Scanning 4x5"

[Anonomatos]

First of all:
I'm very sorry for asking such basic questions. I've tried searching but couldn't find the answer black-on-white, and I need that. Hopefully you guys will help me out a bit, I'll be participating lots when I'm on my way with LF!

The questions are:
-When I take a 4x5" photo... Can I just put the film directly on the scanner (a v750 epson pro for example) without any other post-processing (darkroom or otherwise)?

-Is the resolution high enough for A0 size (around 85x120cm). I heard it's always OK when you magnify 15x. But A0 will be quite more than that. Will it effect sharpness?

-Is scanning a negative and making a digital print give equal or greater quality than 'analogue' processing?

Thanks for answers, hope I'm not too much of a problems around here!

Ruben

[Peter De Smidt]

First of all:
-When I take a 4x5" photo... Can I just put the film directly on the scanner (a v750 epson pro for example) without any other post-processing (darkroom or otherwise)?

I'm not sure what you mean. You have to set the scanning software correctly, and some of them have quite extensive image editing controls. Does that count as post-processing? Usually an image will need to be worked on in Photoshop, if nothing else to spot the dust.


-Is the resolution high enough for A0 size (around 85x120cm). I heard it's always OK when you magnify 15x. But A0 will be quite more than that. Will it effect sharpness?

Yes, it'll effect sharpness. I wouldn't make prints that big from scans from scans from a consumer flatbed, but that's a judgment call. A print that size would benefit greatly from a professional scanner.



-Is scanning a negative and making a digital print give equal or greater quality than 'analogue' processing?

Both can give outstanding quality when done well. The end results will have different qualities. Which is better? That depends one what you want. I have some images where I've made a better print traditionally. Others have worked better for me digitally.

[Eric Brody]

You need to develop the film, I assume you know that. Once the film is developed, fixed, washed and dried, it can be scanned. No other processing is needed. How large is a judgment call. Many folks believe flatbed scanners like the Epson V7xx series can do 4-5x enlargements of pretty high quality. The size you are describing will be a stretch for a flatbed. If you are trying to produce such large prints, a drum scan might be better.

You might want to spend some time learning the scanner and the other software tools before such an ambitious printing attempt. There is a decent learning curve for scanning, scanner software, and certainly photoshop. You do not mention what level of expertise you currently possess.

I believe my prints from scanned 4x5 black and white negatives are as good or better than anything I ever produced in the wet darkroom. I do not print larger than 16"x20".

Good luck.

Eric

[Joanna Carter]

When I take a 4x5" photo... Can I just put the film directly on the scanner (a v750 epson pro for example) without any other post-processing (darkroom or otherwise)?
Well, the Epson V750 is an excellent scanner but their 4x5 film holder is not the best in the world; most people who want sharper scans end up getting the Better Scanning holder from Doug Fisher.

Apart from that, all you have to do is to mount the developed film in the holder, adjust the scanning parameters and scan the image.


Is the resolution high enough for A0 size (around 85x120cm). I heard it's always OK when you magnify 15x. But A0 will be quite more than that. Will it effect sharpness?
I have printed as large as 100cm x 80cm with very acceptable results. As long as you don't stand too close to a larger print, the results could be acceptable but not necesssarily


Is scanning a negative and making a digital print give equal or greater quality than 'analogue' processing?
Depending on your skill levels and the choice of paper, digital prints can be just as acceptable as a "wet" print. but there are those who wiull fight a religious war over this point :rolleyes:

[Anonomatos]

You need to develop the film, I assume you know that. Once the film is developed, fixed, washed and dried, it can be scanned. No other processing is needed. How large is a judgment call. Many folks believe flatbed scanners like the Epson V7xx series can do 4-5x enlargements of pretty high quality. The size you are describing will be a stretch for a flatbed. If you are trying to produce such large prints, a drum scan might be better.

Well, actually I did not know it was necessary. Some scanner say they can scan negatives (guess that's only 35mm?).

Thanks for all the replies!

Anyways. Is there a good article on developing 4x5's? Or should I just bring the first few attempts to a photolab? I'm still thinking of giving all the processing and scanning out of my hands for the first dozen attempts. First I need to get a grip on the photography and digital (photoshop) processing, then the rest of the development process... me thinks...

P.S.: I won't be mixing in the analogue-digital discussion ;)

[Flea77]

Anyways. Is there a good article on developing 4x5's? Or should I just bring the first few attempts to a photolab? I'm still thinking of giving all the processing and scanning out of my hands for the first dozen attempts. First I need to get a grip on the photography and digital (photoshop) processing, then the rest of the development process... me thinks...

P.S.: I won't be mixing in the analogue-digital discussion ;)

There are tons of great articles and posts here for developing LF negs (since 4x5 is the smallest most consider LF, most things here will be that size or larger). Try a search or two and you are sure to get a ton of hits, but I will start off some things.

Developing B&W 4x5 at home is a piece of cake. There are a few different ways:

1) Tray development. The film is removed from the holder and placed in a tray of chemicals, after the time expires, it moves to the second tray, then to the third. The pros here are that it is easy, cheap, and can be done in a tiny space. The cons are that it has to be done in complete darkness from start to almost finish. PITA.

2) Tanks. When I refer to tanks I am refering to the manual rectangular light proof tanks that work just like 35mm. It uses a lot of chemicals, you load the film in the dark, but everything else can be in the light. It is also pretty messy from what I hear as those tanks never are sealed well.

3) Tubes. This is what I am using. Each piece of film is placed in a plastic tube, chemicals are loaded and you process up to six tubes at once. The advantages are that you can process six different types of film for six different times all at once and you can do everything but load the film under lights, albeit safe lights for the stop and first part of the fix. The disadvantage is that you have to manually agitate the tubes constantly.

4) Jobo. This is much like tanks except the tanks are square and these are round, and of course you can get the roller base so that they agitate themselves. This method allows you to do everything but load the film in the light, and read a book while they process. The disadvantage is that you can not mix and match developing times like you can with tubes.

No one is really better than the other, it is pretty personal. I am happy with the tubes for now and absolutely despised trays.

I found one thing to make life easier, I shoot only Ilford film, and use only Ilford chemicals, with the processing sheets you can get from www.ilford.com this is just one less thing I have to worry about. Once again, very personal decision, but using all the same manufacturer's stuff to me means less margin for error.

Last little hint, THE TIME AND TEMP IS CRITICAL, you may be tempted to thing "oh, well it is close enough to 68 degrees so I will just use the standard time", that is a sure fire way to get crummy negs. I will say it again just for effect, THE TIME AND TEMP IS CRITICAL!

Allan

[rdenney]

Well, the Epson V750 is an excellent scanner but their 4x5 film holder is not the best in the world; most people who want sharper scans end up getting the Better Scanning holder from Doug Fisher.

I guess I was lucky--my plain Epson holder allows me to scan at 3200 and get down to the grain level with the FP4 negatives I've been scanning.

I just printed an image from an FP4 negative that I made 18 years ago. I have a conventional print from the negative hanging on the wall, so it's my first comparison.

The conventional print is a 16x20" print that I enlarged in an Omega D3 with a Bausch and Lomb 139mm enlarging Tessar. The paper was Oriental Seagull RC glossy paper, toned in selenium. Of course that does not represent the state of the art in fine printing, but it was about the best I could practically do in my home darkroom at the time. And it was good enough--there was nothing about that print that annoyed me as I walked by it, for example. As RC paper when, that Oriental stuff looked pretty good.

The inkjet print was made on Epson 17x22 Premium Photo Paper Glossy, using the ABW capability in the Epson driver on an Epson 3800, a setting of "Dark", and a strong magenta tone to give it a hint of that selenium toning and get rid of the greenish Epson ink tone. I spent quite a bit of time working on the image to get the tonality I wanted, and the result of that was a bit different than how I saw the image before, but mostly because I had finer control.

In the end, the Epson print is every bit as viewable as the conventional print. The tone is not really like selenium but it's still pleasing and it provides very rich blacks. The image is a little sharper than the conventional print--probably a commentary on the B&L lens--but both are extremely sharp and detailed. The blacks are just as rich on the Epson print as on the Seagull paper, and the gradations just as subtle. Even with a magnifier, there is nothing I could see that suggested it was an inkjet print.

So, for me, my standards, and my abilities both then and now, my first large print from the 3800 (after maybe 10 test prints on small paper) was a little better than my best from the days when I had my own darkroom. Others could doubtless do better with both approaches, but that choice isn't relevant to most folks making this decision.

If that film holder was the wrong thickness, I would not have gotten those results, I don't think. Like I said, I guess I was lucky. I have no doubt that other scanner are less fortuitously focused from the factory and benefit from an adjustable film holder.

