Professional versus home scan?

[Ted Harris]

Ahhhhhhh the learning curve. All depends on where you are in the process. If you are already reasonably 'computer literate' and are a solid competent wet darkroom worker then the learning curve will largely consist of translating the skills you use in the darkroom into the digital process ... each step along the way in the digital workflow has its analog in the wet darkroom, this is one of the things we stress in our workshops. Having said that, think back to how long it took you to reach a point where you felt you were a competent printer in your darkroom and then realize that it is going to take time to get there with digital workflow as well. Less time likely much less time since you are translating already learned skills. In my own case I consider myself a master printer in a wet darkroom but it took me 20 + years working in darkrooms to get to the point where I could make that statement. In fact, now that I do a lot less work in a traditional darkroom I am not so sure that I would not have to immerse myself there for a few weeks or months to get all the old skills back. On the other hand, I have been scanning and printing digitally now for nearly seven years and it is only in the past two or three that I have begun to feel really comfortable with my skills. I am still not at the point where I would say I am a 'mastter' ..... perhaps sometime soon though (hopefully).

As far as hardware goes, since I am making the wet darkroom/digital analogy, you get what you need and can afford. My first enlarger was an ancient Federal (I think) with a less than great lens and it was ancient in 1954 when I started using it! I used a lot of enlargers after that and when I finally equipped my studio in The Torpedo Factory with two Omega D 2's I thought I had the best there was. Then I used a high end Durst 4x5 and ....... all going to show that you use what you got and what you can afford but don't be surprised if there is somethig else that might help you better utilize your skills. None of the equipement in the world, of course, will do you any good without the skill ..... that applies to labs with topnotch equipment too, especially those that have the equipment but no artists using it.

[Ted Harris]

Brian is right on. I can think of less than a dozen prints I ever made in a wet darkroomthat were larger than 16x20 and when I did print larger than 16x20 I had to borrow trays from a nearby lab. Printing digitally it is a bit easier but still I seldom do. I have a few exhibition prints that are larger but only a few. I hear people talking about making large prints and I have colleagues that do so on a regular basis, some regulars on this Forum. For the most part though, vrey few people print that large, even digitally. We asked the question of those attending our scanning seminars at the 2005 View Camera Conference to two different filled rooms and in each instance only a small sprinkling of hands went up.

The only time I have seen a preponderance of prints lrger than 16x20 was at this year's Photo LA in Sanata Monica. There, most of the prints were 20x30 larer, many mucgh larger. Nick Brandt, for example, was exhibiting one of his magnificant wall sized prints of an elephant herd. But don't forget, the least expensive print in the entire exhibit was well over $1000 and most were priced in the range of $4000 or more. When I know I have clients that will pay that kind of money for large prints I'll start printing them too bu tfor the average viewing area they gete too large.

[Gary Nylander]

To answer Brian's poll question, I print no larger than 16 x 20 from my scanned large format negatives and even when I had my darkroom , 16 x 20 was the largest I ever printed.

Gary

[Harley Goldman]

For Brian's poll, I never make prints bigger than 16x20. I print them on an Epson 4800. I don't have the wall space or the need to go any bigger.

I scan with an Epson 4870 and get drum scans. Several times,I have printed the same image from both and the drum scan is noticeably better. However, if you do not put the prints side by side, the ones from the 4870 are pretty dang good (in fact very good).

[Bruce Watson]

It would be interesting to take a poll here and see what most of us average in terms of routine print size and maximum print size. I'd be willing to bet that very few people here other than the pros (by which I mean those who derive a substantial part of their living from photography) routinely make prints larger than about 16x20...

Well, I'm not exactly a pro by your definition. For a 4:5 ratio print, I routinely make prints that are 55 x 44 cm, and 68.8 x 55 cm (55 cm fits nicely on a 24 inch roll of paper and makes for easy matting). These are the print sizes that sell best for me. I've sold a few 125 x 100 cm prints on canvas too though. Really though, it's the image that tells me what size to print -- some images want to be printed big, and with inkjet printing I can do that where I couldn't do it with my darkrooms.

So I'd have to say in answer to your poll that I do routinely make prints bigger than 20 x 16 inches.

I'm also a collector. Most of what I buy is 20x16 inch prints. Not because that's the size I want, but because that's all that's normally available. I'd rather have 24x20 inch prints when I can get them, but photography has a "tradition" of 20 x 16 inch prints that appears to be difficult to shake -- it's still difficult to make prints bigger than 20 x 16 inches in the darkroom, and overwhelmingly difficult to make 50 x 40 inch prints in the darkroom. So apparently it's become "tradition" and photography means "small" for many people, even photographers. Even with inkjet prints it's hard to find prints bigger than 20 x 16 inches. When I've asked I've often been told it's "because that's the size I've always made." Tradition, and not thinking out of the box maybe ;-)

One of the reasons I moved to the 5x4 inch format was so that I'd have more film area and could therefore make bigger prints. One of the reasons I started printing digitally was so that I could make bigger prints. Now, I make bigger prints.

