Why Scan LF B&W Negatives?

[Paul Butzi]

Sigh.

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.

Your argument seems to be that going digital is hard, time consuming, expensive, requires work, and produces inconsistent results.

Sure, it's hard, time consuming, expensive, and requires work. Everything that's worth doing falls into that category, including traditional darkroom work (assuming you're actually trying).

As for product variation and inconsistent results - well, I've run hundreds and hundreds of feet of paper through my printer. Last week I made a comparison print, to compare to one I'd done just after I switched to matte paper. It is indistinguishable from the one made earlier this year, athough it's made on a roll of paper purchased from a different vendor from that first roll. That's pretty good product consistency. Beyond that, one of the charges leveled at digital printing is that everything is perfectly consistent. It's either one, or the other. I know quite a few people printing digitally, and none of them have mentioned product variablility as an issue they've faced at all.

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?

I still have a fully equipped, comfortable and spacious B&W darkroom. You can go to my website and read extensive reviews of darkroom equipment. I enjoy working in the darkroom; I've written articles on VC printing and I've taught darkroom skills to numerous people.

My preference for digital printing is based on the superior results.

Is it just more fun regardless of outcomes?

No, it's not more fun regardless of outcome. But I definitely enjoy making better prints, so overall it's more enjoyable, yes.

Do you really know that the prints from scanning are better than wet work, and how are they better?

Yes, I really know that the digital prints are better. I know because when I compare the best digital print I can make to the best silver print I can make for the same image, I think the digital print is better. So do the photographers with whom I've been meeting every other week for the past seven years - photographers who've gotten to know my work over the long term, and whose work I respect and judgement I trust. I know the prints are better because the feedback I get when I display them has improved.

[John_4185]

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

And I don't understand your statement. I think you are saying that it does not matter which procedure one uses: digital scans and printing or conventional B&W wet printing. If I am correct, then perhaps I have to rephrase the point you did not understand. I assert that photoshopped manipulations create different outcomes than traditional printing, regardless of the PS metaphors. Exceptions always exist, but PS evinces itself and users' expectations are building on the same so that digital-made prints now tend more of the same and the differences steadily become more apparent - for better or worse. There is no moral in the assertion, no grounds for angst. The differences will become as clear as LF is to 35mm and similar comparisons.

[Christopher Perez]

John,

This week I had a chance to inspect a digital inter-neg Pt/Pd print that someone made. It was so stunning that I nearly fell off my chair.

It seems that scanning B&W negs might work well for photographers who work in one format (say, 4x5), and choose to print in one of the alternative methods (say Pt/Pd) at something greater than the native format of the original image.

I can see where scanning might have it's limitations for how large you can go. But within certain size limits there may be some very compelling reasons for choosing to scan your LF negs.

Taking this one step further: If you really like what can be done to sharpen up the edges of the digital scan, or to increase local contrast, maybe it makes sense to by-pass the chemical print process and go straight from a neg, scan it, manipulate the digital output, and print from your Epson using archival dyes.

I'm not ready to go this route. I don't like the surface texture one gets with most acid free papers, nor do I like the surface Pt/Pd produce. To me (and this is JUST me), it looks like something out of a well printed magazine or coffee table book. I'll stick with the old silver chemical processes for awhile more.

But that Pt/Pd print I saw earlier this week was sure nice.

[Bruce Watson]

Is a wet darkroom all that bad? Yes.

Do people prefer to sit on their butt when working? Yes. You say it like it's a bad thing. You must be young ;-)

Stay dry? Yes.

Avoid chemistry? Yes.

Is the attraction really a desire for new methods simply to avoid mastering the old? No. I mastered the old too. The desire is for better tools that are beyond the scope of the old methods. It's called, for better or worse, progress, and isn't isolated to just darkroom printing. I'll take a word processor program over an old Royal manual typewriter any day, for example, because it's a better tool.

Is it just more fun regardless of outcomes? Yes.

Do you really know that the prints from scanning are better than wet work, and how are they better? Yes. Better shadow detail and better highlight detail in the same print. Better tonal graduations. Not having to shoe-horn the dynamic range of the negative into the more restricted dynamic range of the print -- IOW, much less dodging and burning, and the dodging and burning I do is for creative reasons, not to make up for the shortcomings of the materials.

Not to mention the far greater choice of substrates and surfaces to print on, or the ease of printing big. But the big reason to do it is the increased control and better tools. It makes it easier to say what you want to say with the print. And that's the reason to make the print in the first place. Because you have something to say.

I'd not call it more control, but a greater and apparent digression from the handwork of traditional darkroom outcomes. Trotting out the old "hand work" argument, eh? Whatever works for you. If that's what you want, then stay in the darkroom. One should use the tools with which one is most comfortable. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Interesting that you seem to have already made up your mind, yet you are asking these questions. Having doubts? Asking for opinions isn't going to help with that. The only way to find out what really works for you, is to really do the work yourself and find out. Sorry. But you know there are no easy answers.

[tim atherton]

"Exceptions always exist, but PS evinces itself and users' expectations are building on the same so that digital-made prints now tend more of the same and the differences steadily become more apparent - for better or worse"

I'm not sure I agree that photoshop always (or even) shows and declares itself in the resulting work. It tends to show itself in a certain kind of work (Struth) and it also shows itself in poor work/workmanship (as do, for example IR film or deep red filters where technique triumphs over artistry or craftsmanship). But rather than them being exceptions, I see large swaths of photographic work in which, unless one enquired, or took a loupe to the prints on the gallery wall (and even harder to tell when conveyed in a book), you really couldn't tell how it was produced - one way or the other. Especially, though not only, in colour work. And it most of those cases how the final image is produced is surely of no import. These are not just a few exceptions.

Is this just a matter of degree or a fault line shift? (I tend more towards the former)

What exactly is "the same" that digital made prints always tend towards.

(a facetious argument could be made that LF+ velvia tends to produce a far more obvious example of "the same" that such work tends towards)

But in the end we just tend towards the two incompatible solitudes on this list - one being that digital (photography or just printing) is merely the latest technical extension of photography in the line from negatives to dry plates to sheet film to colour to auto focus (take your pick of innovations) - though one which frees it of many of the technical straight jackets of the past. The other that digital photography/prints (digitogrpahy/fauxtogrpahy/inkjet posters) is a completely different animal, a new thing, as different from photography as photography was from painting - then the one being mechanical, the other organic, and it should be treated and regarded as such. It's unlikely the two views will ever converge on here

[paulr]

"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."

well, that strikes me as a broad generalization with a healthy dose of bias thrown in. and it's familiar to me because i felt the same way, and came from the same place as you: a black and white photographer who loved the darkroom and considered photoshop a tool only worthy of my day job in the graphic arts.

then a couple of things happened. my favorite paper, which it took me years to master all the nuances of, was discontinued (as i knew it would be some day). so i had to face the choice of finding a new paper that i liked (if even there was one), knowing that i'd have to invest a lot of time learning to print on it, and knowing that it too could be pulled away at any moment ... or go digital, which is a new range of technologies with options that are expanding rather than contracting.

i also found myself embarking on a book project that was perfectly suited to digital printing with carbon pigment quadtone inks. together, these factors led me to take the digital plunge.

here are some of my personal findings:

--How true I stay to the original image is equally a matter of personal choice regardless of what tool I'm using. Photoshop doesn't force me to do unphotographic things to the image just by allowing me to do them ... the same could be said for the darkroom.

--As much as I love my darkroom, the working conditions are better now

--It takes just as much work and skill to get that first print right in photoshop as it does in the darkroom (actually, more right now, since I'm still learning)

--But after that, printing editions is easy. This is a big relief for me, because printing editions using my darkroom process was incredibly difficult and tedious (hard to control, time consuming toning procedures, etc.)

--In general, my digital prints are better than my darkroom prints. And i'm very proud of my darkroom prints

--Scanning pulls more information off the neg than an enlarger can. I used a perfectly aligned enlarger, a glass carrier, and modern apo lens, and there's still no comparison. My $450 scanner, used with shims and wet mounting, is like using a microscope. Between this information density and intelligently applied sharpening, I can make 2X enlargements that look like contact prints. I could not do that with silver prints.

--Because I can print larger editions, I can sell for less. I sold my silver prints for quite a bit more than what the market would sustain most of the time, because they were too f***ing precious. Now I can sell for reasonable money, because it isn't a back breaking ordeal to print an edition of 30.

--I feel relatively future proof. Since my workflow is fully color managed and callibrated, if a paper disappears, an ink gets improved, or a printer gets made obsolete, it's not a big deal to get reasonably similar (and possibly better) results with a new setup.

I still have an attachment to my darkroom processes, and all the gear, and the knowledge that I beat into my head over the years. So I haven't sold it all off. I do wonder what will actually inspire me to make a wet process print again. It might happen, but there's nothing compelling me right now.

[James E Galvin]

When wanting a black and white print, I use a color negative. That lets me, in Photoshop, apply contrast filters after the fact, including filters that aren't made, with channel mixing. For instance, I had a view of Half Dome that looked best in the red channel, but still had a bit of haze. I subtracted some blue channel, and removed the haze. I don't think a deeper red filter would have done the same thing. You can't change the filter on the camera later in the darkroom.

[Denis Pleic]

Space, time and money considerations.

My darkroom is VERY small, and has just enough space for a MF enlarger and bare necessities. Maybe I could fit a 4x5 enlarger there (on the floor!), but where I live those are not easy to come by. When they do, they tend to be expensive.

So, for the time being, I'm scanning.

When I have something really worth enlarging (and perhaps displaying), I'll have to ask some friends about 60 miles away to let me use their darkroom to print the stuff.

If I had a 4x5 enlarger, I'd still scan first - just to get a working "contact copy".

Denis

[Donald Qualls]

Why?

