Scanned Darkroom Prints Look Awful

[Corran]

One of these is a scan of the print and one of them is the film scan. Can you tell which is which?



Print scans fresh off the scanner don't look like the print. Some careful contrast editing and color manipulation to get the tone right is needed. This is semi-matte paper by the way, but I've had about equal success with glossy and even the ART300 textured paper.

Now I use a different scanner than most of y'all so I can't be definitive, but I think a bit more work editing the scan is all you need. Also, I scan low contrast so that I get all the info from the shadows on the paper - just like film scanning, in a way. The only real issue is dust, which is not really the scanner's fault.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I find that I'm having to do a lot more sharpening than I'd anticipated

Of course. Every step to producing an image optically reduces resolution, or accutance.

[jim10219]

I don't think you can get away from Photoshopping your scans unless you're content with mediocre scans.

The problem is likely to the image being made of silver. It looks dark to our eyes, but under an intense and direct light, such as in a scanner, it's pretty reflective. That would explain the lack of contrast. I think photographing your prints would help because you don't have to use a direct light, but can use a diffused light, off center. Though, I've never had issues with correcting the scans in Photoshop. If you find that takes too much time, try saving some presets. Often times if you scan the same paper over and over again, you can find a preset that, if it doesn't eliminate the need to alter the contrast of each photo (I use the curves tool for this), it at least speeds up your workflow by giving you a better starting point.

[Jac@stafford.net]

As we have discussed, it is difficult to evaluate small screen images, but my guess is that #2 is the film scan.

[Jim Andrada]

I was going to guess #2 as well. Maybe we're both wrong, but...

[Corran]

I'm curious to know why you both thought that.

The bottom one is...the print!

[Pere Casals]

The final scan does not look like the print in my hand

Ian, you have to edit the curves in Photoshop, then you may obtain a closer match.

It's really difficult that an image seen in a monitor would show how it will be the print, the Soft Proofing tools try to simulate it, and the same happens in the inverted direction, you have to edit the curves to make the monitor show the print like you want.

Often the subtleties of a silver print cannot be shown in a monitor, because the print reflects light depending on illumination angle, etc, but you can get an acceptable match by editing the image.

[IanBarber]

Ian, you have to edit the curves in Photoshop, then you may obtain a closer match.

It's really difficult that an image seen in a monitor would show how it will be the print, the Soft Proofing tools try to simulate it, and the same happens in the inverted direction, you have to edit the curves to make the monitor show the print like you want.

Often the subtleties of a silver print cannot be shown in a monitor, because the print reflects light depending on illumination angle, etc, but you can get an acceptable match by editing the image.

Thanks for all the replies. At least I now know that I cannot simply expect to get a straight scan from the print without at least a bit of tweaking here and there.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks for all the replies. At least I now know that I cannot simply expect to get a straight scan from the print without at least a bit of tweaking here and there.

yes, Ian, in the same way you won't see in a digital print what you saw in the monitor, you have to make wonders in the monitor to guess how it will look the print.

So it's not something that comes from how we scan, but from how it works the presentation medium...

[EdSawyer]

I guessed right on the scans. Not too hard to tell. more dust spots on the bottom one, less detail, less smooth gradations of tone.