hatidua
Established
It would very likely help if we standardized what it meant by "scan". Are we discussing 600mb drum scans or some device sitting on the kitchen table that cost less than $1,000? -there's a phenomenal difference in output quality.
Similarly, a home inkjet print vs. a Giclee or similar from a professional lab that does nothing but, for professional consumers, are worlds apart.
Like others, I've spent decades professionally printing images for commercial clients and have a hard time being dissuaded from the quality that can be achieved with a well executed drum scan and then printed by someone that knows what they are doing with state of the art equipment.
I shoot film, but I do not do my own scanning or my own printing. There are people that do that for a living and they are better at it than I would ever be. I earn my living shooting photos and pay the scan/print guys to do their thing for me.
Similarly, a home inkjet print vs. a Giclee or similar from a professional lab that does nothing but, for professional consumers, are worlds apart.
Like others, I've spent decades professionally printing images for commercial clients and have a hard time being dissuaded from the quality that can be achieved with a well executed drum scan and then printed by someone that knows what they are doing with state of the art equipment.
I shoot film, but I do not do my own scanning or my own printing. There are people that do that for a living and they are better at it than I would ever be. I earn my living shooting photos and pay the scan/print guys to do their thing for me.
emraphoto
Veteran
i am in a similar boat. i have a mighty good scanner but for exhibition prints and such i have been getting drum scans and pro prints.
i am going to move back to B+W wet printing and even then i am getting someone committed to it to do it for me. i scan and create a file for the printer to work towards. i am going to offer my next project as a wet print series of prints packaged up like a book.
hausen
Well-known
I have recently gone back to wet printing and I have to say it is as much because of the process involved in wet printing as the result. I find I can't sit at my computer for more than 45 minutes in PS/LR. Just can't sit still that long. Darkroom is so much more suited to my personality type and the results are now starting to come. Been 10 years since I have last entered a darkroom. Dust drives me crazy though. Have to say though reading Chris's previous posts regarding health issues has got me thinking. Great information above as always Chris, I love your concise accurate style of communication.
Also I agree with JSU on scanning prints. That is what I hope to do when I get back to a level of competence.
Also I agree with JSU on scanning prints. That is what I hope to do when I get back to a level of competence.
Greg M.
Member
Negatives and Scanning
There's a lot of good information to be gleaned at <http://www.normankoren.com/scanners.html>... and poking around Mr. Koren's site, you will find more information on scanners and scanning, in different areas.
This site is DATED... Koren describes working with a number of older, discontinued scanners... but the information on SCANNING, as a Craft, is still quite good.
Greg.
There's a lot of good information to be gleaned at <http://www.normankoren.com/scanners.html>... and poking around Mr. Koren's site, you will find more information on scanners and scanning, in different areas.
This site is DATED... Koren describes working with a number of older, discontinued scanners... but the information on SCANNING, as a Craft, is still quite good.
Greg.
d_ross
Registered User
[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]Try both whatever works for you is right.
Chris is right about the technical and health aspects for some people, but there is also the issue of your personal aesthetics and for those the prints are destined, if you just print for yourself then whatever makes you happiest doing it is probably the best thing to do. But if your thinking about selling your photographs you need to understand your market. Some people are quiet simply collectors of traditional analogue photography, and some are unconcerned about the media. Usually as a rule if your work is more contemporary then prospective buyers of your photographs probably wont care as long as the work is archival, if your work is more traditional B&W landscape or documentary then you may find there is a preference for silver prints.
I used to have all my digital prints done by a professional printmaker and Drum scanner, but now I have an Epson V700 and Epson large format printer of my own, and I get better results now, not because I am a better scanner or printer, as I am not, but because there was always a compromise of some kind that I didn’t like. I only scan med format and 4x5 and any 35mm work I do is wet printed always. Also Drum scanners can be overly harsh on grain in B&W negatives, and now after a few years of learning to scan I prefer the look of my scans when they are printed.
To say one, wet or digital, is a better printing method is impossible to say really, as every image is different, some simply suit wet printing better, especially from B&W film. I prefer to keep an open mind and consider the image, how it will look done both ways, maybe do a test with each, then make a decision and put my efforts in the darkroom or here whichever I prefer the look of.
At the end of the day it’s about what maximizes the image for you, not what I say or anyone else can ever say
[/FONT]
Chris is right about the technical and health aspects for some people, but there is also the issue of your personal aesthetics and for those the prints are destined, if you just print for yourself then whatever makes you happiest doing it is probably the best thing to do. But if your thinking about selling your photographs you need to understand your market. Some people are quiet simply collectors of traditional analogue photography, and some are unconcerned about the media. Usually as a rule if your work is more contemporary then prospective buyers of your photographs probably wont care as long as the work is archival, if your work is more traditional B&W landscape or documentary then you may find there is a preference for silver prints.
I used to have all my digital prints done by a professional printmaker and Drum scanner, but now I have an Epson V700 and Epson large format printer of my own, and I get better results now, not because I am a better scanner or printer, as I am not, but because there was always a compromise of some kind that I didn’t like. I only scan med format and 4x5 and any 35mm work I do is wet printed always. Also Drum scanners can be overly harsh on grain in B&W negatives, and now after a few years of learning to scan I prefer the look of my scans when they are printed.
To say one, wet or digital, is a better printing method is impossible to say really, as every image is different, some simply suit wet printing better, especially from B&W film. I prefer to keep an open mind and consider the image, how it will look done both ways, maybe do a test with each, then make a decision and put my efforts in the darkroom or here whichever I prefer the look of.
At the end of the day it’s about what maximizes the image for you, not what I say or anyone else can ever say
[/FONT]
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Sorry I took so long to answer, I didn't see this until today. If you do it right in Photoshop (select the area to adjust, blur edges of the selection, and put the selection as a curves adjustment layer), you can dodge and burn much more precisely and with far more control over density and contrast than in the darkroom. You can also be very obsessive-compulsive about tiny areas most people won't notice, and that is my downfall!
Here's how I do it.