wet darkroom vs. inkjet

[Lenny Eiger]

I've also found a place that does cheap drumscans, relatively. So that helps too.

I would be very careful with cheap drum scans. It's like getting a cheap print. If you are satisfied with "whatever" quality then you win.

You only get what you pay for... There is a difference between slapping a neg on the drum and scanning what's there and having someone who is a photographer understand what you are trying to do and make sure you have all the detail you are hoping (and paying) for.

In the many discussions here and the high end scanning group the consensus has always been that the operator (much more than the equipment) was the most important factor in getting a great scan.

Lenny

[Bob McCarthy]

Zaitz,

Cheap doesn't always mean a poor scan. You just have to do your homework.

I think, what really matters is "you" getting all the info desired in the film that is important to the shot. You can always have a piece of film rescanned if you don't get it right the first time.

And it is true, there are a number of less experienced operators claiming to give you the very best that can't on their best day, but there are also a number of great tech's that got laid off from a heavyweight production house that are trying to survive.

These are unusual times.

bob

[Lenny Eiger]

Cheap doesn't always mean a poor scan. You just have to do your homework.
I think, what really matters is "you" getting all the info desired in the film that is important to the shot. You can always have a piece of film rescanned if you don't get it right the first time.
bob

Big production houses more often than not were separation houses, they produced scans for offset magazine publication - not photographic printing. Certainly, most of these folks knew their way around a scanner. However, there are no schools, no books, and no criteria laid out for what a great photographic scan is.

Without specific criteria, how does someone new to the process even know whether they have gotten a good scan or not? This might very well be a topic for a different thread... however, personally I see that the scan that most people get is a "straight off the drum" kind of scan. There is a perception by some that a good scan is any scan done by a certain machine, or type of machine.

Most (not all) scanner operators at labs and large companies, the India conglomerates, etc., put a neg on a scanner, do an auto-snap to the edges (or set a white and black point), and scan the image. If the result happens to be exactly what you are looking for, then no harm done. More often than not if a scan isn't good the client imagines that's all they can get, and won't ask for a re-scan. Most operators don't know any better, either.

A good scanner operator will spend a few minutes, at least, with each image, making sure the detail is all there, the aperture is right, and the tonal separations will work to produce a print. Minor color shifts, often the focus, aren't too important (these are easily handled by a 1-2 point adjustment in PhotoShop), its the separation that allows you to make a print. When chromes are dark, I have to make the decision to switch to Log or not. With color negs I may want to use the software's settings or decide to color correct out the magenta mask myself, taking a bunch more time. With black and white I correct each one to the client's style and create a custom "profile" for it. All great operators do the same.

This is very different from the cookie-cutter scanner mentality. Now maybe we live in a world where everything is commoditized. That's what is, apparently, until it isn't - probably a very long time from now. But while a table one can buy from IKEA might do the same task as one that's been lovingly hand-made, it isn't the same.

Lenny

EigerStudios

[Zaitz]

Lenny, thanks for the information. I like your attitude towards scanning and printing. Your prices for scanning are extremely reasonable based on what I've seen. Already put your website in my bookmarks.

Zaitz,

Cheap doesn't always mean a poor scan. You just have to do your homework.

I think, what really matters is "you" getting all the info desired in the film that is important to the shot. You can always have a piece of film rescanned if you don't get it right the first time.

And it is true, there are a number of less experienced operators claiming to give you the very best that can't on their best day, but there are also a number of great tech's that got laid off from a heavyweight production house that are trying to survive.

These are unusual times.

bob

I guess we'll see! For the price, it may not hurt to try a few places and settle on one.

[sanking]

Zaitz - there are still detectable differences between prints made optically vs digitally, even when exposed and processed on the same paper. Tonality and color correction are handled differently. But within practical size limits, a properly calibrated optical system is unquestionably capable of better resolution, given a large-format original.

I do not agree that a properly calibrated optical system is unquestionably capable of better resolution. That may be true in some cases, for example if you are scanning with a consumer type flatbed that is not capable of capturing all of the detail of the negative or transparency, but it is definitely not true when the scan is made with a high end flatbed scanner like the Cezanne or Eversmart or with a good drum scanner. These scanners are capable of capturing virtually all of the detail in a sheet of film and will give results equal to, or better, than an optical system of enlargement. I should point out that no optical system is capable of capturing all of the detail in a negative, and in some cases an optical print may be less sharp at the edge than in the center, even with high quality enlarging lenses. With high quality scanners there is rarely any loss of definition at the edges of the negative.

For the record I printed 5X7 negative film with an optical system for over 30 years. The prints I now make from scans made with my Eversmart Pro match or exceed the resolution of my optical prints, at any print size, small or large. However, in the case of small prints (low magnification) the resolution of the output device (= printer) may limit resolution, though normally this would not be visible unless you inspected the print with a loupe. As you print larger at some point the resolution of the image file and the resolution of the output device are more or less equal, at which point (and larger) the detail from digital printing and optical printing closely match each other.

Sandy King

[Miguel Coquis]

do anybody here knows ret wisner coordinates, email address ?
thanks
ps: ret, can you contact me via pm ?

[Robert Budding]

Exactly. I always figure that anyone who thinks a darkroom print is unique has never seen or, worse yet, had to print a limited edition portfolio. There's nothing inherently unique about a darkroom print. The only difference in terms of uniqueness between multiple ink jet prints and multiple darkroom prints made in close succession is that one is sheer physical drudgery and the other is no physical effort at all, freeing one up to spend one's time on more creative endeavors than making multiple identical prints in a darkroom.

Darkroom work drudgery? I actually enjoy it! But I was originally educated as a chemist, so the chemicals make me feel right at home. And the glow of the safe light is very soothing . Add music and I'm happy!

[Brian Ellis]

Darkroom work drudgery? I actually enjoy it! But I was originally educated as a chemist, so the chemicals make me feel right at home. And the glow of the safe light is very soothing . Add music and I'm happy!

I don't think I said that all darkroom work is drudgery. I was talking about one specific situation, which was making a group of essentially identical prints from the same negative in a darkroom, e.g. for a limited edition portfolio. The reason I said that was drudgery is that once the first print is made and the methodology is established all the interesting and creative work is done, all that's left with the rest is the physical labor of making them. Which seems like drudgery to me.

[Merg Ross]

I don't think I said that all darkroom work is drudgery. I was talking about one specific situation, which was making a group of essentially identical prints from the same negative in a darkroom, e.g. for a limited edition portfolio. The reason I said that was drudgery is that once the first print is made and the methodology is established all the interesting and creative work is done, all that's left with the rest is the physical labor of making them. Which seems like drudgery to me.

Brian, you are in good company. Brett Weston used the word "drudgery" in referring to his darkroom sessions when printing for his portfolios; a mechanical process devoid of pleasure. Of course, the initial prints from the negatives evoked quite a different response.

Personally, there is something very special and irreplaceable about darkroom time; the faint safelight glow, the scent, the solitude, and the occasional perfect print. That is where I spent today, and I never tire of the process.

[bob carnie]

I agree , spent the last three days in the darkroom and yesterday was very sweet as I was printing my own work, a little less enjoyable printing others negs.

Only I prefer Kid Rock and Robin Trower to quiet solitude.

Brian, you are in good company. Brett Weston used the word "drudgery" in referring to his darkroom sessions when printing for his portfolios; a mechanical process devoid of pleasure. Of course, the initial prints from the negatives evoked quite a different response.

Personally, there is something very special and irreplaceable about darkroom time; the faint safelight glow, the scent, the solitude, and the occasional perfect print. That is where I spent today, and I never tire of the process.