargement. At this viewing size, no grain is apparent. A print enlarged to the same magnifications seen on screen (when the grain becomes offensive) will probably show the same grain pattern.
My prints made by the Fuji Frontier digital printer doesn't really show distracting grain. It has grain which matches what would normally be seen in postcard, A5, or A4 prints if these printed directly from the negative through an enlarger. The blacks and greys come out quite neutral too- if the image files were properly edited.
I've also submitted digital files from scanned BW negatives (instead of prints) for publication. They don't look any grainier or less sharp. They (to my not-too-critical eye) look much like the other published photos which originated as bromide prints- even when printed on glossy magazine pages.
Jay
Last edited: