Printer vs Old style

[ignatiusjk]

I purchased a Epson 3800 printer for 4x5 negs and I'm not to crazy about the results. It prints fine at 4x6 but when I try 8x10 the print just does not look like a traditional b&w print. Any tips on printing?? I would love to compare the old silver printing to the new style but I don't have a darkroom. Am i expecting to much or am I doing something wrong. Let me hear your expierences with a 3800 printer.

[Colin Graham]

You're not going to get a silver gelatin print out of a inkjet printer. They're just different.

That said, are you using Advanced B&W in the Epson GUI, or Photoshop color management? Or are you using a RIP like QTR? Please provide some info about what you're doing, have done, what you like and don't like (and so forth) so people know where to start trying to help. It's a fairly vast subject.

[ignatiusjk]

I use advanced B&W and no photoshop color management.I print on Epson Exibition fiber paper. The prints just seem to a overall grey appearence to them. There is no subtle tone difference like with silver prints. The prints are ok but not what I expected.

[Colin Graham]

Is your monitor calibrated? If your printer output doesn't look like your monitor, that's more than likely the problem.

[ignatiusjk]

How do you calibrate your monitor? I used the cd that came with the printer.

[Colin Graham]

I think this site may be defunct, but they have some decent primers on calibration and color management.
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/ (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/color_management.htm)

Here's site that give some visual feedback on your monitor's calibration.
http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/evaluation/gamma_space/index.htm

I like this chart for basic luminance/sensitivity evaluation
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/monitor_sensitivity.html

[Bruce Watson]

I purchased a Epson 3800 printer for 4x5 negs and I'm not to crazy about the results. ... Am i expecting too much or am I doing something wrong?

It's as if you bought an oil paint set and want to know why you can't paint as well as Monet.

Just because you own the tools doesn't mean you are suddenly a master printer. Just like the darkroom, this takes work. Lots of work. Why would you think otherwise?

What you are doing wrong then is expecting too much with too little experience. What you should do is make prints and gain experience. Try different things. Learn what the tools can do. Then, learn how to use those capabilities to help you say what you want to say with your prints. The more you print, the better you get, just like darkroom printing. Or painting. Or pottery. Or sculpture. Or...

Along the way you'll figure out that inkjet printing isn't wanna-be silver gelatin printing. Inkjet is its own media with its own strengths and weaknesses, just as silver gelatin is its own media with its own strengths and weaknesses. You'll learn how to capitalize on those strengths and minimize the weaknesses so that your print is the best you can make it.

So keep at it. You've got good tools, but you have to learn how to use them to best accomplish the task at hand. That's all you're missing.

[Lenny Eiger]

I purchased a Epson 3800 printer for 4x5 negs and I'm not to crazy about the results. It prints fine at 4x6 but when I try 8x10 the print just does not look like a traditional b&w print. Any tips on printing?? I would love to compare the old silver printing to the new style but I don't have a darkroom. Am i expecting to much or am I doing something wrong. Let me hear your expierences with a 3800 printer.

Why not try some black and white inks? They are much better if you are trying to make a black and white print...

What are you scanning with and at what resolution?

Where is it failing?

Inkjet print quality should be able to do whatever you want... with the right tools and knowledge.

Lenny

[Brian Ellis]

How are you making your b&w prints now? Without knowing what you're doing, it's hard to help. FWIW, I get excellent b&w prints from my 3800 in sizes up to about 16x20. I've been using Roy Harrington's QTR ever since it first became available. You can get excellent results with it but you have to know how to use it, which takes a little time and effort. You can try it out by downloading it from Roy's web site www.harrington.com (I think it is), if you want to keep it it costs only $50, one of photography's all-time great bargains.

