Some thoughts on scan quality and inkjet printing

I am a fine art photographer, and I work almost exclusively in black&white, 4 x 5". I never thought I'd even consider making inkjet prints, but since my favorite paper (Agfa) has become unavailable, and there is no good alternative, I have had to think again. The problem with inkjet papers has been - compared to a fiber-base silver print - that the image appears to be on top of, instead of below the paper surface. There are some interesting new papers now (I have to admit I haven't seen them yet), that mimic the surface of an air-dried fiber-base print.
And then there are the very interesting new HP printers, with a clear ink cartridge, that hopefully will help the image to "sink" below the surface.

This is good news, because I don't want anyone to notice that my prints are made with a different technology. I have been selling prints for more than 25 years, and I wouldn't like a situation where a buyer says something like - "Hey, why does the print you sold me look so different to the one a friend of mine bought in 1995? It's the same picture, but it looks different."
Well - my printing does change over time - I print a little lighter now than ten years ago - but what I'm talking about here, is the feel of the paper.

Then there is image quality - and scanners.
At the moment I have two flatbeds - a 4990 and a V750. (I am not sure which one to keep, because they produce identical results.) Anyway, I've made some tests, scanning a couple of negatives, and printing 13 x 19" crops of the full scan (which is 26 x 33", 300 dpi), and compared these with traditional 26 x 33" prints made in my darkroom with a Schneider Apo-Componon HM 150 mm lens (at f/11, in case anyone's interested). Inkjet prints were made with an Epson 2400 on Epson Premium Luster. (too much texture for my taste, but 100 sheets came with the printer)
No USM or anything else was used during scanning (Epson Scan). In Photoshop, I ran Despeckle twice, then USM twice at something like 500 - 0.4 - 0. (these settings would of course vary with image content)

Having read quite a lot about the relatively low quality of flatbed scans, I was quite surprised to see that it was almost impossible to see any difference in quality between the two prints. I am nearsighted, so when I remove my glasses, I can examine very small details in a print. With my regular glasses (minus 4) on, the prints look identical. When I put on my reading glasses (minus 1) , still no difference. Without glasses, i can spot a difference in certain areas of the image - typically a distant, may be moss-covered mountainside with uniform tone, where the silver print is on the verge of revealing texture and detail. This is where the inkjet print falls short. These areas become a little muddy and washed-out, and get a hint of that typical digital look, that often appears if you apply too much noise removal. But the difference is quite subtle - if the silver print has a quality of 100, I'd say the inkjet is 95.

Now, 95 out of 100 is not perfect, so I am looking for a Poloraid Sprint Scan Ultra, that I hope can produce scans with a 105 or may be 110 quality. Better to be on the safe side. But a higher increase in quality than that would be inappropriate - for the same reasons I mentioned above. I want my prints to have the same feel and quality today as 10 or 20 years ago - it's what buyers expect, and that particular quality has become a part of my aesthetic.
I have never had a drum scan made, but if I did, I suspect that I would dislike the resulting prints. They would probably be stunningly sharp and detailed, but deviate so much from my standards, that they would look plain wrong. And there's a possibility that they would be so stunning that the technical brilliance would overshadow the image itself, and that's definetely something I wouldn't want.
But if I were to start from scratch as an artist today - well, that's another story ...

I'm not sure what you point is. If you had a question in there I missed it. But I can ramble too ;-)

You seem to be under the impression that inkjet prints are just wanna be silver prints. If that's the case, you are mistaken. It's a different media with its own look and feel.

One of the reasons that your inkjet prints "look digital" is that you are heavily manipulating your files in an attempt to overcome deficiencies with your scans. Heavy handed use of filters and lots of sharpening leave visible artifacts in your files. Inkjet printing, IMHO, wants the minimum manipulation of your files that you can get away with. Subtle is better than heavy handed. If you start with better scans you'll likely be better off.

Speaking of which, for prints the size you are considering, a drum scan is appropriate. Get over your fears and try one and see if it's right for you.

Finally, your years of experience as a darkroom printer mean that you can recognize a good print when you see one. Sadly, with all that experience you are still an inkjet newbie. Hard work and experience apply to inkjet printing just like it did in the darkroom; unfortunately, it's completely different hard work and experience. You are starting over. Embrace it and enjoy the experience.

I'll take aim at one point, the Polaroid Sprint Scan Ultra. I'd love to hear from some folks who are still using one of these and have the ability to compare raw results with one of the current day crop of prosumer flatbeds. I say this because the Ultra was an ok scanner for its time but was flawed in its execution (so say some of the engineers at Microtek who actually made it) even then. I can't comment directly as I have never used one but would lke to hear from those who have.

BTW, on the larger issue if you want to do large prints and sell them for good money then you should see the results you get from a high end scanner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Watson

I'm not sure what you point is. If you had a question in there I missed it. But I can ramble too ;-)

You seem to be under the impression that inkjet prints are just wanna be silver prints. If that's the case, you are mistaken. It's a different media with its own look and feel.

One of the reasons that your inkjet prints "look digital" is that you are heavily manipulating your files in an attempt to overcome deficiencies with your scans. Heavy handed use of filters and lots of sharpening leave visible artifacts in your files. Inkjet printing, IMHO, wants the minimum manipulation of your files that you can get away with. Subtle is better than heavy handed. If you start with better scans you'll likely be better off.

Speaking of which, for prints the size you are considering, a drum scan is appropriate. Get over your fears and try one and see if it's right for you.

Finally, your years of experience as a darkroom printer mean that you can recognize a good print when you see one. Sadly, with all that experience you are still an inkjet newbie. Hard work and experience apply to inkjet printing just like it did in the darkroom; unfortunately, it's completely different hard work and experience. You are starting over. Embrace it and enjoy the experience.

---

There was no question - but may be a slight reaction to the general advice given on this forum that drum scanning is the only way to go. For a lot of people, that may be true - I am not sure it is for me. As an artist, I must choose whichever technique that serves my images best. But I will probably try a drum scan - to see what it's like.

I am well aware that inkjet prints are a different medium - and I want to find out whether I can make inkjets that satisfy my needs. This will of course be a lot of work, and I have barely started. I'm still working in the darkroom, and will continue to do so, until I run out of Agfa paper.

As for the digital look - if you are longsighted or have normal eyesight, you would have a hard time seeing it. But you are of course quite right that this is due to heavy manipulation. And of course it helps with a better scanner - which I am aiming at.

I'd agree with Bruce that for enlargements of that size you're probably running into limitations of those scanners. And that anything "digital" looking about the prints is either a result of overprocessing or overenlargement.

Have you compared the prints under glass? I find glazing practically eliminates the differences caused by print surface. If you want a gloss finish on a pigment inkjet, the answer will probably be handcoating with some kind of varnish or acrylic (not easy ... I'm working on this for a project right now).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulr

Have you compared the prints under glass? I find glazing practically eliminates the differences caused by print surface. If you want a gloss finish on a pigment inkjet, the answer will probably be handcoating with some kind of varnish or acrylic (not easy ... I'm working on this for a project right now).

---

I know that varnishing is possible, but I have been told that it's difficult, and that you need to do it in a dust free environment.
So I am interested to see how the new HPs perform with their clear ink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ted Harris

the Ultra was an ok scanner for its time but was flawed in its execution (so say some of the engineers at Microtek who actually made it) even then.

---

Ted,
Do you know what these engineers are referring to - what kind of flaw?