Getting High Quality Scans from BW Prints

[Technorama]

Apologies for a newbie question, but appreciate any guidance. I am traditional film and paper BW photographer, and now am suffering with how to make high quality scans of my finished traditional darkroom produced BW prints, to send along to friends and other folks. My digital illiteracy is starting to hurt. When I try to scan the images, I fail to get a scan that reproduces the subtle nuances of detail and tone satisfactorily. Probably a combination of equipment and my own inexperience. I am using just my simple desktop office all-in-one copier and scanner, which is probably not optimal for high-grade photo scanning. My new dilemma is whether to have the scans done professionally, or to get a dedicated photo scanner. I would rather do the scans myself, but am clueless on which scanner may be appropriate. Rather broad and open ended questions, I know, but I've got to start somewhere. What are your experiences and advice ?

Thanks.

Mike

[Oren Grad]

I am traditional film and paper BW photographer, and now am suffering with how to make high quality scans of my finished traditional darkroom produced BW prints, to send along to friends and other folks. My digital illiteracy is starting to hurt.

What is the intended use of these scans that you send to friends and others? How do you expect that they will view or otherwise use them, and for what purposes?

[Technorama]

Some are just for viewing on their computers. However, at times I have been asked to provide scans of the BW prints for use in printed media such as brochures, catalogs, magazines etc. For those uses, the requests have specified files that are about 6000 pixels on their longest edge, with JPEG preferred, but also TIF possible. Again, this is the aprt tha is very foreign to me, so hopefully this helps explain what I need.

[Oren Grad]

Thanks, that does help clarify. A quick comment for now to broaden your thinking on this: for those uses you'll probably do as well or better photographing your prints with a digital camera.

[Technorama]

Well, there ! You've just anticipated what was going to be my next question after getting some feedback on scanners.

[Doremus Scudder]

For decades, the standard for duplicating art works for publication was to photograph them on transparency film and then do 4-color printing. Nowadays, digital photography has taken over that role. So, for duplicating your prints, get a decent digital camera and learn the basics of some digital photo-editing software (Lightroom, Photoshop, whatever).

Heck, I have images on my website that I made with an iPhone and then edited a tiny bit in PS.

Scanning seems like way too much work, especially if you have large prints.

Doremus

[Ulophot]

I know enough to know that there is a lot I don't know about scanning. When I scan prints (up to 8x10), I know I will have to tweak the contrast and improve the sharpness slightly. My scanner is an older model already dimming at the out edges a bit, thought this doesn't much affect my approx 7 x 9 image area. I use GIMP on my scan images, a free photo editor with far more features than I'll ever use. I do not have a calibrated monitor, but neither do most people who will ever see my scans. Nonetheless, I never get the subtleties of the print.

For sharpening, there are many approaches. I keep it very simple, using what's call a high-pass filter to automatically create a kind of mask that is then combined with my many image. Each is on a layer, if you're familiar with editing software, and then merged. The sharpening is subtle and deals mainly with edges; effect on appearance if grain tends to be less, I'm told, than using a filter such as "unsharp mask."

Re: photographing your prints: If you have not photographed artwork before, you will find some prior research useful. I'll just note here that glossy to semi-matte surfaces are prone to reflections from you, the camera, what is behind you. It should all be very dark in relation to the level of illumination of the print. Depending on print size, you'll need to consider lighting carefully for evenness and absence of glare. A longer than normal focal length will be to your advantage.

[Peter De Smidt]

Scanning prints should be fairly straightforward, as long as the print is smaller than the scanning bed. What scanner are you using? What software? What size and kind of prints? Scanning prints over about 600 spi doesn't lead to improved quality in most cases.

[Jim Andrada]

I guess I'd wonder why you would scan a print instead of the negative/positive used to make the print in the first place. Unless of course because the print represents the final product if there's been significant "editing" during the printing process that you feel would be difficult to duplicate digitally for some reason (including unfamiliarity with the digital editing process,) although ease and capability of digital editing has been one of the main attractions of a hybrid (or even fully digital) workflow for many years now.

Camera scanning of prints sounds simple but as has been said there are a raft of "small details" that make it a bit more involved than just snapping a few quick pix with your cellphone (or somewhat higher end camera.) Lighting is pretty critical, eliminating reflections, getting even lighting, good camera support, maintaining parallelism between camera and artwork to ensure sharpest overall focus and eliminate unwanted distortions of the image, etc.

There are actually companies that make rather expensive systems for museum digitization and archiving of artwork. You probably don't need that level of sophistication given the intended use case, and it can certainly be done well, just don't be surprised at the effort (and space) required to get results you'd be as proud of as the original prints themselves. And you'll probably want to do some digital editing of the scan anyway, even if only to adjust contrast a bit.

[Technorama]

Thanks for the guidance and suggestions. As stated above, I am using just a simple HP office "all-in-one" printer/scanner. Nothing geared specifically to photography, with only very limited scanning/editing software. Also, my knowledge and skill on the software end is basic to non-existent. I want to scan the finished prints, because they are darkroom-made prints with considerable dodging, burning etc already done, and so a finished product. I am experienced in copying techniques, so will try that with a pro-level digital camera and a true copying set up. Also, I will take a couple of test prints to my local pro lab and have them do a scan, and then compare results and costs in terms of time, effort and money.

[darr]

Copying material produced from previous generations of an original will never give optimum results.

The original negative/positive is the first generation, which will give optimum results.
A print made directly from the original is the second generation.
Then, a digital file made from the print will be third generation, not a quality standard.

The best for quality is to scan your negative and work in a digital platform like Lightroom for dodging/burning, etc.
If you stick with it, you will see it can be easier to process images digitally because digital tools can be vary accurate when used with skill.

If I were you (which I am not), I would spend the money to make comparison files to see the differences.
You can pay a digital imaging pro to make a file from the original negative/positive with your instructions for dodging, burning, etc.
Also, have a pro scan of the print and compare the files online.

Best to you,
Darr

[Doremus Scudder]

Copying material produced from previous generations of an original will never give optimum results.

The original negative/positive is the first generation, which will give optimum results.
A print made directly from the original is the second generation.
Then, a digital file made from the print will be third generation, not a quality standard.

The best for quality is to scan your negative and work in a digital platform like Lightroom for dodging/burning, etc.
If you stick with it, you will see it can be easier to process images digitally because digital tools can be vary accurate when used with skill.

If I were you (which I am not), I would spend the money to make comparison files to see the differences.
You can pay a digital imaging pro to make a file from the original negative/positive with your instructions for dodging, burning, etc.
Also, have a pro scan of the print and compare the files online.

Best to you,
Darr

Darr,

Not necessarily agreeing with you and musing at the same time...

Let's see: scanning a negative results in a digital file with scanner artifacts and alterations to the original introduced by the process and nature of scanning, making that file first generation. Then one tweaks and manipulates that file with software and creates yet another digital file; this one is second generation. Then one prints that on a printer (which utilizes software and drivers and has reproduction characteristics of its own), thus making the print either third or fourth generation, depending how you look at it.

I make a print in the darkroom. Yes, I started with a negative, but the negative is simply raw material, the print itself is the "work of art/final product" and is, IM-HO, the "original." My point here being that the negative/positive is less of a first-generation finished product than a record of information from which one makes a first-generation final image.

Now then, if I make a good digital copy photograph of my print; that's first generation. I then tweak that with software and make another digital file; that's second generation. I then print that (...as above), resulting in a third or fourth generation copy, depending on how you look at it.

It seems to me, that the real consideration here is how lossy the process of reproduction is and how faithfully changes/adjustments are made to the image (in whatever form) during the reproduction process. Ten steps with a 1% loss of detail/information is better than three steps with a 5% loss each...

I know that printers sure did a good job reproducing paintings from transparencies in the past and do a heck of a good job with digital reproductions today.

It also seem to me that scanning a negative and attempting to reproduce print manipulations made in the darkroom plus whatever toning, etc. may have been done in order to reproduce that darkroom print with a printed digital file might just be adding an extra step. Digitally photographing the darkroom print might get you a file that is closer to the original and needs less post-processing in order to be as faithful as possible to the original.

Just thinking out loud and fishing for feedback,

Doremus

[darr]

Darr,

Not necessarily agreeing with you and musing at the same time...

Let's see: scanning a negative results in a digital file with scanner artifacts and alterations to the original introduced by the process and nature of scanning, making that file first generation. Then one tweaks and manipulates that file with software and creates yet another digital file; this one is second generation. Then one prints that on a printer (which utilizes software and drivers and has reproduction characteristics of its own), thus making the print either third or fourth generation, depending how you look at it.

I make a print in the darkroom. Yes, I started with a negative, but the negative is simply raw material, the print itself is the "work of art/final product" and is, IM-HO, the "original." My point here being that the negative/positive is less of a first-generation finished product than a record of information from which one makes a first-generation final image.

