Why Scan LF B&W Negatives?

[John_4185]

Speaking here to Black and White only because I don't know color printing well enough to wonder.

The earlier, long thread regarding How To Scan begs the question "WHY?"

It strikes me that there is more mucking about, greater expense, guaranteed obsolescence, a steep learning curve, enormous variations in products, process and outcomes than traditional methods.

What is the attraction to scanning LF negatives? Is a wet darkroom all that bad? Do people prefer to sit on their butt when working? Stay dry? Avoid chemistry? Is the attraction really a desire for new methods simply to avoid mastering the old? Is it just more fun regardless of outcomes? Do you really know that the prints from scanning are better than wet work, and how are they better?

[Don Wallace]

After much frustration, and much help from folks in this group, I finally got my computer/scanner/printer working, but I only do colour. And even then, I only use it to check out what I want to send to the lab for printing, or for family snaps. You are right about obsolescence. The lab can afford much better equipment than I can and they replace it when required. So I leave the really serious colour stuff to them, as I always have.

I scan black and white to save a bit of testing in the darkroom. I can get a feel for what a negative has to offer on the computer, without having to waste paper or chemistry. However, you are quite right. The wet darkroom is so much better than the computer, and darkroom prints are, in my opinion, vastly superior. I am also starting to get into older processes where the differences will be even more obvious.

This is a great time for darkroom aficionados. I bought a Devere 504 with colour head for fifty bucks, and a Durst 5x7 enlarger for another fifty. It also came with a 150mm Rodenstock Rodagon and a 210mm Schneider Componon S. They won't need replacing until after I am dead. I sure hope more people go digital.

[darr]

I prefer scanning to traditional darkroom because I feel I have more control. If you are an avid Photoshop artist you would understand the control that is available and that there are so many avenues to go down in this discussion that I choose not to make this a table of contents about digital darkroom and Photoshop artistry.

Maybe since I started out as a commercial illustrator in my career and then for the next 25 years developed my skills through the world of computer graphics I was swayed more than the average photographer. For years I could not wait until it became affordable for me to switch my darkroom equipment for a commercial quality scanner. Today I still process my film in a Jobo ATL 1000 with no desire to shoot 100% digital, but I scan all my film and do my darkroom duties in Photoshop.

Please do not let this go into another digital argument because the photographers that reject or just simply do not have an interest in learning how to use the digital tools really should not comment or complain about us that do. I would never argue with a photographer that chooses traditional techniques over digital. I just accept and respect their chosen art form. Traditionalist should respect others as well.

[Donald Brewster]

In an ideal world, I'd be contact printing 14x17 negatives. But the real world intervenes. Most of my work gets scanned. Only sometimes do I get to use a darkroom. It's the way it is. I envy those who have the time and space for the darkroom, as well as their skills. I also respect the skills of the photoshop masters that I will never acquire. Commerce more and more requires that latter. Both are a craft.

[John_4185]

I prefer scanning to traditional darkroom because I feel I have more control. If you are an avid Photoshop artist you would understand the control that is available and that there are so many avenues to go down in this discussion that I choose not to make this a table of contents about digital darkroom and Photoshop artistry.

For the record, a good part of my living is made using Photoshop and Illustrator, and I understand the controls. We need not go down the list, but PS enhanced, modified images are different in so many ways, regardless of the darkroom metaphor, that I'd not call it more control, but a greater and apparent digression from the handwork of traditional darkroom outcomes.

[Ed Richards]

Pure pragmatics. I shoot 4x5 and want to make prints bigger than contacts, but I have no space for a darkroom. I can develop my own film in a Jobo expert drum with a changing bag and not have to have a darkroom, then I scan and print digitally. If space and time were not limited, I would have a darkroom and make big silver prints. I did not say money, because digital is pretty expensive. I have computers already, so the incremental expense is not high. I think there are a lot of artistic reasons to work digitally, but that is not why I do it. I would like to think that I could always print my negatives in silver if the future changed, but I am not so sure that the negatives I target for scanning are the same contrast and density I would need to print on silver.

[Eric Leppanen]

I only took up serious amateur photography several years ago, so I was looking at a serious learning curve whichever way I went (analog or digital). To hasten my development as a photographer, I decided to concentrate my education on image capture (using color and B&W film) and farm out processing and printing to outside experts. I have been very happy with the scanned digital prints I've been getting, but had my B&W work printed using traditional methods because to my eye digital B&W was not yet ready for prime time (lack of DMax, etc.).

The added advantage is using outside printing experts is that I get excellent feedback regarding optimizing my negatives to the requirements of printmaking. To do the same on my own would require taking a bunch of classes and setting up my own home darkroom (analog or digital), a significant undertaking.

The latest generation of inkjet printers appear to have made significant strides in B&W printing, so I will soon be revisiting B&W digital printing again. If they achieve a result very similar to traditional silver printing, then I will switch to B&W digital printing in a heartbeat. There are too many advantages to the added control of digital: 1) added shadow detail can be brought out in contrasty scenes, 2) unwanted elements (an ugly fence, a fellow photographer who got in my way, etc.) can be cloned out, 3) I don't have to shoot additional negatives in the field for N+ development since contrast can be selectively added in the printing stage, etc.

I don't shoot for gallery sales, so I don't get caught up in questions or prejudices as to what printing process I used. I'm free to pick the process that produces the result I want with the least amount of effort. By making the process more productive and less arduous I usually end up taking more photographs in the field.

[Ron Marshall]

I'm currently living in a small apartment with no space for a darkroom, so scanning is the only option for me.

[tim atherton]

"For the record, a good part of my living is made using Photoshop and
Illustrator, and I understand the controls. We need not go down the list,
but PS enhanced, modified images are different in so many ways, regardless
of the darkroom metaphor, that I'd not call it more control, but a
greater and apparent digression from the handwork of traditional darkroom
outcomes."

I'm not sure exactly what your point is? Nor that what I think you are saying here is an issue at all?

[George Losse]

JJ,

I scan my LF work only to proof it, not to make final prints from. As a proofing tool, scanning LF negatives has many benefits.

Time - Scanning a negative is much faster then contact proofing.

Costs - I'm on my third scanner but they have still cost less then the paper that would have been needed to contact proof all the negatives I've scanned.

Space - I store all my scans in my laptop in local websites instead of in binders on bookcases. Its also much easier to find images then going through the binders.