Scanning Negs vs Enlarging and Wet Prints

[MarkF48]

Years ago I had a pretty decent setup for a darkroom and doing wet prints wasn't a problem and really enjoyed the process. Living circumstances changed and I no longer have a real darkroom, but rather a makeshift setup which isn't at all convenient to setup, so I rarely ever do any enlarging or wet processing anymore. Film processing isn't really a problem as it doesn't take a lot of space.
Kind of wondering how many others are still wet processing prints versus scanning a negative and printing on a printer or sending it out.

 

[timor]

My darkroom is "primitive" by most standards but I can print at wiil. I don't even own a scanner, don't see any point of it for me. If I loose my darkroom for any reason...I prefer not to think about it.

 

[Derrel]

My last big B&W print project included scanning several dozen vintage rollfilm negatives made between 1935 and 1955, and then making a couple sets of 16-inch wide prints on my Epson printer. The needed negative retouching and spotting was such a formidable task that I would have had to have been board-certified insane to have attempted this with any of the wet processes of the past. Digital retouching, digital spotting of dust and scratches, and so on is simply faster and easier than knife etching, retouching, and using Spot-Tone dyes to spot the prints. The printing process took two entire days. Had it been done in a wet darkroom, the printing alone probably would have taken ten days.

Ctein works digitally now. So do many thousands of less-skilled regular former darkroom workers. a few years ago, I gave away almost all of my entire darkroom: custom 6-foot sink and custom steel sink-stand; enlarger, lenses, trays,tongs, developing tanks and reels,easels, paper safes, bottles, Gra-Lab timers, everything except my first boyhood mini-enlarger. I do not miss it very often.

 

[webestang64]

Having worked in the photo lab business since 1985, I've been through the whole film/lens/RA-4 process to scan/ink jet......even the mini-lab Noritzu we use at work is a dry-ink jet based machine, at least the film scanner...$25,000 Noritzu 1800 is top notch and yields very nice scans, I miss the old way.

A wet print in the darkroom is far superior to any scan and inkjet IMO. Film was never meant to be scanned, I hate the fact I can no longer print my color work in the darkroom, mainly printing metallic prints (metallic ink jet is crap compared to silver prints) due to not having a RA-4 processor. But at least I can use my darkroom to do BW prints. I still like the manipulations I can do in the darkroom vs scan/Photoshop, but that's me.

 

[amolitor]

You do want a quite good scanning setup. If you're just re-photographing negatives with a macro lens, for instance, you're probably not going to be extremely happy with the results.

If you invest in good quality negative scanning gear, there's no technical reason on earth to use a wet darkroom. Wet darkrooms are pretty fun, though, and the dimensions of available serendipity are somewhat different from the digital "darkroom". Either of those factors, and I suppose there are others, may induce you to work wet. Producing technically good pictures isn't a reason to work wet, though.

 

[webestang64]

If you invest in good quality negative scanning gear, there's no technical reason on earth to use a wet darkroom. Wet darkrooms are pretty fun, though, and the dimensions of available serendipity are somewhat different from the digital "darkroom". Either of those factors, and I suppose there are others, may induce you to work wet. Producing technically good pictures isn't a reason to work wet, though.

Very true......also you have to think of the time you want to invest in your prints.....sometimes it takes me 8-10 hours to get just one print I like (I mostly print 11x14 fiber prints), with a scan/PShop you could do it in 30mins.

 

[KenC]

After doing B&W darkroom work for quite a while (and a little color), I started scanning negatives in 1997 and processing in PS, and I've never looked back. My process gradually became entirely digital by about 2007 (used a mixture of film/digital cams for a few years). I still have my old Patterson developing tank because I thought I would enjoy doing a roll of TMax occasionally, but I haven't used it since about '97 and really should get rid of it.

 

[terri]

A lot of people find they can be happy with a hybrid workflow these days - shooting film, developing it at home then scanning for further manipulation or printing. I do this only for color, however. I still have a wet darkroom and use it exclusively for B&W, which frankly I shoot more of than color. I lost my old Epson scanner 2 years ago when my even older PC died, and I couldn't find the drive for it any longer. I've not bothered getting a new scanner yet, which is why I've not posted online the last couple of years.

Those who don't mind working on a computer are going to be happy to get faster results, especially for special projects or if quicker output is a real factor. For me, part of photography is the tactile, hands-on aspect...that's just who I am, and I enjoy the slower pace, actually. Not really concerned with a lot of output. As far as sending it out...never. I can't even imagine turning it over to others. eww... :razz: I love my darkroom!

 

[Light Guru]

You do want a quite good scanning setup. If you're just re-photographing negatives with a macro lens, for instance, you're probably not going to be extremely happy with the results.

You can actually get better results by photographing negatives then using a flatbed scanner.
Why You Should Digitize Your Film Using a Camera Instead of a Scanner

However a drum scan is going to beat both other methods/

 

[Gavjenks]

If you're just re-photographing negatives with a macro lens, for instance, you're probably not going to be extremely happy with the results.