Now then, if I make a good digital copy photograph of my print; that's first generation. I then tweak that with software and make another digital file; that's second generation. I then print that (...as above), resulting in a third or fourth generation copy, depending on how you look at it.

It seems to me, that the real consideration here is how lossy the process of reproduction is and how faithfully changes/adjustments are made to the image (in whatever form) during the reproduction process. Ten steps with a 1% loss of detail/information is better than three steps with a 5% loss each...

I know that printers sure did a good job reproducing paintings from transparencies in the past and do a heck of a good job with digital reproductions today.

It also seem to me that scanning a negative and attempting to reproduce print manipulations made in the darkroom plus whatever toning, etc. may have been done in order to reproduce that darkroom print with a printed digital file might just be adding an extra step. Digitally photographing the darkroom print might get you a file that is closer to the original and needs less post-processing in order to be as faithful as possible to the original.

Just thinking out loud and fishing for feedback,

Doremus

Doremus,
I understand your reasoning and mostly concur, but I'd bypass the print and go directly to digital if the final output is meant for online viewing.
For several years, I've been using a digital back to convert some of my film and an APS-C sensor for the rest, with excellent results.
My previous experience with scanners, like the Epson v750, didn't yield results as good as my current setup.

Photographers have their preferred tools, and I don't engage in optical printing.
Even when I had a darkroom, it wasn't something I used extensively for a few reasons (time mostly).
Transitioning to digital was natural for me, especially since I was already immersed in the graphics field.
I believe the user's proficiency with the equipment is key to achieving good results.

Darr

[Jim Andrada]

I wasn't blown away by the results I was getting with my 750 either. So I upgraded to an IQsmart 2 and no more complaints. Almost. If I were doing more 35mm and Minox I'd rather have the IQsmart 3 - but MF and LF on the IQsmart 2 is fine. (Yes, seriously - I love the Minox for candids. People tend to chuckle when you aim it at them.)

[Doremus Scudder]

Doremus,
I understand your reasoning and mostly concur, but I'd bypass the print and go directly to digital if the final output is meant for online viewing. ...

I don't engage in optical printing. ...

Darr

Darr,

A well-made silver-gelatin print looks unlike anything you can do in digital. Yes, the differences are slight and subtle, but I can spot the silver-gelatin prints out of an exhibition of photographs every time. The expressive palette is just not the same. Even more so for Pt/Pd, Carbon and other alt processes. If you do print optically or use alt processes (or paint or draw, etc.) then its the character of the medium you use that you want to come across in any reproduction you make for printing or for online viewing. Photographing the original as faithfully as possible, digitally these days, is still the best way to preserve those differences.

Now, if you're working hybrid and your print output is digital, you should have a digital file to resize and put up online already, right?

Best,

Doremus

[Peter De Smidt]

I have some of the Lenswork Special Edition prints. Brooks scanned the original prints at 600 spi, made imagesetter negatives, and contact printed these negatives on fiber based silver gelatin papers, selenium toned them.....I have a set of images by Wynn Bullock. The quality is outstanding.

But for enlargements, yes, scan the film if you can.

[Tin Can]

I recently I had a BW 4X5 neg scanned long ago V700, printed at 5 X 7

I it was stored on Flickr, they printed it better

Not cheap

but damn good

[darr]

Darr,

A well-made silver-gelatin print looks unlike anything you can do in digital. Yes, the differences are slight and subtle, but I can spot the silver-gelatin prints out of an exhibition of photographs every time. The expressive palette is just not the same. Even more so for Pt/Pd, Carbon and other alt processes. If you do print optically or use alt processes (or paint or draw, etc.) then its the character of the medium you use that you want to come across in any reproduction you make for printing or for online viewing. Photographing the original as faithfully as possible, digitally these days, is still the best way to preserve those differences.

I can appreciate the uniqueness of silver gelatin and other alternative processes; they offer a tactile and organic experience deeply rooted in photography’s history. But it's worth mentioning that the digital realm has its own set of advantages -- precision, versatility, and the ability to manipulate on a pixel-by-pixel level. Just as you can spot a silver-gelatin print, I believe an expert could discern the unique characteristics that digital processing brings to the table. The beauty of photography today lies in the myriad of options available, each with its own texture and expressive palette. So, while traditional methods will always have their place, let's not underestimate the artistic potential of the digital canvas.


Now, if you're working hybrid and your print output is digital, you should have a digital file to resize and put up online already, right?

