b/w scanning quality question [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

View Full Version : b/w scanning quality question

Ben Calwell

2-Oct-2012, 16:33

Lenny Eiger

2-Oct-2012, 19:50

Inkjet prints are stylistically different from darkroom prints. They are equal, perhaps better in some ways and less in others. Asking this kind of question can easily lead to a flame war, as folks are religious about this. You might as well ask which is better, film or digital, altho in this forum, film will win the day... one of the reasons I am here. I'm one of those film lovers...

Lenny

sanking

2-Oct-2012, 20:51

For those who have gone from using enlargers for their black-and-white 4x5 work to scanning their negs on flatbed scanners like the V700, are you generally pleased with the resulting inkjet prints?
Has it given you a "I'll-never-go-back-to-wet-printing-again" mindset? Are your prints as sharp as they would have been from an enlarger? I've read where it's a bit of pain to get the neg at the right height above the scanner glass for optimum sharpness.
I'm tempted to buy a scanner and give it a go.

Personally my first experience of scanning a negative and making a digital negative from it, and them making a carbon transfer print from the digital negative, was a "Come to Jesus" moment. The print lacked the high resolution and fine grain of my carbon transfer prints made from large format and ultra large format negatives, but the creative potential was obvious.

If you are interested in experimenting with something, just do it. Whatever happens you will be happy that your trusted yourself.

Sandy

Gem Singer

2-Oct-2012, 21:05

Ben,

Scanning negatives, editing them in Photoshop, and creating B&W prints with an inkjet printer requires a steep learning curve.

However, once you begin to master the technique, you will wonder why you didn't start doing it sooner.

After making prints in a wet darkroom for more than sixty years, I began to learn the digital technique. It took time and patience.

I still develop my B&W film in the darkroom, but I make my prints in the light room. I find it much more enjoyable.

bob carnie

3-Oct-2012, 06:22

Ben , I work both ways and have done so for quite awhile, I agree with the others that you will not be let down and both ways are valid.

But if I had a choice of printing inkjet or enlarger darkroom prints I would choose the darkroom every time, because I like the solitude and atmosphere.
With that said , I think Sandy's darkroom and workflow is very great since he combines PS and neg making via digital negatives, and makes his carbons in a nice wet darkroom, his method is
the way I believe I will go as well. sort of combining enlarger work with alternative prints from digital negatives.

I think we are on the cusp of new technology,( flatbed printing) that will take over both camps. What is needed is a breakthrough with pigment load landing on the paper .
I have seen some of the new offerings of flatbed printing and it is promising but not yet where I would jump ship and only work in a light room... I guess I could install some Thompson's and lower the lights
and create my darkroom experience.

The work of Sandy King, Todd Gangler, John Bentley has inspired a whole crop of alternative printers working with digitized negatives and noble metals and carbon tissue loaded with pure pigments.
This wave, and I truly believe it will be a huge one, will force the market to consider permanence as a key element when purchasing photographic work.
I am joining this way with my company, and my staff/partners fully embrace the idea.

So Ben, don't get rid of the darkroom, maybe downsize it a bit to handle contact printing and start learning the voodoo of Photo Shop/digital negs and alt printing. As Gem states it takes time and patience, but as a similar thread questions the sameness of PS and Darkroom manipulations, I can vouch that PS is based on historic principles of printing photographs, so if you have a solid background the time will evaporate learning the curve of PS.
I am producing bodies of work that I will continue to work on , some that can only be done on my enlargers, and some that only can be finished via digital negs and alternative prints.
I hope I am still around to purchase the new flatbeds that I think are coming, but time will tell and it will be determined by the buying public of photo art.

amac212

3-Oct-2012, 07:19

While I would love to opt for a wet darkroom, for me it is a LUXURY of time and expense that I simply do not have. Too many other life commitments I suppose. So for me, the hybrid process was the right choice.

I'm a bit conflicted about not using a completely 'analog' process from start to finish, however I'm very pleased with my scanning routine which (hate to say) often is done while multitasking (balancing my checkbook, getting laundry done, even answering forums or what have you between scans).

It took me a bit of patience developing film in a manner that was 'scanner friendly' but I feel like I've finally come up with a successful development routine that delivers terrific tonal range.

With this hybrid workflow, I scan everything - even the so-so images. But I find that I print less (since it no longer becomes the only way to see and enjoy the image).

