Scanner, enlarger, or contact printer? Which one and why???

[AdamD]

Hi all,

WARNING: You are about to read a line of rookie questions!!! Get ready....

Happy holidays! I recently posted a question in the Camera section of the forum. I got great feedback from a lot of folks. Basically, I have not started in LF photography, but looking into what involved. I understand the front end of the process reasonably well, right up to "click" of the shutter. Then what?

I was asked in the thread, what was I planning to do, "scanner, enlarger, or contact printer?" In large part, that's what I'm trying to understand better. I don't quite understand the details of any of these methods, the pros and cons and the cost involved.

I'm ok with re-learning the developing part of the process that yields a negative, but then what?

Can anyone share their suggestions on each of these post processing methods and what's involved as well as the cost?

If you can point me to a good source of reading material too!

Many thanks.
Adam

[Two23]

Scanner: easiest and quickest. Requires least space.

Contacts: needs dark work area, supplies & some equipment, still need to scan print to put on internet. A 4x5 contact is very small for landscapes.

Enlarger: fairly big equipment, needs supplies and dark work area, starting to get into some time and money.

Kent in SD

[Tin Can]

Contact prints are easiest, cheapest and possible to do in a tiny space

If desired Ilford PQ can develop film and paper, stop is plain water or for paper citric acid food grade, very cheap, I use the least smelly fixer and most modern, TF5.

RC paper washes is a couple minutes and dries flat.

If I use X-Ray film cut to anysize, it becomes way cheaper and faster than a DSLR, computer, scanner and inkjet printer

Yes there are automated camera printer combos. But Polaroid started all that with chemical printing...

[Tin Can]

I must add, that most cell phones are overkill for a quick copy of any film or print when used for internet viewing.

I make special website digi images all the time, they look great!

[Alan9940]

In order of cost: contact printing, scanning, enlarging. As already mentioned, both contact printing and enlarging will require a dark area, though enlarging will require a larger dark area. Yes, 4x5 contacts are generally too small for a lot of landscape subjects, but can be jewel-like and quite exquisite depending on the subject. Personally, if I were just starting out today I’d do contact printing.

[Jim Jones]

Someone who is already equipped for developing film needs little more for contact printing. I don't regret enlarging since the 1960s. The cost of several enlargers and a few darkrooms used since then and spread out over that many years is modest. However, modern scanners, editing programs, and printers would make scanning logical if I hadn't shifted to digital capture. Digital editing and printing are far more efficient than doing it in the darkroom when many prints are sometimes needed. My most popular darkroom print for years required half an hour of spotting each print. After converting it to a digital file, a better job of spotting was faster and only had to be done once. A few of the thousands of digital prints I've sold or given away over the years may mean less to the owners than darkroom prints. Most others don't care. Each of us has to consider our resources and what we want to produce.

Advice on this forum can help others make good technical and economical decisions. The more precise the question, the more accurate tha answer.

[Luis-F-S]

One of each!

[jp]

Depends on what the intended end purpose of the photograph is.

If it's for me to learn and try things and share on the Internet, I scan. This also creates a backup of the negative. It does not match the quality of the original negative, but it's good enough for modest digital prints and uses should something happen to the actual negative.

If the purpose is to make an alt process print, it gets contact printed such as cyanotype. Then I have a print to scan and then give away or share or hang up.

If the purpose is to make a B&W print for display, contact print or darkroom print is what I prefer. I do soft focus photos which don't enlarge well and these make for great contact prints. 8x10 is great for contact prints of sharp or soft photos.

If you are coming to film photography without any film photography experience, I'd definitely suggest at least being skilled in basic contact prints, so you can make negatives that are printable even if you currently intend to scan. Scanning has some flexibility in covering up errors in exposure and development.

[Ethan]

A scanner is the simplest these days, and will also allow you to post photos on the internet. However, I find there is something awe inspiring about creating silver gelatin prints and watching them appear in a darkroom, so I will always prefer enlarged photos and contact prints. For 4x5, I enlarge my negatives. For the landscapes I shoot, I find 4x5 inches too small of a print to really appreciate the detail in them. For my 8x10, I do contact prints only because my 8x10 enlarger is still needing some work before it is operational. Since you are just starting with large format, I would recommend staying with 4x5 until you are sure you will continue with it. Staying with 4x5 will also allow you to do bigger prints than an 8x10 contact print, as 4x5 enlargers are very common compared to 8x10 ones.

[AdamD]

Ok....I think I have a pretty good picture now of the three options.

Here's the deal....for me the entire purpose of wanting to shoot large format is to end up with an enlarged print. Having the ability to share it on the internet is a side bonus. In practice, I'd imagine in 20 or 30 shots, I might find one or two worthy of enlargement.

To me, the entire contact printing process makes sense especially if an enlargement is the end game, BUT, I don't think I want to even entertain that option at this time.

To me scanning is a more logical first step. BUT, I'm not clear on the purpose of scanning and what I'd do with the output (digital file if a negative).

So, can someone please elaborate on the scanning process that starts right after I developed the negative? Then what, how to do it and what I do with it for the purpose of eventually printing the good ones. I think I know the answer.....

Is it that the scanner replaces to contact printing output with a digital file? Seems like you'd need software to convert a negative scan to a digital "print". THEN, you'd have the "contact" on the computer. At that point you'd say, enlargement that "one", and send it off to a lab for 11x14 or something crazy like 30x40 or whatever works.

Is that correct?

[Tin Can]

Do you have a computer?

Do you use Photoshop?

If not what do you use on the Interwebs?

[AdamD]

I use Affinity as a PS replacement. I think I have CS4 on an older computer.

I'm not sure if Affinity has the features necessary for negative work, but it's pretty good. I like it more than PS in many ways.

[Tin Can]

Try inverting any color picture, it will look like a negative.

Then convert it to B&W and adjust curves

Then invert again

I have no idea what Affinity is

I gladly pay $10 a month for the latest CC PS, it has many good features.




I use Affinity as a PS replacement. I think I have CS4 on an older computer.

I'm not sure if Affinity has the features necessary for negative work, but it's pretty good. I like it more than PS in many ways.

[Two23]

A 4x5 contact print isn't something to hang on a wall. Getting an enlarger for 4x5 will take a lot of space and time to set up and learn. I suggest buying an older scanner such as the Epson 4990 for $150. Film is placed in a special holder/frame and scanned using Vuescan software. You take the file to PS and process it like you do digital files. You should be able to make decent 20x30 prints from this. I've made several for my home from b&w 4x5 negs this way and they looked great and didn't involve a lot of time or money. I scan with an Epson v700 and process the file in the current Photoshop CS. It has a clone tool to remove dust, sharpen, and dodge & burn etc. I'm just not a dark room guy. I'm just an outdoors guy that loves old lenses and messing with cameras.

I've been doing 4x5 for 20 years and 5x7 for the past three years. I've so far resisted setting up a dark room because of space concerns but mostly because that's not where my interest lies. I'm an outdoors guy. I am currently getting into 8x10 with the plan of making contact prints. My primary interest is the ability to make historical prints from my wet plate negs doing albumin printing. Otherwise I would not have messed with the size and expense of 8x10 and would be happy scanning 4x5 and making prints that way. I highly doubt I will ever go the route of getting an enlarger but will have to set up a small work area in my basement and seal it off to make it dark in order to make the albumin prints. I still plan on spending 90% of my time outdoors taking shots and 10% of my time in a dark room. Be advised it could be several months before you start coming up with negatives you actually want to print. You first have to learn what the camera can do and what it's best at. Don't be in a hurry.


Kent in SD

[Alan9940]

AdamD,

Scanning will certainly provide much flexibility for output, especially starting with a 4x5 neg. If you have something larger than a consumer level 13" printer, you can print to very large sizes depending on the scan resolution and you level of acceptable quality in a print. You could also use that digital file to output digital negatives for alt process printing, but that's a whole 'nutter world! You can certainly use Affinity Photo, but IMO you'll get the best conversion by scanning a linear file and using the ColorPerfect plugin to convert. I don't think it will run under PS CS4 so you would have to invest in an Adobe subscription of, better yet, grab a copy of PhotoLine (www.pl32.com) There will be a learning curve there--mainly because you'll have to get used to what similar PS things are called in PL--but it's a very powerful editor and very reasonably priced. In many ways, PL is more powerful than PS!

Good luck and have fun!

[AdamD]

A 4x5 contact print isn't something to hang on a wall. Getting an enlarger for 4x5 will take a lot of space and time to set up and learn. I suggest buying an older scanner such as the Epson 4990 for $150. Film is placed in a special holder/frame and scanned using Vuescan software. You take the file to PS and process it like you do digital files. You should be able to make decent 20x30 prints from this. I've made several for my home from b&w 4x5 negs this way and they looked great and didn't involve a lot of time or money. I scan with an Epson v700 and process the file in the current Photoshop CS. It has a clone tool to remove dust, sharpen, and dodge & burn etc. I'm just not a dark room guy. I'm just an outdoors guy that loves old lenses and messing with cameras.

Kent in SD


Kent, as usual, you are spot on!! I'm exactly where you are just 20+ years behind you!!

Question on the scanned negative....and I am well aware that it will take many months to finally get a shot worthy of an enlarged print, but, my question is, with the scanned image, why would you use that file to create an enlargement?

Would you not only use the scanned image to evaluate the quality and when you decide it's time to enlarge, then send out that negative to be processed by a lab with the right equipment to do it right???

If you enlarge with a scanned image, are you not undermining the entire point of shooting on film? It seems that the scanned image will still lose the quality and add noise?

On the flip side, maybe everything I just said is true, BUT if you're only enlarging up to 20x30, you will not "see the digital"???? Is that right? Then, if you wanted to go bigger, THEN, you'd send out the negative??? Is this correct?

How am I doing here??

[Bob Salomon]

A 4x5 contact print isn't something to hang on a wall....”

Kent in SD

Depends. I have a couple of 4x4” Mary Ellen Mark prints that look great on the wall!

[jp]

Enlarging a 4x5 to 20" print on the short edge is only a 5x enlargement. It's not enough enlargement to show quality loss.

[ic-racer]

I won't comment on computer graphics, but an optical enlarger allows reductions, 1:1 and enlargements, so that would be the most versatile tool for printing large format negatives.

[BrianShaw]

Depends. I have a couple of 4x4” Mary Ellen Mark prints that look great on the wall!

:)

[AdamD]

Ok but the bottom line is that with a camera, the film development gear and a scanner with software, I'd be in business ( hobby business, that is...)

Total cost for the film developing gear runs between $200-$400. And a scanner will run between $150-$450 on up. I think the v800 is about $800.

Is this about right?

[Tin Can]

Here are small contact prints, mostly, some done by members here.

Look at the 4X5 contact prints...and click on HABS...in the last link and here to a downloadable large file from a 4X5 negative (https://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/hhh.il0823.photos.318222p/?co=hh). I have been in that room.

A Baker's Dozen: Large-Format Contact Prints (https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2017/10/a-bakers-dozen-large-format-contact-prints.html)

[BrianShaw]

Ok but the bottom line is that with a camera, the film development gear and a scanner with software, I'd be in business ( hobby business, that is...)

Total cost for the film developing gear runs between $200-$400. And a scanner will run between $150-$450 on up. I think the v800 is about $800.

Is this about right?

If that’s the way you want to do the process, it’s a start. And a good start, too. Do you have a good computer with the speed and memory for graphics processing? If not, factor that into your end-to-end cost assessment.

When I started I focused, literally, on first things first... capturing enough worthy images to warrant figuring out how to print and how big the prints should be. Berenice might disagree, perhaps, but without even a mediocre neg of a worthy image all the rest is just gear.

[Vaughn]

Interesting question that needs to be asked, but it seems a little back-asswards to me. I would tend to start from the image and how I might want to present it -- then determine what type of image capture and processing (and processes) would allow me to reach that goal. How do you like to work? What type of imagery do you want to make? If you are not sure, then whatever option gives you the most options of weaving equipment, process and image together while having fun at it. Play with it for awhile, then decide what you want to make.

I use LF and make contact prints with in-camera negatives printing with alt processes to achieve my photographic goals...so my bias is towards contact printing. Pretty dang cheap way to go. No batteries, pixels, or software. Direct experience -- pin the latest print to the kitchen wall and live with it for a while.

PS...4x5 images can rock on the walls! So can 5x7s! Save the bedsheet size prints to cover bad plaster on the walls.

...and one can always print a couple (or more) together...

(two 4x5, Polaroid Type 55 negatives, contact print, silver gelatin)

[AdamD]

If that’s the way you want to do the process, it’s a start. And a good start, too. Do you have a good computer with the speed and memory for graphics processing? If not, factor that into your end-to-end cost assessment.

When I started I focused, literally, on first things first... capturing enough worthy images to warrant figuring out how to print and how big the prints should be. Berenice might disagree, perhaps, but without even a mediocre neg of a worthy image all the rest is just gear.


Do I want to process that way??? IDK...that just seems like a clean and easy way to go.

And yes I have a good computer. It's pretty new.

I need to learn more about how to make contact prints.

[BrianShaw]

Contact printing might open a whole new line of learning. Lots of options too. I tend toward the “non-silver” “alternative “ approaches... cyanotype, gum bichromate, platinum/palladium. I’d love to do carbon printing but that has to wait for a retirement project. Many of these require mixing chemicals and hand-coating paper, with exposure via UV lamps. More toys...

I’m not sure what traditional silver contact papers still exist but some a quick trip to the Freestyle site should answer that question!

How’s your wife taking all of this????? :)

[AdamD]

How’s your wife taking all of this????? :)

LMAO!!!! She's in the dark!! Well she knows something is afoot. I just need to be respectful and not blow a bunch of money and not do anything with it.

��

[BrianShaw]

LMAO!!!! She's in the dark!! Well she knows something is afoot. I just need to be respectful and not blow a bunch of money and not do anything with it.

��
Let me share something out of my photography playbook. Buy camera and some transparency film. Take wife’s picture. Make sure they make her look gorgeous. Send film out for processing. When it comes back, hold the big “slide” up for her to see. Anything you want after that will be yours!

[Pieter]

Ok....I think I have a pretty good picture now of the three options.

Here's the deal....for me the entire purpose of wanting to shoot large format is to end up with an enlarged print. Having the ability to share it on the internet is a side bonus. In practice, I'd imagine in 20 or 30 shots, I might find one or two worthy of enlargement.

To me, the entire contact printing process makes sense especially if an enlargement is the end game, BUT, I don't think I want to even entertain that option at this time.

To me scanning is a more logical first step. BUT, I'm not clear on the purpose of scanning and what I'd do with the output (digital file if a negative).

So, can someone please elaborate on the scanning process that starts right after I developed the negative? Then what, how to do it and what I do with it for the purpose of eventually printing the good ones. I think I know the answer.....

Is it that the scanner replaces to contact printing output with a digital file? Seems like you'd need software to convert a negative scan to a digital "print". THEN, you'd have the "contact" on the computer. At that point you'd say, enlargement that "one", and send it off to a lab for 11x14 or something crazy like 30x40 or whatever works.

Is that correct?
The downside of using a digital contact "proof" to progress to an enlarged silver print is that unless your negatives are technically great, work has to be done during the making of the final print. One option is to manipulate the image in photoshop as you would if you were making the enlargement in the darkroom--that is, paper grade (contrast), dodging, burning, etc. You will then need to work with the lab, making a work print and communicating your expectations of what you'd like them to do. Also, paper tone, finish, toning and bleaching are options in the darkroom that are difficult to simulate on the computer. A calibrated monitor really helps, too.

[Leszek Vogt]

This is from the other thread #3 post (4th solution ?)......or use a digital camera to copy the negative on a "light table" of choice....so you'll have a digital copy to work with or as reference. Is there something wrong with this solution ?
198840
Additionally, if done well (stitching and all) you'll have plenty of pixels for a large enlargement.

Les

[Fred L]

So, I also find 4x5 contacts a bit too small for my liking. 5x7 however is a really, really nice size.

4x5 will be easier to enlarge as those enlargers are all over the place and easy to find. 5x7 will require an enlarger designed for 5x7 or 8x10. Either way, it will be huge. and expensive. and more likely, very rare.

Either will scan fine, and I use a sheet of AN glass to keep the neg flat. That method does introduce four more sides to attract dust, but the upside, for me, is a very flat negative.

Scanning will be the easiest path and allow you to scan up to 8x10, presuming you get at least a v700. Contact prints may be more rewarding, if you like the idea of craft.

[Duolab123]

I think everyone should start with contact print proofs of negatives. It teaches one to better control the original exposure of the film, consistency. If you can find an enlarger that takes filters or has a colorhead, use this for a light source to control contrast and exposure of your contact prints.
Use RC paper, keep it simple. A contact print is amazing.
Some of the most important photos (Lewis Hine's child labor photos ) were (are) modest sized small very well executed contact prints.

I have fancy old school dedicated contact printer machines, I never use, I just use an enlarger with contrast filters. A proper album of 4x5 and 5x7 contact prints is a joy to behold.
MHOFWIW, Best Regards Mike

[Peter Lewin]

It seems to me that there is some circular logic here. Contact printing is the best way to evaluate a negative, but unless you are Edward Weston with a glass sheet and a light bulb, you would make contact prints using an enlarger and timer as the light source. And if you need an enlarger, you have gone directly to the OP's "enlarger" option. An enlarger which can handle 4x5 negatives for enlargement is a large beast, and space becomes a consideration. (I've been using a 4x5 enlarger for at least 40+ years, but then I have had darkrooms - at least 3 - for close to 50 years, so I had the space; not sure the OP does).

My vote for a beginner is a scanner. As mentioned you scan the negatives in a plastic holder; my Epson 4990 takes two at a time in the supplied holder, or 4 at a time if you put them in PrintFile sheets and scan the whole sheet. The amount of work you do on the scan in PhotoShop or similar is up to you. You can simply send the scan of 2 or 4 negatives to any desktop printer to get the equivalent of a "contact print." The file doesn't "know" the size of the output, i.e. the same file can be printed in whatever size you want.

The difficulties as I see them are the learning curve to be really good at PhotoShop (as in most things, it is easy to be mediocre, but takes time and effort to be good), and if you want good quality prints, you need not only the scanner but a real photo-grade printer. And even there, the top-notch printers of digital prints have extra software and ink sets, i.e. even more technology.

My own approach, is to tray develop my negatives, scan them in PrintFile sheets and print the entire sheet on my desktop printer so that I have a "contact sheet" to file with the negatives. The images that I think are worth the effort are then enlarged and printed in the darkroom. I will avoid the arguments about the "quality" of a digital print versus a darkroom print by simply saying that I am a pretty good darkroom printer, and have never made the effort to develop equivalent skill with scanning, PhotoShop, and digital printing. I also enjoy the tactile process of darkroom printing. (As an aside, many of us work in large format not so much for the "quality," what we enjoy most is the process. If it were only quality, we could be like almost every professional photographer and use digital cameras.)

[Duolab123]

MHO is that if any free enlarger, ( i.e. Bogen, Vivitar etc.) and they still are plentiful. Can be used as a light source, with contrast filters, and a timer, to produce contact prints. Repeatable and easy. Almost free.

I would start simple and learn the craft.

You can scan the contact prints if you want to put them on the web.

[Oren Grad]

It seems to me that there is some circular logic here. Contact printing is the best way to evaluate a negative, but unless you are Edward Weston with a glass sheet and a light bulb, you would make contact prints using an enlarger and timer as the light source. And if you need an enlarger, you have gone directly to the OP's "enlarger" option. An enlarger which can handle 4x5 negatives for enlargement is a large beast, and space becomes a consideration. (I've been using a 4x5 enlarger for at least 40+ years, but then I have had darkrooms - at least 3 - for close to 50 years, so I had the space; not sure the OP does).

But if you're going to use the enlarger solely as a light source, you don't need a 4x5 enlarger. The dinkiest small-format enlarger will do.

My bias: I adore contact prints, of any size. Most recently I've been contact-printing 3 1/4 x 4 1/4" negatives, and even a few medium format negatives. As final prints, not for proofing purposes.

I'm fortunate to have an LPL 4500II, which I use for enlarging roll film negatives as well as contact printing sheet film negatives. But if I had to, I could happily make do with a very small enlarger as a light source. And if I were really pressed for darkroom space, I could get by with a minimal dark space for the enlarger, where I could make the exposure and then stuff the paper into a small drum for processing on a roller base wherever a sink is available.

[AdamD]

It seems to me that there is some circular logic here. Contact printing is the best way to evaluate a negative, but unless you are Edward Weston with a glass sheet and a light bulb, you would make contact prints using an enlarger and timer as the light source. And if you need an enlarger, you have gone directly to the OP's "enlarger" option. An enlarger which can handle 4x5 negatives for enlargement is a large beast, and space becomes a consideration. (I've been using a 4x5 enlarger for at least 40+ years, but then I have had darkrooms - at least 3 - for close to 50 years, so I had the space; not sure the OP does).

My vote for a beginner is a scanner. As mentioned you scan the negatives in a plastic holder; my Epson 4990 takes two at a time in the supplied holder, or 4 at a time if you put them in PrintFile sheets and scan the whole sheet. The amount of work you do on the scan in PhotoShop or similar is up to you. You can simply send the scan of 2 or 4 negatives to any desktop printer to get the equivalent of a "contact print." The file doesn't "know" the size of the output, i.e. the same file can be printed in whatever size you want.

The difficulties as I see them are the learning curve to be really good at PhotoShop (as in most things, it is easy to be mediocre, but takes time and effort to be good), and if you want good quality prints, you need not only the scanner but a real photo-grade printer. And even there, the top-notch printers of digital prints have extra software and ink sets, i.e. even more technology.

My own approach, is to tray develop my negatives, scan them in PrintFile sheets and print the entire sheet on my desktop printer so that I have a "contact sheet" to file with the negatives. The images that I think are worth the effort are then enlarged and printed in the darkroom. I will avoid the arguments about the "quality" of a digital print versus a darkroom print by simply saying that I am a pretty good darkroom printer, and have never made the effort to develop equivalent skill with scanning, PhotoShop, and digital printing. I also enjoy the tactile process of darkroom printing. (As an aside, many of us work in large format not so much for the "quality," what we enjoy most is the process. If it were only quality, we could be like almost every professional photographer and use digital cameras.)

This entire post is worth quoting....

Thank you for your insight. This makes sense and brings me to my next conclusion....

Get a camera, any camera, just get a camera and shoot.
Get a scanner, preferably the v700
Learn how to shoot
Learn how to scan and evaluate
If I stick with it and I enjoy the hobby and results, branching out into the world of contact printing will just happen when it happens.

I am starting to see a plan come together!!

[Duolab123]

But if you're going to use the enlarger solely as a light source, you don't need a 4x5 enlarger. The dinkiest small-format enlarger will do.

My bias: I adore contact prints, of any size. Most recently I've been contact-printing 3 1/4 x 4 1/4" negatives, and even a few medium format negatives. As final prints, not for proofing purposes.