Rick "no longer a 17x22 Epson virgin" Denney

[PenGun]

I guess I was lucky--my plain Epson holder allows me to scan at 3200 and get down to the grain level with the FP4 negatives I've been scanning.

I just printed an image from an FP4 negative that I made 18 years ago. I have a conventional print from the negative hanging on the wall, so it's my first comparison.

The conventional print is a 16x20" print that I enlarged in an Omega D3 with a Bausch and Lomb 139mm enlarging Tessar. The paper was Oriental Seagull RC glossy paper, toned in selenium. Of course that does not represent the state of the art in fine printing, but it was about the best I could practically do in my home darkroom at the time. And it was good enough--there was nothing about that print that annoyed me as I walked by it, for example. As RC paper when, that Oriental stuff looked pretty good.

The inkjet print was made on Epson 17x22 Premium Photo Paper Glossy, using the ABW capability in the Epson driver on an Epson 3800, a setting of "Dark", and a strong magenta tone to give it a hint of that selenium toning and get rid of the greenish Epson ink tone. I spent quite a bit of time working on the image to get the tonality I wanted, and the result of that was a bit different than how I saw the image before, but mostly because I had finer control.

In the end, the Epson print is every bit as viewable as the conventional print. The tone is not really like selenium but it's still pleasing and it provides very rich blacks. The image is a little sharper than the conventional print--probably a commentary on the B&L lens--but both are extremely sharp and detailed. The blacks are just as rich on the Epson print as on the Seagull paper, and the gradations just as subtle. Even with a magnifier, there is nothing I could see that suggested it was an inkjet print.

So, for me, my standards, and my abilities both then and now, my first large print from the 3800 (after maybe 10 test prints on small paper) was a little better than my best from the days when I had my own darkroom. Others could doubtless do better with both approaches, but that choice isn't relevant to most folks making this decision.

If that film holder was the wrong thickness, I would not have gotten those results, I don't think. Like I said, I guess I was lucky. I have no doubt that other scanner are less fortuitously focused from the factory and benefit from an adjustable film holder.

Rick "no longer a 17x22 Epson virgin" Denney

The 3800 is impressive. I'm pleased with mine.

The problem with the Epson V700/V750 is that the focus height varies from machine to machine. The Betterlight holders are adjustable. You can find the focus height with the stock holders but it's a bit more hassle.

You must be a lucky one whose holders are in focus with the stock setting. My V700 needs to have all the 'feet' removed to find focus.

[Jim Noel]

-Is scanning a negative and making a digital print give equal or greater quality than 'analogue' processing?"
Absolutely not!

[Lenny Eiger]

-Is scanning a negative and making a digital print give equal or greater quality than 'analogue' processing?"
Absolutely not!

C'mon, isn't this argument over already. Digital technology is every bit as capable, the prints can be just as beautiful, it's a matter of taste at this point. As with everything, there are good printers and beginners..

Lenny

[Frank Petronio]

Take or send your color or B&W film to the photo lab for processing and keep it simple so you don't get overwhelmed. Color film is much more challenging to home process, B&W is easy once you've done a few times. Trays work fine, keep it CHEAP and SIMPLE.

Negative film can be any size, 35mm or larger, color or B&W. Same with 35mm positive slides although with larger sizes people call them "chromes".

Just use the Epson 700 as-is to start and just make smaller prints until you learn more.

Yes you can make large prints from a good Epson scan but if -- after you've gained some experience -- you send your film off to be drum scanned by a good operator, you will be impressed enough by the quality difference that the Epson wont look so good.

[Santo Roman]

I've got the V700 and it works great but when you want that true quality...use the trays on the darkroom. I'm with Frank on this, for MUCH better quality scans, try the drum scans. They will bring out detail that the Epson just does not pick up. Again, I use the V700 for my 4x5 BW work and it comes out great but I also drum scan thing that I want to put up for people. Either way have fun and enjoy it.

santo

[Anonomatos]

Take or send your color or B&W film to the photo lab for processing and keep it simple so you don't get overwhelmed. Color film is much more challenging to home process, B&W is easy once you've done a few times. Trays work fine, keep it CHEAP and SIMPLE.

Negative film can be any size, 35mm or larger, color or B&W. Same with 35mm positive slides although with larger sizes people call them "chromes".

Just use the Epson 700 as-is to start and just make smaller prints until you learn more.

Yes you can make large prints from a good Epson scan but if -- after you've gained some experience -- you send your film off to be drum scanned by a good operator, you will be impressed enough by the quality difference that the Epson wont look so good.

Thanks, I think you've got a good point. I am eventually going for big prints. A friend of mine studies Graphic Design & Photography and I guess he can try to drum scan one for me when I feel I'm ready for it... :-) I'm quite experienced with large prints made from digital camera's, but the quality and detail was always good but not too fantastic. Hope to go another step in quality and detail within the Large Format!

And I'll be working on color photos, not B&W, unfortenately for the processing.

Anyways, thanks a bunch! Hold your socks for more silly question on other parts of this forum :p

[BetterSense]

C'mon, isn't this argument over already. Digital technology is every bit as capable, the prints can be just as beautiful, it's a matter of taste at this point

You are right that it is a matter of taste. It's always a matter of taste. Photographic prints have different qualities and the importance of those qualities is itself a matter of taste. One of the qualities of a print that happens to matter to me is that it be a genuine analog photographically-processed print. I value that quality. It doesn't matter to me how good of an imitation a digital print is, because it's still a digital print, so in this matter a traditional optical print will always be better than a digital print. Other people don't value the distinction at all, and I have no problem with that. Some people deny that there is a distinction worth making in the first place, and with that I certainly differ.

People have different values, and value different things. If someone likes optical prints, it's probably either not possible or not profitable to try to convince them not to.

[Lenny Eiger]

One of the qualities of a print that happens to matter to me is that it be a genuine analog photographically-processed print. I value that quality. It doesn't matter to me how good of an imitation a digital print is, because it's still a digital print, so in this matter a traditional optical print will always be better than a digital print. Other people don't value the distinction at all, and I have no problem with that.

I'm going to be in this group. I don't value the distinction at all. If I did, I would insist that all photographic art be handmade, as in gum, albumen, gravure, platinum, etc. All lenses should be hand-ground. Whatever. Where does one draw the line?

In the old days, photography wasn't an art because any "monkey with a camera" could produce a great image. Finally, someone outlined the distinctions between good photography, amateur, beginner, etc. and it was accepted. Now we're being told "any monkey with a computer and a $50 printer" can make prints. It's just as ludicrous. (And they can't.)

A tool is just a tool. I print with digital because I like the results better. I could still make platinum prints if I wanted to. I am not trying to imitate a traditional optical print. I'm not going to diss anyone that wants to print in a darkroom, have at it. But I don't think its right to call prints made with an inkjet simply an attempt to imitate what can happen in a darkroom. We ought to be beyond that already.

Lenny

[sanking]

A tool is just a tool. I print with digital because I like the results better. I could still make platinum prints if I wanted to. I am not trying to imitate a traditional optical print. I'm not going to diss anyone that wants to print in a darkroom, have at it. But I don't think its right to call prints made with an inkjet simply an attempt to imitate what can happen in a darkroom. We ought to be beyond that already.

Lenny

Can you make a platinum print with the same control of tonal values as your digital inkjet prints?

If you could, I think most collectors would pay more for the pt/pd print, same image from same photographer of course.

Sandy

[Bruce Watson]

Can you make a platinum print with the same control of tonal values as your digital inkjet prints?

If you could, I think most collectors would pay more for the pt/pd print.

Sandy

I suspect that Lenny could. The better question is... would he want to?

One's integrity as an artist demands that one use the tools required to best reach one's vision. Lenny clearly thinks he does his best work expressing his vision using inkjet printing. That's his chosen medium. It's his choice, not a collector's choice. I can't imagine many of us letting collectors determine our tools.

One of the reasons I love photography is that it's one of the realms where people still do things for reasons other than profit.

[sanking]

I suspect that Lenny could. The better question is... would he want to?

One's integrity as an artist demands that one use the tools required to best reach one's vision. Lenny clearly thinks he does his best work expressing his vision using inkjet printing. That's his chosen medium. It's his choice, not a collector's choice. I can't imagine many of us letting collectors determine our tools.

One of the reasons I love photography is that it's one of the realms where people still do things for reasons other than profit.

That is fine. We work as we want to work, and for whatever reason. But I think that Lenny is also a professional and works for profit so let's not discard that concept.

But I am just saying, if I had the choice of buying two prints from the same artist that wre virtually identical in terms of tonal values, one an inkjet print, the other a hand coated pt/pd print, there is no question but that I would pay more for the latter.

Sandy King

[Lenny Eiger]

But I am just saying, if I had the choice of buying two prints from the same artist that wre virtually identical in terms of tonal values, one an inkjet print, the other a hand coated pt/pd print, there is no question but that I would pay more for the latter.
Sandy King

I agree that this is the way things are - for the moment. I also have an appreciation for anything hand-made. The argument with non-silver is often duplicitous, given that the negs are often made on an inkjet. I did have a pretty good handle on the platinum, and the negs required for different results, and you are correct, once done, the neg is done and there is little control. All that said, I don't think the distinction will last. There was a time when few knew what a platinum print was, and they didn't want to pay anything for it. If everyone, or more specifically, collectors, understood the difficulty in making a master print, in whatever media, I think they would pay the same price for all of them. At the moment, there is a cache to platinum prints that has more to do with the metal and its place in the precious metals market than anything else. My guess is that a huge platinum deposit could be found in South Dakota, plunging the price of platinum down to the price of some inexpensive metal and this cache would disappear - after some time.

I could be right or wrong about this. I don't know. I do know that trends are transitory. I think almost any alternative process that has survived is capable of making, in the right hands, very exquisite things. Silver prints can be beautiful, but they have their pluses and minuses, just like everything else. The light sensitive stuff is encased in goop, which I find useless, making the surface too shiny for my taste. OTOH, they can also be quite something when describing highlight tones. I say if one doesn't like fighting with PhotoShop, don't. There are lots of good choices. Getting a great result in any of them is just as difficult.

I am considerably disturbed by post-modernism and the insistence by the museums that traditional photography is "over". They suggest that you wouldn't photograph with a soft-focus lens after the move from the Photo-Secession to the Modern period, and question why anyone would photograph anything in a representational way. They say things like "Landscape is over." "If a photograph looks like a photograph, it's completely invalid." They lump seasoned professional artists in with the amateur nature photography crowd. They don't, or can't, distinguish between O'Sullivan or Weston and Galen Rowell, or Rodney Lough. I think that they have some valid arguments, but they throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water.

This is the danger we face. This is the challenge we must answer. I don't want to hijack this thread, but post-modernism looms large. Bickering over what type of print one make seems silly, at best.

Lenny


Lenny

[Tyler Boley]

I think at some point things turned around without that many people noticing. The assumption is that it would be a challenge to make an ink print as good as a platinum. But in many areas, a platinum will not be as good as the best mono ink print now available. It's just that most people still have not seen these prints.
I have a series in ink my previous platinum efforts of the same images look lame next to, that could say more about my previous platinum abilities than anything else I admit.
The problem now becomes defining what "as good as", or "better" means...
Tyler

[sanking]

I think at some point things turned around without that many people noticing. The assumption is that it would be a challenge to make an ink print as good as a platinum. But in many areas, a platinum will not be as good as the best mono ink print now available. It's just that most people still have not seen these prints.
I have a series in ink my previous platinum efforts of the same images look lame next to, that could say more about my previous platinum abilities than anything else I admit.
The problem now becomes defining what "as good as", or "better" means...
Tyler

I think it is a bit more complicated. There is pt/pd, and there is pt/pd printed with digital negatives, which then bring to the process most of the enhancements of digital. Even split toning would be possible for a very dedicated printer.

Printing pt/pd with in-camera negatives has the same pros and cons as printing silver from in-camera negatives. Add digital control and we are in a new world.

Sandy King

[Tyler Boley]

and yet given the same file, brought to the same level of calibration digitally one way or another at the various stages available, I can get deeper richer blacks on similarly beautiful surfaces than I can with pt/pd...
But does that make it better?
Complicated indeed.
Tyler

[sanking]

and yet given the same file, brought to the same level of calibration digitally one way or another at the various stages available, I can get deeper richer blacks on similarly beautiful surfaces than I can with pt/pd...
But does that make it better?
Complicated indeed.
Tyler

But I am not certain you are right about that. I am told that the pt/pd prints made by Salto for folks like Michael Smith and George Tice have similar Dmax to the best that can be had with inkjet prints, or any other process.

But no, more Dmax does not make it better. Hand made prints are simply different because they are hand made. And if the print also incorporates all of the digital controls that goes into the creation of an inkjet file, it is a hand made print that is one stage removed from the inkjet print in terms of human input.

Sandy

[Tyler Boley]

...a hand made print that is one stage removed from the inkjet print in terms of human input.

Sandy

Sandy, I don't mean to argue as I generally agree with you most of the time. And I will, after this, not contribute to hyjacking this thread further. Perhaps a new thread is in order.
But, I just don't get this any more, I hear it all the time. My digital ink prints are far more individually crafted than anything I ever did with light sensitive materials- silver, kallitype, platinum, any of that. Far more effort goes into the particulars of the ink blend for each image than was possible before, and paper choice. Many more days of considering changes after test print curing, etc.. Just as determinations about whether or not there should be a little less gold in a Kallitype...
Then after all that is determined, the sheet inspection, prebrushing, print time at the highest quality settings, post handling and rejection rate, makes for just as much care and handling as my decades of darkroom work. All this assumes I've got perfectly performing nozzles, which alone can consume some time. In fact, I'll bet a darkroom session can yield a higher number of unrejected finals for an edition than a day of inkjet. Anyone that spends some time working over here is always amazed at what goes into this stuff, and how time consuming it is, and how failure prone it is.
I have to assume at this point that SOME people making this distinction between hand made and fine inkjet just really don't know what is involved with either and are making some unfortunate assumptions. Admittedly, most inkjets were not done as above, but neither were most light sensitive prints made as your carbons are.
Tyler

[sanking]

Sandy, I don't mean to argue as I generally agree with you most of the time. And I will, after this, not contribute to hyjacking this thread further. Perhaps a new thread is in order.
But, I just don't get this any more, I hear it all the time. My digital ink prints are far more individually crafted than anything I ever did with light sensitive materials- silver, kallitype, platinum, any of that.
Tyler

Tyler,

You have your opinions. I have mine.

But the fact of the matter is that I craft my digital files very individually, perhaps not with your talent, but still I take them a long, long way.

After that, you press a button and make an inkjet print. At that point I press a button and have a digital negative. From that pont I still have a very long way to go before I get a real carbon transfer print. In fact, that point is really a beginning point for me, not the end. There really is no comparison in terms of the hand made input. Whether anyone gives a damn or not is beside the point, but it is not the same.

Phtogravure folks might say to me, yes, your final carbon print is our resist for etching and making a gravure print. And they are right. That does not make a gravure any more valuable than a carbon transfer print, but is an extra step of creativity, as is the making of a pt/pd or carbon transfer print from a digital file compared to immediate output from an inkjet printer.


Sandy

[Lenny Eiger]

My digital ink prints are far more individually crafted than anything I ever did with light sensitive materials- silver, kallitype, platinum, any of that. Far more effort goes into the particulars of the ink blend for each image than was possible before, and paper choice. Many more days of considering changes after test print curing, etc.. Just as determinations about whether or not there should be a little less gold in a Kallitype...
Tyler

I think this is an important point. It gets missed too often. I mix my own b&w ink formula using Cone's inks as a base, the research to make it all work was extensive. Earlier this year I remapped the crossovers as I found that the RIP maker's recommendations were all wrong, and the transitions were starved. I did a lot of testing and now have a perfect 45 degree angle in the density dialog, and a great gray ramp. The RIP maker confirmed my results and now has new recommendations.

I did a lot of testing of things when I worked with alternative processes as well, as I am sure everyone does. Silver printing is a piece of cake in comparison.....

Lenny

[Tyler Boley]

Tyler,

You have your opinions. I have mine.

But the fact of the matter is that I craft my digital files very individually, perhaps not with your talent, but still I take them a long, long way.

After that, you press a button and make an inkjet print....

Sandy

oh dear lord no Sandy, I'm still days away.... I may make a proof, a test, change the ink blend, do another, wait for drydown and cure between each... change the hue, realize the hue is great but requires slightly different luminosity or contrast now now, back and forth. I rarely get a print done within a week of the initial scan and have several going at once, along with other people's work of course.
The file hours/days of file prep are only the beginning, and must be returned to often as well since materials decisions will alter ealier decisions.

Press a button, oh man...
honestly, I don't think opinions have much to do with it.
Tyler

[sanking]

o
honestly, I don't think opinions have much to do with it.
Tyler

Sorry, but I believe it was you who stated that you did want to argue with me, but then commenced to do so. That is why I said that you had your opinions, and I have mine.

But I can see that this discussion is a waste of time so Lord spare me from any more of the inanities that generally ensue from useless dialog.

Sandy

[Tyler Boley]

wow, whatever happened there was not my intention at all. I don't know what to say other than my apologies to Sandy and the list.

Tyler

[sanking]

wow, whatever happened there was not my intention at all. I don't know what to say other than my apologies to Sandy and the list.

Tyler


Perhaps it would be better to just address the question of the OP, scanning 4X5" film.

