do prints look better than scans

[jaffa_777]

I have noticed that in general, scans from film on screen in general look worse quality than shots from digital camera's on screen.

Having never shot film (will be soon I hope), I always thought it was because film was much lesser quality than digital, and comforted myself in my ignorance.

The reason I ask this, when I was in vietnam I met a famous vietnamese photographer who shoots all 400 BW film. Some MF but most 35mm. Now his enlarged prints looked absolutely amazing! Dripping with texture, creamy greys, deep blacks and defined edgey lines. I was blown away by the quality, and he had some good size prints as well. I have never been able to produce prints like that from my digital slr.

But looking at his website I have noticed what I always notice with film scans on screen. They really don't represent what the prints looked like. All the quality seemed to be lossed.


Why is this?

 

[markinlondon]

Silver prints will always beat small jpegs. There's just no way a low-res screen image can do justice to the tonal range of a good print. I scan prints btw. Once I've printed my pictures I can't see the point doing it all again in PS for web use.

 

[Pherdinand]

Just with wet printing, it is an art to produce excellent quality scans.
Even with today's good scanners, scanning film needs tricks to learn and experiment. And there are some limits that are there whatever you do.

 

[Turtle]

I have noticed that in general, scans from film on screen in general look worse quality than shots from digital camera's on screen.

Having never shot film (will be soon I hope), I always thought it was because film was much lesser quality than digital, and comforted myself in my ignorance.

The reason I ask this, when I was in vietnam I met a famous vietnamese photographer who shoots all 400 BW film. Some MF but most 35mm. Now his enlarged prints looked absolutely amazing! Dripping with texture, creamy greys, deep blacks and defined edgey lines. I was blown away by the quality, and he had some good size prints as well. I have never been able to produce prints like that from my digital slr.

But looking at his website I have noticed what I always notice with film scans on screen. They really don't represent what the prints looked like. All the quality seemed to be lossed.


Why is this?

Precisely 🙂

Silver prints IMO do have a wondeful tonality and depth which is often improved further by the imprefection of the materials used. images also lack the sanitary ultra cleanliness of digital which with black and white does not work for me. During my last exhibition, digital anoracks kept peering at my prints and asking what inkjet paper I used...what printer. It was quite amusing to watch, as if they thought I could let them into the secret that with a quick purchase and a few licks of the mouse they could share.....The real secret being that 'fuddy duddy' old techniques (assuming a LOT of hard work) kick butt when it comes to that captivating depth that elevates a print above merely being 'informative' .

I am sure digital printing will continue to improve at an incredible rate, but you said it, 35mm ISO400 film and you were blown away. Film IMO also forces you to become a better photographer as it is inherently less flexible. Digital has a tendency to change your approach, or at least does for many. A grounding in analgue is invaluable IMO. I for one agree with the idea that digital has more in common with painting or graphic design than film photography.

Both have their merits, but if that look is what you are aiming for, you could do worse than learning the fuddy duddy techniques of monochrome darkroom.

Have a peek at www.apug.org
It is a great analogue only site.

Tom

 

[Bryce]

Yup. What they've all said so far.
If you want those really nice looking prints from film you've got to keep the Intel outside. Chemical B+W prints and even chemical color prints actually do film justice; inkjet printers and especially scanners fail miserably to capture the original contents of the film. You can get around the scanning problem by paying for drum scans (something like $75 US per frame). A close second for B+W only is a quality flatbed scan of a print that's been printed with the process in mind, i.e. incomplete blacks so the scanner can actually see the shadows.
Printing via lightjet may solve the output problem. I haven't actually tried this, its quite expensive and only works once you've got a good scan, but I've seen color lightjet images from drum scanned 6x7 slide film that are gorgeous.

 

[jaffa_777]

Yes, we live in a digital age now and I think many people as I have fallen into the trap of viewing film quality on the screen and coming to the conclusion that film is nowhere near the quality of digital. I gotta get off the internet and start checking out more prints.

The look of film is a very beautifull thing.

 

[sf]

prints are richer

scans are more luminous

 

[Xmas]

A straight print will be better then a scan, both easy to do. If you have dust you will have to retouch, the print, more difficult

A burnt in and held back print on a nice chloro bromide and warm tone dev will burn off a photoshopped scan, by miles, the print will be really difficult to do.

Noel

 

[rogue_designer]

As with anything - it depends.

If you are a skilled darkroom printer, but less comfortable with a computer, your prints will be better. (And maybe you should scan your prints, rather than your negatives, for web viewing).

If you never mastered printing, but are comfortable with digital imaging tools, it is very possible that a well made negative scan, and careful processing will give you better control than a darkroom may have, leading to a better presentation of your images.

So - where does your experience and equipment lie? If you've been in the darkroom for years, and only have a cheap flatbed that can "theoretically" scan negs. Don't - make prints and scan those. If you have a dedicated quality neg scanner, and are comfortable with it - then the equation shifts.

It depends.