Lens and wet vs digital printing

[ChrisN]

Question from a darkroom-deprived person:

Will a top-quality darkroom print be "better" than a top quality digital print? (Not quite sure what I mean by "better" - perhaps more resolution?)

What I'm wondering is, to see the difference that a top-of-the-line lens is supposed to provide over a lesser lens (eg a Summicron 35/2 ASPH vs a CV 35/2.5), do I need to be doing darkroom prints rather than digital prints? Will a darkroom print bring out qualities that digital scanning and printing cannot extract?

To what extent does the film also effect this? If I'm looking for resolution I guess I want the finest-grain film. Will a medium-grain film (eg HP5?) make it more difficult to extract the differences between the lenses?

Obviously printer quality ties in here too - consumer grade printer, top-quality home printer, mini-lab (digital), pro-lab (digital).

To put the question another way, if I'm using HP5, scanning at 4000dpi, and printing digitally to 8x10, should I expect to be able to see any difference between a CV lens and a Leica lens? (And leaving bokeh aside for the moment.)

I guess if I have to ask the question, the answer is obviously no! 😛

 

[FrankS]

Interesting question. Some people will think yes, others will think no, and both groups will be able to rationalize their opinion. It would be most useful to find someone who has actually done both (printing methods) from the same negative. Only that experience will be useful. Every other post will be merely an opinion, and like noses, we all have one.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think that for the already-biased, you're going to have to be really specific: do you mean for printing only negatives on a darkroom vs the virtual aka digital darkroom?

I understood what you meant, but I just wanted to throw that out there.

I think that unless you have the outmost "professional" drum scanner, with the most perfect color-management system and most excellent piezzo or whatever "professional quality" computer-connected printer, and an equal, but "perfect" handling of film negatives (absolute cleanliness, etc.), I think that it would all come down to the darkroom or computer skills of the operator/printer.

Having both environments being handled by the most over-qualified operator in either, I really believe that it would be a :: ahem :: photofinish race.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

To put the question another way, if I'm using HP5, scanning at 4000dpi, and printing digitally to 8x10, should I expect to be able to see any difference between a CV lens and a Leica lens? (And leaving bokeh aside for the moment.)

That's a completely different question. And the answer is, in general, *yes*. You can see the differences between lenses. I've never printed any of my pictures taken with my Leica lenses on a darkroom, and I can absolutely tell differences. When it's stopped down (and that's rare), it's rather difficult, but wide open, I can tell certain things.

But you're just inviting the age-old question (and neverending "nattering nabobing"): "Coke or Pepsi?"

 

[Nikon Bob]

There is no clear answer to what you are asking because there are so many variables involved. I think everyone stumbles around a bit till they find a combination that satisfies them. If you are satisfied then that is all that matters. My body parts are out of here.

Bob

 

[aad]

I think many lens characteristics-the ones that people care about-will come out either way.

As to which method is better-years ago when I used to have prints made, the quality was very uneven. These days it's rare to get a really "bad" print, and I'm sure it's because the equipment is more consistent and maybe easier to control.

I may try a comparison-I have access to both a very good "digital" type la as well as a serious B&W traditional printmaker. I have a negative I want done well-I may "double" my pleasure in the interest of science.

 

[back alley]

not really sure what the question is or if there was 2 questions here...

on my walls i have my own darkroom made prints (my darkroom, my hands) and also lab produced digital prints.
not one guest in my house has commented on any differences.

joe

 

[ChrisN]

Thanks for the comments and feedback. Bob's probably right - too many variables. And you're right too Joe - at least two questions there. 🙁

I guess I should pare it back to the minimum - the differences that exist on the negatives. Same roll of film, same exposure, same scene, just different lenses. Affter that, assuming that the two negatives are in some way different from each other, how can it be seen? With naked eye? With a loupe? With a scanner? When projected/enlarged? When printed at 8x10?

Nah - just beating myself up here for no good reason. 🙂 Trying to learn to see the differences between lenses. I shot a series of photos to compare the two lenses, same exposure and subject, at minimum aperture, f5.6, maximum aperture. I expected to see a pretty clear difference between the Summicron 35/2 ASPH and the CV35/2.5. After all, one cost bucket-loads more than the other. Scanned at 4000dpi, I can't see much difference between the two at f5.6, and the differences at either end of the aperture scale are not as great as I expected. Thought maybe there are differences that only show up when properly printed (ie "proper" = darkroom).

Some conclusions: 1. The more I play the more impressed I am with the CV 35/2.5. 2. Maybe I need to start my lens appreciation self-education course with some lenses that are at really opposite ends of the scale. 3. Or maybe I just don't have the eye. (Note to self: stop worrying about this and go out and take some pics!!)

Cheers!

 

[Nikon Bob]

Chris

In real world photo taking, unless a lens is horribly bad, the differences between a good lens and a better one may not be that apparent when viewing prints of equal quality at normal viewing distances. As for paying a lot more for one than the other, you are looking at the law of diminishing returns. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth and just enjoy that CV.

Bob

 

[back alley]

all things being equal i would start looking at -

* the corners of the print
* the difference in shadow detail in one or the other print
* how well details are resolved

if one print was more pleasing to my eye than the other.

 

[Peter Klein]

The attached picture was taken on Neopan 1600 in horribly dim light. The subject is a dear friend of mine who passed away far too young. I scanned the picture at 4000 dpi (Canon FS4000us). It makes a decent 8x10 or letter-sized print.

The Seattle Symphony performed a memorial concert for my friend, and I was asked to provide a large print of this photo for the lobby. I could not get the level of quality I wanted at 11x14. So I took it to Panda, a B&W specialy lab, and they made a nice 11x14.