When I do print, I find that I'm quite satisfied with the output. However... there's always that wistful thought in the back of my mind... I wonder how this would look as a wet print... :)

Peter Lewin

3-Oct-2012, 07:27

Ben: I feel compelled to reply because, like you, I am a novice at scanning and Photoshop editing, so in many ways my experience at present is closer to yours, and further from the experienced "electronics users" who have already responded. I have an Epson 4990 scanner which I purchased refurbished from Epson about 5 years ago, used briefly, and then allowed to sit dormant while I went back to my darkroom. Then a little over a week ago I decided that it was really time to see if I wanted to join the multitude of Photoshop users. I downloaded Photoshop Elements 11 to my iMac (I'm trying it out under the one month free trial period, I also received some recommendations to try Adobe Lightroom, and even full-blown Photoshop, but I opted for the simpler and cheaper approach) and started playing.

I've learned two or three things very quickly. The first is that you really have to hunt for good user guides; the software is complex, and while google searches return pages of results, it doesn't necessarily give you what you're looking for. The majority of books and articles are aimed at color, and largely at electronic capture (i.e. DSLR or point-and-shoot) with lots of images to catalogue and manipulate. So if you are a black & white photographer, and are planning on scanning a relatively small number of large format negatives (direct large format digital capture costs in the range of a year of your child's college education, or a very nice car!), a lot of what is written just isn't relevant.

The second is related: as Gem comments, the learning curve is steep, and the search for good documentation just adds to that. But, it is addictive. There is something very Pavlovian about being able to apply edits (think burning or dodging or contrast choice, etc.) on a computer terminal, immediately see the result, and then play some more. In the darkroom that is much more time and materials consuming. In addition, you have much more local control on a computer, meaning that you can adjust any element of contrast or lighting on a selected area; in the darkroom you simply can't localize the control with that much accuracy, unless (I guess, since I don't use them) you use masks. My initial belief is that I have better control on the computer than in the darkroom.

My last discovery is that time is limited, and I'm constantly having to choose whether to spend more time on the computer working on that learning curve (I'm still learning to edit, haven't come close to printing yet!), or to go down to my darkroom and print. My suspicion (I'm not there yet) is that ultimately you have to decide to be either a "lightroom" or "darkroom" printer, it must be difficult to maintain the separate skill sets to do both well simultaneously, although those with experience are free to educate me otherwise!

As to the quality of output, so much of contemporary work is produced on inkjet printers that I have no doubt that with sufficient skill one can certainly match, and possibly exceed, the quality of a darkroom print. Like everything, it largely depends on the amount of time and effort you (or I) are willing to put into learning something new.

bob carnie

3-Oct-2012, 07:55

A very good point about scanning... you can load on a high rez scan to your specs and walk away, large files take time so scanning is the easy part of the whole workflow, or should I say the one
aspect where you can walk away and let the scanner do its work.
I scanned my whole collection of negatives, over a three year period while I was working doing other things at my lab. The scanner is a patient employee and will wait until you give it commands.

Here is a trick or method I learned about Photoshop that opened my eyes to the program and made every thing easy from then on.

1. Make a layer of the background

2. Do something to that layer- curve adjustment, level adjustment ,colour adjustment, sharpening, multiply, screen , softlight (anything you damm well please that you think will help the image)

3. Press the Option Key on your keyboard and the mask Icon on the bottom of the layers pallete at the same time. ( a black layer mask will show up in the background layer to the right]

4. Pick up a brush that is in the tool box and adjust the size with the bracket keys to suit the adjustment you want to do and paint it in.

5. In the layers pallette there will be an opasity slider.. Adjust the opacity to what you think is right.

THEN move on to other adjustments and repeat 1-5

If you practice this I think the whole world of Photoshop will open up before you.

All the extra stuff you will learn as you go , but you do need to know how to make an adjustment to your image easily and this is the best way I know how to start.

Ben Calwell

3-Oct-2012, 17:53

Thanks for the replies. That "steep learning curve" does have me a bit buffaloed. I'm not sure I'm up to it -- I can't even use my TV remote without adult supervision from my son.

GG12

3-Oct-2012, 20:15

This is truly an apples and oranges comparison: I haven't printed much in the darkroom for years, but look fondly back on those days. And the ability to get a decent print relatively without agony - a great print is a whole other matter, and I'm not sure I ever really mastered that. In the digital world, you can build up to it, and get there more readily, in between phone calls and other things. The discipline and technique to get a good digital BW print is not trivial, no less than in a wet print, but you can do it without (as it seemed) the need to dedicate 4-6 hrs in a darkroom.

