"Straight" Prints

[DavidStone]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK folks, I need some advice and information.

 

I've got myself a decent scanner, and I've started to scan some of my 35mm BW negs, many of which have not been printed. And I have (so far) an A4 printer with a continuous-flow BW ink system, which works very well.

 

And scanning, as a test, some negs that I have already got 20x16 inch bromide prints from, and making side-by-side print comparisons, I realise that I need the kind of controls - mainly dodging and burning-in - that I had in the darkroom.

 

No doubt Photoshop will do this, but I'd be paying a lot of money for a lot of features that I just don't want, or need, so I'm not willing to go that way.

 

I have PSE v.6, but almost the only use I make of it is for printing M8 files processed in C1, or in RPP.

 

Can I do basic dodging and burning in PSE, maybe using graduated layers, for example (showing my almost complete ignorance here)? I can't find this in the Help file. There seems to be a v.8 now out (I use a Mac), but that's maybe no improvement. Or is there some software that is designed for people like me, who are not interested in gimmicks?

 

I bought, optimistically, a copy of Iris, which looked promising, but it's not that stable, and the company seems to have lost interest in it, so that seems to be a dead-end.

 

Any suggestions?

 

David

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Marquinius]

David,

 

I stopped using PSE as it is really "elementary" . Why not invest in less than € 200 and buy Lightroom? It'll do your printing A-Okay and will let you burn and dodge with a fantastic brush thingy.

 

You can even kit PSE as a secondary tool from withn Lightroom, so you can still use those smart tools PSE offers (does it? )

[DavidStone]

David,

 

I stopped using PSE as it is really "elementary" . Why not invest in less than € 200 and buy Lightroom? It'll do your printing A-Okay and will let you burn and dodge with a fantastic brush thingy.

 

You can even kit PSE as a secondary tool from withn Lightroom, so you can still use those smart tools PSE offers (does it? )

 

Marco,

 

The problem with PSE is that, while being "elementary" it's also full of stuff that's of no interest to me. Which is why I wondered if, buried in it, there was some way of doing some basic darkroom-type adjustments - like burning in a sky tone, for instance.

 

I downloaded a trial copy of Lightroom 3 beta, but this seems to belong to the same family, and I found it so visually unattractive, and full of (mistaken) assumptions about the way I wanted to work that I gave up. I looked at its "grain" feature as a matter of curiosity, and could hardly stop laughing, it was so hopelessly unlike film grain. It's possible that it might do the job. I'll take another look.

 

Most of this kind of software seems to be aimed at computer-users rather than photographers who are coming from film. That's probably why I can't find what I'd like to find.

 

David

[Marquinius]

David,

 

The best tip I ever got was, when working in the digital workroom, forget about film. Digital is something else entirely and as long as you try to achieve digitally what you did through film, you'll be disappointed. So grain is out (as in "film like grain") and most of the way we used to manipulate film is out as well.

 

Go for the best digital workflow you can find and enjoy this new world as a new world.

[ericperlberg]

OK folks, I need some advice and information.

 

I've got myself a decent scanner, and I've started to scan some of my 35mm BW negs, many of which have not been printed. And I have (so far) an A4 printer with a continuous-flow BW ink system, which works very well.

 

And scanning, as a test, some negs that I have already got 20x16 inch bromide prints from, and making side-by-side print comparisons, I realise that I need the kind of controls - mainly dodging and burning-in - that I had in the darkroom.

 

No doubt Photoshop will do this, but I'd be paying a lot of money for a lot of features that I just don't want, or need, so I'm not willing to go that way.

 

I have PSE v.6, but almost the only use I make of it is for printing M8 files processed in C1, or in RPP.

 

Can I do basic dodging and burning in PSE, maybe using graduated layers, for example (showing my almost complete ignorance here)? I can't find this in the Help file. There seems to be a v.8 now out (I use a Mac), but that's maybe no improvement. Or is there some software that is designed for people like me, who are not interested in gimmicks?

 

I bought, optimistically, a copy of Iris, which looked promising, but it's not that stable, and the company seems to have lost interest in it, so that seems to be a dead-end.

 

Any suggestions?

 

David

 

One person's gimmick is another person's staple. It's been awhile since I even bothered reading about Photoshop Elements but it used to be that you couldn't do layers or masking in it (necessary for doing dodging and burning) without jumping through hoops. Since you don't like Lightroom (at the moment the only raw converter which can do localised adjustments, ie, selective dodging and burning) and you don't want to spend the dosh on Photoshop, here are a few alternatives all of which are vastly less expensive than Photoshop (I have no personal experience with them, but you can google them to find reviews, etc):

 

Lightzone

Aurora

Acorn

Pixelmator

 

Also, you can apparently use viveza to add the equivalent of masks and layers to Photoshop elements 6. I use in Lightroom and photoshop and its very nice IMO but YMMV. It will also work in Aperture which you've undoubtably looked into...

