Leica MP - Film printing question

[dkmoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not sure if this question should be posted in the Leica M camera section or another section so please feel free to move this if needed.

 

Can a print made from ultra high resolution scans come out as good as prints made directly from the processed film?

 

Or, another way to put my question: are prints made directly from processed film going to have a different look/outcome?

 

I have an Epson 3880 that makes awesome prints from my digital Leica's.

 

Thanks for your tips and answers,

 

D

[pico]

Can a print made from ultra high resolution scans come out as good as prints made directly from the processed film?

Or, another way to put my question: are prints made directly from processed film going to have a different look/outcome?

[... pardon my clip ...]

 

Are you asking how an optically printed film using an enlarger compares to an ink-jet print from a scan?

Presuming equal sensor (24X36mm),  print size & same viewing distance.

Color or B&W?

Edited October 6, 2018 by pico

[dkmoore]

Yes, sorry. It took me 86 words to ask that simple question. 

 

All 24X36 (Leica MP)

 

Shooting both B&W and color.  (Kodak Porta, Fuji Velvia, Koda Tri X, Koda Ektar is what I have now. Testing a variety to see which I like the best)

 

Size range: 8X10" to 12X18" prints. 

[dkmoore]

Are you asking how an optically printed film using an enlarger compares to an ink-jet print from a scan?

Presuming equal sensor (24X36mm),  print size & same viewing distance.

Color or B&W?

 

 

Yes, sorry. It took me 86 words to ask that simple question. 

 

All 24X36 (Leica MP)

 

Shooting both B&W and color.  (Kodak Porta, Fuji Velvia, Koda Tri X, Koda Ektar is what I have now. Testing a variety to see which I like the best)

 

Size range: 8X10" to 12X18" prints. 

[250swb]

 

Size range: 8X10" to 12X18" prints. 

 

At those print sizes I don't think you should see a difference in quality. The actual difference will be the paper the inkjet is printed on, but choose the right one and the detail, the texture, the reflectivity and the depth and tone (especially with B&W) and it will get you very, very close to a darkroom print. But choose the wrong one at it can look awful.

[dkmoore]

At those print sizes I don't think you should see a difference in quality. The actual difference will be the paper the inkjet is printed on, but choose the right one and the detail, the texture, the reflectivity and the depth and tone (especially with B&W) and it will get you very, very close to a darkroom print. But choose the wrong one at it can look awful.

 

 

Thanks for the info and tip above.

 

I'm using an Epson 3880 at home and I use their Exhibition fibre paper mostly (probably too much). I have gotten the best results from that paper out of the paper's I've tried from Epson. 

 

Any other paper types you recommend that I branch out and try? 

[Ouroboros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/6/2018 at 8:44 PM, dkmoore said:

Not sure if this question should be posted in the Leica M camera section or another section so please feel free to move this if needed.

 

Can a print made from ultra high resolution scans come out as good as prints made directly from the processed film?

 

Or, another way to put my question: are prints made directly from processed film going to have a different look/outcome?

 

I have an Epson 3880 that makes awesome prints from my digital Leica's.

 

Thanks for your tips and answers,

 

D

I'm not sure what you mean by 'ultra high resolution scans', but a straight comparison between a digital print and an optical print will depend on numerous combined factors and stages involved in producing respective prints.

Digital prints from scans can be superior to optical prints (specifically; 'sharper', more detailed and infinite localised detail and tonal control) and you have a wider range of materials available to print on.  However, a well-crafted wet print on fibre-based paper by a skilled darkroom printer cannot be matched for it's opulent tones and tactile, organic appeal.  

I realise that doesn't answer your question, but aesthetic subjectivity or a preference for one process over the other are the key to making prints with either option. 

If I were buying a print and had the choice of optical vs digital, as a photographer, I'd take a flawless optical print over a digital print because the notion of 'soul' that is encapsulated in the manual construction of the print would be impossible to ignore. 

    

[dkmoore]

1 hour ago, Ouroboros said:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'ultra high resolution scans', but a straight comparison between a digital print and an optical print will depend on numerous combined factors and stages involved in producing respective prints.

Digital prints from scans can be superior to optical prints (specifically; 'sharper', more detailed and infinite localised detail and tonal control) and you have a wider range of materials available to print on.  However, a well-crafted wet print on fibre-based paper by a skilled darkroom printer cannot be matched for it's opulent tones and tactile, organic appeal.  

I realise that doesn't answer your question, but aesthetic subjectivity or a preference for one process over the other are the key to making prints with either option. 

If I were buying a print and had the choice of optical vs digital, as a photographer, I'd take a flawless optical print over a digital print because the notion of 'soul' that is encapsulated in the manual construction of the print would be impossible to ignore. 

    

You did answer my question actually and I appreciate the feedback. Both can be equally as good in different ways but like most things, depends on the person's preferences. 

I mostly wanted to verify that I wouldn't be losing quality by printing from a scan. 

[pico]

13 minutes ago, dkmoore said:

I mostly wanted to verify that I wouldn't be losing quality by printing from a scan. 

Don't over-scan (IOW, don't necessarily believe the manufacturers' claims), use an adequate printer, good PP and you should be okay. An optical enlargement is always diminished by the enlarging lens. We are talking 35mm here so contact printing is not being considered.

[dkmoore]

3 minutes ago, pico said:

Don't over-scan (IOW, don't necessarily believe the manufacturers' claims), use an adequate printer, good PP and you should be okay. An optical enlargement is always diminished by the enlarging lens. We are talking 35mm here so contact printing is not being considered.

Thank you for the tip. I'm finding the scans are coming back 48" X 28" @ 72 DPI. 

I am able to print images from these scans on my Epson 3880 set to 300 DPI at 10 X 16 and the images look ok.

I'm not really sure of the math to convert to determine the actual resolution at 10 X 16. I'm probably not understanding correctly which is why I am doing test prints.

[Ouroboros]

1 hour ago, dkmoore said:

I mostly wanted to verify that I wouldn't be losing quality by printing from a scan. 

You absolutely would not be losing quality making prints from scans,  I've been doing it for years.

As with everything, there is a learning process and the key is to master your black and white film and developer choices and your scanning technique to produce a low contrast file, ideally with no highlight or shadow clipping as a starting point. With colour negative or transparency film, 'correct' exposure is key.

Where you go from there in post and choice of substrate is when you will create your own look in your photography.  From film selection to print output, your aesthetic options with the hybrid route exceed those of making traditional wet prints.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Ouroboros

[Martin B]

For B&W, there is a big difference between doing the pure analog process from film to darkroom printing compared to scanning the film and then printing the digitized image on an inkjet printer. I am doing both processes including a hybrid process between analog and digital with so-called digital negatives which I make myself. B&W prints on silver gelatin IMO always look better from B&W film photos especially when it comes to contrast, shadows, and grey tones. So far I was not able to simulate the same outcome with my Canon PIXMA-100 inkjet printer which is otherwise a very good one. 

Different story for color photos: I printed a few times from color negatives in my darkroom with the RA-4 process, but the outcome did not convince me that the result was too distinguishable from a good inkjet color print. Therefore I digitize my color slide and negative photos and make inkjet prints of selected files afterwards. To avoid any kind of grainy look, color slide film is the best option here. 

A special case is in my infrared photography which I do all digitally. I found that similar to my experience with B&W photos, darkroom prints turn out better. To accomplish this, I make 4x5" inkjet-printed negatives from selected digital IR files (named digital negatives). After undergoing a bit cumbersome one-time printer/developer/paper calibration process (it creates a tonal adjustment curve which needs to be applied to the digital file before printing the negative), I am very happy with the results here. 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Martin B