TennesseJones
Well-known
I'm preparing some images for a small publication.
6x7 Tri-X. I've developed and made some wet prints that I'm pleased with.
But I wonder whether for publication I'd be better working from a drum scan of the negative, then 'developing' that in lightroom and sending that to he publisher?
Or just getting a good scan of the current wet print?
The publication will be a mix of digital and film shots.
Forgive my lack of experience in this arena!
6x7 Tri-X. I've developed and made some wet prints that I'm pleased with.
But I wonder whether for publication I'd be better working from a drum scan of the negative, then 'developing' that in lightroom and sending that to he publisher?
Or just getting a good scan of the current wet print?
The publication will be a mix of digital and film shots.
Forgive my lack of experience in this arena!
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
My bet if you are looking in GW, HCB books those are print scans. Yet, latest edition of RB "the Americans" was done with some editing to make it looks better in technical terms.
With very technical approach the difference between scan and wet print is none.
Personally, I do it wet, because I'm getting it looking different from the scan. And editing is not making it as good as doing it wet for me or by me
Mix of digital and film... If it is in the book, personally, I prefer it as scans of bw wet prints. Digital hasn't grow on me to be worth of paying for the book, yet. But I like it on inkjet archival prints
With very technical approach the difference between scan and wet print is none.
Personally, I do it wet, because I'm getting it looking different from the scan. And editing is not making it as good as doing it wet for me or by me
Mix of digital and film... If it is in the book, personally, I prefer it as scans of bw wet prints. Digital hasn't grow on me to be worth of paying for the book, yet. But I like it on inkjet archival prints
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Since printing press resolution is pretty low, I always work from a scanned print. I can make a good print, scan that and prepare that file much more quickly than scanning film and working on the resulting file.
megido
Well-known
A timely post as I am thinking about the same processes. I am leaning towards scanning wet prints. Is there much difference in how different paper surfaces and finishes scan? I currently wet print on gloss fibre paper.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Glossy RC scans best. There can be artifacts from the texture in deep shadow areas with fiber gloss, but that’s almost always what I scan from. If something has expanses of black I sometimes switch to RC for that one.
Have just barely started printing on the Bergger semi-matte and semi-gloss papers, I suspect they might scan beautifully.
Have just barely started printing on the Bergger semi-matte and semi-gloss papers, I suspect they might scan beautifully.
megido
Well-known
That's exactly what I was wondering about. Thank you for the advice. May look into the Bergger papers soon too. Please let us know how they scan when you get a chance.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Nach... They all fine as long the print is larger than publication. I print on 8x10, 8.5x11 FB gloss often and scan to share.
You just have to try to scan really old SG 5x7 FB paper with some fancy texture on it, once:
You just have to try to scan really old SG 5x7 FB paper with some fancy texture on it, once
:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I will. Not sure when I'll get back to the scanner, sometime in the next couple of weeks most likely.
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
I don't have a ton of experience with proper high end scanning of prints, but I have some experience with a Howtek D4000 drum scanner, and when it's dialed in it can make sharp files from a 6x6 that I wouldn't hesitate to print digitally to 36" across.
It may be easier/cheaper to go the print scanning route for a book as drum scans aren't cheap or necessarily common and are probably overkill unless your taking technique/film choice/development were all up to that same standard.
It may be easier/cheaper to go the print scanning route for a book as drum scans aren't cheap or necessarily common and are probably overkill unless your taking technique/film choice/development were all up to that same standard.
sanoire
Member
If you do much manipulation during the printing process - e.g. dodge/burn, bleaching, toning etc then you pretty much have no choice and have to go with the final prints as the reference. I just did a book and had the prints professionally shot on a copy stand and those used for the book. My prints are 20"x24" so copy stand was the only way to get them into electronic form.
If they were 16x20 or smaller I could have had them drum scanned. That might be option for you, but I don't know if it's necessary. Copy stand photos can be quite good if done by someone who knows what they are doing.
If they were 16x20 or smaller I could have had them drum scanned. That might be option for you, but I don't know if it's necessary. Copy stand photos can be quite good if done by someone who knows what they are doing.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
I always scan my 18x24cm wet prints (on Adox MCC 110, split grade printed) with an ordinary Epson V600 scanner and I am quite happy with the results.
I choose a resolution of 600 dpi. I simply lay the flattened print on the glass plate, pressured with a heavy book. I clean the print and the glass plate carefully before scanning.
I very much prefer the scanned wet prints to scanned negatives. Scanned negatives tend to be very gray and dull in comparison.
Leica M2, Summicron 50mm f/2, 400-2TMY.
Erik.
I choose a resolution of 600 dpi. I simply lay the flattened print on the glass plate, pressured with a heavy book. I clean the print and the glass plate carefully before scanning.
I very much prefer the scanned wet prints to scanned negatives. Scanned negatives tend to be very gray and dull in comparison.
Leica M2, Summicron 50mm f/2, 400-2TMY.
Erik.