Getting High Quality Scans from BW Prints

[darr]

Copying material produced from previous generations of an original will never give optimum results.

The original negative/positive is the first generation, which will give optimum results.
A print made directly from the original is the second generation.
Then, a digital file made from the print will be third generation, not a quality standard.

The best for quality is to scan your negative and work in a digital platform like Lightroom for dodging/burning, etc.
If you stick with it, you will see it can be easier to process images digitally because digital tools can be vary accurate when used with skill.

If I were you (which I am not), I would spend the money to make comparison files to see the differences.
You can pay a digital imaging pro to make a file from the original negative/positive with your instructions for dodging, burning, etc.
Also, have a pro scan of the print and compare the files online.

Best to you,
Darr

[Doremus Scudder]

Copying material produced from previous generations of an original will never give optimum results.

The original negative/positive is the first generation, which will give optimum results.
A print made directly from the original is the second generation.
Then, a digital file made from the print will be third generation, not a quality standard.

The best for quality is to scan your negative and work in a digital platform like Lightroom for dodging/burning, etc.
If you stick with it, you will see it can be easier to process images digitally because digital tools can be vary accurate when used with skill.

If I were you (which I am not), I would spend the money to make comparison files to see the differences.
You can pay a digital imaging pro to make a file from the original negative/positive with your instructions for dodging, burning, etc.
Also, have a pro scan of the print and compare the files online.

Best to you,
Darr

Darr,

Not necessarily agreeing with you and musing at the same time...

Let's see: scanning a negative results in a digital file with scanner artifacts and alterations to the original introduced by the process and nature of scanning, making that file first generation. Then one tweaks and manipulates that file with software and creates yet another digital file; this one is second generation. Then one prints that on a printer (which utilizes software and drivers and has reproduction characteristics of its own), thus making the print either third or fourth generation, depending how you look at it.

I make a print in the darkroom. Yes, I started with a negative, but the negative is simply raw material, the print itself is the "work of art/final product" and is, IM-HO, the "original." My point here being that the negative/positive is less of a first-generation finished product than a record of information from which one makes a first-generation final image.

Now then, if I make a good digital copy photograph of my print; that's first generation. I then tweak that with software and make another digital file; that's second generation. I then print that (...as above), resulting in a third or fourth generation copy, depending on how you look at it.

It seems to me, that the real consideration here is how lossy the process of reproduction is and how faithfully changes/adjustments are made to the image (in whatever form) during the reproduction process. Ten steps with a 1% loss of detail/information is better than three steps with a 5% loss each...

I know that printers sure did a good job reproducing paintings from transparencies in the past and do a heck of a good job with digital reproductions today.

It also seem to me that scanning a negative and attempting to reproduce print manipulations made in the darkroom plus whatever toning, etc. may have been done in order to reproduce that darkroom print with a printed digital file might just be adding an extra step. Digitally photographing the darkroom print might get you a file that is closer to the original and needs less post-processing in order to be as faithful as possible to the original.

Just thinking out loud and fishing for feedback,

Doremus

[darr]

Darr,

Not necessarily agreeing with you and musing at the same time...

Let's see: scanning a negative results in a digital file with scanner artifacts and alterations to the original introduced by the process and nature of scanning, making that file first generation. Then one tweaks and manipulates that file with software and creates yet another digital file; this one is second generation. Then one prints that on a printer (which utilizes software and drivers and has reproduction characteristics of its own), thus making the print either third or fourth generation, depending how you look at it.

I make a print in the darkroom. Yes, I started with a negative, but the negative is simply raw material, the print itself is the "work of art/final product" and is, IM-HO, the "original." My point here being that the negative/positive is less of a first-generation finished product than a record of information from which one makes a first-generation final image.

Now then, if I make a good digital copy photograph of my print; that's first generation. I then tweak that with software and make another digital file; that's second generation. I then print that (...as above), resulting in a third or fourth generation copy, depending on how you look at it.

It seems to me, that the real consideration here is how lossy the process of reproduction is and how faithfully changes/adjustments are made to the image (in whatever form) during the reproduction process. Ten steps with a 1% loss of detail/information is better than three steps with a 5% loss each...

I know that printers sure did a good job reproducing paintings from transparencies in the past and do a heck of a good job with digital reproductions today.

It also seem to me that scanning a negative and attempting to reproduce print manipulations made in the darkroom plus whatever toning, etc. may have been done in order to reproduce that darkroom print with a printed digital file might just be adding an extra step. Digitally photographing the darkroom print might get you a file that is closer to the original and needs less post-processing in order to be as faithful as possible to the original.