I'm fortunate to have an LPL 4500II, which I use for enlarging roll film negatives as well as contact printing sheet film negatives. But if I had to, I could happily make do with a very small enlarger as a light source. And if I were really pressed for darkroom space, I could get by with a minimal dark space for the enlarger, where I could make the exposure and then stuff the paper into a small drum for processing on a roller base wherever a sink is available.

I'm like you. I'm lucky to have all the equipment. But if I was forced to do without, I would grab my Crown Graphic, and find a tiny little enlarger with some Ilford filters. Get 3 Paterson trays and a small proofing glass printer.

Get a little bottle of Selenium toner :o

The good, pure analog experience at it's best.

[Peter Lewin]

This entire post is worth quoting....

Thank you for your insight. This makes sense and brings me to my next conclusion....

Get a camera, any camera, just get a camera and shoot.
Get a scanner, preferably the v700
Learn how to shoot
Learn how to scan and evaluate
If I stick with it and I enjoy the hobby and results, branching out into the world of contact printing will just happen when it happens.

I am starting to see a plan come together!!

Personally I like your plan, but then I kind of suggested it :)

So here is what I would do:
1. Get the camera equipment of your choice.
2. Get one of the two current developing tanks for 4x5, either the Spearman SP-445 or the Paterson 4x5 tank and reel. (There are other options, but they are either more expensive, or you have to find used versions because they are no longer produced.) You can look them up on B&H, they are both just under $100. You can load them in a dark closet or bathroom, and then process in daylight, so no need for a darkroom. The only chemicals you need are developer and fixer. You will get various opinions on whether you need a dedicated stop bath or can get away with plain water.
3. Look for a used or refurbished Epson V700, which should cost around $600. Epson’s own site does not show any V700s refurbished, you will have to hunt around. I was lucky, I got my discontinued 4990 refurbed from Epson direct.
4. Use whatever multi-purposed printer you already have connected to your computer to print. No additional purchases needed (assuming you have some kind of image processing software on your computer; you download the scanner driver from Epson.)
That will give you all you need to get started.

[John Layton]

We all have our biases. My bias says to start with analog - enlarging then adding contact printing. (why in this order? So that you can learn to create a truly sharp negative). Live and breathe this process until you know how to control it. Then add scanning and learn it well enough to know if it will enhance your desired results in any meaningful way. I get the results that are meaningful to me - without scanning. So I don't go there.

Then again...scanning can be such a good tool in its own right (logistics wise), but I'm assuming here that this isn't about that.

Edit: just reread your original post to notice that you'd asked about cost. Be very careful about this. Do what you can to acquire tools and materials that are good enough so that your learning process can be meaningful. In other words, so that when you screw up, you know that you have yourself to blame and not your equipment/materials.

[Tin Can]

Photoshop 'Spot Healing Brush Tool' is a very important digi tool for me.

'Out Damn Spot' for one

Drag it down an edge to fix an entire line

Adjustable in many ways

Remove small objects from a photo (https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/how-to/spot-healing-brush-tool.html)

[AdamD]

Edit: just reread your original post to notice that you'd asked about cost. Be very careful about this. Do what you can to acquire tools and materials that are good enough so that your learning process can be meaningful. In other words, so that when you screw up, you know that you have yourself to blame and not your equipment/materials.

John and all,

This is a hugely important point for me. I tend to always buy into the mid-to-upper range of "things" for for my hobbies. Guitars, telescopes, reef tanks, woodworking stuff, oh and of course.... photography.

I absolutely go bonkers when the equipment becomes part of the variables!!! It's a little like when the referees start to "participate" in the football game with highly questionable and bias play calling! When the equipment becomes a factor and an impediment to learning, I have a problem with that.

This leads to my camera gear question, but, I have to be careful and respectful to this forum....THIS TOPIC is about post process tools. You guys all helped be select a winner for me in Phase I of my journey: scanner either the 4990 or v700 if I get lucky.

The next question becomes more of a camera question for the other forum on cameras and accessories.

But, if you don't mind, this is where my struggle is with the camera. I really want to keep the cost down to start, especially considering I need to add the cost of a developer and scanner (~$300-$700). Granted, I can put that cost off a bit initially less the $100 for a development tank, which is good.

I really want a field camera like the Takahara or similar. It seems to have the right balance of what I'm looking for, but....I don't need to start there. To start I was thinking that a simple monorail is the best option. Something like the Cambo SC with a lens.

My struggle is, is that camera going to represent the features of LF well enough to teach ME and not become a "bias referee" because of its lower quality OR should I suck it up and step up to a better camera? Maybe the Sinar F1 or the xxx or the xxx or the Wista 45 field?

It's not just the cost of the camera either. I have nothing, need holders, lens, cable, cloth, loop....you name it, I need it.

I know some of you might say, 'what type of photos do you want'....it doesn't matter. I just need a platform to learn of that will be good enough to teach me the process and not become part of the process.

