Hi, I haven't started with LF yet. I'm currently researching it. My plan is to develop the B&W 4x5 film myself, but then scan it and do all the rest on my computer rather than an enlarger.
Can you tell me if I will lose image quality if I move to digitial at that point (after procesing the film)?
thanks
Larry
It depends on what you mean by... "image quality". Resolution ? Tonality ? Archival permanence ?
How big will you print ? What kind of scanner will you use ?
How do you value convenience versus the end-result ?
I feel like I lose my IQ every time I scan. HA!
Mostly depends on your final output whether you lose quality. In printing, each generation from the original negative or transparency loses quality.
Boy, you sure know how to open up a can of worms! Let the religious debates resume! [search the archives, we've been down this road lots of times already.]Originally Posted by LarryR
My view is, no matter what you do to get a print from film there is *some* level of degradation. There has to be since the print is a second generation copy and no process is perfect. The closest to perfect is probably a contact print. With an enlarger in the conventional darkroom, you loose some to issues like optical losses and alignment issues. With a scanner you are mostly talking about sampling theory.
You *can* loose a lot, either scanning or enlarging. But you can also loose very little, either scanning or enlarging. Much depends on your equipment and your skill.
I personally get better results drum scanning my 5x4 film (B&W and color negative) and printing with an inkjet printer. Others will have different experiences. There isn't really a wrong or right. It all comes down to using the equipment and workflow that you personally find comfortable. If you are comfortable in your workflow, you can perhaps put more energy into your art.
Bruce Watson
As long as you scan at a suitable resolution for the intended print size, you get (in general) with a very good scanner, and good scanning technique, all the resolution that the print can display. In general, a rule for resolution is to SCAN at a resolution that will result in a print resolution of 300 ppi. For example, scanning an 8x10 negative at 300 ppi will result in a print resolution of 300 ppi for an 8x10 print which is OK. Scanning a 8x10 negative at 600 ppi, can achieve a 16x20 print at 300 ppi. 300 ppi is somewhat of a standard in quality PRINT resolution.
There is much, much more to quality scanning than this of course.
If you intend to print on a digital printer (inkjet or such) then that is the only way you can get prints from negatives. Many people like the tonality and quality of digital prints, others swear by darkroom prints. Each have their merits.
The ONE BIG ADVANTAGE of scanning and making prints digitally, is that you can work on the scanned negative in Photoshop and do all your dust spotting and retouching and dodging and burning and save all your work, and then each and every print you make will be identical and the last print will be as good as the first. No hassle writing down and remembering your dodging and burning or contrast settings of making a darkroom print.
I do about 90% of my printing from my LF negatives thru scanning and printing inkjet. But, I still do love a darkroom print, and keep the ability to make them.
scanning is a lossy process, so no matter what you use as your yardstick, yes, you will be leaving quality on the table when you digitize film. you can minimize the loss, as others have noted here, by using a top scanner and careful technique, however, the scan will never be as perfect as the original.
that said, the question then becomes from which method can you produce a superior print given the inherit limitations and advantages of printing in a darkroom directly from the original or scanning the original and printing from a digital file? this is going to vary for everyone, however, in my case it was no contest - digital printing won the day.
just recognize that the scanner is a CRUCIAL step, so if you're going to print from a digital file, invest the $$ in proper equipment and the time to learn proper technique.
---Scott
www.srosenberg.com
thanks everyone. By the way, everyone who mentioned printing talked about using their own inkjet printer. Do I need a special photographic printer (say a dye sublimation printer) or can I just use a general purpose ink jet. Currently, with my DSLR, i send the images to a photo lab for printing since they almost always look much better than what I can get with my ink jet.
Amazingly beautiful prints can be made with inkjet printers. There are many factors, I think the primary one is the paper you choose. I prefer a matte surface and there are more choices there. However, the recent pile of baryta coated papers are also very good. Hahnemuhle makes a number of fabulous papers, there are many discussion here about it and others.
There are also special b&w inks one can purchase for a great black and white print experience.
Lenny
EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing
Nah. That only happens from extended use of a pickup truck.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks