Scan v enlarging

[Don'tknowmuch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello all.

Given that I'm scanning and fiddling with images in Photoshop, which qualities of a lens/film/developer can I expect to survive?

To elaborate; I have sourced these old uncoated Elmars and hope to exploit their characterics low-contrast "vintage look" (which is a bit undefined, I grant you) but that there is a difference with more modern lenses is clear.)

Now, if I am then making decisions during scanning and then altering curves and contrast and so on, am I being daft expecting any of the Elmar-ness to survive?

I realise I can decide to work on images less, but the scanning process itself demands decsions about where tones fall and image-contrast that I can't avoid even if I wanted to, and then it's very hard to print that scan straight off when the image clearly needs a bit of tidying up.

Any thoughts?

Jim.

[kodaktrix]

Getting this special characteristics of old lenses is no problem with scanning, as long as Your scanner is capable of producing a wider grey scale. A density range of above 3.6 should do it. I know it works with Imacon, Artixscan 4000tf, Minolta 5400 (1.version). Before You buy a scanner, do testscans to proof that.

 

Regards

 

Oliver

[kenneth]

I don't think you can beat chemicals and an enlarger but I am a total digital Neanderthal who steadfastly believes that digital photography is a separate art form and as such should be viewed that way.

 

I don't deny that digital photography has a place and I am sure it is a real boom to busy professional photojournalists, sport photographers and others who make their living from the medium. But I am a retired amateur with plenty of free time with no dead lines to meet so film + Leica M camera and a couple of lenses fulfill my needs

[tgray]

I don't buy the whole "scanning destroys the filmness of it" thing. Films still retain their characteristics and the characteristics of the lens used even if scanned.

 

That being said, one can destroy those characteristics with digital manipulation if you so desire. If its a really low contrast lens and a low contrast film+dev combo, be aware if you crank on the curves in photoshop, you might lose that look.

 

The one thing that scanning negatives by nature doesn't capture is the wet printing process. Certain developers, papers, toners, and techniques impart certain looks to your print. You will be forgoing that step and the related characteristics if you go the scanning route.

 

I love scanning film. I like wet printing too, but I'm just kind of a hack at it. They both work for me.

[buckhorn_cortez]

Hello all.

Given that I'm scanning and fiddling with images in Photoshop' date=' which qualities of a lens/film/developer can I expect to survive?

To elaborate; I have sourced these old uncoated Elmars and hope to exploit their characterics low-contrast "vintage look" (which is a bit undefined, I grant you) but that there is a difference with more modern lenses is clear.)

Now, if I am then making decisions during scanning and then altering curves and contrast and so on, am I being daft expecting any of the Elmar-ness to survive?

I realise I can decide to work on images less, but the scanning process itself demands decsions about where tones fall and image-contrast that I can't avoid even if I wanted to, and then it's very hard to print that scan straight off when the image clearly needs a bit of tidying up.

Any thoughts?

Jim.[/quote']

 

Why don't you work the problem backwards? What it the final print aesthetic you want to achieve? If you answer that question - you will know the workflow you need.

 

Neither the wet darkroom nor the digital lightroom are simple once you get past making rudimentary prints. You have to master the processes involved. I'd suggest you think about the print aesthetic and the workflow in which you think you can achieve the look you want.

 

You should be able to translate the vintage lenses characteristics with a digital workflow - but, I'd question the aesthetic unless you're using a glossy paper and the appropriate inkset. B&W printing digitally is a whole world unto itself with software like Quadtone RIP, special inksets, etc.

 

Then ask yourself - have you ever really seen an inkjet paper that looks exactly like an air dried "F" surface? I haven't. Lot's of papers come "close" - but, close doesn't count....

 

On the other hand...you could get the vintage lens look and carry it even further by making prints that look more art print like through the use of textured papers...that's why I think you need define the look of the final print first...and the rest will naturally fall into place.

[Don'tknowmuch]

Thanks all. Just last night I looked at some prints and decided that the Elmar had given me the start of the look I'm after. Points taken about not undoing the characterisitcs of the lens in photoshop, finding a suitable paper and working backwards, and I think I'll get there.

In my mind was the point of whether I need to use the Elmar in order to achive the look I'm after, not so much whether I can get the look from an Elmar into the print. My conclusions last night were that the lens was essential in order to get the final prints as I like them, irrespective of the post-exposure process. Which is a good thing! The alternative was going back to an SLR and endeavouring to Elmarise the printed image. A shameful idea, I know, but underneath it all even purist photography is all tweaks and techniques, isn't it? Anyway I concluded that although one can adjust all sorts of parameters the charcater of the lens, the oringal exposure, always manifests itself irrespective of where you place midpoints and curves and so on. Thank goodness.

Jim.