scanner and 4x5 or contact print 8x10

[Leonard Evens]

There are of course differences in what you can do when contacting printing and what you can do when scanning. There are also differences in the look in the two cases. But it is hard to believe you could detect any difference in resolution of fine detail. For example the Epson 4990 scanner can resolve at least 30 lp/mm by any measure whatsoever. A 2 X enlargement would reduce that to 15 lp/mm. I haven't heard of anyone who claims to be able to see better than that when viewing an 8 x 10 print from 10-12 inches.

There are some other differences between 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 view cameras. As you increase the format size, you reduce depth of field for the same angle of view, relative aperture, and final size print. That means you may have to stop down more and increase exposure times for adequate depth of field. Then subject movement, even fustling of leaves can be a problem. Even going from medium format to 4 x 5 you will encounter this problem, but it will be worse for 8 x 10.

[paulr]

If you are talking about making 2x enlargements, then resolution is a complete non-issue with a halfway decent scanner. I've been working with an epson 4870 to scan a body of work that gets enlarged a maximum of 2.5x. The scanner extracts more detail than the human eye can see at print size. Also consider that the maximum image resolution of an epson printer driver is 720 pixels per inch, which translates to 14 lp/mm. All you need from your scanner to achieve 1440 pixels/inch real optical resolution. You can get a scanner that can do this for $400. And yes, 14lp/mm is plenty. Without a loupe, if all other factors are rigidly controlled, you will not be able to tell the difference between this and 11 lp/mm, no matter how good your eyes are*

The other issue is how well the scanner can see into dense areas on the negative. If you're talking about black and white or color negs, then you'll have no problem, unless your negs are outrageously contrasty. For 2x enlargements from bw, you can easily equal a drum scanner, if you do a careful job, keep the film flat, use good scan software and learn to use** it, etc. etc... If you're talking about chromes, then you will see significant differences by spending much more $$$ or by sending out for drum scans.

It would be an interesting side-by-side comparison. The work that I'm doing now includes several 4x5 contact prints. I've only begun to work on one of these; so far it appears that the digital one looks sharper, but the darkroom one somehow looks more like a contact print. I'll report more on this after I've worked with a few of them.

*in distinguishing fine detail. There may well be a difference in the appearance of diagonal lines. But this has nothing to do with scan resolution.

**it's important that you learn high quality sharpening techniques. a book like Real World Photoshop CS has a lot of good advice on this, if you're not already familiar with it.

[Aaron van de Sande]

That 2,000 scanner will be a worthless pile of junk in 10 years. Instead, get a wehman camera for the same price. Use it for 10 years and sell it for close to what you paid for it. My .02$.

[Ted Harris]

Percy, the 'consumer' class scanners are the Epson 3200/4870/4990, the Microtek i900 and the Canon 9950. The Microtek 1800f, 2500f, Creo Eversmarts, Imacons, drum scanners, etc. are all out of that consumer class, there are others too, of course. The Microtek 1800f and 2500f are the only two that come in at $2500 or less. The 1800f is under $1000.

[paulr]

"Eversmarts, Imacons, drum scanners, etc. are all out of that consumer class ... "

This is true, but the advantages that they offer will be invisible in many circumstances. The high end scanners offer higher resolution, ability to separate denser shadow values, and in some cases better color fidelity. But if you're working in black and white, your maximum negative density is well within the range of what the low end scanner can do, and the max. resolution you need is also well within its range, you're not going to see a difference. I talked this over with a number of drum scanner operators and they all concurred.

Making 8x10 bw prints from 4x5 negatives is precisely where you can get high end results from a low end scanner.

[Christian Olivet]

Contact printing is simple, very simple. Scanning and photoshopping and outputting is in my opinion more complicated and incredibly more expensive.

The simplicity of contact printing will allow you to be productive and you will learn photography from scratch by doing so. The process itself is the teacher.

Have fun, simply!

[robert_4927]

Keep in mind also the advantage in contact printing an 8x10 allows you to work in various mediums: platinum/pt. pd. van dyke, cyanotype, azo, ect..... ect.....

[Kirk Gittings]

"The other issue is how well the scanner can see into dense areas on the negative. If you're talking about black and white or color negs, then you'll have no problem, unless your negs are outrageously contrasty. For 2x enlargements from bw, you can easily equal a drum scanner, if you do a careful job, keep the film flat, use good scan software and learn to use** it, etc. etc... If you're talking about chromes, then you will see significant differences by spending much more $$$ or by sending out for drum scans."

This is all absolutely true. I have done the comparisons with drum scans and Pauls statement with those qualifications is absolutely true.

[Percy]

Thank you all.