If you don't want to do that you can use Epson's Advanced B&W method. The 3800 owner's manual is all you need to do that. I've only used it a couple times but I generally liked the results but I prefer QTR. Finally, if you don't care about making color prints you can dedicate your printer to quadtone inks as Lenny mentions. The two most commonly used sources are MIS inks and Jon Cone's Piezo inks (Google to obtain web sites, etc.). However, I disagree with Lenny's statement that they are "much better" for black and white. I used MIS inks for about four years with three different printers. The results were very good (when MIS wasn't having quality control problems) but not better than Epson UC color inks with QTR (and maybe Advanced B&W, I haven't used it enough to form an opinion). I haven't used the Cone inks so I can't speak to them.

There's a lot more to excellent b&w printing than just buying a good printer. I'd suggest you start by buying a good book on digital b&w printing. George deWolfe's is supposed to be very good though I haven't read it (I did attend one of his week-long workshops on b&w printing and if the book is as good as the workshop it's very good indeed). There are others on the market but I can't recall their authors or titles, perhaps someone else will recommend one.

There's also an excellent digital b&w discussion group on Yahoo, digitalblackandwhite:theprint. There are plenty of very knowledgeable participants there who are good about answering questions. If George deWolfe still conducts his b&w digital printing workshop at the Palm Beach Photographic Workshops it would be well worth your time and money to attend. I thought my printing took a quantum leap forward after spending a week with George.

Good luck, if you're serious about b&w printing and are willing to devote the necessary time and effort to it I think you'll be very happy with the results. I printed in the darkroom for about 15 years. I much prefer both the process and the results from printing digitally (which not everyone does and that's fine, it's just a personal preference).

[ignatiusjk]

I generally scan at 800-1200 dpi for anything up to 11x14. The ink that came with the printer I think should be good enough. What name brand of inks are good for B&W?

[Ron Marshall]

I generally scan at 800-1200 dpi for anything up to 11x14. The ink that came with the printer I think should be good enough. What name brand of inks are good for B&W?

I have used Jon Cone's NK7 inks, from Inkjetmall for printing on matt papers with excellent results. He is currently testing a new formulation that will permit printing on glossy papers and will achieve a greater dmax. To use these inks with the 3800 a CIS must be purchased, and it is expersive for that model.

What you should do is get a good book on digital printing, and put in more time before you contemplate a switch. I can get very good b/w from my 2200 (using the Quad tone RIP), but as others have said, it does take time. At Calumet I have seen very good b/w output from the 3800.

Good luck!

[Clay Turtle]

Funny thing to see a thread in the darkroom section that bearly mentions anything about or having to do with the darkroom? So here, I will add a bit on enlarging . . . I recently have been getting a darkroom set up . . . been so going but I started with doing some contact prints of the 4x5 b&w that I had shot. I had basically inherited the use of the complete darkroom with a Beseler 67SD . . . may be I should rephrase that last statement? A friend had set up a darkroom years ago, but a few years back he was killed but before that he had started to make the transition to digital. To make along story short, I ended up with usage of the darkroom & its equipment. Not to look a gift horse in the mouth but I shelled out 20.00 just to replace the bulb in the enlarger only to find that he had trouble with the voltage regulator & it was blowing bulbs! Which is to say that he had sold out some of the equipment that was in a good state of repair . . .
I had an older Omega 35mm enlarger but had lost the negative carrier so I used it to do some contact prints as I stated before, boy did it feel good to be back in a darkroom again!
In fact, it felt so good that I decided to go out & shoot some b&w with my 35mm.
Actually, I want to do some Clyde Butcher type shooting in LF so I started looking at canoes & kayaks as a means of getting myself & my equipment to isolated areas. Not wanting to take the plunge (or the camera) into those waters, I decided try it with the 35mm first.It really paid off, not only it I learn what would be necessary to shoot the LF out there but this gave me an excuse to go whole hog & do some printing with the b&w 35mm negatives. I had a box of 5x7 paper (out of date purchase to check bellows & such on the 5x7 camera that I rebuilt) so I printed the roll with it. I hadn't realized how closey the full frame 35mm negative was to the 5x7 format. besides giving me a preview to the use of a kayak & the inherent problems related to that aspect, it gave in insight into the 5x7 format (I am more satisfied with my decision to shoot this format, now). Which as I had been considering getting a LF enlarger, I really think it will need to have 5x7 capacity as well.
Oh, by the way . . . as I was printing a roll of 35mm (36 exposure), I found that I needed to take some time out from the printing so I inserted extra trays into the processing trays before I left. This reduces the effect of having open containers on chemistry , extending their active working life.
PS
I had scanned the contacts & some of the prints (5x7) only to find that the prints had dust spots but then after a long time year or 2 of inactivity (at least as he had started printing digitally) I should have done a better clean up. Probably need to get one of those electrostatic cleaners (both an air & film) as well as the liquid film cleaner that I use. As for that perhaps it would be best to move the computer with the scanner into the darkroom, ya know how those electrostatic & magnetic fields produced by such electronic equipment attract air borne particles.
http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/80139/smell-the-gas-fumes.htm#80141
Ever stop to think 'just how much fuel do you lose in the form of evaporation from the tank, especially now with the addition of bio-fuel to extend or alternate to fossil fuel? I mean, the stuff is volatile to begin with (gasoline) without the addition of ethanol, so I wonder just how much fuel have we been losing all along? Oh, the trick with the trays is commonly used by commercial printers in their tanks (replenishment reservoirs).
Hm . . . ya know I got this pack of 11x14 paper & if I go get ome more chemistry to fill the larger trays . . .

[cjbroadbent]

I would love to compare the old silver printing to the new style but I don't have a darkroom..
My Epson 4000 does better prints than I ever managed when I did have an enlarger.
But if one prints digital, one might as well shoot digital. I would suggest that, to beat both printer and enlarger, one has to contact print. That's where LF has the edge, and that's why it's coming back.

[Clay Turtle]

I purchased a Epson 3800 printer for 4x5 negs and I'm not to crazy about the results. It prints fine at 4x6 but when I try 8x10 the print just does not look like a traditional b&w print. Any tips on printing?? I would love to compare the old silver printing to the new style but I don't have a darkroom. Am i expecting to much or am I doing something wrong. Let me hear your experiences with a 3800 printer.
Haven't really checked (compared) prints but I did have a negative experience related to an inkjet b&w. Customer said it was too dark but I got the feeling that they had expectations of silver gelatin print . . . Which was kind of humorous as I shot color negative film!
My Epson 4000 does better prints than I ever managed when I did have an enlarger. which just goes to show that printing like shooting is an art (expertise) that has to be mastered. When it comes to digital I would rather let someone else do it, rather than spend the time & energy to learn reach such a position.

[Lenny Eiger]

I generally scan at 800-1200 dpi for anything up to 11x14. The ink that came with the printer I think should be good enough. What name brand of inks are good for B&W?

I like Cone inks much more than the other varieties. You aren't going to get a good black and white print using color inks (altho' you might get a passable one). Unfortunately, you have to get deeper into this... go visit inkjetmall.

There are plenty of folks who know about this, and you can visit them, depending on where you are....

Inkjet quality is absolutely amazing. I don't want to start another discussion on this, or compare one to the other. Let's just say the prints can be great. It's a matter of having the right tools, materials and knowledge to get there.

You might pick up a copy of Amadou's book...

Mastering Digital Black and White: A Photographer's Guide to High Quality Black-and-White Imaging and Printing (Digital Process and Print) (Paperback)
by Amadou Diallo

It's very good info...

Lenny

[Clay Turtle]

Funnu thing tome though is why? I was at my local photo processor's just the other day. They still do b&w printing so while some photo labs have gone to inkjets, other have not. So why would you want to do an inkjet print in b&w? First off ot those responses that giving use of different inks, you still have to have separate jets to produce separate shades of grey which means you have a high end printer strictly setup for b&w!
Now I understand how labs tend to compete with inkjet printer vs digital printer but if you are going to print your own work, why would you go to all the expense to print only b&w inkjets'? At best(?), you only get something that is "as good as" an enlarger print? At least, if you go with an enlarger then you could still print color on it, you would have to use gel filters if you were to use condenser enlarger but at least your b&w would be true 'black & white' prints?

[Bruce Watson]

Funnu thing tome though is why? I was at my local photo processor's just the other day. They still do b&w printing so while some photo labs have gone to inkjets, other have not. So why would you want to do an inkjet print in b&w?

To make the best print possible. Like it or not, digital printing gives you more control. More control of the image, and a huge amount more control over the substrate you print on. There are orders of magnitude more papers, more surfaces, and there are other substrates that the darkroom has never seen, like aluminum sheet, vinyl, mylar, silk, canvas, fabrics of all kinds, etc.


First off ot those responses that giving use of different inks, you still have to have separate jets to produce separate shades of grey which means you have a high end printer strictly setup for b&w!
Now I understand how labs tend to compete with inkjet printer vs digital printer but if you are going to print your own work, why would you go to all the expense to print only b&w inkjets'? At best(?), you only get something that is "as good as" an enlarger print?

I don't understand this prejudice against inkjet prints. Really, I don't. Inkjet prints are better than silver gelatin prints in some ways. Not as good in other ways. IOW, the two media are different. They don't compete, any more than platinum competes with silver gelatin. One is an alternative process to the other. Just like platinum and silver gelatin are alternative processes to each other.


At least, if you go with an enlarger then you could still print color on it, you would have to use gel filters if you were to use condenser enlarger but at least your b&w would be true 'black & white' prints?

Again with the prejudice. Surely you realize that no one process can claim the mantle of "true B&W." Inkjet prints are just as valid B&W prints as platinum, silver gelatin, albumen, carbon, salt, dye transfer,... It's just another process. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Clay Turtle]

To make the best print possible. Like it or not, digital printing gives you more control. More control of the image, and a huge amount more control over the substrate you print on. There are orders of magnitude more papers, more surfaces, and there are other substrates that the darkroom has never seen, like aluminum sheet, vinyl, mylar, silk, canvas, fabrics of all kinds, etc.Yes, I agree to some extent . . .
1)digital does give better manipulation of image therefore more control.
2)Inkjets do have a better selection of paper, canvas, etc. Point in fact I would very much like to print some of my work onto window film for application of vehicles & of course I would love to print some wall size murals on canvas, & I even found a place that does your whole vehicle over with your print! Which is great as I find the bigger the better when it comes to inkjets.
3) But if I were to get window film it would probably dark & silver or chrome, not b&w.
4)because inkjets are digital they also have the negative attributes, small prints (file size) don't do justice to LF negatives (chromes). Of course those big prints would cost big bucks which for trade shows might be great but as window tint, it would be expensive for a temporary coating that the sun seems to make of the tinting on cars that have been around for a few years?
Again I may not be communicating well but part of the question is that not knowing the printer he has, just what sizes does he plan to print?

I don't understand this prejudice against inkjet prints. Really, I don't. Inkjet prints are better than silver gelatin prints in some ways. Not as good in other ways. IOW, the two media are different. They don't compete, any more than platinum competes with silver gelatin. One is an alternative process to the other. Just like platinum and silver gelatin are alternative processes to each other. You are absolutely right there , they shouldn't compete but people do, don't they?

Again with the prejudice. Surely you realize that no one process can claim the mantle of "true B&W." Inkjet prints are just as valid B&W prints as platinum, silver gelatin, albumen, carbon, salt, dye transfer,... It's just another process. Nothing more. Nothing less.Again Surely (you)I realize that no one process can claim the mantle of "true B&W." As you say black & white & shades of grey, which is why I pointed out that those (commercial) printer using inkjets tend to replace the color cartridges & reformat the printer software to print those shades of grey? Not (Again with the) 'prejudice' but merely pointing out things that he or she may not have stopped to think about so to speak. Now, there is the off chance that LF is not the format being discussed or that say something 32 x what ever may not be what is considered as output? Hey, although the discussion seems to be about b&w. Does mean that considerations of color might be totally out of the picture?
PS:My pro folio is strictly LF, mostly 4x5 but I am adding some 5x7 but that is My prejudice, then again I don't particularly try to foster it upon others.

[Lenny Eiger]

Funnu thing tome though is why? I was at my local photo processor's just the other day. They still do b&w printing so while some photo labs have gone to inkjets, other have not. So why would you want to do an inkjet print in b&w? First off ot those responses that giving use of different inks, you still have to have separate jets to produce separate shades of grey which means you have a high end printer strictly setup for b&w!
Now I understand how labs tend to compete with inkjet printer vs digital printer but if you are going to print your own work, why would you go to all the expense to print only b&w inkjets'? At best(?), you only get something that is "as good as" an enlarger print? At least, if you go with an enlarger then you could still print color on it, you would have to use gel filters if you were to use condenser enlarger but at least your b&w would be true 'black & white' prints?

I only go to the trouble because I haven't seen a print made in a darkroom, mine or anyone else's, that can compare to what can be done with a dedicated b&w inkjet, contact or otherwise. In my opinion, and for what I am trying to accomplish, it is far superior.

That's my answer, and I don't expect it to be anyone else's. It's totally subjective. We are all trying to accomplish different things.

Lenny

[Clay Turtle]

I only go to the trouble because I haven't seen a print made in a darkroom, mine or anyone else's, that can compare to what can be done with a dedicated b&w inkjet, contact or otherwise. In my opinion, and for what I am trying to accomplish, it is far superior.
That's my answer, and I don't expect it to be anyone else's. It's totally subjective. We are all trying to accomplish different things.
LennyYes, you have the ability to make your own decisions but from what was stated . . .
I purchased a Epson 3800 printer for 4x5 negs and I'm not to crazy about the results. It prints fine at 4x6 but when I try 8x10 the print just does not look like a traditional b&w print. Any tips on printing??It would seem that others may not. Especially the last portion seems to be left unanswered? This section refers to 4x6 print, which would tend to form the question as to format? As I shoot 35mm, I am aware that the 4x6 is a full frame enlargement of that format.

I would love to compare the old silver printing to the new style but I don't have a darkroom. Am i expecting to much or am I doing something wrong. Not using an Epson printer, I certainly couldn't make any useful comments on it in particular so I offered comments of a general nature to understand 'the old silver printing' & how it relates to the inkjet. So in relation to that I did point out that to achieve a comparable b&w print from an inkjet would require the use of shades of gray to replace the color cartridges. To continue that line of reasoning . . .
If you go to a photo shop & request b&w film, what would you be given?
If you asked for b&w paper would they ask 'do you want emulsion based or inkjet'? On the other hand in a previous comment
they had expectations of silver gelatin print . . . Which was kind of humorous as I shot color negative film!Most people using an enlarger would use multi-grade paper with certain gels to print a b&w from a color negative but to get as close as possible I should use Panalure, a Kodak paper which is especially biased (prepared) to give a favorable rendition of color values to b&w. Hmm . . what is that I am saying . . . B&W film has about twice the range or latitude of color negative film but b&w film isn't sensitive to light as color film is . . . the emulsion reacts to light more or less as the camera meter.
It is not just the frequency (color channel) but a proportional relationship of color & intensity that establishes the shade of gray which is reproduced in the print.

[Clay Turtle]

I will admit that I did run into some problems with enlarging. As I had made mention to working with an enlarger, I felt compelled by circumstances to act upon it. I used an 35mm B&W negative to (re) printing. The previous owner of the darkroom had printed a 16x20 with a beseller 67 dichro. & is hanging along a hallway with other tributes to his work. The 67sd isn't operational so I had to use my own Omega. *( See photo)

First problem was I had picked some 11 x14 ilford paper. Put a negative in the carrier & discovered that I could get an 11x14, I could only get approx. 10 inches in width. So I had to mount it above the top to be able to print an11x14.
Second problem was as (shown in photo) I had used crop & dodge in the reprint to prepare a set of five prints . . . but then You can't see them in person & you wouldn't probably notice the subtle variations between the first 8 sec. print & the last (8 sec w/dodge & 2sec of burn) 10 sec. exposure?

[Clay Turtle]

You're not going to get a silver gelatin print out of a inkjet printer. They're just different. But to give you a better idea of how they are different http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=39455

[ljsegil]

I don't consider myself a finished expert by any stretch, but have been quite content with the results I get from the 3800 using standard Epson inksets and usually printing with an icm. profile through Photoshop, though advanced B&W has also worked very well for me. The key is having a good final image result in Photoshop to print from. If your finished Photoshop image does not snap the way you want it to, nothing you can do with the Epson will fix it. The best the printer can do is reliably reproduce the image fed to it. And producing a satisfying monochrome image in Photoshop can sometimes be a very time consuming labor of love that cannot be shortchanged. It is sometimes easier to begin with a RGB file to produce a final monochrome image as more tools and controls are available in Photoshop for RGB than for Greyscale mode. YMMV, but do convince yourself that you have your best possible file prior to printing for best possible results. The Epson Exhibition Paper should certainly not be a limiting factor.
Best of luck,
Larry

[Clay Turtle]

I purchased a Epson 3800 printer for 4x5 negs and I'm not to crazy about the results. It prints fine at 4x6 but when I try 8x10 the print just does not look like a traditional b&w print.
Any tips on printing?? I would love to compare the old silver printing to the new style but I don't have a darkroom.
. . . I don't consider myself a finished expert by any stretch, but have been quite content with the results I get from the 3800 using standard Epson inksets and usually printing with an icm. profile through Photoshop, though advanced B&W has also worked very well for me. The key is having a good final image result in Photoshop to print from.
Ya, I know what ya mean . . . the photo above is printed on some out of date, slightly burned (heat fogged) 8x10 that I used to reduce some of the price that go with the learning curve. The shot is 35mm because I was making a practice run, kayaking at the Weedon Island Preserve kayak trail (novice kayaker) & I was a little worried about taking a camera at all, let alone my Large Format.

[Clay Turtle]

Large Format would be a better choice for such as the previous shot. This one is off the same roll of b&w film (second time out). It was shot 28mm-135mm lens from the kayak while my avatar (first time out) was shot with a 70mm-300mm lens in macro mode @ 1/20sec hand held from the kayak.
Ya sometimes ya just get lucky & come out with a usable negative or in the avatar case, a chrome.
PS: This shot was made while inside that tunnel (channel) in the previous photo.

[Clay Turtle]

My Epson 4000 does better prints than I ever managed when I did have an enlarger.
But if one prints digital, one might as well shoot digital. I would suggest that, to beat both printer and enlarger, one has to contact print. That's where LF has the edge, and that's why it's coming back.
Ya, but then I not to great on contact printing, I think that a certain amount of enlargement is need to get the best effect from a negative or chrome. Although I not sure how that would relate to Ultra Large Format? Funny thing is I am going back to enlarging my own 35mm black & whites or should I say I am starting to shoot more 35mm with black & white negative film. Anyway, I found [as a results of this thread] out that I can do more with an enlarger than with a scanner?
I had bought a roll of Delta 100 & loaded it in the camera but didn't reset the ISO!
I had done some shots of a local establishment one early morning then didn't shoot again for a while. Friends came to visit from up North so we took them out to the beach. I was shooting some of them & got worried about the back lighting effect so I started to compensate when I realized that my shutter speed was way off base. A check of ISO setting showed I was set at 400 ASA. Not thinking about the beginning of the roll, I switched to the proper ASA rating & continued shooting.
The roll contained both morning shots in town & on the beach @ 400 and the beach @100 with later shots inside a cafe. When I went to process, I thought ' stupid, ya should have shot the whole roll @ 400 ASA then pushed it the extra 2 stops. So I decided to push it one stop, mid point [ASA200] between the exposures on the roll. I scanned the negatives but had to play with the setting & even then in Photo Shop they were maxed out & just wasn't getting it.
Later I ran some through the enlarger. I don't have a set of filters so I printed them normal & I was amazed that they printed as good as they did . . . not great but good. Ya, getting the old enlarger set up & running some 35mm though it sure has been a lesson well learned. I still leave the LF printing to photo labs {especially color] as they are better set to handle that kind of work but for the 35mm B&W, I will stick with the enlarger. (I can always scan the prints for digital files for the web & such things.)

[Gary L. Quay]

Going back to the original question... I had a few similar problems. First: I own a flatbed scanner. It's a good one: an Epson 4790. I had read that the human eye sees about 300dpi, give or take a few. So, I scanned my stuff at 400dpi at the size I wanted to print. My 8x10 prints looked a little fuzzy, even when starting with medium format negatives. My guess is that negative frames that hold the film create a milimeter or so of distance between the neg and the glass, and that causes a slight loss of sharpness. When I printed at 4x6, they were razor sharp because the minimum size I scanned for was 8x10.

I have made some good prints on my computer, but what others have said is true: you won't get a traditional silver geletin print from a digital printer. Printing digitally or in the darlroom both take practice and patience. For me, the darkroom won out, even for color enlargements, because I dislike the mistakes less, i.e. my frustration level for the learning curve is lower. I've used computers since the 1970s, but the technology changes too fast. Photoshop keeps removing functions that I really like to use. Also, I upgraded my Mac operating system this year, and in order to get all of my programs working I had to buy a new computer. But, I digress. To get the print you want from a printer, you have to have everything profiled, from the monitor to the scanner, to the printer, and each batch of the the paper you are printing on. I find it maddening.

[Clay Turtle]

Going back to the original question...
A) I had a few similar problems. First: I own a flatbed scanner. It's a good one: an Epson 4790. I had read that the human eye sees about 300dpi, give or take a few. So, I scanned my stuff at 400dpi at the size I wanted to print. My 8x10 prints looked a little fuzzy, even when starting with medium format negatives. My guess is that negative frames that hold the film create a millimeter or so of distance between the neg and the glass, and that causes a slight loss of sharpness. When I printed at 4x6, they were razor sharp because the minimum size I scanned for was 8x10.
I have made some good prints on my computer, but what others have said is true: you won't get a traditional silver geletin print from a digital printer. Printing digitally or in the darkroom both take practice and patience. For me, the darkroom won out, even for color enlargements, because I dislike the mistakes less, i.e. my frustration level for the learning curve is lower. I've used computers since the 1970s, but the technology changes too fast. PhotoShop keeps removing functions that I really like to use. Also, I upgraded my Mac operating system this year, and in order to get all of my programs working I had to buy a new computer. But, I digress.
B) To get the print you want from a printer, you have to have everything profiled, from the monitor to the scanner, to the printer, and each batch of the the paper you are printing on. I find it maddening. Ahh . . .
A)I pointed this out in the digital section . . there is a big difference between enlarging (enlarger print) & making a larger print (digital print). You probably need to scan at a higher dpi to get a larger print?
B)
I still leave the LF printing to photo labs [especially color] as they are better set to handle that kind of work My point most people have little to no concept of what went on behind the scene in those old time photo labs! So they have no idea what it takes to get reproducible results out of their digital printer!