Seeking scanning solution for 8x10 negatives

[Smitty]

Hello,
I am looking for a solution in working with my 8x10 negatives. Will the Epson V850 give me a good result retaining good resolution etc?
Thanks, Steve

[Pere Casals]

Hello,
I am looking for a solution in working with my 8x10 negatives. Will the Epson V850 give me a good result retaining good resolution etc?
Thanks, Steve

The larger the negative the better the V850 performs. For 8x10 the V850 uses the "low res" lens that is the one that covers this format, and it will deliver around 320MPix effective.

[Smitty]

The larger the negative the better the V850 performs. For 8x10 the V850 uses the "low res" lens that is the one that covers this format, and it will deliver around 320MPix effective.

Thanks, I am guessing that the file size from an 8x10 negative must be quite large? Does the output from say an Epson printer still have that large/contact print feel to it? I have thinking of moving into this printer for a while..

[Oren Grad]

Does the output from say an Epson printer still have that large/contact print feel to it? I have thinking of moving into this printer for a while..

No, the output from an Epson printer even at its highest resolution (720 ppi / 2880x1440 dpi) doesn't look or feel like a contact print - I've done many tests of this. With careful processing of the file it can credibly mimic a modest enlargement from the negative, though there will still be differences between the look-and-feel of ink on paper and that of a silver image on silver-gelatin paper. You'll have to try it for yourself to decide whether you find the two kinds of print comparably satisfying as a final product for your work.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks, I am guessing that the file size from an 8x10 negative must be quite large? Does the output from say an Epson printer still have that large/contact print feel to it? I have thinking of moving into this printer for a while..

Adding to what Oren said, I make 8x10 contact prints and they are sharp even when inspected with a 8x loupe, no digital printer beat that, but inkjet prints are also nice and sharp. To me (this is IMHO) a sound darkroom silver print sports unique beauty and an inkjet print cannot be compared, single problem is that a sound darkroom print (I try to learn that) is much more difficult to craft and often better results are obtained from hybrid or fully digital process.

A pure optical process sports beauty and authenticity, but it requires an skilled photographer in command.

In the hybrid workflow you have to be careful to not ruin sharpness in the size transformations, you may have resolving power in excess but at the same time the print may lack sharpness because of the pixel level accutance has not been well managed.

[rdeloe]

Scanning isn't easy, and making a good quality inkjet print isn't easy. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise! As with any technical activity, there's a steep learning curve, lots of different ways to do things, and a high prospect of mediocre results until you figure out how things work so that you can get the results you want.

I liked the black and white silver gelatin prints I used to make. I like the black and white inkjet prints I now make. I've printed the same negative both ways and have concluded that "better" is not a useful concept. The silver gelatin version is not better than the inkjet version in any meaningful way. It's just different in some important ways (and vice versa). Only you can decide which technology will satisfy you.

One last thought for the OP: Don't jump on scanning and inkjet printing because you think they'll be easier and more straightforward than optical printing. They're not.

[Pere Casals]

One last thought for the OP: Don't jump on scanning and inkjet printing because you think they'll be easier and more straightforward than optical printing. They're not.

I don't agree. Hybrid processing is way, way easier than darkroom printing, with Photoshop you bend the tonal curve like you want, you have layers, you dodge and burn like you want.. etc, etc, etc...

Adjusting the print in the darkroom can be very challenging, with every mistake you waste paper and time, and we may require advanced techniques like CRM, SCIM, etc to obtain what you do with two clicks in Photoshop.

[rdeloe]

I've done both, and I teach digital photography, so I have a good basis for comparison. In my experience, it's not difficult for someone who has the equipment to get to the stage of reliably making mediocre prints fairly quickly. Getting to the stage of making excellent prints that are worth looking at? That involves a lot more effort and knowledge (for both silver gelatin printing and inkjet printing).

I don't agree. Hybrid processing is way, way easier than darkroom printing, with Photoshop you bend the tonal curve like you want, you have layers, you dodge and burn like you want.. etc, etc, etc...

Adjusting the print in the darkroom can be very challenging, with every mistake you waste paper and time, and we may require advanced techniques like CRM, SCIM, etc to obtain what you do with two clicks in Photoshop.

[sanking]

I've done both, and I teach digital photography, so I have a good basis for comparison. In my experience, it's not difficult for someone who has the equipment to get to the stage of reliably making mediocre prints fairly quickly. Getting to the stage of making excellent prints that are worth looking at? That involves a lot more effort and knowledge (for both silver gelatin printing and inkjet printing).

I agree with you. Making excellent prints in any media involves a lot of expertise and knowledge. It involves select application of understanding that is aesthetic in formation, and technical in application.

"Scanning isn't easy, and making a good quality inkjet print isn't easy. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise! As with any technical activity, there's a steep learning curve, lots of different ways to do things, and a high prospect of mediocre results until you figure out how things work so that you can get the results you want."

Thanks for making the point.

Sandy

[Pere Casals]

...and technical in application...

(Disclaimer: not saying if a workflow is better or worse, this is Chacun à son goût)


Sandy, let me point why I think that a full optic process is way more challenging/difficult than an hybrid workflow. For example with Photoshop it's a kid's game to adjust the tonality to the point we want.


This is well known, but let me enumerate the easy basic steps:


> The range and levels for the mids are adjusted with two mouse clicks, we see (WYSWYG) a continuous variation in the image as we drag a point, so we nail it.





> The compression for the shadows and hilights are adjusted with two aditional clicks, so we give the range we want to the shoulder/toe also with WYSWYG convenience.




> Then "individual gamma" is adjusted both for mids, for highlights and for shadows, also with WYSWYG convenience !!!




Single challenge is having a good soft proofing, and printing a final mosaic proof with say 16 tinny images with slight contrast-bright combinations to see the effect with the particular paper-inks we use. Straight...


Then we can see how easy (WYSWYG, do-undo) is local edition, layers, adjustment layers, etc, etc...

(this is from I'm coming)

_______________________


Now let's see what happens in the darkroom:


> Yes, we may adjust the mids for the range and the levels: by determining grade and exposure. It takes quite a work to fine tune it, (it's not two clicks & WYSWYG) we may have to waste some paper until we have it ok. Well, more work but easy to do it.




>>> But this determines how the rest of the print will be !!!! We are tied to the resulting shoulder-toe, and to the local gamma we have in every place.



>>>
What can we do to adjust toe-shoulder extensions?
What can we do to adjust the "local gamma" in shulder and in the toe?
and the gamma in the mids ?

We may try changing the paper, but this may not solve much...



>>> we can go to Split Grade dodge/burning, CRM, SCIM or selective masking... these are advanced and challenging techniques... for what a rookie Ps user does with a few clicks the first day !!!


Yes, we may adjust all that in the darkroom, but it takes a master photographer-printer of the Sexton's size to do it in a divine way.


_______________________

This is IMHO, a personal opinion:

What amazes me is that being way more difficult controlling the pure analogic process those pure analogic prints from masters (IMHO) are pure gold, and consistently superior to all digital and hybrid around. I looks to me that a silver master artisan starts printing before shutter release.


IMHO it's like the sculptor's work... An sculptor may first make the main volumes, he has to determine were the head and a hand will be in the space, this is not for free, he has to hit a boulder with a hammer, if this early step is flawed no polishing will solve it later.


This requires to a full analogic artist to be a master of his tools, any pitfall in the process is dramatic, I'd say that this required proficency in the artists is what makes their average output better. Also the path followed in the creative process is of high value, sporting a remarkable authenticity.

(this is where I want to go, to the point I'm able)