For some time, never could get the right BW print from the digital side. But with good papers, good software (Imageprint) and a good printer, now getting better prints from digital than any of my wet ones. That said, there is something charming and more agreeable about a wet print, typically, although with with just the right paper, inks and printing, they can be hard to tell apart.

In short, if you are interested in wet prints, please go for it.

Frank Petronio

3-Oct-2012, 20:46

Before I went to digital editing and printing, I had a huge backlog of negatives that were difficult to impossible to print conventionally. I also gained more control over the reproduction of my commercial photographs and could offer something better than my competitors. But were photos for magazines printed with Lithography, not fine prints.

If we are comparing glossy Baryta-type papers, the wet silver print will trump the digital simply because of how the ink lies "on top" of the paper. The wet photo will always have an edge I think.

You can print a digital file onto traditional wet darkroom materials, it gets expensive but the quality is excellent - the best of both worlds.

But... even with a $600 Epson v700 scanner and $600 Epson R3000 and good papers you can get lovely results. Once sleeved or under glass you can fool most other photographers. And if you want to print on a matte or textured artist's paper - in color - and be at least as archival as any C-print process or better - inkjet is ideal. For color especially, inkjet is the most practical way to make a fine print.

For that matter, if you get beyond the sense that you are loosing something by not doing darkroom prints, a nice B&W on a matte artist paper can look wonderful and unlike anything you could make in a darkroom - the ink actually gets into the paper instead of sitting on top of the surface.

If you can do both a darkroom and a computer workflow then you're lucky!

rdenney

4-Oct-2012, 08:37

This is a real question, but often the answers are tailored to the best that is possible, and that's what leads to arguments.

The best I could ever do in my own darkroom, when I had one, was with RC paper. I had lots of experience with Ilford Gallerie paper leading up to that, but while I could make that work in college it was impractical in my tiny home darkroom and severe time demands. I also preferred a true gloss for whatever reason. So, I gave in to convenience as being a better alternative than giving up altogether, and started printing on Oriental Seagull RC paper. I liked the results I got most of the time, but often I had to make compromises on my visualization because my technique had not been perfect enough (or the materials had not been flexible enough) to achieve what was in my mind's eye.

Now, my recent black and white prints have been on Epson Premium Glossy paper, which is no better than the RC papers of 25 years ago. There are aspects I don't like--variable reflectivity of the ink, for example, and the inability using the Epson software to achieve the look of selenium toning, which I like. But the blacks are as rich, the whites are clean, and I don't see any color crossovers using the Epson Advanced Black and White driver. I have compared 16x20 prints made by scanning those same negatives from 25 years ago and doing my best to make decent prints. The differences between the old RC prints and the new inkjet prints are plain to see, but I don't think the intrinsic quality of the output differs at all. But what I have with the digital workflow is far greater control over achieving my visualization, so the later prints are closer to what I had in my mind's eye.

I will be obtaining some fiber-based inkjet paper as soon as my stock of Epson stuff runs out, which will be soon.

In terms of scanning quality, at 16x20, which is the biggest print my Epson 3800 printer can make, there is absolutely no loss of sharpness compared to optical enlargements that I made back in the day. In fact, they have slightly greater micro-contrast just because of the sharpening I can do in Photoshop. Those enlargements were made using a carefully aligned Omega D3 enlarger and a Bausch and Lomb enlarging lens at the optimal aperture (which was easy to assess using a high-power grain focuser). A better enlarging lens might have provided a bit more micro-crispness and maybe I'd have used a lower paper grade, but it was still a pretty good setup that would have passed high-end muster a few decades ago.

I think differences would emerge with prints much larger than that. The Epson gives up nothing in resolution up to about a 4x enlargement (tonal clarity through the densest part of the negative is another matter, compared to better scanners), and my 16x20 prints from the 3800 fall within that from 4x5 negatives. At 8x, the differences between the Epson scan and an enlarger print I might have made might be more different.

So, for what I have been able to reasonably achieve in my home, I don't feel as though I give anything in terms of print quality, but I have gained an improved capability to achieve my visualization.

My next steps might allow the digital process to move away from what I was able to do in a home darkroom with reasonable convenience, including the move to better, fiber-based paper, and the use of the Quadtone RIP instead of Epson's ABW for making prints. I could achieve more by having the film drum-scanned and then printing it using a dedicated black-and-white printer set up with the Cone inks, but that is beyond what I can do at home (I have room and budget for one printer and I do more color with it than black and white).