The first year I shot 9x12 cm, I didn't have a darkroom. No enlarger, not even a place I could make totally dark without work I didn't have time to do (2 1/2 hours on the freeway every day, on top of working full time, really cuts into your free time), but I did manage to spend $135 for a good used scanner and SCSI card and cable to connect it. It scans 35 mm up to 4x5 glassless, and up to 8x10 transparent originals on the glass (or to A4 for reflective originals); with homemade adapters I've also scanned my 9x12 cm and Minolta 16 negatives (though with a resolution of 2400 ppi the Minolta 16 are at the lower limit of practicality).

Now that I have a darkroom, I'm using the scanner mostly to scan prints, but with budgetary restraints temporarily cutting off my printing paper supply, it's good to have some means of showing my work even with the darkroom on hold.

I don't count the computer in the budget equation, BTW -- I'd have one of these boxes anyway.

[Joseph O'Neil]

I've been using photo editing tools ever since our fmaily moved form a lead set printing press to computerized desktop pulishing when Pagemaker first came out for Windows 3.1.

You don't want to know how much my first 15" CRT monitor cost me. Brrrrr.

anyhow, my choice is to stay in the wet darkroom, depsite having spent tens of thousands on computers, printers, software, etc, etc, over the years. In no particular order, here is why:

- now that everybody seems to ahve a decent if not good digital camera, software,a nd ahome computer, if i get just *one more * "my 12 year old can dot he same thing for a lot less " comment, I swear, I'm gonna jump across the desk and throttle sombody...

- if I ma on a computer all day - or what seems liek all day, the last thing that relaxes me at night is sitting in front of a computer *again*. I insulated my darkroom,a nd painted it all black inside. The quiet, Zen like atmosphere really relaxes me,a nd i find my "creative juices" - as meagre as they are compared to most distinguished members of this list - are a lot better int he darkroom than in front of a computer. I just don't get "into the zone" (pun intended, if you like sitting in front of a computer.

- speaking of noise, computers and printer put out a lot of "white noise". In find soft music in the background in my darkroom, sans any other noise source, helps my sense of timing when printing. (I highly reccomend Diana Krall when printing fibre based paper prints.

- money wise, copmptuers are a looser in many ways. I have said this before - hobby wise, you can keep going on a computer for a long time. but for business/commerical interests, you have a three year lifespan on your software and hardware.
yes, you can keep a computer going longer than three years, but the proint is, your competition down the street goes out and buys the latest and greatest thingamjig, and you are stuck catching up. For example, I just bought the other day - agian - because one fo my 5 year old printers will nto tlak to my new computer I bought in the spring.

Conversely, my old D2 still gets used. Hell, my old Elwood 4x5 is capable of great prints.

- speakign of redudancy, how can you develop craftsmanship when the buggers who make hardware and software re-invent the wheel every new version. I mean, i learn all teh short cuts, macros, etc, and then poof - they change some silly little thing liek shortcuts on my mouse, etc. Drives you nuts. I don't ahve to relearn how to use a new enalrger every three years.

- Some of you don't like the smell of chemistry eh? Ever hear of a darkroom fan. And what about indoor office ozone air pollution from your equipment?

- when the power goes out, my enlarger and safelight will go a long, long time on my battery backup. By comparison, I have about 5 minutes to shut down my computers during a power blackout,

- Yes, I use Nortons, Zone Alrm Pro and just aobut every other major bit of skyware scanners, anti-virus software, etc, etc. Still I have been nailed hard - twice. Lost many files. Yes, I do use backup - and have done so since day one. But ti's still a pain int he butt. This kinda of crap happens when you accpet disks/CDs from clients. Never had a virus - or a rare earth magnet - wipe out my negatives or prints.

- I dunno about the rest of you, but speaking on personally for my own situaiton, I have sent far more toxinsa nd garbage to the dump - since i went computerized than we ever did using a lead set type printing press or aform darkroom waste. "E-Waste" as the phrase has been coined is a far greater problem than any darkroom waste has been. Your milage may vary, this si just my situation.

- yes, you can transfer files form one older format to a newer format. But hwo many of you guys have actually done that - spent hours and hours, taking old files off 3.5" disks, tape backup,a nd moving them onto CD-roms? What a pain in the butt. I never have to recopy my negatives or prints every 3-5 years.

anyhow, i coudl go on and on and on. I have all the respect in the world for guys using digital - hell, it pays the bills for me and puts food on the table, but I like to think for myself. For example, when I started out in B&W, I shot 35mm,a nd my two favourite cameras were the Nikon FM and th eNikon FM2 (still ahve them). totoally manual, mechanical. I woudln't touch a Nikon F4 or F5 if you gav eme one. Hey, for some work - like a sports photographer - sure - it's the way to go and make a living.

But I find - and agin - this is just for me - your milage will vary - the more I slowed down - jumping form my nikon to my Mamyia and later 4x5 - the more I force myself to stop, think - even if it means I spent and entire day just gettign one print "just right" - I find the quality of my work improves.

yes, I do use PhotoPaint (I'm a Corel kinda guy , and in fact, one piece of work I just did this past week eneded up being used by the local TV station for 6 o'clock news, everybody thought it so well done, but I ahve never looked at anything I have done on a computer and felt any kind of sense of accomplishment. It's the work I do in the wet darkroom that makes me feel good about myself.

joe