Scanning Negs vs Enlarging and Wet Prints

[Redeyejedi]

ok the three passes thing was funny, got me laughing....thanks for that.

but quick question, how is it faster if one does the multiple exposures and stitch the shots? in some cases there are many images and just shooting that many takes longer than scanning.
EDIT-not lazy...more interested, and a tad confused(have a epson750, bellows, and 105macro and about 8000 negatives....150 i'd like to scan)

 

[terri]

You might want to open a new thread with this specific question, if you don't mind. The OP was asking specifically about workflow preferences; darkroom vs scanning. The thread has wandered a bit off topic as it stands now.

Thanks!!

 

[timor]

To be digital or not to be digital, that is the question. Well, not really.

 

[Gavjenks]

You can use google too.

I don't know what you're ranting about. Google is exactly where I found out that many types of scanners use Bayer sensors, and that higher end ones like coolscans, drums, and the Epson V700 for instance do not. As part of my half an hour of research prior to writing that one little post (also about exactly how scanner lenses work, etc.).

but quick question, how is it faster if one does the multiple exposures and stitch the shots?

It probably wouldn't be faster. It might not be that much slower, either, though. Depends if you're individually fine tuning each photo by either method, or not. If you are fine tuning every file and digitally dodging and burning, etc. (for instance if this is part of your workflow for low-shot-volume paid portrait sessions), then stitching probably wouldn't slow you down with a decent computer, because you should be able to stitch a small 4-6 photo set of images (plenty to print medium format negs at really any size) in the background in the time it takes you to lovingly post-process the previously stitched one. Plus, you would only even photograph the good looking negatives in the first place, not blurry ones or duplicates.

If, however, you are doing blunt, batch processing, though (such as the classic "inherited shoebox full of negatives"), forget it. Absolutely single shot only, or if that's not enough resolution, send it in to professionals. I would only ever stitch 1) for low volume, high value shots, 2) for fun, or 3) if it was part of a well established parallel flow for a specific kind of production work that allowed that.

You might want to open a new thread with this specific question, if you don't mind.

The OP was asking specifically about workflow preferences; darkroom vs scanning. The thread has wandered a bit off topic as it stands now.

Thanks!!

Edit: sorry, I missed this one while typing up the above response.

I don't think it's THAT far off topic. I for one agree with amolitor that there is no technical reason to do wet prints nowadays. There might be business reasons like being able to tell your clients it's a wet print, to sell it for more as a novel conversation piece or whatever, but not technical reasons. Thus, in terms of actual technical workflow, which is what the spirit of the OP seems to be, questions about how to digitize things are really more often what people seem to care and talk about (here and on other forums and blogs and flickr groups, etc. including even the large format forum, who you might expect to be all about esoteric chemistry methods.)

 

[Ilovemycam]

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.

The only wet darkroom work I do any more is to process my 35 and 120 BW for my Widelux or SWC. I gave up wet prints long ago. There is little or no difference with ink jet and silver gelatin prints. But, if you handle a print, esp in matte. or are nitpicky with bronzing, there is some difference.

But for all practical purposes, ink jets are a great printing method. Esp for semi gloss or glossy. If you like matte, then they are delicate. And ink jets offer much more control than wet printing ever could

File:'Left Silver Gelatin Print - Right Hahnemuehle Ink Jet Print' Copyright 2013 Daniel Teoli Jr..jpg - Wikimedia Commons

When it comes to color. Few current color wet prints can compare to an ink jet for dye stability or color IQ. Cibachrome has great color and may be more permanent, but the tonal range / contrast is poor compared to ink jets. When it comes to dye transfer prints, a fine ink jet print can equal or surpass a dye transfer print.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:150_'Dye_Transfer_Scans'_2012_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr_LLR.jpg

But the dye transfer will fade away much, much sooner than a pigment ink jet.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:152_'Dye_Transfer_Fade_Tests'_2012_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr_LLR.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:154_'Ink_Jet_Fade_Tests'2012_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr_LLR.jpg

Fuji's old 'Crystal Archive l' was the best for dye stability of any Type C paper I tested, but I have not tested their newest ll version of that paper.

A lot of my print output goes to museums and the top rare book libraries in the world. No one complains getting ink jet prints. But a very, very few museums refuse ink jets and only want vintage silver prints.

As far as sending my prints out for a lab to do? No, never.

If your HCB, then you can send them out. If you are of that talent and spend all your time on shooting, your time is too valuable for printing. But even HCB knew how to print. But for the rest of us...you want to learn photography...print yourself.

 

[DannL]

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.

I print my own work. Sheet film is processed in rotary drums and I use printing frames. I process prints both in trays and drums. Real-estate dedicated to processing now consists of a water-proof table that measures 4'x2'. Occasionally I will scan a negative to see if it qualifies for printing, but most negatives never get past the visual inspection on a light-table. I don't send my work out, as that would run counter to producing my own work. Inkjet printing is just not for me.

 

[Gavjenks]

Inkjet printing is not for me.

Could you elaborate as to why? As that would probably be of the most interest to people, including myself.

Inkjet is obviously much faster than wet printing, especially for >1 volumes of prints. So what about it makes up for that advantage to make it not for you overall?

 

[DannL]

Inkjet printing is not for me.

Could you elaborate as to why? As that would probably be of the most interest to people, including myself.

Inkjet is obviously much faster than wet printing, especially for >1 volumes of prints. So what about it makes up for that advantage to make it not for you overall?

Thanks for asking. But, there's really not much to add. When it comes to my work, I have always preferred making prints by hand vs. having a machine-made print. I enjoy the process of traditional print-making.

PS; Don't get me wrong. It's not as though I lack the equipment to produce inkjet prints. I own several printers in fact, but the last time I printed an inkjet print was several years ago, if not longer. I have no commercial interest in producing quantities of images. Occasionally I will create more than one print from a single negative. The complexities in their production perty much guarantees that each print is unique. A surprise at every corner. Another aspect of printing by hand that I really enjoy.

 

[Murray Bloom]

One of the best things about a hybrid workflow is that it can easily be tailored to the needs of the image. And don't count out flatbed-type photo scanners. Several years ago, and with some skepticism, I bought an Epson Perfection 4780 PHOTO scanner. It was over four hundred dollars then, but newer and improved models are selling for much less. I scan negatives, transparencies, and even prints. The results consistently exceed my expectations.

I adjust resolution and other elements to what I need for the particular job at hand. Here are some examples:

"Attitude" - 4x5 negative scan, 87 megapixels and watch detail:



"Golden Girl" - part of a 4x5 transparency scan, 19 megapixels and eye detail:



"Nicole" - 35mm negative scan, 29 megapixels; "Lost in the System" - 35mm slide scan, 27 megapixels:



"Superhouse" - 11x14 print scanned in two sections and stitched, 25 megapixels: