Scanned prints vs. scanned film

[boffen]

So as soon as the local student dark room registers me as a paying member I'll have access to what the rumors say is the best-equipped darkroom in Oslo. Obviously this means I'll start wet printing, and therefore I wonder how scanned prints compare to scanned film (using a flatbed). I'm not very happy with the sharpness my V600 produces, I don't know if I'm doing something wrong or if the V600 just isn't that good a scanner.

Anyway, will a good scan of a good print look better than a good scan of a good negative using a flatbed scanner?

 

[aad]

I think we will wait for you to answer that question!

 

[Particular]

I think it depends on whether you are more competent in the darkroom, or on the computer. There also is the question of what the 'product' is. Are you scanning to print out, or are you printing to scan and view on screen.

 

[Steve M.]

Are you talking about 35mm? You need a better scanner for that. It's difficult to compare a scanned print to a scanned negative, and a flatbed obviously isn't going to give you the same result as a dedicated film scanner.

My experience w/ Epsons is that you need to do a lot of post processing to get good results. I found that even an old 2450 gives excellent results w/ 6x6 and larger, but is hopeless for 35mm.

 

[benlees]

When I started wet printing I found a new appreciation for both good printers and my humble V700! The scanner easily gets more details from contrasty negs than I do when I wet print. Still learning. All I can say is get better results from my V700 scanning negs more quickly, than I do printing. Hopefully, this will change!

 

[d_ross]

there are some things you can only do to a print in the darkroom, in this respect then scanning a print is better, however a scan from say the Epson V700 will render much more detail from film than you will ever get in the darkroom, unless you have unlimited money and time and skill!

So as long as you can convert that detail into a print with your photoshop skills, then scanning the film will usually be better. As with anything though the best process is the one the render the result you want in your final image. My suggestion is try a few both ways and get a feel of which works best for your desired result.

People who scan both 35mm and larger films always seem to say the V700 is no good on 35mm, I think it's more that they compare them to the larger film scans, as long as the film is flat the scanner scans the same way regardless of film size, just like wet printing you cant go as big with 35mm as you can with 6x6 etc.

 

[Turtle]

I think you will get more detail in a wet print than a scan from a flatbed like the V700.

What do you want to use the digitised images for? I photography my prints and upload these files to my website. For everything else the display print is the original. I have done some large prints from drum scans of my negs but thats a very different deal to a V700.

Aside from the internet what would you need scans of prints for? The resolution of a screen is so poor, I get way more detail and quality from my 5D II copy shots of silver prints than I can possibly use online.

 

[d_ross]

I have printed many negs, usually 6x6, both in the darkroom and from scans from the V700, in areas such as a gravel road for example I could never see the detail in the darkroom print that the Scan delivers, drum scans do much the same from B&W film in my opinion and give too much detail especially grain detail. but as Turtle says why would you scan a print? other than of course to have an accurate record of a print.

 

[glchua]

So as soon as the local student dark room registers me as a paying member I'll have access to what the rumors say is the best-equipped darkroom in Oslo. Obviously this means I'll start wet printing, and therefore I wonder how scanned prints compare to scanned film (using a flatbed). I'm not very happy with the sharpness my V600 produces, I don't know if I'm doing something wrong or if the V600 just isn't that good a scanner.

Anyway, will a good scan of a good print look better than a good scan of a good negative using a flatbed scanner?

Although I have a Nikon Coolscan, I gave up on scanning film long ago as I only do BW nowadays, and traditional silver halide film is very hard to scan.

I do a lot of wet printing though, and I thought maybe scanning 8R prints is good enough and I bought a V600 for this purpose. It was a bit disappointing. The scans of the prints are detailed, but the tones are lost when going from prints to scans. My Flickr account are all scans of 8R prints. It is just not as good as a direct scan of film, and the print itself.

 

[cosmonaut]

I just started up a darkroom after years of scanning with a V500. There is absolutely no contest the wet print blows the scan The sharpness of the enlarger lens is way better than a flatbed and I was using the stock enlarger lens. I have since got a better lens and am waiting for fresh paper to get here. Also the darkroom print will hold more detail in the shadows and will not blow the highlights like a flatbed will.
All that and I am a newbie. A friend of mine recently sent me a print, he's good at it, I was totally taken back with the picture.

 

[aad]

The question, I believe is an interesting one. The print is a finished work, a negative is something else-o if you wish to advertise your print on line, would not a scan of the negative be unrepresentative?

 

[t6un]

Scnning a print potentially gives you a better sharpness but worse tonality. Looking at the reflective media, some flare is always inevitable. Think print vs. slide... Also for color work, any transformation degrades color. And you add one when you scan a print instead of a negative.

 

[charjohncarter]

I've read both sides of the argument. But I have to say the guy that scanned his prints had better evidence to back up is assertion. His one caveat was that the print had to be superior quality. He really didn't back up his 'feeling' that the tonality was better but I got the impression he thought it did. I can't find the INTERNET site now but you might look.

 

[boffen]

Currently all my scans just end up on flickr, and the V600 is good enough for that, but in the future I would like to be able to share high-res scans, and for that purpose the V600 just doesn't cut it. There is no way I could afford a real film scanner in the near future, and by the time I can, there's probably few, if any, companies that still make/support those kind of products.

 

[shadowfox]

A print is a different object than a negative, right?

First, it's bigger, so your v600 should be able to pick up the details like paper texture. Therefore you can showcase a bigger, more detailed image.

Scanning 35mm using a flatbed tends to produce less than desirable tonality and detail, therefore you can only show low resolution images (fine for flickr, but not for printing out).

Scanning 120mm using a flatbed is actually quite adequate (in my opinion) provided you us a decent software like Vuescan that doesn't obliterate shadow details like the software that came with my scanner (Microtek).

 

[d_ross]

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]This is a discussion that could go on for ages because so much depends on each individuals abilities in the darkroom and on the computer- scanner, but it needs to be remembered that just like a camera whether a Canonet junior or Leica M6, with a scanner you cant just put film in it and expect good results. Scanning is a skill all of it’s own, there is a lot to learn, for example a flatbed like the V700 scans film, it doesn’t know whether the film is 35mm or 4x5, yet people continue to say you cant scan 35mm on flatbeds very well, the reality is it is harder to scan 35mm film. For starters dry your film slower and it wont curl, curling is one of the issues with 35mm scans. Make sure your film is flat in the scanner, do this if you have to by making custom film holders, I do this by using the 4x5 film holder in my V700 with inserts that hold the different formats I use. And learn the subtleties of your scanner. Then you will be surprised how good scans from even a moderate scanner can be. I have made prints up to 22”x36” from 35mm negatives that represent the negative extremely well.[/FONT]