Scanner or Enlarger : What do you use?

[snaggs]

Please, no comments or arguments on others posts. Just say what you use and why. Im taken two of my latest favorite photos, had them professionally scanned and printed on my HP DesignJet 130 NR with excellent results. I've also dropped the negs into one of the best labs in my country for custom-hand printed 8x10 analog prints. Then Im going to compare them and decide whether money should be spent on a scanner or a Focomatt V35!

In the meantime, what do you use for colour and B&W prints, and have you done this comparison between your digital workflow and a custom print from your local pro lab?

If you had to choose one picture for the comparison, which would you use? Post it here 🙂

Daniel.

PS. How do I do the thumbnail thing which I see people do.

 

[Kin Lau]

Both. For b&w, I'll usually scan first, then maybe print digitally at home first, and then setup the enlarger when I have the time, and I'm not too lazy/tired and do a wet print.

For c41/e-6, if I want a larger print, then it's scanning it, fix/colour-correct/crop it myself, and then off to the lab for a print.

I've had some non-pro lab enlarger colour prints, and was not satisfied. Pro-lab prints are just too expensive.

I've found that a 8x10 wet print off a Fuji Frontier (digital mini-lab) after scanning and making the changes myself, to be the best balance.

 

[phototone]

I use a scanner now. Actually several, for different film sizes. I prefer this, as I can make corrections on the negative or transparency once, and then make as many prints as I want.

Scanning has rekindled my interest in film-based photography.

 

[snaggs]

You've both found scanners capable of good B&W results? The scans I've seen thus far have exagerated the grain. What scanners are you using?

Daniel.

 

[EsaS]

Scanner. I have not sold my enlarger, but I think there will not be much use to it. Both B&W and color. And to be honest, I use more and more a digital camera.
Printing: Epson 2100 (2200 in US), Qimage as printing software, black only and QTR for B&W, depending on needs.
I have not done any comparison tests, but as an amateur I am completely satisfied with results as they are now.
No exact colours (no calibration) but "good enough to me".
cheers, Esa

 

[phototone]

You've both found scanners capable of good B&W results? The scans I've seen thus far have exagerated the grain. What scanners are you using?

Daniel.

Nikon 9000ed...it produces wonderful tonality. Scanning at 4000dpi. The grain of the film of course depends on how much you sharpen it up in Photoshop.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Colour: scanners

Mono: enlargers

No contest in either case, I'd say.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[Nikon Bob]

Scanner, I spend too much time in the dark without having a darkroom. I use C41 35mm film and scan with a Minolta 5400. I print my own up to 8x12 inches with an HP 7960 including B&W from converted colour scans. It would not surprise me to find that printing larger sizes by a lab is as cheap or cheaper. Anyway just use what you think gives you the results you want after you have done your comparison.

Bob

 

[r-h]

Hi,
near 100 % BW on film, scanner and since four weeks a Epson 2100 (US 2200) with Niagara II ink supply and European Ink CarboPrint inks.
Reason: Simple no space to set up a dark room (I do 4x5" as well and these enlargers are only hard to move)
For colour I own a Panasonic LC-1 an these pictures go online to the lab.
Regards
Robert

 

[hth]

Scanning for color, especially for slide film digital scanning is a godsend.

For B&W I do both.

I am a lazy darkroom user with no intention to improve which means that hard to print negatives, especially if they need to be cleaned up must be scanned and retouched.

The little fiber paper I tried have been very nice, but it gets so buckled, normal RC stuff works fine. You can print more quickly in the darkroom compared to scanning.

I have just started out printing B&W digitally and the results are very promising, but it takes time to print. On the other hand I do not have the setup time (if you lack a permanent darkroom like I do) and I can do a single print or two without having to mix up new chemicals.

I printed various pictures on RC, fiber and digitally and spread then out on a table for some collegues (not photo related) to evaluate and comment. Not a very scientific test, but they indicated they liked the fiber prints, but also the technically best digital prints as well.

Since I recently moved and have even harder to do traditional darkroom work at the moment, I scan. For the best negatives I guess I will eventually try to interpret them in the darkroom as well.

My advice: Try/do both.

 

[RubenBlaedel]

big loads of film I get scanned professionally on a drum scan but all smaller amount i scan on a artixscan 120 tf
I have not sold my enlarger yet and I will set up a darkroom again for oldstyle fiberbased non-multigrade papers - just have not got the time right now
Cheers Ruben

 

[Kin Lau]

You've both found scanners capable of good B&W results? The scans I've seen thus far have exagerated the grain. What scanners are you using?

Daniel.

I'm using the old Minolta Scan Dual, only 2700dpi with Vuescan. Depending on the film, it can be a bit grainy, but FP4+ & APX100 in Rodinal seems good. Vuescan also has options to minimize grain, but can cause the scan to be a bit soft. I'm not as fussy about grain, so ymmv. Checkout my gallery for my typical results... no works of art there, just having fun.

 

[aizan]

i recently dug up my scan dual. it now goes for $40 on ebay, but it's still a nice scanner!

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

For color: Scanner

For B&W: Enlarger and fiber prints. No contest!!

Wayne

P.S. If by "thumbnail thing" you mean the photos under our name. You need to go User CP (control panel) on the menu bar. Open this and click on (I think it is either add or edit avatar.) This will give you the options on how to upload a photo for your avatar.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I shoot only film, 95% b&w, scan 35mm and 6x7 with Minolta MultiPro and output to an Epson 1280. I've been printing b&w this way for several years using MIS inks and believe my b&w prints are of the same quality at least as from a traditional wet process. Different look? Yes. But as good? Also yes. FWIW, I once was a pretty fair wet darkroom b&w printer.

Lately I've been shoot a series in 6x7 chrome, scanning and outputting using MIS archival GP pigment inks in my 1280. I'm very happy with the results once I calibrated my scanner and monitor plus has custom profiles made for my ink / papers / printer combo.

Traditional family snaps are done color C-41 and printed on a Frontier where the lab manager knows me and my other work.

 

[FrankS]

95% B+W film, wet silver prints, 35mm usually gets printed full frame on 8x10 paper, those I want to share over the internet get flatbed scanned

3% colour neg film, supermarket processed with 4x6 prints for family snaps

2% digital camera snaps for meaningless, transient images like pictures of film equipment for sale

 

[snaggs]

Well, I put a Focomat V35 on layby. Im thinking that in the future, even IF digital B&W becomes as good as analog fibre prints, that people will yearn for the different look and "handmade" style.

Getting the gear now whilst people are practically giving them away seems prudent, and I've yet to hear anyone say that a B&W chemical print doesn't look good. Seems mostly time related, and I look forward to more time AWAY from the computer.

Daniel.

 

[Tim]

.... I look forward to more time AWAY from the computer.

Daniel.

amen to that!

 

[snaggs]

I pay A$8 ($US6) for a tweaked (each frame adjusted) base/16 scan on a Fuji Frontier... talk about convenient... find a good Fuji Frontier lab operator and support them.

Daniel.

 

[GeneW]

Scanner for me. A Minolta 5400 and I'm happy with the results in B&W. Sometimes a little grainy, but that depends quite a bit on which developer I use -- I shoot mostly Tri-X. I still own darkroom gear but will never use it again -- just haven't got around to selling it yet. Nice stuff too, but I'm far better at Photoshop than I ever was at darkroom printing.

I do love traditional prints though, and my compromise, for a few special shots, is to have them custom darkroom printed for me at Toronto Imageworks. They're better printers than I am anyway ... For the rest, as long as they're warm toned, I get good digital prints by sending them to Future Photo (a Canadian company). I don't own a photo printer.

Gene