Rick "adding some experience from the shallow end of the pool" Denney

photobymike

4-Oct-2012, 13:22

I have worked in a darkroom most of my adult life.... I still develop film, and enjoy it... but have moved to scanning and printing on an Epson printer. I am currently getting a 4800 ready for conversion to Cone Carbon ink. I use Adobe Lightroom, and it works well with my printers; 4800 and r3000. Try an Epson r3000 printer, i promise you will like it. Small and versatile able to do most of my printing. Its the print! thats the bottom line for me

Ben Calwell

4-Oct-2012, 14:20

Heroique

4-Oct-2012, 14:29

I move back and forth between darkroom & digital printing.

The key differences I care about already appear in the posts above, except...

Watching images appear in the developer tray ... no words can describe the magic. None.

bob carnie

4-Oct-2012, 14:37

I'm with you on that one.

I move back and forth between darkroom & digital printing.

The key differences I care about already appear in the posts above, except...

Watching images appear in the developer tray ... no words can describe the magic. None.

rdenney

4-Oct-2012, 14:44

With the Epson scanner, check it with paper shims under the provided holder. It might already be fine from the factory (mine was). You can also get holders from Betterscanning.com that provide adjusters. The focus is fixed on an Epson, so once you dial the holder in, you don't have to do it again.

The local labs will print on color paper, so your black and white image is likely to show some color crossovers if you use grascale. If you use RGB, then you'll find out how well your monitor is calibrated, heh. If you have a local lab set up to do black and white natively, then you'll get better results. There are also guys here that provide those services. The more artistic input you need from the printer, though, the more it will cost.

Rick "noting that older, smaller prints can be set up with Cone inks for pretty cheap" Denney

Peter De Smidt

4-Oct-2012, 15:01

For another printing option, Paul Roark's Eboni-based inksets, like Cone's Carbon inkset, uses 100% carbon pigments. Paul's inkset is more neutral than Cone's. Quite neutral prints can be make for example on Epson Hot Press Natural or Arches Fine Art Hot Press water color paper, the latter of which is a 100% cotton paper with no inkjet coating. The Cone Carbon inkset is quite a bit warmer. Which look is better depends on taste. The Eboni-based inksets are much cheaper, and according to Aardenburg the Eboni and the Cone Carbon ink sets have done the best with regards to longevity ratings of all the inks tested. The Cone set is more turn-key, as long as you use the papers he has profiles for.

photobymike

4-Oct-2012, 15:20

I'm really anxious to try scanning some of my 4x5 negs, which I think might be pretty good candidates for a flatbed scanner. Is getting the negative at the optimum height above the glass a pain? Also, I don't as yet have a printer. I'm thinking I could scan a neg, get it the way I want it and then take the file to my local lab and have it printed.

if you were close by i could show you how easy it is..... you just need to jump in .... sell some of your stuff to get what you need..... epson v700 or v750 depending on budget, i bought a used Apple Mac Pro for 200 hundred.... you might want something else... and there are a bunch of printers out there that do a wonderful job. i bet most that print here use Epson... but canon printer is nice....

bob carnie

5-Oct-2012, 02:48

I use both papers you mention Peter, have a custom profile for the hot press natural from Epson, it really is a beautiful paper. I have been using Arches hot press water colour paper for years. when it works it is magnificent, but sometimes it is crap. Sucks up a lot of ink . I have not made a profile for it yet and I should as I love the decal edge as well the visual look of ink seeped into the paper rather than sitting on the top.

I just heard from a reliable source ( a buyer at photokina) that Hannamule is going to make a decal edge inkjet paper which should be quite interesting...

Regarding Inksets, I have always used the Cannon and Epson inks specific to the devices, and I do not think I am missing anything by sticking with them. I would be interested to hear how a Cone ink set could be adapted to a Epson 7800 stylus pro. I wouldn't mind giving his Piezo inks a go but do not know how to go about modifying the printer I have. The Cannon is a 60 inch unit and I am not going to start mucking about with that beast.

It would be interesting to compare prints done by both methods.

For another printing option, Paul Roark's Eboni-based inksets, like Cone's Carbon inkset, uses 100% carbon pigments. Paul's inkset is more neutral than Cone's. Quite neutral prints can be make for example on Epson Hot Press Natural or Arches Fine Art Hot Press water color paper, the latter of which is a 100% cotton paper with no inkjet coating. The Cone Carbon inkset is quite a bit warmer. Which look is better depends on taste. The Eboni-based inksets are much cheaper, and according to Aardenburg the Eboni and the Cone Carbon ink sets have done the best with regards to longevity ratings of all the inks tested. The Cone set is more turn-key, as long as you use the papers he has profiles for.

