Scanning: negative vs contact print

[Curtis Nelson]

What are the advantages to scanning a 4x5 negative as opposed to a 4x5 contact print? Can I get just as good results from the contact print from the same scanner?

[memorris]

It is very difficult to get the same look from a negative scan as from a print scan. The quality would be very close but it depends on the time you are willing to spend, your skill in printing quality 4X5 contact prints, and what you plan to do with the scan. U scan the negatives because I use them as a digital contact sheet and do not make final prints form the negative scans. If I wanted to print digitally I would probably scan the print.

[Bob McCarthy]

The advantage of scanning in this case is editing in photoshop is easier and more precise than waving one's arms around in a light column.

bob

[Curtis Nelson]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. After re-reading my post, it's clear I didn't really word the question correctly.

If I have a 4x5 negative, and a 4x5 contact print of the same negative, and I scan both the negative and the contact print, which one will yield a higher-quality scan, and why?

Thanks

Curtis

[Ron Marshall]

Any copy will have less resolution than the original, in this case the negative.

[Nathan Potter]

As Ron explains, any second generation image (in your case a print from a negative) will introduce artifacts from the duplicating process that will misrepresent, however small, the characteristics of the original. Sometimes the alterations are what you might desire, sometime not - you need to decide that for yourself or your client.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Stephane]

You dont get newton rings when scanning contact prints, you might when scanning negatives.

[Vaughn]

If I am not mistaken (again!LOL!), the range of values that film can capture is higher than paper can. So there seems to be some loss or compression of information going from negative to print. So scanning the negative will provide more of the original information than scanning a print.

So it will depend on what use the scan will be put to. Just to reproduce the print, scanning the print sounds the easiest way to go. To take the image beyond the print, scans from the negative would be a better way to go.

[Curtis Nelson]

Thanks everyone.

I ask because I am wanting to build an 8x10 pinhole camera, with the idea I would just contact print the images. But, if I ever get a nice image, I would like to scan it, but my scanner is not capable of 8x10, so I would just have to scan the contact print and work from there.

[domaz]

Scanning prints means that the scanner is going to be scanning the grain/texture of the print when you really get down to it. A negative doesn't have this problem since it's on a transparent base.

[Ben Syverson]

A contact print scan doesn't get you more information than a negative scan, but if it's your only option for scanning, it's not a bad one.

Unrelated, but you can probably get more detail from scanning an 8x10 wet enlargement of 35mm or MF than you'd be able to get from scanning the same negative with a flatbed. There may even be an advantage to enlarging 4x5 to 8x10 and scanning the print vs scanning the 4x5 negative, at least detail-wise.

[Frank Petronio]

To what Ben says, yes, if you have a crappy scanner then enlarging to a 8x10 print and scanning that may be best for that scanner. But it isn't the best practice in terms of ultimate image quality. But geez we're talking about a pinhole here, it's not like the guy is shooting for image quality as much as feeling.

If you simply want good jpgs to post online, scanning your contact prints will be fine.

Probably scanning your contact prints will be fine until you get rich and famous from doing amazing work, at which point you'll be able to afford a scanner than can handle 8x10 film ;-)

[jp]

For pinhole, I'm sure a scan of a contact print will be just fine compared to a negative.

[BetterSense]

Unrelated, but you can probably get more detail from scanning an 8x10 wet enlargement of 35mm or MF than you'd be able to get from scanning the same negative with a flatbed. There may even be an advantage to enlarging 4x5 to 8x10 and scanning the print vs scanning the 4x5 negative, at least detail-wise.

I always scan RC prints on my flatbed. It's my primary digitization method. 5x7 prints from 35mm provide very nice digital files when scanned at 800dpi or so, with very well-rendered grain. I have never seen a small-format scanning method that gives what I consider natural-looking grain. The only way is to make an optical enlargement and scan at a resolution below the enlarged grain.

[Lenny Eiger]

I always scan RC prints on my flatbed. It's my primary digitization method. 5x7 prints from 35mm provide very nice digital files when scanned at 800dpi or so, with very well-rendered grain. I have never seen a small-format scanning method that gives what I consider natural-looking grain. The only way is to make an optical enlargement and scan at a resolution below the enlarged grain.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but this is not the only way. I wouldn't even recommend it... If its working for you, great. But this is a public forum and there are people new to the subject that shouldn't be directed in this way - in my opinion.

Lenny Eiger

[Peter De Smidt]

I have some of the Lenswork Special Edition prints. They were made by scanning prints, having a halftone negative made, and then contact printing on silver gelatin paper. The quality is very high.

