Scan and print or Optical enlarging?

[Willie]

Starting with a 4x5 or 5x7 B&W negative and going to a 16x20 or thereabouts print size.

What is reality in comparing the final print when done with the scan and print digitizing compared to a normal high quality lens used for printing the image in your enlarger?

8x10 neg - can be a contact print compared to the scan & print.

I know many have gotten rid of their darkrooms for printing and go with the scan and print digitally while some also let someone else do the entire process.

Any direct comparisons of the two processes for higher end prints? Not smugmug or lousy printing of that quality on color papers but good B&W final images.

[bob carnie]

I do both, optically enlarge, and scan and digitally print onto silver paper and thus believe in a unique position to comment.

Years ago I did a 30 x40 test print on inkjet(bayrta) Ilford MG4 enlarger print, and silver gelatin print on the Galerie digital silver paper. Three sample murals in all.

I mounted them onto board and over a series of lectures and group settings had over 400 various level photographers decide 1. which one was which 2. which one was better.

from this testing I was surprised to find out that less than 5 % of the people involved could with defined reasons pick out which sample was on what media and printing method, and nobody could argue that one was better than the other.


I will say this though, if I was to pick a print from my digital silver galerie output vs a Ilford Warmtone enlarger print I would select the Ilford Warmtone each and every time, and its not just because the colour is warmer, but I think
that Ilford Warmtone is a special paper with a visual difference than other papers.

[Alan9940]

Like Bob, I do both. I don't typically make large prints, but if I want/need something like 16x20 or larger I will scan and print to those sizes digitally because the largest wet print I can make is max 16x20. That said, I much prefer wet darkroom prints on Ilford Warmtone or 8x10 contact prints on Adox Lupex or Lodima.

[ic-racer]

If you are referring to new work, it is easier to make the exposure in the digital domain in the first place. Going to the trouble of using large format film, and then scanning and making inkjet prints seems to defeat the purpose of using large film in the first place.

[Drew Wiley]

Just depends how committed you are, along with personal preferences regarding darkroom versus computer station work. I thinks it's extremely difficult to make an inkjet print that can retain the subtle tonality, sheer detail, and toning flexibility of traditional silver paper. But some people have gotten pretty darn good from a large format film drum scan and a limited range of output tone-wise. And folks making really big black and white prints have a logistical advantage versus developing very wide rolls of film. The folks I know making replica grade editioned prints by digital means have commercial gear investments stratospherically beyond ordinary inkjet. Color is a different issue. A really experienced and seriously equipped lab can generate a laser print from a scan that comes close enough to fool the man on the street, though I think true optical prints still hold a qualitative edge from large format film. A lot has to do with how you prefer to fine-tune the information: dodging/burning/masking etc versus PS control. I prefer tactile, hands-on, though don't enjoy the nasty smell of color chemistry. Black and white printing is relatively benign in the darkroom. I recently installed yet another 8x10 enlarger, so that kinda describes my preference.
And I don't have to worry about either software or hardware going obsolete.

[EdSawyer]

Optical is better , imnsho.

[neil poulsen]

For me, it's analog capture and optically print B&W. Both analog capture and scan, and digital capture color, and in either case, digitally print.

With that said, I'm looking forward experimenting with digitally capturing, and then using Quad Ton Rip to print B&W.

[jose angel]

I think the scan quality makes a difference here. If you`re willing to spend on quality scanning&printing, a hybrid process could be a good idea. (BTW, good "optical" printing is not as easy as it may look to unskilled eyes. Something that takes an hour on the wet darkroom could take less than a minute in photoshop).
Right now, I get better, usually faster -and much cheaper- results printing traditionally (in my own darkroom, I mean).

[Jim Jones]

I sell a few modestly priced prints in an unsophisticated area. The cachet of total analog workflow is less important than digital editing and almost effortless reprinting. Gone are those days of rejecting one difficult print after another. The skill and effort of those who continue the older traditions of photography is admirable, but not for me.

[Bruce Watson]

Starting with a 4x5 or 5x7 B&W negative and going to a 16x20 or thereabouts print size.

What is reality in comparing the final print when done with the scan and print digitizing compared to a normal high quality lens used for printing the image in your enlarger?

You're a tad bit late to this party. This was discussed, with not a little vehemence (line drawn in the sand, shouting, finger pointing, the whole lot) about a decade ago here. Search around, you'll find the threads.

My take on it now is still the same as it was then -- the two are different. Both have strengths, both have weaknesses. I've made both. I've bought both. I've got both hanging on my walls today.

That's the reality. But I think you're really asking about is the perception. Which is a completely different thing. And that's what gets you into religious wars. If that's where this is headed, I'm just not interested.