Scan 8x10 contact print or negatives for self-published book?

[Dirk Rösler]

Hi -- I am planning to contribute to a small self-published book produced via Blurb or similar, so the thing is obviously done digitally and printing quality is limited. What I am wondering is whether I should scan the negatives or the b/w prints? I have only A4 flatbed up to 4x5 transparency myself but I could borrow 8x10 scanner if that's the way to go (although more hassle). But if the difference is not great I happily print 8x10s and scan those 1:1... also perhaps one day someone wants a print and then the prints may not match the book (perhaps they will never do anyway, plus I could of course print digitally).

Which way to go?

[Armin Seeholzer]

You lose much resolution if you go from a print, I would always scan the neg or slide!

Cheers Armin

[Vaughn]

Depends...if print-making is your main form of expression (and that is what you want to represent in the book) then scanning the neg may be only second best. However, the optimal way may be to make the print and scan the negative...then photoshop the scan to match the print to the best of your ability. if someone wants a print, you'll have one all ready...or can print another.

If image-making is more important than print-making for you, then just scan the neg and consider the final output (with whatever manipulation you want) as your work. If someone wants a print, then have a high quality inkjet print made from the same file.

I consider myself to be a print-maker so I would go the first route, but others would be as justified going the second route.

Vaughn

[Frank Petronio]

It doesn't matter for a Blurb book so long as a you do a good job with the actual scanning. If you make Ansel Adams' quality prints then scan the prints.

But in general you want to scan the film and work the image up in Photoshop for ultimate quality. But you'd be hard pressed to see the difference in the Blurb output.

[Brian Ellis]

If I was doing this it would depend on how many photographs were involved. If there were only a few I'd probably scan the negative and try to match the print in Photoshop. If there were a lot I'd just go with the print. It's true that scanning a negative will usually produce better results than scanning the print but as Frank says with Blurb the difference is going to be minimal. To me the time and effort involved in scanning and editing a lot of negatives to match the print wouldn't be worth whatever minimal difference there might be in quality as compared with scanning the print.

[willwilson]

Scanned film tweaked to look like your print will most likely look slightly better, but I would just do both and see which you like better. Since you print traditionally I would personally go the scanned print route, but whichever method looks the best to you should be the deciding factor.

[Dirk Rösler]

Thanks all for your recommendations, they help a lot. It will be 10 images, so not too onerous. Perhaps I will try both for one image and see. The thing is also that the book may be a smaller format than 8x10, so perhaps scanning from a print is good enough. I was thinking of printing on low contrast fibre paper and scan that for best results...

[Frank Petronio]

glossy and flat - usually RC works best