[BetterSense]

I don't mean to be argumentative, but this is not the only way. I wouldn't even recommend it... If its working for you, great. But this is a public forum and there are people new to the subject that shouldn't be directed in this way - in my opinion.

We are each entitled to our opinion. And it's probably off-topic anyway since large format is enlarged so little that the character of the grain does not usually factor into the image. With smaller formats however, the grain character can be prominent, and the best way to capture it digitally in my experience is to scan a print. Scanning the film with CCD based sensors causes grain aliasing and what you get in the file is nothing like the grain you would see from an optical print. Drum scanning can actually smooth the grain depending on the aperture used, and again, the grain pattern you will get in the digital file does not look like grain pattern of an optical print. The only satisfactory way to capture it is to make an optical enlargement, which can then be reflective scanned at a resolution high enough to capture the resulting grain character. All these effects are probably insignificant for LF, but still present to some degree.

[Ben Syverson]

With smaller formats however, the grain character can be prominent, and the best way to capture it digitally in my experience is to scan a print.
I think you can capture 90% of what you have in a wet print with a drum scan or conscientious film scan. But I would venture that a flatbed scan captures about 50%.

So if your only option is flatbed film scan or wet print scan, and the format is NOT large format, I think the wet print scan can often be preferable. You certainly will see more of the grain-level information that is passed over by a flatbed scan.

[Lenny Eiger]

It is my opinion that there is so much more information in a negative than in a print. That's been my experience, no matter how small the piece of film is. The only possible exception might be an 8x10 (or larger) contact print. The tonal range of a darkroom print is a fraction of that of a negative.

Lenny
EigerStudios

[Peter De Smidt]

If you want to enlarge the image, scanning film is by far superior, but if you want an image the same size or smaller than a print that you have, scanning a print can be very viable. For example, I have a print made on Sterling Lith processed ala Tim Rudman and toned in gold. It was a very difficult image to print, and I only have one print. Since the materials used for the print are no longer available, it cannot be duplicated with traditional means, and I haven't been able to match the print with a negative scan. In this case, scanning the print has been much more fruitful.

[Lenny Eiger]

If you want to enlarge the image, scanning film is by far superior, but if you want an image the same size or smaller than a print that you have, scanning a print can be very viable. For example, I have a print made on Sterling Lith processed ala Tim Rudman and toned in gold. It was a very difficult image to print, and I only have one print. Since the materials used for the print are no longer available, it cannot be duplicated with traditional means, and I haven't been able to match the print with a negative scan. In this case, scanning the print has been much more fruitful.

Peter, I wouldn't disagree with your statement. However, your example is supposing that you are already satisfied with the level or quality of the print. (Which is certainly seems that you are.) I would imagine that very few people are making images of the same size - if I missed this in the OP's post, I should apologize.... However, I think a lot of folks could imagine from the post that enlargements and corrections could easily be done from a print rather than a scan, and I would suggest that this wouldn't be optimal.

Lenny

[Peter De Smidt]

Peter, I wouldn't disagree with your statement. However, your example is supposing that you are already satisfied with the level or quality of the print. (Which is certainly seems that you are.)

It's not that as much as the print process has unique properties that are difficult to replicate with other methods. Here's a jpg from a print scan:

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/FallenIcedTrunk.jpg

If you're interested in the process, there's some info here: http://worldoflithprinting.com/.

[snip]


However, I think a lot of folks could imagine from the post that enlargements and corrections could easily be done from a print rather than a scan, and I would suggest that this wouldn't be optimal.

Then we all seem to be in agreement. If you want to make enlargements, scan film. If you want to preserve the characteristics of the print as much as possible, and you don't want to enlarge the image, scanning prints can be a viable choice.

[Greg_Thomas]

It's not that as much as the print process has unique properties that are difficult to replicate with other methods. Here's a jpg from a print scan:

http://i955.photobucket.com/albums/ae37/peterdesmidt/FallenIcedTrunk.jpg

If you're interested in the process, there's some info here: http://worldoflithprinting.com/.

[snip]



Then we all seem to be in agreement. If you want to make enlargements, scan film. If you want to preserve the characteristics of the print as much as possible, and you don't want to enlarge the image, scanning prints can be a viable choice.

That's an awesome image for a lith print.

[BetterSense]

I'm trying to figure out how he got enough DOF and shutter speed. It looks like a cloudy day, and the trees behind the icicles are sharp. Was this show with a DSLR?

[Peter De Smidt]

No, it was shot with a Nikon FM2n, 20mm nikkor af lens and a red filter on Kodak High Speed Infrared film and developed in PMK. It was taken in the early to mid-1990s.

[BetterSense]

I really like it. I never had a chance to shoot HIE.