[GCHA]

I have been using Picture Window Pro 3.5 for about six years, and have found it very adequate for all my work. They now have version 5.0 which I have not used yet. It offers some additional features for RAW work-flo. I have been using C1 for all my RAW conversions with good results.

[ericperlberg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been using Picture Window Pro 3.5 for about six years, and have found it very adequate for all my work. They now have version 5.0 which I have not used yet. It offers some additional features for RAW work-flo. I have been using C1 for all my RAW conversions with good results.

 

Picture Window Pro requires Windows.

[DavidStone]

OK,OK,OK I take it all back - or some of it.

 

I went back to LR3 beta, found the graduated filter, applied it where it was needed and printed out the result. Took about five minutes. I still prefer the "feel" of C1 over LR, but so far it seems likely that LR might indeed be an answer. I'll persist. But in one sense I disagree with Marco in his "forget about film" quote. I'm here starting from a scan of a negative, and I'm aiming for, and approaching, what I would expect to achieve in the darkroom, which is what I was asking about. In the end a good print is a good print. Thanks for your input, folks. I might just put down my money on LR. And since I can print directly from it, I can throw PSE in the bin.

 

David

[Jeff S]

While obvious, it's good that you recognize that the entire post-capture workflow must be optimized to create great bw results. I did darkroom work for 25 years and now enjoy wonderful results from an all digital workflow. I don't scan, but whether one scans or shoots digitally, the file must be good to start with. I trust you've worked out the front end successfully.

 

For me, LR does just fine for basic editing once I have a decent file with which to work. I don't use most of the features...just enough to get the job done. And, the other features never get in my way. As in my darkroom days, I try to learn the tools and stick with a disciplined process.

 

But, none of that would matter without investing the same time and effort in the rest of the process. I stayed away from digital bw until I was clear that the printers, papers and inks were up to the task. Even then, learning how they best connect...drivers, profiles, etc...and learning how to extract the most has taken time. I continue to find ways to make incremental improvements.

 

I don't compare my bw ink prints to silver prints. That doesn't mean, however, that the results can't be quite impressive. I try to remember, too, that it took quite a while to get to this point in the darkroom. The tools are now available to do the job digitally, and which ones you choose seems less important than fitting them in to your own disciplined approach.

 

Jeff

[Marquinius]

But in one sense I disagree with Marco in his "forget about film" quote. I'm here starting from a scan of a negative, and I'm aiming for, and approaching, what I would expect to achieve in the darkroom, which is what I was asking about. In the end a good print is a good print.

 

Ah, I stand corrected. You start out with a scan of a negative, I forgot that. So indeed grain etc is in and you can hardly forget about film . I'll let you decide if you want to add extra grain through software or use the grain from the film.

[DavidStone]

Ah, I stand corrected. You start out with a scan of a negative, I forgot that. So indeed grain etc is in and you can hardly forget about film . I'll let you decide if you want to add extra grain through software or use the grain from the film.

 

In fact, I'm using mainly my M8 these days, so I do start from digital files, but I've got a large collection of BW negs, some of which have not been printed, and I'm just getting into the backlog, now that I have a scanner. And I'm still shooting film ocasionally, including 120.

 

My aim is the same as it has always been. Good BW prints. As I said, a good print is a good print, regardless of the way in which it was produced. So my criteria remain the same as they always were.

 

And having spent so many years making bromide prints, I find that the best way to get to grips with the digital equivalent is to make analogies with darkroom printing. Not that this would work for everyone, of course, but it means that I can start from a solid knowledge base, and a known objective, while getting to grips with a new set of tools.

 

But thanks for pushing me towards LR. I was under the misapprehension that it was directly comparable to C1, but it's a lot more than that, and I'm slowly getting into it. I think that I'll stick with LR3b until it comes up for sale, rather than buying LR2. I've had a couple of half-decent prints so far, so I'll keep heading in that direction.

 

And LR seems to be able to open anything I throw at it, including the weird X3F files from the Foveon senson of my Sigma DP1, which is impressive.

 

So far so good.

David

[Marquinius]

David,

 

What fun: I just bought a Mamiya RZ67 for a couple of hundred bucks and am finding my way into 120 film. I'll scan and work through LR, as a real dark room is a bit much for me

 

As for printing in LR: perhaps you already noticed it and work with it, but is imperative that in the print mode you choose the correct numbers and settings. In another thread I learned that for an Epson printer the dpi should be set at 288, although 300 is close enough. Also the media type and sharpening should be thought about. Last but least choose the correct color management (ICC profile). I downloaded several for my papers, amongst others from Harmann and from Innova.

 

Oh well. have fun!