Why is that?

A 20 megapixel DSLR camera with a high quality lens that can resolve at or close to that resolution is effectively a 4,000 true optical dpi scanner, that is not interpolating (more than 1 pixel or so) to get there, etc.

It also has reasonable dynamic range already, only very slightly below a typical 35mm negative for entry models, and at or above for nicer full frame models at 100 ISO.

Random 35mm neg I photographed a little while back (note that this is resized to be small enough to post. There is a little bit more detail originally. But you can still see individual threads in the in-focus dress):


Is it as good as a $1000 scanner? No. (edit: well, maybe if I practiced more, looking at that link light guru posted above)
Is it better than a $100-200 scanner? Yes.
Is it better than the photo lab down the street does while charging me 20 cents a scan? Yes.

But note that if you already have a macro lens or tubes and flash, it only costs about $5 for some glass to sandwich the negatives between. Also MUCH MUCH faster and less annoying than using a scanner, once you get it set up (click, slide glass, click, slide glass, click, lift glass, pull negative reel through to next 3, repeat, about 2-3 seconds per, and another 30 seconds per in photoshop actions, unstoring and combined time of storing the film, etc.). The convenience alone of usage is worth $200-500 dollars right there for a shoebox full of negatives.

If you want some negatives scanned well enough to make huge poster prints that will be viewed froma foot away, then pay a professional with awesome equipment to digitize those for you (or for the brave of heart, take a bunch of photos and photomerge). If you just want 4x6s or even 8x10s, and certainly if you just plan to share them online, photographing your negs is good enough.

 

[amolitor]

I will let Ctein explain it:

The Online Photographer: How to 'Scan' Film with a CameraWell (Part 1)
The Online Photographer: How to 'Scan' Film with a CameraWell (Part 2)

 

[Gavjenks]

Even lighting: softbox under your film by a bit will be out of focus enough to be almost perfectly even. This does not require a texture-less material, unlike a scanner. a diffuser from a soup can and some redundant sheets of computer paper would work.
Flat film: sandwiching between glass is fine, and in fact much better than all but the nicest scanners do.
Aligned camera: This is easy. Take your macro lens and look about how much airspace in front of it is needed to the focus plane. Screw on several step up filters from one of those full range $10 sets until you're right in perfect focus range. Then just sit it right on top of the glass. Ta da! Aligned to a fraction of a millimeter in both axes. Focus precisely now that you're in range of the camera's focus travel, and go to town. Alternatively, many pieces of paper or tagboard or something with a hole in the middle of them could be stacked until you are at perfect height. Check using fully magnified LCD view.

Nice camera/lens: Most people on this forum already have these. That's the whole point. Btw, what the hell is he talking about with camera resolution having to be divided by two to equal scanner resolution? Yes, to get to line resolution from dots, you have to divide (more than by 2, at that), but that's ALSO true of the scanner...


Anyway, I agree with Ctein that a dollar a scan drum scanner service, or a high end dedicated negative film scanner like the V700 or one of Canon/Nikon's would be easier to use for equal or potentially significantly higher quality. But $1 a scan is huge compared to pennies of my time with a camera, and those scanners run at best $600, usually a lot more.

 

[amolitor]

I don't think scanners use Bayer arrays. "Good lens" is a somewhat relative term, and I am pretty sure very few people on this forum possess what Ctein considers a "good lens".

 

[Gavjenks]

"Good lens" is a somewhat relative term, and I am pretty sure very few people on this forum possess what Ctein considers a "good lens".

Scanners also have lenses. Why is a cheap flatbed scanner somehow going to have better lenses in it than an $800 macro prime? flatter field, less spherical aberration, less coma, less astigmatism? That makes no sense.

A $600-$1000 scanner might have about as good of a lens. But that's failing the test of "not spending large amounts of money." I already agreed that super expensive dedicated film scanners will be as good or better. The question is about cheapo flatbeds that might compete in price to the camera method.

I don't think scanners use Bayer arrays.

Sure they do. Especially the cheap ones. Either that, or they do 3 separate and mind-bendingly slow passes that will make you want to punch your nearby loved ones after 5 negatives.

A drum scanner or V700? No, they use separate sensors and somehow manage to get light to more than one at once. But again, $600-$1000 (and still slower than photographing) instead of $5.

 

[amolitor]

You know, you claim that this is just academic style discourse, the rough and tumble of exchanged ideas eventually getting to the truth. Which, to be honest, having been an academic, and being the children of academics, I do not actually recognize as anything resembling reality.

But, anyways, it feels a hell of a lot like "I am too lazy to look stuff up, can you guys be goaded into doing my research for me?"

ETA: And ya know what, it's friggin exhausting. I think you're a more or less interesting guy, but the amount of basic "how stuff works" that you blunder along loudly without is just too damn much. I am going to try pretty hard to stop educating you, it's not my job, I'm not gettin' paid for it. You can use google too.