Lens and wet vs digital printing

[varjag]

A different but related issue is that it takes a lot of time and sweat to develop decent traditional darkroom skills; I went through a 100-pack of fiber 18x24 and not nearly there yet (not indicative of anything, but I tried my best). Wet printing is more laborous, time-consuming and error prone than digital finishing. You have to deal with dust, scratches, development time, temperatures, exhaustion of the chemicals, dust, enlarger focusing and alignment, uneven lighting, dry down factor, paper curl (did I also mention dust?).

Morale is: unless you already a good darkroom printer, it makes no sense to compare. And until you master this craft, your wet prints will be pathetic compared to digital prints.

 

[Fred]

A very intersting thread. I do all my own B&W printing in the traditional wet method. I'm also very fortunate to be able to use Leica glass following the untimely death of a fellow RF user and good freind. I still have my CV 35 and 90 lenses.

From my earlier prints with the CV lenses at 16 x 12 I was asonished how much better they performed comapred to my SLR Nikon zooms, better edge to edge sharpness and contrast. Now the Leica lenses have a certain look that I can't put into words but there is a definite difference, moew so at wider apertures.

The biggest differences I've seen can be seen using Velvia slide film, the images just have a look.

As for scanning, My Nikon Coolscan IV is not a patch on the wet prints, but it is old and I'm sure would be blown away by a modern scanner like the new Minolta units. Part of this might be down to operator error. Which reminds me to upgrade for the scans for RFF second book.

 

[JMP]

A different but related issue is that it takes a lot of time and sweat to develop decent traditional darkroom skills; I went through a 100-pack of fiber 18x24 and not nearly there yet (not indicative of anything, but I tried my best). Wet printing is more laborous, time-consuming and error prone than digital finishing. You have to deal with dust, scratches, development time, temperatures, exhaustion of the chemicals, dust, enlarger focusing and alignment, uneven lighting, dry down factor, paper curl (did I also mention dust?).

Morale is: unless you already a good darkroom printer, it makes no sense to compare. And until you master this craft, your wet prints will be pathetic compared to digital prints.

Thanks for bringing up this important point. I was a bit concerned about raising hackles with similar thoughts. In the darkroom each print is a little like an experiment as the print goes from exposure, any dodging or burning, and through the chemicals; then one has to account for many FB papers drying darker. Often, I'll like one part of a specific print and another area of another print of the same image, but they can only be combined by going through the entire process again, with all the possible variations. In Photoshop, one can make micro changes to the same print using many different tools/methods, and if it goes too far, there is always History. They are very different ways of working.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Fred

I am not really surprised that you found the CV lenses better than your Nikkor zooms as it take a very good zoom to compete with a good prime lens. Just out of curiosity, have you done a comparison between Nikkor primes and their CV counterparts? I am not knocking CV lenses, I have one, and would not hesitate to buy another if the need arises.

Bob

 

[Fred]

Hi Bob,

Sorry for going off tipic a bit.

Unfortunately the only prime I have is a Tamrom 90 Macro, I use that a lot for portraits although generally I tend to shoot digital these days with a D70. I don't have any other pimes in Nikon mount yet.

You're right that zooms have hard time compared to primes, generally more elements and more mechanical movement of those elements. It was just a big shock when I printed the results from my first roll with the CV 28 Skopar and 90m Lanthar. I knew there would be a difference but not that much. I'm sure that the prime Nikkors would give them a run for the money.

I think the CV 90 Lanthar is a higher contrast than the Tamron and looks like it just has the edge in sharpness. CV is crap for macro though. 🙂 I've not done a back to back test yet, I'll have to load a couple of short rolls, dust off the old F80 and see sometime. Since I got the RF I've not bought anything for the Nikon outfit, apart from the odd filter. I'm also shooting less digital for my own stuff

 

[Nikon Bob]

Fred

Thanks for the reply and that is really saying good things about CV lenses as that Tamron Macro lens is a very fine lens and no slouch in the sharpness dept..

Bob

 

[djon]

I've done both with the same negs, but its impossible to say one is "better" in any absolute way in B&W. Color's another story.

Silver paper makes better blacks unless you're using the latest glossy-friendly version of Epson (eg 2400) on semigloss paper.

Good inkjet separates and controls B&W tones better than silver paper. Inkjet can match platinum tone scale, silver can't.

Inkjet with 4000ppi scans (Nikon V and film strip carrier) of color slides and negs are superior in most respects to very expensive custom wet prints. Inkjet color has distinct advantages over wet color prints (eg accuracy, contrast control, sharpness)... Ektacolor prints from the 70s (some are starting to shift) are very subtle and smooth whereas inkjet prints seem to be less smooth...meaning portraits might be more friendly with Ektacolor, if Ektacolor prints were still readily available/doable.