First digital print from pro lab -- advise appreciated!

[bob carnie]

Jon
Though not a bad test, I still think you need to ask Metro for a mag strip test.
There are lots of variables at this point.

1. What paper did you use? Metro will be using a Gallerie 4 nuetral paper.
2. What Dev did you use?
3. Flare factor from the Enlarger Kit to that magnification
4. Type of scanner , and operator. Is Metro scanning?
5. PS workflow , who is doing this, Metro or someone else?

I am not trying to throw a wrench into the works but most Hi End Scanner operators will tell you that scanning is where crunch time happens.

Most Hi End PS workers will tell you a lot can happen good/bad at this stage.

My advice is to approach Metro with your project and work with them as much as you can through the process, and the resulting print will be model for future prints with them.
There are so many variables that they are experts on and can guide you through the scanning , PS requirements if you decide to handle this side yourself.

To answer your question regarding if the look should be the same. YES.
but if any short cuts or needless PS work is done to the file. NO

I started making fibre prints off a lambda in 2002 ( I used Agfa Classic) then switched to Harmon Gallerie when Agfa went under.
My lab is quite small and we do all our wet end in Trays rather than processors unlike most of the other labs.( We do a lot of post toning/washing to our prints and are blessed in Canada with lots of space , and reasonable rent to do this.

Therefore my experience is slightly different than the others whereas they may be running one roll a day , I would be lucky if I run one roll a month.
As well there is a human part of the process which unfortunately , is not as accurate as a processor machine therefore not as predictable and we are not able to pump out exact reproductions , like our inkjet or fuji lambda prints can.

Metro's experience will be vast , and I am sure there are operators on board who have made thousand's of these prints and can see any pitfalls with your files.

We are not far from Digital Enlargers becoming price sensitive to do this work, being placed in schools and this process really getting a workout.

For myself , I find it a very beautiful process and really compliments our Enlarger Prints, but the road to getting the best workflow can be daunting .

Bob

Thanks for all your comments. I have now had two 24"x20" traditional darkroom prints made from just a small segment of the 5x4 negative ....... it represented a 12x enlargement factor (ie, if the full-frame negative had been used, the print size would have been a bit under 60"x48").

I am pleased with the overall sharpness, and was particularly surprised at how grainfree the image remained.

If I was to get a drum-scan and digital 60"x48" print made, should I expect the sharpness and grain to be the same as the segment that I had done as a test? ........ ie, do you typically see any differences in resolution / grain between traditional wet printing and digital darkroom prints?

Many thanks

[Brian Ellis]

At 40x50 from 4x5 film you're talking about an approximate 10x enlargement. Did you ever make an 8x10 print from 35mm film? If so, were you happy with it? An 8x10 print from 35mm is roughly a 10x enlargement after cropping to fit 35mm into 8x10. So if you were happy with 8x10 from 35mm you'll probably be happy with 40x50 from 4x5, assuming the lab is up to the task. I can't comment on the lab, I know nothing about it or any other lab, I've never used one.

[Bruce Watson]

If I was to get a drum-scan and digital 60"x48" print made, should I expect the sharpness and grain to be the same as the segment that I had done as a test? ........ ie, do you typically see any differences in resolution / grain between traditional wet printing and digital darkroom prints?

I've got a fair amount of experience drum scanning B&W, as do several other forum members here. I have no experience with your printing workflow however, and much depends on how it's printed and on the paper and it's surface.

In general, I would expect the drum scan to be somewhat sharper. Why? Because you don't have the optical losses of the enlarger lens, or the optical enlarger mechanical alignment issues. The question is, how big a difference will it be? That's impossible to know because every enlarger is different, as is every drum scanner. You really have to make test prints to find out.

As to graininess, they will be different. Why? Because scanners can't accurately image film grain. Here's an excellent paper by Tim Vitale that goes a long way to explaining what film grain really is, and will give you some clues as to why a scanner won't actually image it. What a scanner will do is give you a digital approximation that I call "digital grain." How this will look in a print depends much on the printing device and the paper. You'll have to make test prints to find out.

So... it seem so me that you've only completed half your testing. You've made an enlarger print, now you need to get the drum scan done, of the same sheet of film, and print the same part of the film to the same enlargement level, and to the same physical size. You want as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as you can make it.