The reason was not resolution, but grain aliasing. When you are scanning, you are converting the image to little squares. When the size of the grains are close to the size of the squares, interesting things happen, and you end up with clumps of squares that are bigger than the original grain clumps. So the scanned image appeared to "break apart" at 11x14, whereas the optically printed one was just fine.

As to seeing the difference between Leica and VC lenses, you often can wide open. Stopped down, it's more subtle. The newest Leica lenses sometimes have a bit more smooth tonality and a sparkle in the highlights that the VC lenses don't. But the VC lenses are very, very good.

--Peter

 

[ChrisN]

Peter - thanks for sharing that photo - a good one to remember your friend.

Your thoughts raise a few ideas in my mind.I wonder if a lesser scan resolution would have avoided the grain size issue? And I guess a finer grain film would not suffer the same problem either (at that scan resolution). Maybe there's an optimum scan resolutionfor each B&W film?

And I also guess that I might see a different result with a slow- or medium-speed colour film, too. I've noticed some people prefer to use colour film and convert to B&W in photoshop. More to think about.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Chris

There are people in this forum that shoot high iso traditional silver based B&W film,merciful springs to mind, that I would think could make large prints of their work with little grain trouble. The trick seems to be that they develope their own and how they do it. Developers and timings seem to make a huge difference with each film. This is coming from a person who has never home processed so take it for what it is worth. Maybe contact merciful for an answer. This is just another of the many variables from image capture to print.

Bob

 

[Ukko Heikkinen]

Grain Or Scanner Noise?

Grain Or Scanner Noise?

The reason was not resolution, but grain aliasing. When you are scanning, you are converting the image to little squares. When the size of the grains are close to the size of the squares, interesting things happen, and you end up with clumps of squares that are bigger than the original grain clumps. So the scanned image appeared to "break apart" at 11x14, whereas the optically printed one was just fine.
--Peter

Hello Peter

Grain is not a problem - scanner noise is.

The image (Grain.jpg) is Neopan 1600, scanned at 5400 DPI, actual size

On the white jacket of the fellow there is film grain. What you see in the shadows is not grain but scanner noise.

Fortunately it is more often than not relatively easy to dissolve the noise.

Scanner noise can be avoided by exposing for the deepest shadows.

Ukko Heikkinen

 

[Finder]

If you want to see the relative difference between two lenses, shoot test pictures with each using the same type of slide film and compare shots of the same aperture. That way only the film is altering the lens results. If you scan an image, there are suddenly a lot more varibles in the process and it is hard to know where the lens ends and the scanning/computer/monitor/CM/printer begins.

 

[phototone]

Interesting question. Some people will think yes, others will think no, and both groups will be able to rationalize their opinion. It would be most useful to find someone who has actually done both (printing methods) from the same negative. Only that experience will be useful. Every other post will be merely an opinion, and like noses, we all have one.

Well, I have standardized on scanning my 35mm negatives at 4000 dpi, and I do this very carefully, and I can say "Yes" you can see the characteristics of different lens types in the resulting prints, although I often print larger than 8x10. If you want to confine your printing to 8x10 the differences will be less obvious. I get better sharpness with scanned negatives printed to my Epson 9600 Ultrachrome printer (b/w or color) than I was able to get in my professionally equipped darkroom. If you are printing a 35mm to 8x10, you are cropping the negative, and to really judge lens characteristics, you need to print the image full frame, say about 8x12, so you can look at the lens' imaging right out to the edge of the frame. If you are limiting yourself to 8x10 paper in the darkroom then you will need to print about a 7x10 image, which is fairly small to be judging lens characteristics.

That is my experience, not my opinion.

 

[ChrisN]

Thanks, all

Bob - good point; so far I only use one film and developer (thought I'd better master that before trying others; now have consistent results so I'm happy with HP5 at the moment.

Ukko - I've not seen any reference to scanner noise before - something else to read up on!

Finder - good suggestion about the slide film - I might try that too.

PT - that's more grist for the mill, and another useful reference point. I do need to upgrade my printer as a next step. Good point about 8x10 and full fame.


Plenty here for me to think about. I hope my comment about the Leica lens "I expected to see a pretty clear difference between the Summicron 35/2 ASPH and the CV35/2.5. After all, one cost bucket-loads more than the other" didn't give the impression that I'm expecting to get better photos from a Leica lens, simply because it is expensive. I know that won't happen! But I'm keen to learn how these lenses perform - I like to understand the equipment I'm using. Leica lenses have such a wonderful reputation - the only way to find out for myself was to buy one and start to play and compare. I'm just lucky that I've reached the point where I can afford a few indulgences like this.

Thanks and best wishes all.

 

[Toby]

I'm not sure if 400 asa B&W white film is the correct medium for comparative lens testing. I would load up with slide film and take shots of identical scenes with each lens this may be more illuminating

 

[ChrisN]

As Finder suggested - yes - good idea.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Plenty here for me to think about. I hope my comment about the Leica lens "I expected to see a pretty clear difference between the Summicron 35/2 ASPH and the CV35/2.5. After all, one cost bucket-loads more than the other" didn't give the impression that I'm expecting to get better photos from a Leica lens, simply because it is expensive. I know that won't happen! But I'm keen to learn how these lenses perform - I like to understand the equipment I'm using. Leica lenses have such a wonderful reputation - the only way to find out for myself was to buy one and start to play and compare. I'm just lucky that I've reached the point where I can afford a few indulgences like this.

Thanks and best wishes all.[/QUOTE]

I have also reached the point where I can afford a few indugences and should have known from past experience with other things that high cost and reputation do not translate directly to greatly superior performance in day to day use. That is why they are indulgences. OTH they sure are nice to use and to try and get the most out of them. They are more demanding of the user.

Bob