Enlarger Or Scanner

Enlarger Or Scanner

  • Total voters
    71
  • Poll closed .
A

ARCHIVIST

Well-known
Local time
11:12 PM
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
446
We all seem to be doing more and more scanning of our negatives. How many of you actually still use an enlarger as your primary method of producing a print?

I have two b/w enlargers that are my only source of making prints.

Regards
Peter
 
Last edited:
I (sadly) just don`t print anymore. Too lazy for the enlarger, too dumb for the scanner, both are presently gathering dust. So I farm out my printing to a guy with a enlarger. Heck, I probably will try to sell him mine
 
I just bought an enlarger, Meopta Axomat 4, for $10. I think the fellow would almost have paid me to take it away. So I plan to learn how to print traditionally some time soon, but for now it's purely scanning and printing digital files.
 
I've got a epson 4990 and a HP B9180. If I use permajet fibre gloss paper, I can produce prints every bit a good as those from a home darkroom set up without the inconvenience.
 
I'm currently in a queste about the quality of my filmscanning. I can't compare to wet printing, as I don't have an active darkroom for printing, only film developing. I can't compare to other scanners, as I only have one filmscanner.

Just pops to my mind: would there be other members willing to scan a couple of pictures from a sample negative that I send over and provide me with the digital files, so I can compare the quality to my scanner's result? I'm really wondering if another scanner will improve my quality and I don't want to make the investment without trying.

I could make it more objective by shooting ~5 pics of the same subject and send a couple for printing in a lab and a couple for scanning by voluntary members.

Anyone having a decent scanner (but not a profession (read expensive) one) who's willing to make a scan for me?

Are there other threads or resources providing comparison scans with different scanners?

Are there orther means to test a scanner's quality (e.g. calibration slides)? Any experience with that?

Groeten,
Vic
 
or both?
I picked up my Beseler 23C for $25 at a garage sale,
and got a Nikon Coolscan V for last Christmas.

I must say, there is no computer that I'm using that can create the tonality of a silver print. Or the smell :D
 
scan for "contact sheets" and organization. Use enlarger for prints for many reasons, but primarily because a used Beseler was only $100, much much cheaper than a decent printer for B&W, especially for larger than 8x10. Paper costs are a bit higher, but I'm getting more for my money, I think. Considering how much time I used to spend at my PC trying to get a decent B&W print out of my printer, I'm thinking wet printing is actually less hassle :)
 
Purely enlarging for me. My only regret is that the Day Job takes up far too much time and I wish I could print more often. No plans to change as I love the whole darkroom process and I find it very meditative and calming...
 
I can produce prints every bit a good as those from a home darkroom set up without the inconvenience.
Click to expand...

Toby, how good is the tone separation in shadows when you scan and print?

I have an Epson V700 and can't get the same separation on the computer monitor after tweaking in Photoshop (especially in deep blacks), so I went back to wet printing 2 weeks ago. It takes a lot of time, but the fiber-based prints are real beauties even when the photos are not that perfect.

I'm just curious, because I've never printed scanned negatives.

It's a treat to have a darkroom though and I don't think I'll ever trade it for scanning, unless I have to for some reason.
 
A scanner for proofing, an enlarger (actually two enlargers, one diffuser, one condenser) for serious prints. Since I rarely print smaller than 11x14 and sometimes 16x20, possibly larger one day (the reason I shoot mostly medium format and 4x5), digital printing just doesn't work for me.
 
350D_user said:
An MPP Universal enlarger dominates the upstairs bathroom.

That'll do me. :)
Click to expand...

My wife and daughter dominate our bathroom:D

Moved house five years ago and got a scanner as a temporary measure, still not got round to finishing the darkroom, I do the scanning dImage 5400 and post processing and have a local lab print on a agfalab2 its hard to fault the result.
 
For now, I make small work prints via my computer.
But, I am working towards building a darkroom that I will make real prints of the good stuff and continue to make work prints to show around.
Brian
 
Roma said:
Toby, how good is the tone separation in shadows when you scan and print?

I have an Epson V700 and can't get the same separation on the computer monitor after tweaking in Photoshop (especially in deep blacks), so I went back to wet printing 2 weeks ago. It takes a lot of time, but the fiber-based prints are real beauties even when the photos are not that perfect.

I'm just curious, because I've never printed scanned negatives.

It's a treat to have a darkroom though and I don't think I'll ever trade it for scanning, unless I have to for some reason.
Click to expand...

With neg scanning, the ideal I found is to have a neg that is either bang on or slightly underexposed. This is the opposite of wet printing as I always used to err on the side of overexposure. It's a bit of a bummer because I pretty much have to decide which workflow to use in camera as good scanning negative isn't necessarily a good wet print negative. I should also add I use my 4990 for 120 only, I don't think it's good enough for critical work on 35mm. I would also add that I never got a decent print with my old printer, an Epson R800. I was constantly piddling around but was never happy, particularly with black and white. I recently bought a HP B9180 and this printer is miles ahead compared to the Epson. It's self calibrating, and comes with excellent profiles built in. I got excellent mono prints straight out of the box with no colour casts bronzing or metamerism I could see. The prints I get from this are almost indistinguishable from fibre based prints, in fact I would go as far as to say if they are distinguishable from wet prints it would be because they are better not worse, and I've done plenty of wet printing. HP spent a shedload of money developing this technology and it really shows.
 
I scan on a V700 and print on an Epson R1800 using Quadtone RIP to get better b&w. I like the results, I was never much good at wet printing anyway and don't have room for an enlarger.

Ian
 
I've seen pretty good 35mm scanned B&W prints from a National Geographic photographer a few months ago. He did mention that it was quiet a bit of trouble to get the prints just right, so I'm not sure if there is really a shortcut.

The one thing that helps me to chose what to print in the darkroom is to simply scan the contact sheet and pick out the frames for printing. But I still go back to looking at the actual contact sheet to evaluate if I need to use a filter or not.

Thanks for the reply Toby! I see what you're saying about matching the exposure to the type of printing you do and that really is a no-go for me.
 
Neither, ATM. I'm just developing the film and putting it away for now. I'm waiting to go to Fort Dodge to get scans done. Also, I'm going to be shooting a project soon that will need to be scanned by somewhere with a scanner that can handle medium format, so I'm needing to save a bit of money.
 
Spend much of my day attached to either a computer or a CrackBerry. Scanning just doesn't give me any joy.

Going into the darkroom to either soup a roll of film or make some prints is heaven.

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom