Seeking scanning solution for 8x10 negatives

[Smitty]

Hello,
I am looking for a solution in working with my 8x10 negatives. Will the Epson V850 give me a good result retaining good resolution etc?
Thanks, Steve

[Pere Casals]

Hello,
I am looking for a solution in working with my 8x10 negatives. Will the Epson V850 give me a good result retaining good resolution etc?
Thanks, Steve

The larger the negative the better the V850 performs. For 8x10 the V850 uses the "low res" lens that is the one that covers this format, and it will deliver around 320MPix effective.

[Smitty]

The larger the negative the better the V850 performs. For 8x10 the V850 uses the "low res" lens that is the one that covers this format, and it will deliver around 320MPix effective.

Thanks, I am guessing that the file size from an 8x10 negative must be quite large? Does the output from say an Epson printer still have that large/contact print feel to it? I have thinking of moving into this printer for a while..

[Oren Grad]

Does the output from say an Epson printer still have that large/contact print feel to it? I have thinking of moving into this printer for a while..

No, the output from an Epson printer even at its highest resolution (720 ppi / 2880x1440 dpi) doesn't look or feel like a contact print - I've done many tests of this. With careful processing of the file it can credibly mimic a modest enlargement from the negative, though there will still be differences between the look-and-feel of ink on paper and that of a silver image on silver-gelatin paper. You'll have to try it for yourself to decide whether you find the two kinds of print comparably satisfying as a final product for your work.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks, I am guessing that the file size from an 8x10 negative must be quite large? Does the output from say an Epson printer still have that large/contact print feel to it? I have thinking of moving into this printer for a while..

Adding to what Oren said, I make 8x10 contact prints and they are sharp even when inspected with a 8x loupe, no digital printer beat that, but inkjet prints are also nice and sharp. To me (this is IMHO) a sound darkroom silver print sports unique beauty and an inkjet print cannot be compared, single problem is that a sound darkroom print (I try to learn that) is much more difficult to craft and often better results are obtained from hybrid or fully digital process.

A pure optical process sports beauty and authenticity, but it requires an skilled photographer in command.

In the hybrid workflow you have to be careful to not ruin sharpness in the size transformations, you may have resolving power in excess but at the same time the print may lack sharpness because of the pixel level accutance has not been well managed.

[rdeloe]

Scanning isn't easy, and making a good quality inkjet print isn't easy. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise! ;) As with any technical activity, there's a steep learning curve, lots of different ways to do things, and a high prospect of mediocre results until you figure out how things work so that you can get the results you want.

I liked the black and white silver gelatin prints I used to make. I like the black and white inkjet prints I now make. I've printed the same negative both ways and have concluded that "better" is not a useful concept. The silver gelatin version is not better than the inkjet version in any meaningful way. It's just different in some important ways (and vice versa). Only you can decide which technology will satisfy you.

One last thought for the OP: Don't jump on scanning and inkjet printing because you think they'll be easier and more straightforward than optical printing. They're not.

[Oren Grad]

Very wise words from rdeloe - that post would be worthwhile reading for anyone who is starting to think about scanning + inkjet as an alternative to darkroom printing.

[Pere Casals]

One last thought for the OP: Don't jump on scanning and inkjet printing because you think they'll be easier and more straightforward than optical printing. They're not.

I don't agree. Hybrid processing is way, way easier than darkroom printing, with Photoshop you bend the tonal curve like you want, you have layers, you dodge and burn like you want.. etc, etc, etc...

Adjusting the print in the darkroom can be very challenging, with every mistake you waste paper and time, and we may require advanced techniques like CRM, SCIM, etc to obtain what you do with two clicks in Photoshop.

[Tin Can]

Darkroom printing is also vastly cheaper and I believe safer for our environment.

Far less total garbage from inception to production.


Very wise words from rdeloe - that post would be worthwhile reading for anyone who is starting to think about scanning + inkjet as an alternative to darkroom printing.

[Jim Noel]

I have been a large format photographer for over 75 years. I have tried the various processes for making digital negatives and found them to being poor imitations of a silver gelatin negative and its resulting contact print.
Making good contact prints is not difficult if one takes the time and thought to learn to make proper negatives for the process being used to make the final print. At 90 I still prefer and use large format cameras, although I did finally give in to my old muscles and changed from 7x17 to 5x12.

[Dhsu]

Is it a true statement that Darkroom printing is cheaper and safer for the environment?
Consider chemical dumping & water running, all going into our sewage system, river & ocean.....

[Tin Can]

Consider all the printer machines that fail and are discarded. They are made by the millions.

They also use ink and ink cartridges.

And they use paper.

I embraced Inkjet printing for a while.

But in 15 years all my printers failed and became landfill.

Our wet print chemicals are very dilute when we use them and after we wash it all down, it's trace. Especially when compared to the other toxins dumped everywhere.

I bought at least 6 printers and good ones!

My main theory is a big factory that makes film and photo paper is less environmentally dangerous than millions of Ink Jet printers printing... and becoming trash.

I expect one day when we grow up, nothing will be printed anywhere.

Soon the viewing screen will be inside our head.

Not kidding, We already make the blind see with a tiny camera and direct wiring to the brain.

10 years ago.


Is it a true statement that Darkroom printing is cheaper and safer for the environment?
Consider chemical dumping & water running, all going into our sewage system, river & ocean.....

[rdeloe]

I'm not saying you're wrong Randy... But you'd have to do a proper life cycle assessment to compare darkroom printing to printing on inkjets. There are lots of variables. I use refillable cartridges, and I mix my own ink. The only thing that goes in the garbage is prints that weren't worth saving. I had a big garbage can in my darkroom too, which I filled with lots of prints that didn't make the cut.


Consider all the printer machines that fail and are discarded. They are made by the millions.

They also use ink and ink cartridges.

And they use paper.

I embraced Inkjet printing for a while.

But in 15 years all my printers failed and became landfill.

Our wet print chemicals are very dilute when we use them and after we wash it all down, it's trace. Especially when compared to the other toxins dumped everywhere.

I bought at least 6 printers and good ones!

My main theory is a big factory that makes film and photo paper is less environmentally dangerous than millions of Ink Jet printers printing... and becoming trash.

I expect one day when we grow up, nothing will be printed anywhere.

Soon the viewing screen will be inside our head.

Not kidding, We already make the blind see with a tiny camera and direct wiring to the brain.

10 years ago.

[rdeloe]

I've done both, and I teach digital photography, so I have a good basis for comparison. In my experience, it's not difficult for someone who has the equipment to get to the stage of reliably making mediocre prints fairly quickly. Getting to the stage of making excellent prints that are worth looking at? That involves a lot more effort and knowledge (for both silver gelatin printing and inkjet printing).



I don't agree. Hybrid processing is way, way easier than darkroom printing, with Photoshop you bend the tonal curve like you want, you have layers, you dodge and burn like you want.. etc, etc, etc...

Adjusting the print in the darkroom can be very challenging, with every mistake you waste paper and time, and we may require advanced techniques like CRM, SCIM, etc to obtain what you do with two clicks in Photoshop.

[sanking]

I've done both, and I teach digital photography, so I have a good basis for comparison. In my experience, it's not difficult for someone who has the equipment to get to the stage of reliably making mediocre prints fairly quickly. Getting to the stage of making excellent prints that are worth looking at? That involves a lot more effort and knowledge (for both silver gelatin printing and inkjet printing).


I agree with you. Making excellent prints in any media involves a lot of expertise and knowledge. It involves select application of understanding that is aesthetic in formation, and technical in application.

"Scanning isn't easy, and making a good quality inkjet print isn't easy. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise! As with any technical activity, there's a steep learning curve, lots of different ways to do things, and a high prospect of mediocre results until you figure out how things work so that you can get the results you want."

Thanks for making the point.

Sandy

[Pere Casals]

...and technical in application...

(Disclaimer: not saying if a workflow is better or worse, this is Chacun à son goût)


Sandy, let me point why I think that a full optic process is way more challenging/difficult than an hybrid workflow. For example with Photoshop it's a kid's game to adjust the tonality to the point we want.


This is well known, but let me enumerate the easy basic steps:


> The range and levels for the mids are adjusted with two mouse clicks, we see (WYSWYG) a continuous variation in the image as we drag a point, so we nail it.


192152


> The compression for the shadows and hilights are adjusted with two aditional clicks, so we give the range we want to the shoulder/toe also with WYSWYG convenience.

192153


> Then "individual gamma" is adjusted both for mids, for highlights and for shadows, also with WYSWYG convenience !!!

192154


Single challenge is having a good soft proofing, and printing a final mosaic proof with say 16 tinny images with slight contrast-bright combinations to see the effect with the particular paper-inks we use. Straight...


Then we can see how easy (WYSWYG, do-undo) is local edition, layers, adjustment layers, etc, etc...

(this is from I'm coming)

_______________________


Now let's see what happens in the darkroom:


> Yes, we may adjust the mids for the range and the levels: by determining grade and exposure. It takes quite a work to fine tune it, (it's not two clicks & WYSWYG) we may have to waste some paper until we have it ok. Well, more work but easy to do it.

192157


>>> But this determines how the rest of the print will be !!!! We are tied to the resulting shoulder-toe, and to the local gamma we have in every place.



>>>
What can we do to adjust toe-shoulder extensions?
What can we do to adjust the "local gamma" in shulder and in the toe?
and the gamma in the mids ?

We may try changing the paper, but this may not solve much...



>>> we can go to Split Grade dodge/burning, CRM, SCIM or selective masking... these are advanced and challenging techniques... for what a rookie Ps user does with a few clicks the first day !!!


Yes, we may adjust all that in the darkroom, but it takes a master photographer-printer of the Sexton's size to do it in a divine way.


_______________________

This is IMHO, a personal opinion:

What amazes me is that being way more difficult controlling the pure analogic process those pure analogic prints from masters (IMHO) are pure gold, and consistently superior to all digital and hybrid around. I looks to me that a silver master artisan starts printing before shutter release.


IMHO it's like the sculptor's work... An sculptor may first make the main volumes, he has to determine were the head and a hand will be in the space, this is not for free, he has to hit a boulder with a hammer, if this early step is flawed no polishing will solve it later.


This requires to a full analogic artist to be a master of his tools, any pitfall in the process is dramatic, I'd say that this required proficency in the artists is what makes their average output better. Also the path followed in the creative process is of high value, sporting a remarkable authenticity.

(this is where I want to go, to the point I'm able)

[StuartR]

I work as an exhibition printer, primarily in the digital darkroom, but also with film prints. I use an Epson P9000, X5 scanner, Epson V850 for 8x10, and a Durst L1200 for printing. I have been working in this job for about ten years, so while I would not consider myself a master printer, I am quite good. My own experience dictates that with a good, properly exposed negative with a manageable contrast range, nothing in the digital realm can match a good contact print or small enlargement (say 4-5x). If you are lucky enough to own an 8x10 analog enlarger, then I would say that your analog prints are going to be better than digital until you get to mural sizes. The biggest reason for this is that 8x10 and 4x5 (even 6x7) have so much resolution in the smaller print sizes that it simply overwhelms the reproduction ability of the digital workflow. As said above, the best printers can put down about 720dpi. In my experience, for smaller formats you need about a 4000-5500 dpi scan to extract all the usable information from film. On an 8x10 sheet, that leads to a comically large and impractical scan, one which often exceeds the ability of drum scanners to output in a single file, and overwhelms the ability of the printers. I recently tried to print a 100x130cm print of digital generated work with extreme detail, and when I printed it at 720dpi the Epson made it 2/3rds of the way through the print before it just glitched out and kept printing the last line of information over and over.

So, all this preamble is to say that with smaller or medium prints and good negatives, the analog workflow can produce sharper prints with better tonality. This is assuming a best case scenario where your enlarger is perfectly aligned, your lens is spot on, and you are working with fresh materials, good skills and so on. At larger sizes, the uniformity of digital printing makes it much easier to make huge prints than it is in the analog darkroom, where they are incredibly dependent on film and paper flatness, alignment, lens quality, chemical freshness, timing etc etc. Where digital comes into its own is in those large prints and in areas like Pere has hinted at. Digital is far more flexible in manipulating tones and the information in the print. The most important aspect of digital is the digitization itself. The Epson V850 is great for prints up to a meter or more, but over that, the drum scan will really come into its own. Color rendition is another area where something like a drum scan or Eversmart/iQ scanner will beat the Epson. The Epson also needs to be carefully set up, which might mean shimming or adjusting based on your individual scanner, given that it is a fixed lens.

Personally, if you are working with 8x10 and are ok with contact prints, then they are the way to go. But if you want anything larger and do not have an 8x10 enlarger, digital is your only way to go. I think the most practical solution is to use an Epson for proofing and prints smaller than around 1m, and send them out to an experienced drum scan operator if you need larger or for an important show.

[koraks]

let me point why I think that a full optic process is way more challenging/difficult than an hybrid workflow.
Emphasis added. It's subjective. I understand the things you say. I 'grew up' in the digital domain and have used Photoshops, curves and inkjet printers for longer than I care to think of. Still, I personally find it (1) easier and (2) more rewarding to get a somewhat decent print (occasionally a good one) from a darkroom.

While your statements about flexibility of curves and reversible changes are all true, I find that with inkjet, I also have to think about things such as bleed, ink viscosity, paper absorbance, metamerism, dithering algorithms, individual ink curve crossovers and a whole host of other things that I don't have to deal with when working with silver gelatin. The focus of your argument for a digital/hybrid workflow entirely revolves around the ease of use that 'curves' give, but you leave out the context in which this happens. It is the context and its vast number of parameters that need to be controlled (partly with curves, partly with other measures) that make the issue complex, and that also make the difference between a mediocre print and an actually good print.

It's not so difficult in the digital domain to get a nice rendering for a computer screen. Getting it onto paper is a whole different story, and that's a story you don't tell and barely reference. But let's not forget it's a story that is at least as important as the convenience of mouse-clicks when it comes to making quality prints.

Indeed, I feel that a hybrid/digital workflow is not superior to a darkroom workflow, and the reverse is probably just as true. It's a matter of preference, of both the viewer and more importantly (in our context) the maker.

[StuartR]

Still, I personally find it (1) easier and (2) more rewarding to get a somewhat decent print (occasionally a good one) from a darkroom.

While your statements about flexibility of curves and reversible changes are all true, I find that with inkjet, I also have to think about things such as bleed, ink viscosity, paper absorbance, metamerism, dithering algorithms, individual ink curve crossovers and a whole host of other things that I don't have to deal with when working with silver gelatin. The focus of your argument for a digital/hybrid workflow entirely revolves around the ease of use that 'curves' give, but you leave out the context in which this happens. It is the context and its vast number of parameters that need to be controlled (partly with curves, partly with other measures) that make the issue complex, and that also make the difference between a mediocre print and an actually good print.

It's not so difficult in the digital domain to get a nice rendering for a computer screen. Getting it onto paper is a whole different story, and that's a story you don't tell and barely reference. But let's not forget it's a story that is at least as important as the convenience of mouse-clicks when it comes to making quality prints.

Indeed, I feel that a hybrid/digital workflow is not superior to a darkroom workflow, and the reverse is probably just as true. It's a matter of preference, of both the viewer and more importantly (in our context) the maker.
I have to agree with this to a certain extent. I teach occasionally and work with a lot of clients, while also working as a photographer and artist and participate myself in shows. Even though digital is "easier" it is not easier to get great prints from it. There are a lot of pitfalls, just like the analog darkroom. I think for making black and white prints, students usually are quicker to get decent analog BW prints than digital ones. I certainly encounter a lot more poor digital prints than I do poor analog ones, but I think that has more to do with the personality type that chooses to print analog in 2019 than it does with anything inherent in the processes. Digital is deceptively "easy", and analog is deceptively "hard". In either case it is many years to learn to do them masterfully.

[Pere Casals]

The focus of your argument for a digital/hybrid workflow entirely revolves around the ease of use that 'curves' give, but you leave out the context in which this happens.

IMHO this is "the" critical point. I we are not able to control the curves we have a painful limitation.

_________________________


"bleed, ink viscosity, paper absorbance, metamerism, dithering algorithms, individual ink curve crossovers" : this is mostly solved by calibrating printer and with some methodic work, but it has no conceptual complication, beyond being able to digitally calibrate our printer-ink-paper and making a proofing mosaic with say 16 small images.


If you want a contrast bump in some range of the mids... this is only two click in Photoshop, but... what you do in the darkroom? exposing/processing film better next time?



I have to agree with this to a certain extent. I teach occasionally and work with a lot of clients, while also working as a photographer and artist and participate myself in shows. Even though digital is "easier" it is not easier to get great prints from it. There are a lot of pitfalls, just like the analog darkroom. I think for making black and white prints, students usually are quicker to get decent analog BW prints than digital ones. I certainly encounter a lot more poor digital prints than I do poor analog ones, but I think that has more to do with the personality type that chooses to print analog in 2019 than it does with anything inherent in the processes. Digital is deceptively "easy", and analog is deceptively "hard". In either case it is many years to learn to do them masterfully.

+1

[Kiwi7475]

No method is easier or better for everyone. You can do great on either if you put the effort. We should stop with these dichotomy type questions. Personally I like both and use both. Because I’ve probably put more time into the digital route I tend to get better results there. I find it easier because I grew up with computers and have been used Photoshop for a really long time. My investment in the analog approach was slower and less guided but I’m happy with the results I get.
There’s no wrong way, just pick one. If you truly want to learn, pick both.

[Sasquatchian]

"While your statements about flexibility of curves and reversible changes are all true, I find that with inkjet, I also have to think about things such as bleed, ink viscosity, paper absorbance, metamerism, dithering algorithms, individual ink curve crossovers and a whole host of other things that I don't have to deal with when working with silver gelatin. The focus of your argument for a digital/hybrid workflow entirely revolves around the ease of use that 'curves' give, but you leave out the context in which this happens. It is the context and its vast number of parameters that need to be controlled (partly with curves, partly with other measures) that make the issue complex, and that also make the difference between a mediocre print and an actually good print."

Whatever are you talking about? Bleed? Ink viscosity? Paper absorbance? Really? No, you don't have to worry about ANY of that, maybe in 1995 but not today. A good custom profile takes all of that into consideration and gives you a choice of rendering intents as a bonus. I started making inkjet prints in the late 1990's after over forty years of wet darkroom prints. Both require a certain attention to detail and technique but neither is that hard if you have the patience. Twenty years ago you had to make your own profiles or the results really did suck and maybe your arguments would have been valid, but today it's a far different landscape, pun intended.

I had an exhibit of music portraits a couple of years ago, all printed on an Epson 9900, mostly from drum scanned black and white negs and color transparencies. Set a gallery record for print sales and no one knew they weren't darkroom prints unless they read the print info sheets. Even had people ask me how I managed to make such great looking prints with no dust spots and the dude could not believe it when I told him they were all digital prints. I was a really good darkroom printer but today, my Epson prints are far better, both black and white and color but especially black and white and negs that were once difficult to impossible (and we've all had those) are now better than ever with the ability to render new interpretations that were simply never possible before.

"It's not so difficult in the digital domain to get a nice rendering for a computer screen. Getting it onto paper is a whole different story, and that's a story you don't tell and barely reference. But let's not forget it's a story that is at least as important as the convenience of mouse-clicks when it comes to making quality prints."

Again, and I'll repeat: That might have been true twenty years ago but it is simply not the case today. Get a good monitor calibrator or better yet and Eizo and have some custom profiles made of your favorite paper, control your ambient edit room lighting and have proper print viewing light, which you need for any type of print anyway, and the screen to print matches are really uncanny. Hell, even the screen to offset printing press matches are that good too, even to the point where often I don't even make a proof. But when I do make an Epson proof for offset, the color match to the printed piece is better today than it ever was in the mid 90's using Match Print or Agfa proofs from film. And that's all done with custom profiles. It ain't rocket science. It's all doable with a little effort, and like anything worthwhile, it's worth putting in the effort.

If they still made Forté Poly Warm Tone Semi-Matte paper, I might still be making darkroom prints but now with inkjet, the choice of papers is almost too extensive and I just don't miss being in a wet dark room at all anymore. Not even the romanticized version of it. Do whatever makes you happy and whatever give you what you consider the best prints are but don't lay your own problems with digital on the rest of the world.

[Pere Casals]

Get a good monitor calibrator or better yet and Eizo and have some custom profiles made of your favorite paper, control your ambient edit room lighting and have proper print viewing light, which you need for any type of print anyway, and the screen to print matches are really uncanny. Hell, even the screen to offset printing press matches are that good too, even to the point where often I don't even make a proof.... ...It ain't rocket science. It's all doable with a little effort...


+1

[rdeloe]

I'm not saying you're wrong... But I could write a paragraph like the one you wrote here for lots of things! Making a world class French pastry crust just involves combining certain ingredients a specific way under the right conditions. Simple! Of course, it’s not simple. If it really was simple, anyone could do it. Most people are challenged to combine the ingredients in the cake mix box properly.

I’m not making an argument for “digital printing is hard”. It’s just a technical activity that requires access to specific equipment and supplies, technical knowledge, and experience. Making outstanding digital prints requires a lot more knowledge – both the kind that you find written down in books like Jeff Schewe’s “The Digital Print”, and the tacit kind that real experts like Jeff possess, but which you won’t find written down conveniently. For people who have the capacity to figure this kind of thing out, and the money to buy the equipment and set up the space, it's not black magic -- but it's also not "simple". Ditto optical printing by the way.

If I have a point here it's that making outstanding anything involves an investment of money, time, etc., and not everyone can do it. Yes, anyone can make a mundane digital print -- or French pastry -- but that's not what we're talking about here, right?

As to whether optical printing or digital printing is “harder” (something that always seems to come up in these threads -- but not in your comment Sasquatchian), I could care less. Not only is it a pointless waste of time to argue about that, but also the whole question of “harder” is a distraction from what actually matters. Either a photography is excellent, or it isn’t. I’m not going to appreciate a picture more just because someone made it the hard way. I print digitally and mix my own inks from scratch. Should I expect bonus points when someone look at my prints? Of course not. It's either an outstanding print of an excellent photograph, or it's not.




"While your statements about flexibility of curves and reversible changes are all true, I find that with inkjet, I also have to think about things such as bleed, ink viscosity, paper absorbance, metamerism, dithering algorithms, individual ink curve crossovers and a whole host of other things that I don't have to deal with when working with silver gelatin. The focus of your argument for a digital/hybrid workflow entirely revolves around the ease of use that 'curves' give, but you leave out the context in which this happens. It is the context and its vast number of parameters that need to be controlled (partly with curves, partly with other measures) that make the issue complex, and that also make the difference between a mediocre print and an actually good print."

