williams473
Well-known
I am sick of the time it takes to make work prints, i.e. the first print I make of a new negative. It is sometimes hard to tell from my contact sheets what is going to be worthwhile to work up, so I usually opt to "err" on the side of excess and print anything that has a chance of becoming a finished print. More often than not, I end up shelving these prints as ones I don't wish to show, and a lot of the work involved in printing them is in effect, wasted time. So I was trying to figure how to cut down on printing time - I have gotten used to printing only on fiber-based papers, and it takes far too long to get to the end result. The process is signifcantly long and costly enough to make me question whether or not I should be printing a particular negative or not, and I view that as a problem that needs changed.
SO, I have decided to shift over to a good RC paper, (I bought Ilford MG Warmtone - which I've used and like in both RC and Fiber) and print small, then scan on a flatbed. I just picked up 100 sheets of RC for $34.00, which comes to 34 cents a sheet, versus 8x10 rag paper which is well over a $1.00 a sheet. And the small 5 x 7 paper size will enable easy, flat scanning. Also the nature of the RC will shorten processing and wash time, and I won't have invested so much time in unsuccesful prints. Then, whenever I need a nice exhibition print, I can go back to the rag paper and print a larger piece. Truth is, like most serious amateurs artists I know, I "show" most of my work online (exhibiting is too costly and time consuming for me most of the time) and I really don't think a scanner will be able to differentitare between surfaces texture or weight - just tonality, which this particular RC paper has tons of - it may even scan nicer than rag due to the smoother surface - we'll see.
And to answer those would would say why not just scan the film in the first place, it just isn't the same! I am not as good in PS as I am in the darkroom - that's what it boils down to. I just need a quicker way to get from an optically printed image to online, and I think this may work.
Anybody else scan a lot of RC - does it have a similar look to rag paper?
SO, I have decided to shift over to a good RC paper, (I bought Ilford MG Warmtone - which I've used and like in both RC and Fiber) and print small, then scan on a flatbed. I just picked up 100 sheets of RC for $34.00, which comes to 34 cents a sheet, versus 8x10 rag paper which is well over a $1.00 a sheet. And the small 5 x 7 paper size will enable easy, flat scanning. Also the nature of the RC will shorten processing and wash time, and I won't have invested so much time in unsuccesful prints. Then, whenever I need a nice exhibition print, I can go back to the rag paper and print a larger piece. Truth is, like most serious amateurs artists I know, I "show" most of my work online (exhibiting is too costly and time consuming for me most of the time) and I really don't think a scanner will be able to differentitare between surfaces texture or weight - just tonality, which this particular RC paper has tons of - it may even scan nicer than rag due to the smoother surface - we'll see.
And to answer those would would say why not just scan the film in the first place, it just isn't the same! I am not as good in PS as I am in the darkroom - that's what it boils down to. I just need a quicker way to get from an optically printed image to online, and I think this may work.
Anybody else scan a lot of RC - does it have a similar look to rag paper?
fidget
Lemon magnet
I can't help with comparisons of FB and RC paper print scans, but I did scan my RC prints at one time.
I scan my negs in preference to making contact prints. I found that I could easily tell which would make good (wet) prints from these in 35mm. MF is even more useful from a neg scan on only a modest flat bed and offers little gain in scanning a print rather than a neg, at least on my scanner and print sizes.
If I had an image in 35mm that needed some remedial "work" in PS (or GIMP in my case), particularly stitching images, then I would consider making a wet print scan, mainly to avoid the horibble grain seen on a neg scan.
~Dave..
I scan my negs in preference to making contact prints. I found that I could easily tell which would make good (wet) prints from these in 35mm. MF is even more useful from a neg scan on only a modest flat bed and offers little gain in scanning a print rather than a neg, at least on my scanner and print sizes.
If I had an image in 35mm that needed some remedial "work" in PS (or GIMP in my case), particularly stitching images, then I would consider making a wet print scan, mainly to avoid the horibble grain seen on a neg scan.
~Dave..