Jump to content

New to film and printing; film-to-scan-to digital print...worse than wet print?


rpavich

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

I'm the proud new owner of an M6 classic and this will be my first real foray into shooting film. I have been shooting with a digital rangefinder and getting digital prints done and I've been happy...but...I recently (since purchasing the M6) started really looking at film files online and I have to say, that they have a quality that is more pleasing to my eye....the smoothness or gradations or something.

 

So I had planned to scan my negatives and then if I needed prints, send them to the place I normally get prints, but then I started wondering; are wet prints from real negatives visibly superior to digital prints? 

 

Would I even notice a difference?

 

In other words, does it negate the positive effects of shooting film if you interrupt the analogue path and turn it into a digital path at the end?

 

Does anyone even make those types of prints anymore?

 

 

Just wondering.

Edited by rpavich
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your questions are much debated, with varied opinions. Here are mine.

 

Scanning negatives and printing from files works well. You can 1) print on ink jet printers with a variety of options for inks etc, or 2) you can send the files to a few places (including Ilford) where they will print onto real silver gelatine paper using expensive laser technology.

 

I have done 2) above with very good success.

 

I also use a wet darkroom. I keep it simple, and I am constantly working to improve my technique. For me, the objective is a fine physical print. Images on the screen are fun, but they miss the point.

 

My experience (this week) has been interesting to me. I needed a wedding present for an old friend who is remarrying. I decided to give a matted and framed print. I had previously had the image printed via the scan-send to Ilford-laser print onto silver paper route. That print is on my wall. This time I decided to make the new print myself.

 

For the earlier print, I adjusted the final file to give the best possible interpretation I could, before sending the file to Ilford, and the result on its own is very nice (I am proud to show it). But the hand made print from my darkroom is very much better – the difference is self-evident when the two prints are viewed side-by-side.

 

Now I am not the world’s best printer, but I am quite good at it. I know what a good print looks like (in my experience many people don’t – they make bad prints and excuse themselves by saying that it is “their interpretation” – bad prints are just bad prints). In that sense I also can fairly effectively extract good things from Photoshop Elements and Silver Efex Pro.

 

So my experience is that in my hands, silver prints made directly from negatives in a darkroom are better than even the best scanning and printing method.

 

Other will likely disagree – but based on what I have available (I think the best there is), they are wrong. I am not giving up my darkroom or silver paper printing. The art and craft is very far from defunct. To anyone who is willing to learn the craft, I strongly recommend it.

Edited by Michael Hiles
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:) Ilford has a UK facility and one in California. The California one outsources the work, I believe. I have had success with the British facility www.ilfordlab.com. In the United States there is also Digital Silver Imaging in Boston. I have tried them, and the results were excellent. www.Digitalsilverimaging.com. There are certainly/probably others.

 

Best of luck. Enjoy your M6.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ,

Michel has said all. I also prefer the silver photo paper 
The principle is not the same for print inkjet (ink deposited on paper)

and print on photographic paper (deep impression of silver salts of the paper).

 

Enjoy your M6. It's a good camera. :)

Best

Henry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My opinion is that with B&W film a wet print that is properly dodged and burned will be about as good as it gets.  I personally cannot replicate the sharpness and the blacks (in the right places) with light jet prints, even using Whitewall's Ilford baryta paper process.  I am not an expert with PP and don't know PS, and so I wouldn't be surprised if the experts among us can achieve the same results with digital prints.  But I cannot.  When I want to make a print, my workflow is to dodge and burn my B&W scan in LR and then email it to my lab to share with the person who will make my wet print.  The jpeg, along with some explanatory notes, goes a long way toward conveying what I want to get out of my negative.

 

Another point to make is that B&W film generally will scan more grainy than it actually is.  So a scan of a 50 or 100 ISO film negative will not look as clean as it would in a wet print.  
 

Here is an example of a B&W photo that I recently had (wet) printed at my lab on Ilford multi-grade fiber paper.  The printer did a good job of matching my processing, with nicely sharp and clean lines and punchy contrast).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

The size was 12"x12".  The cost was about $120.

With color, I find that there is a little less flexibility with wet prints unless you want to go crazy and spend lots of time and money.  A good scan will replicate film like colors and tones.  And effective PP will optimize the image to comport with the mood that you are after.  So I think that, provided you have a good scan, you should be able to be very satisfied with a digital print that will look and feel like its from film.

Here is an example of a file that I just emailed my lab along with giving them the negative (from Kodak Ektar).  I did not WB or other color or saturation changes, and I am asking them to see if they can come close to the colors of this image.  I did bring down the highlights in the sky a bit, which I'm hoping hat they can also do. 

An 8x10 analog print would be $45.

 

 
FWIW, I will point out that there is no longer any such thing as wet printing from slide film.  It is all scanned and digitally prints nowadays.

Edited by A miller
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Michael brought up many great points with which I agree.  Printing is an art as much as a science, and some do wonders with minimal gear, and some can't make gorgeous prints even with the finest equipment and materials.  What's between the ears is often more important than the tools.  As he said, many people don't know what a great print looks like, and therefore are unable to discern when, where and how much to edit....and that's true in film or digital.  Scanning is another process requiring skill and judgment, added to everything else.

 

After building and using 4 darkrooms over several decades, I fully transitioned to digital 6 years ago, but still make my own prints....I would never relinquish that control.  I don't compare inkjet versus silver prints....they are different, not better or worse IMO.  I've made crappy prints in both mediums, and I've made some beauties in each.  In the end, if the image is wonderful, and if the print 'sings', nobody cares about the gear or process used....especially not me.  I mat, frame and display them side by side, along with collected prints from others.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...