For any print, no matter what the size, you still have to live with the rule of "garbage-in-garbage-out." You can't make a print any better than the quality of your scan. As the level of enlargement increases, higher quality scans will out.

The questions each of us must answer include how much enlargement and how much print quality are desired. It's a personal choice. And the answer to these and other questions indicate whether or not a drum scan is needed or wanted. Clearly, YMMV.

[Capocheny]

Ahhhhhhh the learning curve. All depends on where you are in the process. If you are already reasonably 'computer literate' and are a solid competent wet darkroom worker then the learning curve will largely consist of translating the skills you use in the darkroom into the digital process ... each step along the way in the digital workflow has its analog in the wet darkroom, this is one of the things we stress in our workshops. Having said that, think back to how long it took you to reach a point where you felt you were a competent printer in your darkroom and then realize that it is going to take time to get there with digital workflow as well. Less time likely much less time since you are translating already learned skills. In my own case I consider myself a master printer in a wet darkroom but it took me 20 + years working in darkrooms to get to the point where I could make that statement. In fact, now that I do a lot less work in a traditional darkroom I am not so sure that I would not have to immerse myself there for a few weeks or months to get all the old skills back. On the other hand, I have been scanning and printing digitally now for nearly seven years and it is only in the past two or three that I have begun to feel really comfortable with my skills. I am still not at the point where I would say I am a 'mastter' ..... perhaps sometime soon though (hopefully).

As far as hardware goes, since I am making the wet darkroom/digital analogy, you get what you need and can afford. My first enlarger was an ancient Federal (I think) with a less than great lens and it was ancient in 1954 when I started using it! I used a lot of enlargers after that and when I finally equipped my studio in The Torpedo Factory with two Omega D 2's I thought I had the best there was. Then I used a high end Durst 4x5 and ....... all going to show that you use what you got and what you can afford but don't be surprised if there is somethig else that might help you better utilize your skills. None of the equipement in the world, of course, will do you any good without the skill ..... that applies to labs with topnotch equipment too, especially those that have the equipment but no artists using it.

Ted, thank you for the wading in with your comments.

Gads, I printed for many, many years in a wet darkroom (even spent a 4 year stint with a major newspaper printing under stringent deadlines) and can't say that I'm even remotely competent with the process! I can only dream (in my wildest dreams) of calling myself a Master printer. So, I'm envious of people who are at that level!

As to Brian's poll... I now send my work out to a pro-lab and 16x20 is the absolute largest size I have printed. One day, I may get back into the wet darkroom side of things.... or REALLY think about taking a digital darkroom course with a Master. Then, all bets are off!

Cheers

[Ted Harris]

Ted, thank you for the wading in with your comments.

Gads, I printed for many, many years in a wet darkroom (even spent a 4 year stint with a major newspaper printing under stringent deadlines)

Cheers

I did a bunch of that too ... certainly not conducive to learning fine art printing, expecially when you were printing from still wet 4x5 negatives to meet a deadline (that was in the late 50's). OTOH, a great way to learn how to get an acceptable image, fast. As for learning printing skills, I suppose I could even build a house with all the sheets of Brovia that went in the trash. In fact, the main reason that I turned to digital was $$$. One day I took a hard look at the cost of color printing considering all the prints I threw out because I didn't think they were just right and that was when I decided to try digital.

[Ed Richards]

> The questions each of us must answer include how much enlargement and how much print quality are desired.

It also depends on the nature of the subject - if you are not doing shots with fine detail, scanning issues are very different. OTOH, if your image depends on having every blade of grass visible in that meadow in the background, you will notice the difference with a high rez scan in smaller prints.

More fundamentally, I am not sure anyone except photography geeks care about ultimate sharpness - look at the commercially successful photographers and also the artistically successful ones - very few of them depend eaking out the best possible sharpness from LF, and for many of those that do, their images start to look all alike. The illusion of sharpness created by contrast and subject matter is much more important - if you stick your nose in an AA print, you find that few are really sharp by modern standards, but that they look sharp because of the skills of the photographer.

[Ron Marshall]

For Brian's poll: The largest I print is 13x19 and then only as gifts or a few for our walls. Most for myself are 8x10 due to cost. All with a 4990 and a 2200.

[Charles]

I'm new to this forum and I own a gallery in SW Utah from which I sell my landscape photography. Although I sell prints derived from medium 645, 6x9 and 617 chromes, I do occasionally shoot 4x5, and recently I've even considered 5x7.

But to the point, I currently use an Imacon PhotoFlex for my scanning. My 617 images have incredible sharpness to the point where customers looking at a 12x36 print often ask "how large can I go".

Having been involved in the extreme high end of another career field for many years, I tend to think too many of us get sucked into the hardware aspects of a hobby or business and loss sight of what is really important to the customer or end user who doesn't know DMAX from Shinola.