Scanning vs Enlarging

[monkeykoder]

So I recently purchased an old Speed Graphic in an odd size (2.25X3.25in) I'm looking into either buying a film scanner that I could get to scan these negatives or an enlarger. My preliminary research on scanners suggests this is probably going to cost more than an enlarger and not produce as good of results. What are the opinions of the board on this subject?

 

[monkeykoder]

Addendum would a cheap CanoScan be enough to tell me how well I've developed my negatives (strictly B&W)

 

[compur]

2¼X3¼ isn't an odd size. Many Graphic cameras (and others) were made in
that size.

How you use it depends on what style of back it has. If it is the type that
only accepts sheet film holders, you don't have many choices of film types
but Freestyle does offer a few B&W films in that size.

If your back has a roll film holder or if it is a convertible back (Graflok) that
can accept a roll film holder, you can use any 120 size film.

For more info see:
http://graflex.org/

As for the advantages of film vs. digital, I have no particular comment but
you can find endless discussions of this topic elsewhere.

 

[monkeykoder]

My only question is can I proof my negatives on a reasonably priced flatbed scanner. I'm 99% certain that I have the graphic back on my camera which means there is only one style of roll film holder for it which is almost impossible to find we'll have to see once I get more time to play with it.

 

[Alpha]

I have two of the roll-film holders I'd be willing part with. Search "Graflex RH" on eBay and you'll find them. I dunno if these sellers are confused or what but my RH 10's are 6x9, which is 2 1/4 x 3 1/4.

Edit: The Graflex.org site says the RH 10 is 6x7, but I swear my negs are 6x9. Maybe they aren't RH 10's after all.

 

[monkeykoder]

Probably won't work on a 2x3 camera unless that is what you bought them for.

 

[Battou]

Question is this: What do you want priority over, prints over web display or web display over prints?

It is a comprimise. The enlarger will produce better prints sacrificing digitalization quality, wile the scanner will produce better digitalization sacrificing print quality.

You could always buy the other later and have the best of both worlds.

 

[Steph]

I'm looking into either buying a film scanner that I could get to scan these negatives or an enlarger. My preliminary research on scanners suggests this is probably going to cost more than an enlarger and not produce as good of results. What are the opinions of the board on this subject?

It depends really if you are talking about colour or B&W. Colour printing the traditionnal way (with enlarger) is more involved and more time consuming than B&W printing and it is harder to produce good results. If you mainly want to print in colour a good quality scanner and slides might be the way forward. For B&W, the traditionnal approach might be more satisfying and cheaper.

 

[Alpha]

Probably won't work on a 2x3 camera unless that is what you bought them for.

I bought them for my Graflex XL, which I no longer use. It's a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder press camera. If they don't work on a 2x3 then all those 2x3 photos I took must have been acts of god. :roll:

 

[monkeykoder]

I bought them for my Graflex XL, which I no longer use. It's a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rangefinder press camera. If they don't work on a 2x3 then all those 2x3 photos I took must have been acts of god. :roll:

If the rangefinder on my camera works I might well be able to kluge it up to use those backs (or if I'm really lucky I have a graflok back and they work right away) I'm pretty sure I'll have to kluge it up though. I might be interested anyway.

 

[ksmattfish]

They call 2.25"x3.25" 6x9cm these days.

Which will be better will have a lot to do with how good you are in the darkroom compared to how good you are with Photoshop. If you excel at one or the other that's probably the way to go.

One of the most skilled color landscape photographers I know still shoots landscapes on medium and large format E6, but he switched from Cibachromes to scanning and ink jet prints years ago. Contrary to the popular canard that digital is all about convenience he didn't do it because it was easier or cheaper, it isn't (although it is significantly less toxic). He did it because he was able to create better looking, huge prints (he regularly goes over 30"x40"). When he first told me I said "No way!" (this was back in my Death B4 Digital days), but when I looked hard at the prints I had to admit that his ink jet prints looked amazing, and to my eye were better than the Cibachromes. So it's definitely possible to get excellent results from scans if the skills are there.

 

[monkeykoder]

I think the sticking point for me is I enjoy the darkroom more than I enjoy photoshop (something about I spend all my time in front of a computer otherwise) Right now I'm just looking at the possibility of proofing my negatives for cheaper than enlarging and if the scanner would be able to do that for me.

 

[ksmattfish]

Look into one of those Microtek or Epson flatbed scanners with the transparency drawer. The one I bought 5 years ago for $500 does a great job; they are either a lot cheaper or a lot better now. If you're working from a chunk of film 6x6cm or bigger they'll do a pretty good job. The main difference between the two back then was that the Epson film holders had glass, and the Microtek film holders didn't (except for the big 8x10+ size tray). Newton rings are a b*tch.

 

[Alpha]

If the rangefinder on my camera works I might well be able to kluge it up to use those backs (or if I'm really lucky I have a graflok back and they work right away) I'm pretty sure I'll have to kluge it up though. I might be interested anyway.

I never tried the ground-glass back on my XL, so I can't say for sure if it's roll back compatible. If it is, you could always focus using the ground glass and then slap the roll back on.

 

[monkeykoder]

Seems like the rangefinder matches the regular lens but getting the roll back on there is going to be interesting to say the least. If I had the graflok back on my camera it would be cake but as it is I'll have to mess around with the camera a little bit to get it to fit.