I've rambled a LOT...I'm sorry!!

[BrianShaw]

“ I really want a field camera like the Takahara or similar. It seems to have the right balance of what I'm looking for, but....I don't need to start there. To start I was thinking that a simple monorail is the best option. Something like the Cambo SC with a lens.

My struggle is, is that camera going to represent the features of LF well enough to teach ME and not become a "bias referee" because of its lower quality OR should I suck it up and step up to a better camera? Maybe the Sinar F1 or the xxx or the xxx or the Wista 45 field? ”

First... recognize that a camera isn’t going to teach you anything. You’ll need to learn how to make it do what you want it to do. You’re right that the wrong choice can be a limitation. It’s not a matter of quality but a matter of feature capability. If you want to use lots of movement than a press camera is the wrong choice. If you want to backpack with it, then a monorail or any other heavy camera could be a bad choice. The “step up” options are great cameras that offer finer controls and more markings, but at a great cost for similar capabilities.

Most important, though, is that whatever you get is in proper working order so that’s not throwing monkey wrench in your face. That’s why virtually every used shutter I’ve bought has been treated to a professional overhaul.

[Two23]

Really, the camera is the least important piece. This is where to cut corners. As long as it will attach a lens on on end and focus on film in a holder on the other end you are good. The film and lens affect how your image looks. The camera does not.


Kent in SD

[Bob Salomon]

Really, the camera is the least important piece. This is where to cut corners. As long as it will attach a lens on on end and focus on film in a holder on the other end you are good. The film and lens affect how your image looks. The camera does not.


Kent in SD

Unless the camera does not maintain alignment or it’s movements dont do what you want.
Photography is a chain and a camera is one of the most important links in that chain. It is just as important as the lens it has to hold and position and the film it has to hold.

[Fred L]

as suggested, look at finding a Crown Graphic (or it's siblings). it won't have many movements (front titl requires flipping the front standard base around) but it's a great camera to work with as it's pretty well indestructible. Invest $$ in the glass and film.

No doubt LF can be frustrating at times but when you see 5x7 or 8x10 contacts, it makes it all the hair pulling, worth it.

[Two23]

Unless the camera does not maintain alignment or it’s movements dont do what you want.
Photography is a chain and a camera is one of the most important links in that chain. It is just as important as the lens it has to hold and position and the film it has to hold.


Every large format camera I've owned, including 1890s British half plate, has done what I needed to do.


Kent in SD :)

[Drew Wiley]

I'd argue that scanning is the least efficient way to get from Point A to Point B, at least if you want a high-quality print.

[Peter Lewin]

I'd argue that scanning is the least efficient way to get from Point A to Point B, at least if you want a high-quality print.
But I would counter-argue that scanning is the most efficient way to find out if you even enjoy working with a large format camera.

Like many here, I am a dedicated darkroom printer. Over the half-century that I have been doing this, I have accumulated a lot of very nice equipment, had darkrooms in New York (well actually more of a walk-in closet with an enlarger but no running water), England (IIRC, a room with a 4x5 DeVere but still no running water), and finally NJ where it is fully plumbed. And I can certainly make much better prints in my darkroom than I can digitally.

But if I understood much of what Adam has been asking in this thread, he wants to find out if he enjoys LF film photography, without a huge injection of money, space, or time. So rather than suggesting the best approach for someone who loves the process and wants to put in the time to really learn analog photography from A to B, I have been suggesting the easiest introduction to our hobby.

And I was thinking about the whole argument about print quality. I know we have numerous threads of analog vs. digital. But the two photographers who jumped to mind were Paul Caponigro and his son John Paul Caponigro. The father, Paul, is one of the best-known LF art photographers of the generation, and an acknowledged master analog printer. His son, John Paul, is about just as well-known, and is a master of digital printing. Anyone who wants to argue about "print quality" should start with those two.

[AdamD]

But if I understood much of what Adam has been asking in this thread, he wants to find out if he enjoys LF film photography, without a huge injection of money, space, or time. So rather than suggesting the best approach for someone who loves the process and wants to put in the time to really learn analog photography from A to B, I have been suggesting the easiest introduction to our hobby.



Peter is absolutely spot on. This is exactly what this thread is all about. I first wanted to understand the different types of post processing. You all did that for me and then I wanted to understand the cost and time implications of each. You guys covered that as well. As a bonus, I also understand what's next IF I were to stick with it. Again, you guys have me covered!

I also know that to start, I just need something inexpensive that will serve as the learning platform.

I think I'm good guys.

As you all have been involved with other forums for totally different reasons, I must say this group is impressive. You guys are awesome. Super helpful and passionate!

