Even a cheap scanner better than an enlarger?

[Sylvester Graham]

I came on this a while back and have been thinking about it:

"...the results were better than the finest traditional print. “The digital process, if properly handled, reproduces the subtlest differentiation in extreme highlights and shadows unachievable with a wet processed print. And it is sharper, even from an economy scanner, with archival qualities that are at least as good. Anybody with a reasonably modern PC – nothing special – can do this."

This is from a description about Barry Thornton's book "Elements of Transition" found here, http://www.awh-imaging.co.uk/eot/ele...transition.htm

My question isn't whether digital's better or not, it's whether CHEAP digital is. Is even a cheap scanner capable of producing a file of equal or better quality than an enlarged print?

Let me tell you something, I have a Umax astra 2200, and I REALLY don't think it can produce a print finer than a traditional one. Then again I'm not a capable user.


Counterpoint:

"...you should aspire to set your personal standards for a better scanner. Don't forget, no matter how good your printer is, you have to feed it an acceptable image. Otherwise your fabulous printer will merely flawlessly reproduce all the flaws of your cheap scan from your cheap scanner."

From, http://www.flatbed-scanner-review.or...roflatbed.html

[Ole Tjugen]

IMO, even a cheap enlarger is better than the best scanner.

[Ash]

Depends whether you like digital or not.

If you like digital you'll always defend it. I like film.

I guess I see it the same way as audiophiles see vinyl versus mp3 - by going digital you're going from analogue into a lossy format - sound waves turn into blocks, causing distortion.

Same applies to scanner vs enlarger I should think.

With a good enlarger, and a very good printing regime, everything is staying as light-waves. So all the texture should transfer from film to paper. If you go from film to digital, every bit of texture has to be bitmapped, meaning you'll need a VERY large file to conserve the quality as circular detail becomes square.

I don't think a cheap scanner will have the technological level necessary to pull enough detail from the film, let alone replicate it at a suitable quality in digital.

Correct me if I'm wrong

[Ken Lee]

"...the results were better than the finest traditional print. “The digital process, if properly handled, reproduces the subtlest differentiation in extreme highlights and shadows unachievable with a wet processed print. And it is sharper, even from an economy scanner, with archival qualities that are at least as good. Anybody with a reasonably modern PC – nothing special – can do this."

Almost everybody is a salesman these days.

[Kirk Gittings]

My question isn't whether digital's better or not, it's whether CHEAP digital is. Is even a cheap scanner capable of producing a file of equal or better quality than an enlarged print?

In a nutshell, not really, particularly if you want to print 16x20 or above.

[scrichton]

depends on the definition of Cheap.

Is cheap epson V700 cheap... or are you talking £20 no-name scanners. In which case they are abysmal. Well for scanning anyway, as door stops they are very capable.

As you will probably hear from everyone. The higher up the price range in either format the better they get. A good enlarger lens and general darkroom setup is great as is a scanner with inkjet or reverse scanning.

"You pays your money you takes your choice" as the saying goes.

Oh final note. Cheapest option. Contact print :-D

[Ron Marshall]

A cheap scanner is not even close for a 16x20 print or larger.

[Marko]

IMO, even a cheap enlarger is better than the best scanner.

A cheap scanner that fits on my desk is certainly better than an enlarger, cheap or not, for which I can't (or don't want to) make room in my living space.

That being said, simple math tells me that, after adding up all associated costs, even the really expensive scanner would come cheaper for me than a very modest wet darkroom. But that's me, your circumstances may be (probably are) very different from mine.

The equation is very different for professionals among us, of course.

[Bruce Watson]

"...the results were better than the finest traditional print. “The digital process, if properly handled, reproduces the subtlest differentiation in extreme highlights and shadows unachievable with a wet processed print. ..."

I wouldn't say unachievable. I would say that it takes a huge amount of work. I've got some silver and dye transfer prints that give the lie to that statement. I've even made a few myself. Indeed it's the difficulty in doing this (particularly holding both shadow detail and highlight detail in the same print) that pointed me down the digital path (that and the lack of space to build an adequate print darkroom).

The thing that scanning does that is under appreciated IMHO is it makes an exact match between the density range of the original and the digital range of the scanner (8, 12, 14, 16 bit, depending on the scanners ADCs). This in turn makes an exact match to the print through a properly linearized and profiled printer/ink/paper. This, for me, replaces the tedium of lots of test prints with the creativity of making the image as a whole do what I want it to do. That's me -- I'm not saying it'll do it for anyone else. Clearly, YMMV here.

With darkroom photography, you use the film as an intermediary between the subject brightness range (SBR) of the scene and the density range of the photographic paper/developer. It's nearly impossible to get an exact match, which is why we have things like contrast masks and techniques like dodging and burning. And it is this lack of an exact match which leads to the difficulties in shadow and highlight details that requires the skills developed by master darkroom printers.

But there are other things to scanning besides merely capturing the density range of the original. Primarily, the big task is to capture this data cleanly without losses or added noise. And this is where "cheap" scanners have problems IMHO. Cheap optics have more optical losses and aberations, cheap electronics can be noisy and perform poorly at their limits, etc.

So to your thesis that a cheap scanner is better than any enlarger, I'd have to say that's highly doubtful. If you want to make the comparison between a desktop drum scanner and an enlarger, you might have a point. And there's a lot of area in between.

Really, there's a lot of options here. People should use the tools and techniques with which they are most comfortable and quite worrying about the tools other people use or what other people think. Put that energy and angst into the art.

[Sylvester Graham]

I guess this is turning into the same ole' argument, Digital vs. Traditional (soon to be a hollywood movie!), where all aspects, costs, convenience, etc., are considered.

I was just surprised that a traditional "master," Barry Thornton (although I don't know much about him) would reverse views so promptly and with such gusto, to the point where he firmly declared even the finest traditional methods to be inferior to the most humble of digital equiptment. But from instinct, and from my limited digital experience, I just can't believe him!

I see some of the arguments against his views are for printing large. Forget about resolution, I rarely print over 8x10, is the price of the scanner of concern if the size of the final print isn't either?