Durst 138S vs. Epson V750 flatbed scanner

**perfectedmaya** · 3-Aug-2012, 01:39

i have send some of my digital files to print in some stores at 30 cents for a 4r.. it is a bw pic.. but the whites is yellowish..

i did some wet print using my Durst enlarger and i did like it better.. but of course it is so much work and such a mess! not to mention the buld has bursted and now i can't print

i am contemplating to change to a LED torch instead of a 250w bulb for a greener Earth!

**Chris Usher** · 7-Aug-2012, 04:00

I concur that an enlargement on a good machine with a good lens and traditional darkroom process is without question the highest quality one can achieve, not to mention the satisfaction derived from time in a darkroom! :-) However, I have had a V750 for the past 3 years and I can vouch for it's versatility and quality. I often shoot 8x10 paper negatives and film and use the scanner extensively with results that, for the money, rival an imacon IMHO. You can use the wet mount adapter for your 8x10 negs or I find that placing the neg emulsion-down on the flat bed with an 8x10 piece of anti-newton glass on top gives me wonderful results 98% of the time. After you have the scan and photoshop to your liking, then you can print out a digital negative on pictorico to size for contact printing which I do for POP prints--plenty sharp IMHO! Of course, you can also make damn good prints on your printer and have nice images to share online etc. this way.

**amilne** · 7-Aug-2012, 09:34

Originally Posted by photobymike

. There is not much of an environmental impact in this hybrid type of photography (for those who might be concerned)

Responding to old post, but, don't forget about those negative externalities. How many gallons of chemicals were dumped in a river somewhere to manufacture your scanner, printer, and computer? How much energy was used to mold the plastic? How many gallons of fuel did it take to ship your equipment from china, Taiwan, Japan. Etc?

You'de probably have to use digital equipment for decades to reach a break even point in environmental costs when compared to darkroom. But, you will never end up doing that because digital equipment doesn't last that long.

**photobymike** · 8-Aug-2012, 11:39

Originally Posted by amilne

Responding to old post, but, don't forget about those negative externalities. How many gallons of chemicals were dumped in a river somewhere to manufacture your scanner, printer, and computer? How much energy was used to mold the plastic? How many gallons of fuel did it take to ship your equipment from china, Taiwan, Japan. Etc?

You'de probably have to use digital equipment for decades to reach a break even point in environmental costs when compared to darkroom. But, you will never end up doing that because digital equipment doesn't last that long.

LOL LOL Yea thats true... i am also quite a greenhouse gas machine..... just ask my wife ... I fart enough methane to run my Cadillac all week long. I get a lot of enjoyment out of developing in the darkroom... but economics and space requirements ... i have 3 kids teenagers/methane producers.... and a wife and 2 cats/mini-methane .. i really am lucky to get my corner and the kitchen sink 3 times a week... I aleast my consuming is at least making jobs for someone else.

**swhiser** · 18-Oct-2012, 12:12

If you intend to master the fine print, both will come in handy.

For contact printing, in order to gain flexibility in sizing the internegative, digital output (onto Pictorico using QTR on the Epson with Piezography inks) has become the best route.

Even if I were committing to this method, I would still want to go back from time to time and make silver prints with the enlarger.

Both.