Scanning negatives or scanning paper... this is the question

[IngMacca]

Hi,
very short question but probably very not-so-simple question.
Is better to scan analog negatives or better to scan post-enlarger printing?
In my opinion the result starting from printed paper is very very better, for some reason negative scanning in quite troubleful and the result is not so good.
The point is that often i dont' want to waste paper and time, and I'd prefer to get a digital version directly for the negative...
Maybe is there a technique (or photoshop processing...) that allows you to post-produce a scanned negative and get a result similar to a printed one?

Thanks a lot!

 

[john.margetts]

When you scan a negative and then print the picture, you are enlarging any and all scanning artifacts. This doesn't happen when you scan the post-enlarger print.

There is an additional difference in that an enlarger uses a single, collemated light source and the distance between the negative and the paper is very large, which means that any light scattering within the negative is not incorporated in the print. Scanners use multiple light sources which I doubt are collemated, and the distance between the negative and scanner sensor is very small. Any scattering within the negative while scanning is likely to be included in the scan.

 

[Derrel]

I would rather scan a negative than a print. I have done both, and prefer the scanned negatives.

 

[IngMacca]

I would rather scan a negative than a print. I have done both, and prefer the scanned negatives.

Isn't to "grainy" the scanned negative?
I mean, in my opipion the enlarger printing on chemical paper gives a kind of averaging effect that makes the picure better...

 

[480sparky]

The original film image will always contain all of the information it will ever contain. You may not have a scanner capable of digitizing it all, but it's always there.

Scanning a print rarely contains the same amount of image information. And even when prints do, is your scanning device capable of handling such huge prints?

 

[limr]

To view on a computer, I would rather scan the negative with a proper scanner. Yes, the colors can look different from the print and it can also look grainy, but that depends on your scanning equipment, the software you are using to scan, and the settings you are using on that software. It's true that some negative scans look terrible, but that's a problem of a bad scan, not that it's a negative being scanned.

 

[smoke665]

I'm curious as to experiences with both as I have a ton of pictures (without negatives) and pictures (with negatives) that I'd like to digitize. Has anyone had experience with copying negatives with their camera? How did that work?

 

[Gary A.]

I've scanned both negative and prints. For me, the negative scans are superior to the print scans.

 

[IngMacca]

Thanks all for the discussion!
For sure negative has much more information than positive, but I was thinking if there is some photoshop trick (average, blur, or something similar...) that allows you to get an image similar to one coming out from enlarger + chemicals

 

[limr]

Thanks all for the discussion!
For sure negative has much more information than positive, but I was thinking if there is some photoshop trick (average, blur, or something similar...) that allows you to get an image similar to one coming out from enlarger + chemicals

Not so much a "trick" but yes, there are ways to adjust a negative scan to make it look more like a wet print. It's mostly about managing color shifts.

 

[Gary A.]

Thanks all for the discussion!
For sure negative has much more information than positive, but I was thinking if there is some photoshop trick (average, blur, or something similar...) that allows you to get an image similar to one coming out from enlarger + chemicals

Yes, it is what Photoshop does, image manipulation. All handmade wet darkroom prints are manipulated in some manner or another. Some are highly manipulated ... some not so much ... but all are manipulated. If you are looking for a slider which is marked "Wet Print", to my knowledge there isn't one. (I am certain there are presets to get you close to the look you desire.)

 

[IngMacca]

I'm curious as to experiences with both as I have a ton of pictures (without negatives) and pictures (with negatives) that I'd like to digitize. Has anyone had experience with copying negatives with their camera? How did that work?

Yes I do it very often.
With a good DSLR and a macro lens the result is good, in my opinion

 

[webestang64]

Is better to scan analog negatives or better to scan post-enlarger printing?

Always from the negative (that's what I tell my customers as I do this kind of thing all day long at work). Unless you are like me and do a lot of manipulation during printing of negs with the enlarger. But as a general rule scan from the neg.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I've scanned some of my B&W darkroom prints then printed digital copies. I get a comparable copy; obviously the paper, ink, gloss, etc. look different. One time I had them spread out on a table came into the room and did a double take, from a distance they look so much alike.

I do alt processes like lumen prints where there is no neg and have scanned those too and gotten good copies. I've tried photographing them digitally too but didn't like the results as well. Took some trying/experimenting and seeing what results I got.

With color film I get scans from the lab when I get the film developed. I've scanned some older prints and often sharpen the copies because the scanned copies weren't as sharp so scanning those negs would be better (if it would be worth hunting thru old negs).

 

[Light Guru]

A negative is like a RAW file you are always going to need to do some processing to get it to look like you want it to.

With a negative you are ether going to spend time in the darkroom printing it right or time on the computer processing it.