Scanned Darkroom Prints Look Awful

[IanBarber]

I am wanting to create an online portfolio of my journey into darkroom black and white printing but I seemed to have hit a stumbling block when it comes to scanning the prints with my Epson V800. I have tried Epson Scan, VueScan and Silverfast AI.

The final scan does not look like the print in my hand, the digital reproduction looks lower in contrast. If I was to put these in my portfolio, they would look much worse than than they probably are.

The prints are printed onto Ilford MG RC Pearl.
Has anyone else experienced this.

[Jac@stafford.net]

This is not helpful, but a 'me too' post.

When my scanner finally blinked out, I quit scanning B&W darkroom prints because I could not get them right, and I am good with Photoshop with years of experience in the full time job. Now retired.

So I will be reading here and learning up.

[IanBarber]

This is not helpful, but a 'me too' post.

When my scanner finally blinked out, I quit scanning B&W darkroom prints because I could not get them right, and I am good with Photoshop with years of experience in the full time job. Now retired.

So I will be reading here and learning up.

Like yourself, I have many years of Photoshop experience and yes, I could spend time correcting the poor scanned prints but to me thats defeating the object. It would be nice to just be able to reproduce whats been placed under the scanner lid

[Pieter]

This is not helpful, but a 'me too' post.

When my scanner finally blinked out, I quit scanning B&W darkroom prints because I could not get them right, and I am good with Photoshop with years of experience in the full time job. Now retired.

So I will be reading here and learning up.
I usually can reasonably improve my scans in PhotoShop with the levels adjustment. A bigger problem for me is the amount of dust the scanner picks up. And the scans don't look quite as sharp as the prints.

[Christopher Barrett]

Have you guys thought of digitally photographing the prints instead? It involves a bit of setup and you have to light properly, but once you have everything in place, you can work faster than scanning and also digitize larger prints.

[John Olsen]

I am wanting to create an online portfolio of my journey into darkroom black and white printing but I seemed to have hit a stumbling block when it comes to scanning the prints with my Epson V800. I have tried Epson Scan, VueScan and Silverfast AI.

The final scan does not look like the print in my hand, the digital reproduction looks lower in contrast. If I was to put these in my portfolio, they would look much worse than than they probably are.

The prints are printed onto Ilford MG RC Pearl.
Has anyone else experienced this.

I wonder if some of this is from the pearl surface that you're using.

I use an Epson xp-950 scanner for my Ilford MGIV "Classic" glossy prints and really like the results.

Just in case there's a methodology difference, here's what I do: I'm scanning at 400 dpi, 8 bit grayscale on 8x10 prints. I usually do a small adjustment in the histogram based on the preview scan to soften the shadows. After opening the file with Photoshop I adjust with levels and add about 20% sharpening. Then I spot out the dust and lint marks. Sometimes I'll do a "clarity" adjust in Lightroom before the PS sharpening to avoid getting too many hot pixels. I'm just using the software with the XP-950, not anything special.

[John Olsen]

I should have linked a scanned photo to go with my process description:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/895/41120100872_c598d733cf_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/25DDgoq)f10b LFF (https://flic.kr/p/25DDgoq) by John Olsen (https://www.flickr.com/photos/153201054@N08/), on Flickr

[faberryman]

I wonder if some of this is from the pearl surface that you're using.
I second this observation, and join the chorus suggesting you digitally photograph your prints rather than scanning them to minimize the paper's texture.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I second this observation, and join the chorus suggesting you digitally photograph your prints rather than scanning them to minimize the paper's texture.

I print on glossy paper air-dried mat finish. I wonder if there is something in the paper, or resin that effects the outcome, possibly brighteners. ??