Lenny Eiger

5-Oct-2012, 09:54

I would be interested to hear how a Cone ink set could be adapted to a Epson 7800 stylus pro. I wouldn't mind giving his Piezo inks a go but do not know how to go about modifying the printer I have.
It would be interesting to compare prints done by both methods.

Bob,

There is nothing to "modify". All you have to do take Epson cartridges out and put Cone's in.

If you want to save a few dollars of ink you can use some flushing carts to clear the old ink out.

Then you print... the results are superior, you can save a bundle by buying inks in bulk. There's simply no reason not to... unless you have to switch back and forth between color printing and b&w.

Lenny

bob carnie

5-Oct-2012, 10:09

Hi Lenny

Well switching back and forth is a consideration from colour to BW as my we have both types of project. This is a printer at home so I would be interested in doing this, as we can bundle our work to
balance colour from BW. Laura and I are making a series of ink prints for sale next year and I want the colour and BW ink prints to look as best as I can manage.

I am not at home right now but silly question the Epson 7800 stylus pro uses K3 inks , a series of black and white and colour cartridges.. So what exactly would I be purchasing from Cone Inks as I
have never used his product . How many black inks and what is the order for putting in the cartridges... maybe a silly question again.
I was at Sandy's recently and his printer is set up for piezo, but due to a monster bout of gout and a learning session with him on carbon I didn't even think to look, other than viewing his piezo prints which were very nice, I was more concerned to sit down and rest rather than discuss his inks on the machine.

Would I be looking at creating a custom profile with his inks afterwords?.. that once again could be a silly question.

thanks Bob

Bob,

There is nothing to "modify". All you have to do take Epson cartridges out and put Cone's in.

If you want to save a few dollars of ink you can use some flushing carts to clear the old ink out.

Then you print... the results are superior, you can save a bundle by buying inks in bulk. There's simply no reason not to... unless you have to switch back and forth between color printing and b&w.

Lenny

sanking

5-Oct-2012, 12:02

Bob,

To see what options for printing with K7 inks on an Epson 7800 go to http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/sc.15/category.1333/.f

Give me a call if you want to talk about this. It is not that complicated. The only problem I have is that wife does not like where the printer is located. But a large printer is kind of like something that is broken in the house, i.e. if it goes without repair for more than two or three months it becomes invisible.

Sandy

bob carnie

5-Oct-2012, 12:07

Thanks Sandy ... I fondly remember your describing to Jeri and I how slick that unit looked in the room, I don't think she bought it one bit.

I will look into your link and see were I end up.

thanks

Bob,

To see what options for printing with K7 inks on an Epson 7800 go to http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/sc.15/category.1333/.f

Give me a call if you want to talk about this. It is not that complicated. The only problem I have is that wife does not like where the printer is located. But a large printer is kind of like something that is broken in the house, i.e. if it goes without repair for more than two or three months it becomes invisible.

Sandy

Lenny Eiger

6-Oct-2012, 00:00

sanking

6-Oct-2012, 11:39

Switching back and forth would be a pain. I takes a while to clean inks out
........
Lenny

Switching back and forth is also very expensive with a big printer like the 7800 as you have to push a lot of ink through the lines to change over from one ink set to another. Not sure exactly how much ink that is, but I would think it would be at least around 200-300 ml.

Sandy

Ben Calwell

8-Oct-2012, 06:56

Before this thread fades away, I've got another, possibly ridiculous, question: Would the flatbed scanner have to set perfectly level on my table? My "man cave/light room" is in the semi-finished part of my basement, and the floor is sloped slightly from the wall toward the middle of the room. Consequently, my work table is sloped toward me when I'm sitting at it (picture pens and pencils rolling into my lap). And would any printer I purchase also have to set level on the table? Would not being level impede the operation of the scanner and the printer?

rdenney

8-Oct-2012, 07:41

cyrus

9-Oct-2012, 10:50

rdenney

9-Oct-2012, 12:21

My Epson 700 scanner eats a lot of dust. I could use it, but early on I decided I was going "all wet" and have stuck with it. I simply prefer to spend the time required for the "steep learning curve" to be dedicated more productively to actually doing stuff in the darkroom.

Of course, that wasn't the question.