My apologies for straying into another discussion.

Sandy

[Bruce Watson]

After that, you press a button and make an inkjet print.

ROFLMAO! Surely you don't believe this! I surely wish this were true, that it was this easy. Sadly reality is somewhat different.

I find that I spend considerably more time making inkjet prints than I ever did making silver gelatin prints in the darkroom. It's considerably more effort, and fills my trash can with expensive test prints. The added control of inkjet is a double edged sword. But if you can master it the results can be amazing. And for me at least, I'm able to better match my vision with inkjet prints than I was ever able to do with darkroom prints.

I'm just saying that every printing process has it's learning curves and it's difficulties. They all can be mastered by people willing to put in the time and effort to do so. This applies to inkjet printing as well as any of the other processes.

[sanking]

ROFLMAO! Surely you don't believe this! I surely wish this were true, that it was this easy. Sadly reality is somewhat different.

I find that I spend considerably more time making inkjet prints than I ever did making silver gelatin prints in the darkroom. It's considerably more effort, and fills my trash can with expensive test prints. The added control of inkjet is a double edged sword. But if you can master it the results can be amazing. And for me at least, I'm able to better match my vision with inkjet prints than I was ever able to do with darkroom prints.

I'm just saying that every printing process has it's learning curves and it's difficulties. They all can be mastered by people willing to put in the time and effort to do so. This applies to inkjet printing as well as any of the other processes.

Bruce, I gather that you have never made a hand coated print?

I certainly am not an expert with digital inkjet printing and would not compare myself to people like Lenny and Tyler who are truly masters of their craft. On the other hand I know enough to have been able to print a couple of exhibitions of my work with digital inkjets that were overall of higher quality than what I would have been able to achieve with silver printing twenty years ago. I did not mix any colors; just used the ink set in the Epson 3800, but did use QTR to produce some very beautiful split toning.

I think that you, and Tyler, have seriously distorted my comment about push the button. What I assumed was that you would have already done all the testing to make whatever print you want to make, so pressing the button is kind of like lift-off. And I do mean exactly what I said -- when all the preparation has been done you press a button and the print comes out. However, even after I, and others who make hand coated prints, have made all of our testing there is still a three to four hour work period in which we must make the print. And in making a carbon transfer print every step in the work flow requires considerable knowledge and skill.

Course, even before I reach that point I had to learn to make a digital negative for the process, make the carbon tissue, size the final support papers, etc. All of this is in addition to the basic skills in scanning and Photoshop work that everyone has to do.

Please note for the record that I have never said that a silver gelatin print is a hand made print. I reserve that name only for processes that require real hand coating. I have also not said that digital inkjet printing is easy. True mastery of any form of printing, be it carbon transfer, gravure, gum over platinum, pt/pd or digital inkjet takes a lot of time and skill.

Sandy King

[Lenny Eiger]

Perhaps it would be better to just address the question of the OP, scanning 4X5" film.
My apologies for straying into another discussion.
Sandy

I approach this a little differently. It's true that the thread has been hijacked. We are no longer talking about scanning 4x5 film. However, I believe the question was a reasonably simple one, it's been discussed on this forum a great deal and I think the OP got his question answered. (If he didn't he should speak up and we can fix that.)

What I like about this diversion is that we have been discussing the difficulty of making prints, in one form or another, among 4 top experts (in the last day anyway). I personally thoroughly enjoy talking to all of you. There is always more to learn, I've learned a few things here and there from each one and I can only hope the reverse is true. It's often I pick up some small thing that totally rearranges how I look at something and provides an answer, or the way to the answer, that I've been searching for - for some time.

I'm happy to have a conversation with you guys, I don't care what we talk about. It's good that the OP got his or her answer, but after that, we could talk about anything, as far as I am concerned. If we disagree, it's not an argument, but people who respect each other disagreeing, and that's great in my book.

Lenny

[sanking]

What I like about this diversion is that we have been discussing the difficulty of making prints, in one form or another, among 4 top experts (in the last day anyway). I personally thoroughly enjoy talking to all of you. There is always more to learn, I've learned a few things here and there from each one and I can only hope the reverse is true. It's often I pick up some small thing that totally rearranges how I look at something and provides an answer, or the way to the answer, that I've been searching for - for some time.

Lenny


Lenny,

OK, let me put a bit of perspective on the difficulty of making a fairly large carbon transfer print.

About two weeks ago I received an order for a fairly large carbon transfer print. The original was 7X17” in size from an original in-camera negative of this size. I no longer have the original print of this so had to make another one. Also, the buyer wanted a larger print, about 13”X27”, and a specific color, very warm brown with a tint of red. I thought about this, and started the project.

Day One – Scanned the original 7X17” negative with my EverSmart Pro scanner at 2540 dpi.

Day Two– Worked on the image file in Photoshop. Spent approximately six hours correcting the file to what I wanted it to look like.

Day Three – Looked at the file again, made some more corrections, then printed a digital negative on OHP. Left overnight to dry.

Day Four – Made two test prints to size with different tissue from the digital negative. Eight hours total work, four hours per print. After looking at the prints I realized that the tone was not nearly as warm as required, thus requiring new tissue.

Day Five – Mixed up four liters of pigmented gelatin and made 16 sheets of carbon tissue 14” X 28” in size. Adjusted the pigment with black + umber + venetian red to give the exact tone that I wanted. About eight hours of work to mix and coat the carbon tissues.

Day Six – Carbon tissues drying.

Day Seven – Carbon tissues still drying.

Day Eight (yesterday)– Carbon tissues now dry, I make a test print in the AM. Looks nice but had a bit of frilling of the image in the lower right hand corner of the image. Make two more prints yesterday, but have mechanical problems with both. 12 hours of works, still no keeper print.

Day Nine (today) – Made another print in the am, but still not a real keeper. Finally, about two hours ago made a second print that will be the keeper. So far, eight hours working today. Basically, about nine days from start of project to first keeper print. The final print is much better, to my eye, than the one I made from the in-camera negative because of the enhanced tonal controls available with the digital file.

I have decided that this will be an edition limited to five prints this size. Still four more prints to go, and probably three times as many days, minimum.

If my final print had been a digital inkjet I could probably have finished five prints this size to my satisfaction with two or three days of work, max.

Sandy King

[Lenny Eiger]

OK, let me put a bit of perspective on the difficulty of making a fairly large carbon transfer print.
If my final print had been a digital inkjet I could probably have finished five prints this size to my satisfaction with two or three days of work.

Sandy King

Sandy,

Nice description. I have a healthy appreciation, now even more so, for the carbon process. I can't wait to visit and see some...

I think sometimes things go well and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the Photoshop work requires 2 or 3 test prints and sometimes it's 20. I am printing some very large images for a fellow who had some real challenges with developing 8x10 negs. I am having to pull out every trick in the book to get things balanced, with all sorts of weire\d development artifacts, flattening of certain tonal ranges, etc. I got 2 of them on test print 8, which I was happy about, and the last at test print 14.

I am also working on a color image, which is eluding me almost entirely. I look at it and the color makes no sense. That never happens to me - just today. I've taken a lot of extra time trying to get something that's even in range.

Last month I had a gal who is a post-modernist photographer. I printed a few pieces from her early work, 2 or them at 20 feet - nine hours for each one to finish, hoping the printer didn't spit, which it can do when it wants to be ornery. Then we began constructing 2 additional pieces. They are both 4 feet by 9 feet. Each of them is composited from 55-65 different scans from 2 1/4, 4x5 and mostly 8x10 images, 2-3 Gigs of data each, convert to b&w, etc. There is a very rough map, and parts of each image are included to construct a fairly interesting landscape that is somewhat plausible but totally impossible. Glaciers at the top, water flowing through constructed villages in the middle and desert below. Each piece has to be carefully masked to get the right stuff copied from the original image, then pasted into a new layer in the image, aligned and sized, possibly rotated, a layer mask is added to define the edges, a curve to match it to the surrounding tonality, and then blending with a variety of techniques to make each piece perfectly seamless, and look like it belongs there. Sometimes, there are layers over layers that provide different textures. It's wild... 40 days, 12 hours a day, minimum. The final files are 15-20 Gigs. Takes just under 1/2 an hour to save.

Please don't mis-understand. There is no one-upmanship intended. However, things do get out of hand sometimes. I think silver is easy, never thought any alternative process was. I think whether one is doing non-silver, or working with custom b&w inksets there is required an element of research to get one's process to work. There's nothing like experience...

I'm almost out of Light Black 4 and 5. Time to get out the magnetic stirrer, the drawn down bar and the spectrophotometer. This is the fun process where you can mix the same amount of material and get a different opacity in the ink. Not looking forward to it... at least Cone now sells ink in liters....

Hope you're enjoying your weekend...

Lenny