[Mamu]

I've been doing traditional photography since '89 but have only been scanning a few months. From what I've seen so far, if you are comfortable with post processing, sharpening (softly multiple times preferably) might work. If you're more comfortable shooting, then a copy setup might be the better option. I find that I'm having to do a lot more sharpening than I'd anticipated getting into this to get results that represented the silver gelatin print to my satisfaction. You will need to print on glossy paper to avoid picking up the surface texture of the paper. With the right sharpening and level adjustments, the texture should be okay though if that's not an option.

[Corran]

One of these is a scan of the print and one of them is the film scan. Can you tell which is which?

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/wwiiplaneprintex1.jpg

Print scans fresh off the scanner don't look like the print. Some careful contrast editing and color manipulation to get the tone right is needed. This is semi-matte paper by the way, but I've had about equal success with glossy and even the ART300 textured paper.

Now I use a different scanner than most of y'all so I can't be definitive, but I think a bit more work editing the scan is all you need. Also, I scan low contrast so that I get all the info from the shadows on the paper - just like film scanning, in a way. The only real issue is dust, which is not really the scanner's fault.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I find that I'm having to do a lot more sharpening than I'd anticipated

Of course. Every step to producing an image optically reduces resolution, or accutance.

[jim10219]

I don't think you can get away from Photoshopping your scans unless you're content with mediocre scans.

The problem is likely to the image being made of silver. It looks dark to our eyes, but under an intense and direct light, such as in a scanner, it's pretty reflective. That would explain the lack of contrast. I think photographing your prints would help because you don't have to use a direct light, but can use a diffused light, off center. Though, I've never had issues with correcting the scans in Photoshop. If you find that takes too much time, try saving some presets. Often times if you scan the same paper over and over again, you can find a preset that, if it doesn't eliminate the need to alter the contrast of each photo (I use the curves tool for this), it at least speeds up your workflow by giving you a better starting point.

[Jac@stafford.net]

As we have discussed, it is difficult to evaluate small screen images, but my guess is that #2 is the film scan.

[Jim Andrada]

I was going to guess #2 as well. Maybe we're both wrong, but...

[Corran]

I'm curious to know why you both thought that.

The bottom one is...the print!

[Pere Casals]

The final scan does not look like the print in my hand


Ian, you have to edit the curves in Photoshop, then you may obtain a closer match.

It's really difficult that an image seen in a monitor would show how it will be the print, the Soft Proofing tools try to simulate it, and the same happens in the inverted direction, you have to edit the curves to make the monitor show the print like you want.

Often the subtleties of a silver print cannot be shown in a monitor, because the print reflects light depending on illumination angle, etc, but you can get an acceptable match by editing the image.

[IanBarber]

Ian, you have to edit the curves in Photoshop, then you may obtain a closer match.

It's really difficult that an image seen in a monitor would show how it will be the print, the Soft Proofing tools try to simulate it, and the same happens in the inverted direction, you have to edit the curves to make the monitor show the print like you want.

Often the subtleties of a silver print cannot be shown in a monitor, because the print reflects light depending on illumination angle, etc, but you can get an acceptable match by editing the image.

Thanks for all the replies. At least I now know that I cannot simply expect to get a straight scan from the print without at least a bit of tweaking here and there.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks for all the replies. At least I now know that I cannot simply expect to get a straight scan from the print without at least a bit of tweaking here and there.

yes, Ian, in the same way you won't see in a digital print what you saw in the monitor, you have to make wonders in the monitor to guess how it will look the print.

So it's not something that comes from how we scan, but from how it works the presentation medium...

[EdSawyer]

I guessed right on the scans. Not too hard to tell. more dust spots on the bottom one, less detail, less smooth gradations of tone.

[bob carnie]

I'm curious to know why you both thought that.

The bottom one is...the print!

the bottom one has more contrast , which lead me to believe you boosted in PS to create a level playing field.. But good comparison

[Corran]

Right, that was my point, about editing the print scan to match a film scan. Or, one can look at the print in proper light and match it to that, which is what I normally do.

[Mamu]

I'm curious to know why you both thought that.

The bottom one is...the print!


