Prints direct from film vs. prints from scanned film

[molsondog]

OK, experts.

 

[Mcary]

.

I can, of course, have them print directly from the film after reviewing the scans or I can have prints made from the scans.

Please weigh in.

This might sound like a strange question, but are you sure that the lab you're using actually prints directly from the negative as the majority of labs these day's using a hybrid work flow for majority of work they do. The ones that make prints the traditional way usually refer to this work as custom printing.

 

[Keith]

I know how good black and white prints from my Epson R2400 on Ilford Gallery Silk look ... they are absolutely stunning when you get it right!

As for wet prints and the conventional darkroom process ... I have little (no) experience so can't really judge. This should be an interesting thread though!

[edit] ... I meant to add, the quality of the scan is going to be a huge factor here!

 

[cnphoto]

none of my images when printed digitally have looked as nice as a 'proper' B&W darkroom wet print. a large wet print on a nice fibre based paper is a site to behold IMO.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

If you have a GOOD scanner (not a flatbed) and a good printer (I use Epson R2400) then you can equal darkroom prints. I did darkroom work for 15 yrs and was VERY good, I printed for other photographers here often.

 

[Keith]

I was musing ... it's a pity the greatest 'darkroom junkie' of them all isn't here to give us his opinion. 🙁

But I think I know what he'd say! 😀

 

[jjovin]

I have limited experience with digital printing but I saw plenty of digital prints from scans done with high resolution drum scanners. I even went to Galen Towell's (Mountain Light) gallery to see what the best of the best looks like. He scanned his slides at 12000dpi on a Heidelberg scanner and then printed them on a Fuji paper.

I have extensive experience with printing on fiber based paper with variety of developers. I also did modest (compared to B&W) cybacrome printing. There really is a world of difference. This is why I continue to use film and will continue to use film for years to come. The best digital just cannot match the best wet printing.
This is not to say that it will not happen in the future. Digital is getting better and better and certainly is more convenient. One thing I see often is that people equate convenience with quality.

Cheers

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have limited experience with digital printing but I saw plenty of digital prints from scans done with high resolution drum scanners. I even went to Galen Towell's (Mountain Light) gallery to see what the best of the best looks like. He scanned his slides at 12000dpi on a Heidelberg scanner and then printed them on a Fuji paper.

I have extensive experience with printing on fiber based paper with variety of developers. I also did modest (compared to B&W) cybacrome printing. There really is a world of difference. This is why I continue to use film and will continue to use film for years to come. The best digital just cannot match the best wet printing.
This is not to say that it will not happen in the future. Digital is getting better and better and certainly is more convenient. One thing I see often is that people equate convenience with quality.

Cheers

So are you saying the digital prints from slides aren't as good as darkroom prints? You realize that Galen's stuff was printed on the same fuji color paper that you'd use in the darkroom, don't you?

 

[Freakscene]

>In the hands of an accomplished technician/craftsperson is the quality of a print made from >scanned film equal to the quality of prints made directly from film?

To be honest, it has got to the stage where the digital process offers more than the darkroom. If you are only printing black and white, then they are equivalent - if you are good enough you can make either produce a really great print. Black-and-white silver technology is mature and has very few technical limitations. With the vast majority of colour processes there is a clear advantage for digital - traditional processes link hue, saturation and contrast and only heroic manoeuvers such as making contrast masks can address those limits.

A very few traditional processes get around this - dye transfer, for example, doesn't have these limits, but the materials to make dye transfer prints are unobtainable and very expensive even when they were available and the learning curve is steeper than steep.

Marty

 

[mrisney]

I have taken 2 classes from master printers. They both switched completely over to drum scanning and printing with Jon Cone inks, and Hahnemuhle paper. But they did 'image acquisition' with 5x7 and 8x10, and then drum scan. So I think the trend has been wet printing is often picked up earnest hobbyist. But the pro's and labs have switched over to high end scanning and printing. I love my Epson R2880, I am looking for a decent affordable scanner, but I have taken enough from digital scanning and printing classes, taught by master printers to know that I doubt I will ever wet print again.

 

[Chris101]

I do both: scan with a Nikon Coolscan 5000ED and print on an Epson 7800 using standard ink and Ilford Smooth Pearl Galerie or k3 ink and Ilford Gold Fiber Silk Satin paper for the hybrid route, or on Multigrade IV FB Matte for the darkroom approach.

Most of the work I display in galleries and enter in competitions is made with the hybrid process. My personal portfolio is primarily the darkroom stuff. They both look great, but they are different media. The darkroom prints have an appeal to the sense of sight of course, but also touch that the digital prints lack. It is a joy to hold a fiber print in your hands, and it looks like nothing else on earth. When I show my portfolio, I hand 20-30 11x14 prints to the viewer who can then go through them. My hybrid prints are 13x19 or larger, and are in mattes and usually frames, because they have no "feel appeal".