And not everyone has a darkroom, or the ability to construct one.

Rick "who has built several darkrooms in several houses, but not this one" Denney

cyrus

10-Oct-2012, 11:55

Actually, that was the question

"are you generally pleased with the resulting inkjet prints?
Has it given you a "I'll-never-go-back-to-wet-printing-again" mindset? "

Answer: no.

Lenny Eiger

10-Oct-2012, 14:02

Actually, that was the question

"are you generally pleased with the resulting inkjet prints?
Has it given you a "I'll-never-go-back-to-wet-printing-again" mindset? "

Answer: no.

My answer:

Yes, I would never go back to a darkroom print.

I might do some more platinum, sometime... or try my hand at other alt processes. But never a darkroom.

Lenny

Brian K

12-Oct-2012, 05:12

At this point I'm producing both silver and pigment prints. I find that some of my images work best on one medium or the other. So some images I actually prefer the pigment over the silver. My workflow has involved scanning my negs and outputting 8x10 LVTs for quite some time and I have worked with PS for over 20 years.

The silver printing gives me certain optical effects advantages that digital doesn't. I can burn a far smoother gradation or do optical diffusion in a wet darkroom. And as I am already starting with an 8x10 LVT negative in which scratches or pinholes have already been edited, and as I am enlarging from an 8x10 neg, I don't have much in the way of print spotting.

But some images, some of my more high key ones, seem to work better for me as pigment, although they often lack the luminance of the silver prints. Workflow wise there's no comparison. As I have some eye issues and long stretches in the darkroom are giving me more and more problems, the ability of digital printing to produce a very high quality print with far less effort and tedium is a serious advantage. Then again I am getting that quality level to a large part due to the associated equipment. An IqSmart3 scan and an Epson 9900 print is at the higher end qualitatively. I also use StudioPrint which enables me to make custom profiles and dead neutral gray B&W prints using color inks.

One thing that I have found to be a huge advantage of pigment prints is that I can print far larger and maintain a higher quality level. I don't mean this in the sense that I can just physically print larger, it's that images that would not allow themselves to be enlarged past a certain point because of a deterioration of quality seem to be able to print far larger with pigment and not lose quality. I discovered this when one of my galleries requested a 70" print from a 6x7cm negative. The image " Mt Whitney and Clouds" was an early image of mine, and was not captured when I had gotten my film and development process to the quality level it is now, that is it was an image that had a bit more grain. Fortunately it was shot with a Mamiya 7II so the optical quality was superb.

The scan of the image required interpolation, using perfect resize and then some additional sharpening in order to go up to 70". When printed I was dumbfounded. Grain aside, the print quality was excellent, the sharpness and detail was extraordinary considering the original film size, a 25 times enlargement. And the tonal gradation was smooth. Viewed from 3 feet you'd think it was shot 4x5 or larger. There is no way that image could print that large in silver. I guess between the interpolation and the way the printer lays down ink the gradation becomes smooth, whereas over enlarged silver images aways seem to get a rather abrupt tonal gradation. I don't think this level of print enlargement would be satisfactory with any of the consumer scanners like the Epsons, this requires a drum scanner or a high end flat bed.

I am giving serious thought to giving up silver printing once I burn through the thousand or so sheets of paper I currently have or when I move from my current house, to not setting up a print darkroom.

Ben Calwell

12-Oct-2012, 14:53

As an update to my original post, I got to try out my brother's Epson V700. We scanned one of my b/w 4x5s, and as we're both not very technically oriented, we kind of muddled through and wound up with a semi-nice 11x14 print. It became apparent right away that I could make simple levels adjustments to the image using Elements and come up a photo with much more shadow detail than I thought possible. Compared to my silver contact print of the same image, the ink jet has at least one more zone of shadow detail, thanks to bringing up the shadows in the levels adjustment. I'm sure there are more sophisticated things I could have done to the photo in Elements, but what we came away with wasn't bad for a couple of seat-of-their-pants guys. To come away with the same enlargement in the darkroom, would have required masterful dodging of the shadows. Still, the 4x5 contact silver print has a certain something about it that's really nice.....

Jim Jones

12-Oct-2012, 19:55

A traditional photograph has subtle advantages I haven't achieved in prints from an Epson 3800, but the ease of digital editing and the ability to run off many identical prints with no further editing makes the 3800 worth while. I don't intend to return to silver printing except perhaps on rare occasions. Printing for some sophisticated markets might best be done in a darkroom.