Scanning or printing negs?

[tho60]

When I started to develop BW films a year ago, I got a lab to scan my negatives. Step by step, I have been unsatisfied with the results. So I decided to purchase a UPA-1 condenser enlarger (Made in the Soviet Union in 1957) and make prints. I upgraded it with a LED bulb (470 lumen).The result was that of disbelief. Where the scanned negative showed no details in black areas, the prints demonstrate a lot of fine points. The only negative I can think of regarding printing is rendering clouds: in the prints the whole sky is flat white, but the negative demonstrates clouds clearly.
Your opinion and comments are welcomed.

 

[aizan]

assuming you are printing on variable contrast paper, first figure out the exposure time to make the shadows look good. then adjust the contrast filter to make the highlights look good. there are books and webpages that explain the test print procedure in detail.

or you can do split contrast printing.

 

[mdarnton]

The lack of shadow detail in the scans is not inherent in scans--it's the result of inept scanning.

Either scanning or printing can do the same thing. Good scanning, in my experience, makes it easier to make a nice print than silver printing, mainly because it's easy to go after every little thing, and not have to do it in 10 seconds. Then once you do it, the next print is the same.

But basically the results are very dependent on the skill level of who's doing either job, much more than the process used. The learning curve for either process is steep for someone who wants to do the best possible job, then the process becomes much easier, once you have a handle on it.

 

[Gregm61]

Multi-pass scanning = good shadow and highlights detail. Labs do not do multi-pass scanning when processing film. A good lab scan costs, well, too much to have it done by the roll.

 

[tho60]

assuming you are printing on variable contrast paper, first figure out the exposure time to make the shadows look good. then adjust the contrast filter to make the highlights look good. there are books and webpages that explain the test print procedure in detail.

or you can do split contrast printing.

I use graded baryta papers, since UPA-1 enlarger cannot cope with multigrade papers (in 1957 they were not invented).

 

[tho60]

Multi-pass scanning = good shadow and highlights detail. Labs do not do multi-pass scanning when processing film. A good lab scan costs, well, too much to have it done by the roll.

You are right. The lab did bad work, so I concentrated the whole process in my hands. From bulk loading to wet printing I have took the responsibility.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My respect for using of UPA-1 and getting LED to it!

Then I'm looking at analog prints I'm regretting not starting with printing, but scanning.
Now I scan mostly for "contact prints" purpose.
I'm not into details in shadows, correct exposure thing. Printing for me is relaxing creativity and it is like jazz. Also if negative is scratched or doesn't scan well, it will be just fine on the print.
Plus, I like to have regular negative and choose developer of the print. Lith, "normal", homemade.

I'm not sure if model of enlarger makes any difference for MG paper. It is nothing but projecting optical device, MG filters could be placed in the filter holder attached to the enlarger lens. I have it for my Omega D5 XL.

Cheers, Ko.

 

[skibeerr]

I use graded baryta papers, since UPA-1 enlarger cannot cope with multigrade papers (in 1957 they were not invented).

Your enlarger has nothing to do with it, you can use MG paper the only thing you need are the the filters. If your enlarger does not have a drawer for square gel filters Ilford has a set of under the lens filters with a holder.

As for having no definition in the sky, that's what burning in is for.

Printing is very rewarding/frustrating, good luck and keep going.

 

[John Bragg]

The type of enlarger does indeed have a lot to do with how much contrast is in the final print. A collimated illumination system like a condenser enlarger will print a grade harder at least than a diffuser system enlarger. You may well have to back off development times by up to 20% if highlights are persistently hard to print.

 

[skibeerr]

The type of enlarger does indeed have a lot to do with how much contrast is in the final print. A collimated illumination system like a condenser enlarger will print a grade harder at least than a diffuser system enlarger. You may well have to back off development times by up to 20% if highlights are persistently hard to print.

OP wrote:"I use graded baryta papers, since UPA-1 enlarger cannot cope with multigrade papers (in 1957 they were not invented)."

I did not say there is no difference, I said you can use both condenser and color/vc head for MG printing.

 

[Dwig]

...The only negative I can think of regarding printing is rendering clouds: in the prints the whole sky is flat white, but the negative demonstrates clouds clearly.
Your opinion and comments are welcomed.

Try burning in the sky areas.

Using a lower contrast paper, either fixed grade or MC, can help retain both highlight and shadow detail in the same exposure, but you often get better results by exposing the whole print for the best shadow exposure and then burning in the highlight areas as needed.