[Drew Wiley]

Note the recent thread on Stieglitz prints. Many of these timeless images were contact-printed on a window ledge, and then developed using a simple "tray ladder" in a small closet - so, beyond the camera itself, a tiny investment. My own impression of those who begin with scanning rather than wet printing is that they have trouble fine-tuning the process. And there is nothing cheap about digital printing unless you're just talking about the lowest common denominator of office-style inkjet. I also find a tangible print to be far more rewarding, as an incentive to continue pursuing the craft, rather than something floating around in cyberspace. In fact, every really good digital printer I personally know was an excellent darkroom printer first. ... But Peter, bingo! I guess we all have somewhat different perspectives, but I find
the elder Caponigros's images solid, the Jr's images shallow and pretentious, due to taking the usual liberties of digital recklessness. Being able to do anything digitally just means doing nothing well. True liberty lies in willing to be restricted within certain parameters and learning them well, just like being confined within the four sides of the ground glass itself. Yes, some of this depends on inclination, and I obviously prefer tactility, hands-on craft.

[Fred L]

upside of scanning is that if LF is not your thing there are other uses for the scanner. darkroom equipment on the other hand...

I say this as someone who scans when necessary and it's enough, but prefers working under the Thomas Duplex.

[Pieter]

I return to the OP's original intent--to have wet prints made, be it by an outside lab or himself. He wants to learn how to use a LF camera, I would suggest learning darkroom skills as well. Maybe a class at a local community college?

Scanning will just take him off on a tangent if the final objective is a darkroom print. The results will tell him if the negative is good, but without printing it digitally it will be difficult to communicate to the lab what he wants done. And if he's going to make an inkjet print, then he might as well invest in a good photo printer and monitor.

[Tin Can]

I primarily use V700 to scan very old prints and Polaroids, fixing the time caused flaws, such as rips, fade, colour in PS.

The V700 pressure pad is useful to flatten the bent heirloom.

If framed I put the old photo right back in the original frame, behind the 'fixed' one, with clean glass. For the next generation to discover.

For funerals I may enlarge a few to allow old eyes to see loved ones better. Most want nice happy pics of the deceased in their prime.

My sideline is slowing way down...

[Duolab123]

I primarily use V700 to scan very old prints and Polaroids, fixing the time caused flaws, such as rips, fade, colour in PS.

The V700 pressure pad is useful to flatten the bent heirloom.

If framed I put the old photo right back in the original frame, behind the 'fixed' one, with clean glass. For the next generation to discover.

For funerals I may enlarge a few to allow old eyes to see loved ones better. Most want nice happy pics of the deceased in their prime.

My sideline is slowing way down...

Good point about saving the original. Think about people who had precious slides and movies put on VHS tapes that now have nothing. I would start with an inexpensive Epson scanner (would need a 4x5 film holder ) most of us want to buy equipment. It's intoxicating.

The V850 was on sale over the holidays, only 1 grand, I was tempted, but I came to my senses. :rolleyes:

[Two23]

The V850 was on sale over the holidays, only 1 grand, I was tempted, but I came to my senses. :rolleyes:


Looks like they show up used for $800 or less.


Kent in SD

[Tin Can]

I am waiting for D860 with pixel shift

https://www.nikonrumors.co/category/nikon-d860/

A D750 will work until then

[Ben Calwell]

My 2 cents on scanning: I bought a second-hand V700 to scan my large format negs and have been very happy with the results. This is probably a testament to my lack of darkroom printing skills, but I’m able to get much better results through digital manipulation in Photoshop. Negs that would have required the ghost of Ansel standing next to me under the safelight to get a decent print, I can now “save” in Photoshop. Tweaking shadow detail and mid-tone contrast are easier for me in the digital realm. And it pains me to say that, because nothing beats a great silver print from the hands of a darkroom master.

[Duolab123]

If only there was a way to beam a digital file onto a sheet of fiber paper in my darkroom. Inkjet "negatives" are an option but once again I hate sitting at a computer.

[Oren Grad]

If only there was a way to beam a digital file onto a sheet of fiber paper in my darkroom.

http://de-vere.com/wp-content/uploads/devere-504ds.pdf

[Tin Can]

How old
How much

Why not




http://de-vere.com/wp-content/uploads/devere-504ds.pdf

[peter k.]

http://de-vere.com/wp-content/uploads/devere-504ds.pdf
Understand this would be terrific if you shot allot of digital. In our case, were hybrid because we don't have room for a regular darkroom, so this unit looks very interesting, but you still have to develop the paper and expose it in a darkroom. What possible advantage would this have, if you shoot analog 95% of the time, over using a regular enlarger in a darkroom.

[Oren Grad]

How old
How much

Why not

~15 years.

If you have to ask...

So-so image quality.

[Tin Can]

I have the chassis...

:cool:


~15 years.

If you have to ask...

So-so image quality.