Whatever are you talking about? Bleed? Ink viscosity? Paper absorbance? Really? No, you don't have to worry about ANY of that, maybe in 1995 but not today. A good custom profile takes all of that into consideration and gives you a choice of rendering intents as a bonus. I started making inkjet prints in the late 1990's after over forty years of wet darkroom prints. Both require a certain attention to detail and technique but neither is that hard if you have the patience. Twenty years ago you had to make your own profiles or the results really did suck and maybe your arguments would have been valid, but today it's a far different landscape, pun intended.

I had an exhibit of music portraits a couple of years ago, all printed on an Epson 9900, mostly from drum scanned black and white negs and color transparencies. Set a gallery record for print sales and no one knew they weren't darkroom prints unless they read the print info sheets. Even had people ask me how I managed to make such great looking prints with no dust spots and the dude could not believe it when I told him they were all digital prints. I was a really good darkroom printer but today, my Epson prints are far better, both black and white and color but especially black and white and negs that were once difficult to impossible (and we've all had those) are now better than ever with the ability to render new interpretations that were simply never possible before.

"It's not so difficult in the digital domain to get a nice rendering for a computer screen. Getting it onto paper is a whole different story, and that's a story you don't tell and barely reference. But let's not forget it's a story that is at least as important as the convenience of mouse-clicks when it comes to making quality prints."

Again, and I'll repeat: That might have been true twenty years ago but it is simply not the case today. Get a good monitor calibrator or better yet and Eizo and have some custom profiles made of your favorite paper, control your ambient edit room lighting and have proper print viewing light, which you need for any type of print anyway, and the screen to print matches are really uncanny. Hell, even the screen to offset printing press matches are that good too, even to the point where often I don't even make a proof. But when I do make an Epson proof for offset, the color match to the printed piece is better today than it ever was in the mid 90's using Match Print or Agfa proofs from film. And that's all done with custom profiles. It ain't rocket science. It's all doable with a little effort, and like anything worthwhile, it's worth putting in the effort.

If they still made Forté Poly Warm Tone Semi-Matte paper, I might still be making darkroom prints but now with inkjet, the choice of papers is almost too extensive and I just don't miss being in a wet dark room at all anymore. Not even the romanticized version of it. Do whatever makes you happy and whatever give you what you consider the best prints are but don't lay your own problems with digital on the rest of the world.

[Pere Casals]

Making outstanding digital prints requires a lot more knowledge

In my experience, in the digital/hybrid workflow a challenege is having a refined aesthetic criterion to edit the print, if one knows what he wants then the remaining job is straight because Photoshop it's a very flexible and powerful tool, and with a good software proofing we nail the result on paper.

...but still we need an artist on command to balance each aesthetic trade in the image.




As to whether optical printing or digital printing is “harder” (something that always seems to come up in these threads -- but not in your comment Sasquatchian), I could care less.

In the darkroom if a negative can deliver straight (with basic maipulation) the print you want then all it's easy.

...if you want certain king of modifications then it can be a nightmare, a master printer may spend weeks until he has the print he wants.





Not only is it a pointless waste of time to argue about that, but also the whole question of “harder” is a distraction from what actually matters.

What maters? this is the question. Commercial services or pro photographers have well known priorities, this is perfect...

Some artists (I'm not one) have other priorities:

"An artist is a complete master of his tools. When creating art an artist transcends common existence as his spirit flies up to meet that which he is capturing. He may practice and learn his tools while he is not creating, however when creating the camera becomes an extension of his mind. No conscious thought is expended on the technical issues with which he is a virtuoso while creating photographs." (Ken Rockwell)

Let me place an example: Sally Mann. Departing from glass sheets and raw chem and ending in the most impressive silver prints many people have ever seen. No mouse clicks, no printer. If a taking lens had a crack in the middle this was exploited for the aesthetics or for the message. Authenticity.


_______

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that a pure optic process is better or worse than hybrid or fully digital, at all. Just saying that what matters is relative.