I usually proof my work on an Epson 820 printer using Epson 'Ultra Premium Presentation Paper' (matte finish.) It looks similar to the darkroom prints I make, but smaller, and without the "real paper" feel to them.

----

As for looks, there is a difference between digital prints and darkroom prints as well. Digital of course, will have the advantage of being edited in Photoshop. I can crop, clone and contrast-adjust prints to my liking. These step can also be done in the darkroom, but with MUCH more time invested, so most of my darkroom prints are straight prints (although I do split-filter, masked, and sandwiched printing, in addition to cropping, dodging and burning, all the time.) On the other hand, the darkroom prints have a presence, and brightness range that is superior to any digital print, but it can take hours for a single print, and walking around in the dark is a lot more physical work than sitting in front of the computer.

 

[mfogiel]

I agree that a well done silver B&W print still has the edge - especially if it is not very big, as with heavy enlargements you also hit some limits dictated by your enlarger lens, vibration during enlarging, etc... However a good digital print is very close, and the quality is still improving with each new generation of papers and inks. In colour, the contest has been resolved already in favour of the digital, although some might prefer lab prints rather than inkjet ones.

 

[braver]

... and walking around in the dark is a lot more physical work than sitting in front of the computer.

For those spending 9-5 on their butt behind computers this can go either way preference-wise 🙂

What's holding me back, aside from the awesome look of darkroom prints, of even trying a scan-print process is the cost involved. Scanners with any sort of resolutions are very very expensive and inkjet printers are a black hole you can just keep shoveling money into. I'll stick to my €60,- subscription (including with free chemicals) and nights away from LCD screens thank you 😉

 

[dmr]

For my skill set, I can do far better prints on the 9180 than I could ever hope for in a darkroom!

I daresay that very few can actually tell if a high-quality modern print is done in the darkroom or on a newer inkjet.

 

[jjovin]

So are you saying the digital prints from slides aren't as good as darkroom prints? You realize that Galen's stuff was printed on the same fuji color paper that you'd use in the darkroom, don't you?

I printed directly from slides on Ilfochrome media. Fuji requires color reversal. Are they the same? You be the judge once you study the chemical processes that take place in both.

 

[Henk]

Wet !

Wet !

Nothing beats a wet print from a negative.

Long live film

 

[aldobonnard]

for 35mm, digital prints come close to a good FB wet print but imho do not equal them; on the other hand, it's so much easier to correct a print with PSP that this flexibility has no equivalent in the darkroom, and is so much faster and error-tolerant.
For medium format though, the darkroom remains my preferred solution by far (in B&W)
Also, traditional wet prints are more resistant to scratches (my experience)

 

[Ronald M]

They key is a good scan and careful printing. Walmart does not fall into that group.

As said, 99% of labs scan and print electronicaly with a Lambda or similar machine.

I do believe I read Kodak has has discontinued paper for optical printing so that may give you some idea how things are going.

The didital revolution is upon us. Get on the train or get left at the station.

 

[dap]

The darkroom prints have an appeal to the sense of sight of course, but also touch that the digital prints lack. It is a joy to hold a fiber print in your hands, and it looks like nothing else on earth.

I think you nailed it. As far as the average joe is concerned, they are not going to be able to tell a difference between a print made in a traditional darkroom vs a digital print if it is mounted behind glass and viewed at a distance. Now, if you hand them a raw unmounted print (assuming you used quality fiber paper for the wet print) I would be willing to bet that 99% of them would choose the one made in a traditional darkroom. That being said, prints are displayed behind glass and viewed from a distance 99% of the time so in the real world I don't think digital vs darkroom matters one bit (sure, photo-geeks can pick out differences, but their opinions don't count😀).

When I give a print as a gift I often let them handle the unmounted print (archivists are going to poop their pants at the thought of that one) before it is framed just because that is when it is at it's most impressive to the non-photographer...it makes it special in their mind.

I think traditional darkroom freaks (I will admit that I am one of them - I would rather print than shoot), want there to be more of a difference than there really is. Lets face it, in this day and age, making a wet print is a labor of love and, by golly, its not fair that somebody who never payed their dues toiling away in the dark should be able to produce a quality product faster and better than I can all while sipping a beverage and sitting in a comfortable chair behind a computer :bang:

 

[dfoo]

I do both. For inkjet, I use good papers with a real black and white inkset using scans from a LS5000. For my money the darkroom prints are better in most respects.