Just thinking out loud and fishing for feedback,

Doremus

Doremus,
I understand your reasoning and mostly concur, but I'd bypass the print and go directly to digital if the final output is meant for online viewing.
For several years, I've been using a digital back to convert some of my film and an APS-C sensor for the rest, with excellent results.
My previous experience with scanners, like the Epson v750, didn't yield results as good as my current setup.

Photographers have their preferred tools, and I don't engage in optical printing.
Even when I had a darkroom, it wasn't something I used extensively for a few reasons (time mostly).
Transitioning to digital was natural for me, especially since I was already immersed in the graphics field.
I believe the user's proficiency with the equipment is key to achieving good results.

Darr

[Jim Andrada]

I wasn't blown away by the results I was getting with my 750 either. So I upgraded to an IQsmart 2 and no more complaints. Almost. If I were doing more 35mm and Minox I'd rather have the IQsmart 3 - but MF and LF on the IQsmart 2 is fine. (Yes, seriously - I love the Minox for candids. People tend to chuckle when you aim it at them.)

[Doremus Scudder]

Doremus,
I understand your reasoning and mostly concur, but I'd bypass the print and go directly to digital if the final output is meant for online viewing. ...

I don't engage in optical printing. ...

Darr

Darr,

A well-made silver-gelatin print looks unlike anything you can do in digital. Yes, the differences are slight and subtle, but I can spot the silver-gelatin prints out of an exhibition of photographs every time. The expressive palette is just not the same. Even more so for Pt/Pd, Carbon and other alt processes. If you do print optically or use alt processes (or paint or draw, etc.) then its the character of the medium you use that you want to come across in any reproduction you make for printing or for online viewing. Photographing the original as faithfully as possible, digitally these days, is still the best way to preserve those differences.

Now, if you're working hybrid and your print output is digital, you should have a digital file to resize and put up online already, right?

Best,

Doremus

[Peter De Smidt]

I have some of the Lenswork Special Edition prints. Brooks scanned the original prints at 600 spi, made imagesetter negatives, and contact printed these negatives on fiber based silver gelatin papers, selenium toned them.....I have a set of images by Wynn Bullock. The quality is outstanding.

But for enlargements, yes, scan the film if you can.

[Tin Can]

I recently I had a BW 4X5 neg scanned long ago V700, printed at 5 X 7

I it was stored on Flickr, they printed it better

Not cheap

but damn good

[darr]

Darr,

A well-made silver-gelatin print looks unlike anything you can do in digital. Yes, the differences are slight and subtle, but I can spot the silver-gelatin prints out of an exhibition of photographs every time. The expressive palette is just not the same. Even more so for Pt/Pd, Carbon and other alt processes. If you do print optically or use alt processes (or paint or draw, etc.) then its the character of the medium you use that you want to come across in any reproduction you make for printing or for online viewing. Photographing the original as faithfully as possible, digitally these days, is still the best way to preserve those differences.

I can appreciate the uniqueness of silver gelatin and other alternative processes; they offer a tactile and organic experience deeply rooted in photography’s history. But it's worth mentioning that the digital realm has its own set of advantages -- precision, versatility, and the ability to manipulate on a pixel-by-pixel level. Just as you can spot a silver-gelatin print, I believe an expert could discern the unique characteristics that digital processing brings to the table. The beauty of photography today lies in the myriad of options available, each with its own texture and expressive palette. So, while traditional methods will always have their place, let's not underestimate the artistic potential of the digital canvas.

Now, if you're working hybrid and your print output is digital, you should have a digital file to resize and put up online already, right?

Absolutely, having a high-quality digital file is crucial when you're working in a hybrid setup. But even with that, there's a difference between a file optimized for print and one optimized for online display. Factors like resolution, color profiles, and even compression algorithms can alter how an image appears across different media. So, while the digital file serves as a good starting point, it still requires nuanced adjustments to faithfully represent the print when displayed online. It's not just a one-size-fits-all scenario; each output demands its own tailored approach.

Best,
Darr

[bob carnie]

I have started using this system in my Studio Phase One Cultural Heritage Setup, Moving from Creo Eversmart Supreme and Imocan slowly , its amazing technology and there is a learning curve, been working
on the system for about 3 months now , I am moving through all the film formats over the next few months and learning how to edit in the Cultural Phase one system using Capture One. I feel like an old dog learning new tricks.

[darr]

I have started using this system in my Studio Phase One Cultural Heritage Setup, Moving from Creo Eversmart Supreme and Imocan slowly , its amazing technology and there is a learning curve, been working
on the system for about 3 months now , I am moving through all the film formats over the next few months and learning how to edit in the Cultural Phase one system using Capture One. I feel like an old dog learning new tricks.

Nice!!