[neil poulsen]

As I read this thread, I'm leaning towards the argument that it's difficult in either the digital or the analog disciplines to achieve fine results.

While it's easier I think to achieve acceptable (vs. exceptional) results with digital, the digital learning curve for digital can indeed become steep, if one gets into using a decent RIP, making their own CMYK profiles, etc., to attain results.

The same is true for analog, what with Zone system testing, proper contrast control of the negative, etc.

And amidst all of this, in "comparing" the two media, what is being compared with what?

Best I think to just pursue what one likes and that with which they obtain the most satisfying results. (Or, both?) Like with any sophisticated art form, it becomes a journey, and not just a destination.

[Pere Casals]

As I read this thread, I'm leaning towards the argument that it's difficult in either the digital or the analog disciplines to achieve fine results.

Neil, IMHO making a very good artistic photograph it's always very difficult, with a view camera or with a dslr, with a printer or in the darkroom. Even it's difficult to make an art image for what someone would pay a single cent today...

But... to me there is no doubt that crafting a digital print is a kid's game compared to making a sound print in the darkroom (Provided that we know what we want to craft). Personally, with Photoshop I get what I want in a short time, and also I get soon the digital Lightjet (or ink) print with no mess. The same print can be a nightmare to manipulate in the darkroom, in one particular case I spent 6 weekends with a single negative, I wasted several paper boxes, I've learned new tecniques for it ...and still I've to solve the complicated part of it, while I adjusted the digital version perfectly in 15mm... of course I've a lot to learn to be skilled in the darkroom, but I've realized yet the masterliness level required in both cases.

[StuartR]

It seems to me that printing is about 70% seeing, and 30% knowing advanced techniques. It is a different kind of seeing than photographing, though they often go hand in hand. I started to learn this when I was studying with Brian Young at ICP. He was a printer for Bruce Davidson, Joseph Rodriguez, Magnum etc. I remember showing him a print I was pretty happy with. He had a look and suggested a few small tweaks in contrast and exposure time. Sure enough, the print came even more alive. That was not so much about him knowing any secret settings, he knew how to SEE. That is what I have been working on for the last fifteen years.

[Sasquatchian]

Whatever method you want to print with, if you like the prints you make, you're done. If you don't like them or don't know how to get them to the point where you do, then either study and learn how to do it on your own, buy the necessary hardware, software, chemicals, lenses, etc. to realize your dream and experiment methodically until you're happy - or - find someone who already knows what you are wanting to know and ask them. Chances are they'll be flattered you asked and might even help you just to help you. We all have to start somewhere. Shit, twenty years ago, in order to teach myself how to make the best dial prints I could, I spent about twelve grand in hardware and software just to be able to make all the custom profiles I needed to do what I wanted. A custom profile won't magically solve all your problems but it will be a great start and may keep you from going around in circles til you get dizzy and fall down.

Read books. Talk to people who are better than you. Go VISIT them in person even if it means flying across the country to do it. That cost and dedication WILL make you pay extra attention. Make and document your mistakes and try to make them only once. Learn how fucked up your printer drivers really are and develop workarounds and document those. Put in your 10,000 hours and then you'll finally get to a point where you have the confidence to help others in a meaningful way.

Like I said before, none of this is rocket science, but there is SOME science you have to get you head around. I mean, photography in general has always been part art and part science, right? Anyone who puts their mind to this can learn it and what I described above is exactly what I did over twenty years ago and keep doing today. Once you get a picture in your mind of how it all works, it just falls into place and becomes second nature. You look at a scene and start thinking in terms of pixel values and what will or will not print, or god forbid, you start thinking in terms of CMYK ink values and have those on the brain. Been there. Actually I used to look at Type 59 Polaroids and convert them in my head to press cmyk. Never told anyone about that but I'm sure I'm not alone.

But whatever you do, you have to put the effort in to learn it and some of will considerable time. No free rides. No free lunch.

[Torontoamateur]

Mix some Dektol and have fun. This thread has become a useless argument