Absolutely, having a high-quality digital file is crucial when you're working in a hybrid setup. But even with that, there's a difference between a file optimized for print and one optimized for online display. Factors like resolution, color profiles, and even compression algorithms can alter how an image appears across different media. So, while the digital file serves as a good starting point, it still requires nuanced adjustments to faithfully represent the print when displayed online. It's not just a one-size-fits-all scenario; each output demands its own tailored approach.

Best,
Darr

[bob carnie]

242412 I have started using this system in my Studio Phase One Cultural Heritage Setup, Moving from Creo Eversmart Supreme and Imocan slowly , its amazing technology and there is a learning curve, been working
on the system for about 3 months now , I am moving through all the film formats over the next few months and learning how to edit in the Cultural Phase one system using Capture One. I feel like an old dog learning new tricks.

[darr]

242412 I have started using this system in my Studio Phase One Cultural Heritage Setup, Moving from Creo Eversmart Supreme and Imocan slowly , its amazing technology and there is a learning curve, been working
on the system for about 3 months now , I am moving through all the film formats over the next few months and learning how to edit in the Cultural Phase one system using Capture One. I feel like an old dog learning new tricks.

Nice!!

[Alan Klein]

242412 I have started using this system in my Studio Phase One Cultural Heritage Setup, Moving from Creo Eversmart Supreme and Imocan slowly , its amazing technology and there is a learning curve, been working
on the system for about 3 months now , I am moving through all the film formats over the next few months and learning how to edit in the Cultural Phase one system using Capture One. I feel like an old dog learning new tricks.

Bob, do you shut the ambient lights off when copying with the camera?

[Corran]

A well-made silver-gelatin print looks unlike anything you can do in digital. Yes, the differences are slight and subtle, but I can spot the silver-gelatin prints out of an exhibition of photographs every time.

I remember back in the day when a lot of folks would state they could tell the difference between an uncompressed *.wav file and a high-bitrate *.mp3 every time. Somebody finally setup a double-blind testing website and discovered the golden-eared claimants usually hit about 50/50 on identifying what sound clip was what in a true blind test.

I appreciate silver-gelatin prints, not least for the more manual, hand-made nature of the process generally, but I heavily disagree with the above. Anything you can do in the darkroom can be done in digital editing and the contrast range captured via scan of negative film is larger than the theoretical paper contrast, especially with higher-end scanners. And, you can use services to print digitally direct to silver gelatin papers if you still want that medium specifically.

There will be big differences in results with carbon printing and the like, I'm not really talking about that or specific paper texture/surface feel. Just talking about making a similar print digitally and in the darkroom on similar papers.

We should of course all use the mediums/techniques that work best for us :).

[bob carnie]

Bob, do you shut the ambient lights off when copying with the camera?

I. am not using this for reflective yet, but the lighting setup will be adjustable temp and polarized when I do.

[bob carnie]

I remember back in the day when a lot of folks would state they could tell the difference between an uncompressed *.wav file and a high-bitrate *.mp3 every time. Somebody finally setup a double-blind testing website and discovered the golden-eared claimants usually hit about 50/50 on identifying what sound clip was what in a true blind test.

I appreciate silver-gelatin prints, not least for the more manual, hand-made nature of the process generally, but I heavily disagree with the above. Anything you can do in the darkroom can be done in digital editing and the contrast range captured via scan of negative film is larger than the theoretical paper contrast, especially with higher-end scanners. And, you can use services to print digitally direct to silver gelatin papers if you still want that medium specifically.

There will be big differences in results with carbon printing and the like, I'm not really talking about that or specific paper texture/surface feel. Just talking about making a similar print digitally and in the darkroom on similar papers.

We should of course all use the mediums/techniques that work best for us :).

I have to agree with Corran here, we have done extensive tests on Mural Silver , Mural Lambda Silver and Mural inkjet. where the mural silver was enlarger based, the lambda and inkjet were scans. We did a road trip and showed these three
prints to hundreds of photographers and asked them which was which, very few were able to define which one was which... But a funny side note Les McLean did pick the print out, which kind of surprised me. When I asked him how he could tell
he said the negative in the enlarger popped or the enlarger was not aligned properly and he could see softness in one corner.. I had given the silver print job to a competing lab and we matched here and funny enough the printer did not use glass carrier
and of course Les was correct. Otherwise no body could tell, In one of the presentations in Connecticut one of the people in the audience said they could , when he got close he was unsure, so he went to his car to get a loop. Even then he picked the wrong print order.
Like Doremus I never would have thought this would happen but as Corran says the tools today are pretty impressive in the right hands.

[Jim Andrada]

Like Doremus I never would have thought this would happen but as Corran says the tools today are pretty impressive in the right hands.

+1