I got it wrong at first as well as the second image appears sharper and you have to look really close to pick up the grain. How each scan is sharpened and resolution is going to have the greatest effect. If you manually sharpened each as best you could and printed to 13x19 or larger I suspect the difference would stand out if you looked close enough, but I also suspect some would chose the print. Grain can actually increase apparent actuence. The way that gets you to the result that satisfies your personal vision and workflow is always the best in my opinion.

[Jim Andrada]

I was thinking it was the scan because it seemed a bit more contrasty which I usually associate with 2nd generation images. Oh well, too bad I didn't hit the lottery for the big prize.

[Corran]

Remember, the point of this thread is scanning prints to show in an online portfolio, not to make a digital copy for reproduction (though of course you can do that). Perhaps I should not have shown a comparison to a film scan as that is somewhat irrelevant to the aforementioned goal stated by the OP. But my point was, with proper editing, one should be able to match whatever source material they are attempting to represent.

[Tin Can]

Lately, when I want a copy/scan of any print over 8X10 I use an iPhone SE which has an amazing camera.

Yesterday I submitted to a local print competition. Never done that before. All had to be submitted digitally as close to actual print as possible. They will reject any winning print if it is vastly different. Even if it's the 'winner'.

Judging is on a monitor, but the print matters most.

I submitted 3 vastly different images. One a metal print, an Inkjet, and a Silver Gelatin print.

I think my prints and the digital image are close. I use the Bryan method.

[Bruce Watson]

The final scan does not look like the print in my hand, the digital reproduction looks lower in contrast.

How many stops from black to white can your print hold? How many stops from black to white can your monitor show?

You can't reasonably expect a reflected medium and a transmission medium to "look the same". That's just the laws of physics talking to ya.

[IanBarber]

How many stops from black to white can your print hold? How many stops from black to white can your monitor show?

You can't reasonably expect a reflected medium and a transmission medium to "look the same". That's just the laws of physics talking to ya.

When put like that, its a good valid point

[Pieter]

When put like that, its a good valid point

Also, the monitor is transmitted light, the print reflected. Big difference.

[Jac@stafford.net]

We cannot really tell if a scanned darkroom print is good unless we master digital printing of it.
As it concerns web presentations, I am a bystander. ;0
Best of luck!

[Mamu]

Remember, the point of this thread is scanning prints to show in an online portfolio, not to make a digital copy for reproduction (though of course you can do that). Perhaps I should not have shown a comparison to a film scan as that is somewhat irrelevant to the aforementioned goal stated by the OP. But my point was, with proper editing, one should be able to match whatever source material they are attempting to represent.

Good point. Film vs print scanning deserves it's own thread (if one or more doesn't already exist). Since recording the darkroom experience is the point, capturing the traditional manipulation and even the texture of the print might be desirable. Otherwise, I wouldn't recommend copying with a camera. If for display only, that'd probably be plenty of quality and a lot faster for most folks. A raw scan manually sharpened and adjusted is the way to go for printing if one's willing to learn.

[Tin Can]

Mamu, and what if the print is too big to scan and the neg is long gone?

There is no standard. Just endless digi improvement over time and money.


I copied 4 Karsh from a 1959 First edition as practice. Used 4x5 film and enlarged. I matched fairly well. Obviously, I cannot post any of it and none was digitized in any manner.

From Amazon,

"The 96 full page portraits of notable persons from many arenas of life were produced by sheet fed gravure, a printing process that was not yet used in North America in the early 1960s. They were produced by the world-reknowned printing house of Enschede in Haarlem, Holland. The text was first printed by offset lithography on paper especially manufactured for this book in Paris. The gravure printing of the portraits followed. The results are images as close to the quality of Karsh's original mat-finiah prints as had ever been attained by any printing method. The book was perfect bound (not stitching); laid-in is a single-sheet printed prospectus describing the production of the book."

The book is georgeous.

and now we all need 8K TV...