Thoughts on scanning

[another view]

I love the look of a really well crafted B&W print. The tonality, depth and feel of it is something that seems like it's becoming a lost art. I know the best way to make this happen is to do it myself, and that it will take years of shooting, developing and printing to get there. I'm OK with that, but I don't have access to a darkroom and really don't have a good useable spot in my house to set one up (basement occasionally gets a little water).

So - for now I just don't see having the ability to start down the road to making good prints. I came to that conclusion awhile back when I first got interested in developing film, but figured I'd learn about processing film which is fun in it's own right. I have a so-so scanner but started to get some decent results after experimenting with it. Decent, not great - a better scanner might help as well as more time spent with it.

Here's the question, is it worth it? Or let me rephrase - what looks "better", a scanned negative or digital capture (DSLR file) with b&w manipulation, when both on-line viewing and prints are the desired end product? "Better" to me probably needs some explaination; some favorites are Tri-X in D-76, Tmax 3200 at 1600 in Tmax developer but also the ability to get fine-grained (not necessarily grain free) results even at high speeds. I know what ISO1600 looks like on a couple different films even with a pro lab developing it, and DSLR's are cleaner. But noise doesn't look like grain - to me, anyway.

Thoughts? I'm not trying to skew the responses by posting this in the Film Forum... I know that some of you (yeah, you Paul ) have experience with both media and probably understand what I'm talking about - even if I'm not so sure myself!

[Xia_Ke]

I will completely agree that DSLRs offer a "cleaner" b&w. Personally, I don't think you can replicate the look/feel of scanned B&W film with a digital camera 99% of the time though. If you like clean images, digital is probably the best for you but, if you like even a touch of the grainy look, there is not beating film.

I'm curious why you think you don't have room for a darkroom. I have a small bathroom that I plan to use and I'll just store everything in the closet in the meantime. Of course we'll see how this works in practice compared to in theory...LOL I should hopefully have something up and going by the end of January as we get a nice profit sharing check from work around the middle of the month

[photophorous]

If you really want the traditional look of B&W prints, you have to do it the traditional way. But, scanning film and printing digitally will get you much much closer than doing digital camera conversions. Judging from the examples you give, I don’t think the super clean look is what you’re after. I’ve made a few prints from B&W conversions of photos I made with my D70s, and they look just like they do on my computer screen…weird. This is obviously a subjective thing, but I don’t like it. I look at it and think, “that’s just wrong.”

I’ve only made one print from a scan I made, because up until recently I didn’t think the scanner I had was good enough to make it worthwhile. The one print I just made was from a Provia slide and it exceeded my expectations at 12x18. I never thought I could print 35mm that big, but now I know it is not a stretch. Of course, printing a B&W shot with big fat grain, you may not want to go that big, but you could. I plan to make some prints from B&W negative scans pretty soon and I’ll let you know how it goes. But, I don’t think you need to see a print to see the difference between a neg scan and a digital conversion. The differences are obvious on my monitor.

My opinion of scanning B&W film and printing digitally is that it allows you to get the best of both worlds. This is different from the traditional look, but not by a whole lot, and I think it has the potential to be better…in some ways. It's not easy though. A lot of work goes into cleaning up those non-ICE scans.

The biggest area where digital prints are lacking is the paper. If you print on regular inkjet paper (such as an order from Winkflash, for example) your photos will look pretty much the same as RC photographic paper prints from a wet darkroom. These are nice, but the traditional look we all drool over is usually from fiber-based paper. Printing on your own printer will give you access to a big selection of inkjet papers, many of which are designed to mimic fiber paper. The average print shop for digital shooters doesn’t offer them, although I know Mpix has one. I don’t know how good they actually are, but I suspect some of them are pretty good. If I ever get to a point where I'm making lots of prints or showing my work, I'll have to get my own printer. But before I do that, I'll do more research on what the professional print shops offer.

I know what you’re going through. I was thinking a lot about this back in May when I was trying to decide if spending a bunch of money on a Bessa made sense, knowing I wouldn’t be able to build a darkroom. I finally decided it was worth the risk for other reasons; mostly just the way I get along with a RF and the way film makes me slow down and think more. But shortly after that I went to a coffee house show of a local street photographer’s work. (www.david-keenan.com) I knew he was using various RF cameras and 35mm film, and I was amazed at the quality of his prints. I had never seen anything like them, even in my darkroom days, so I emailed him to ask if they were traditional darkroom prints. Nope. They were made from Minolta 5400dpi scans and printed on 13x19 paper with one of those Epson printers that uses multi-tone grey and black inks. From that moment on, I knew I needed to invest in a better scanner, and I’ve hardly touched my D70s.

Paul

[Greg McCary]

I know that the scans from the labs are good and bad. I run some of the scans through Neat Image and if you buy the full version it doesn't make the image blurry. As for printers my boss has a HP 130R and uses HP paper and his prints are better than anything I have got from MPIX. Don't get me wrong MPIX is good but the HP is a little better. Staples has the same HP 130R and the prints are very bad. It all has to do with how the printer is set up and who is operating it. My boss takes the time to calibarate his printer.

[reverberation]

There is software available now that mimics the look of different film stock (a photoshop plugin). There are also ways to get more realistic B&W conversions via photoshop. You can get coated canvas to print on. You could also get really grainy paper stock from a paper supply company. The office supply stores simply do not offer anything that is very useful paper wise.

Just doing the negatives is pretty smart, in my opinion. The money you spend on your scanner will translate into free time. I got a ninety dollar scanner and get ninety dollar scans. I usually only remove the dust from my scans, then post them. I simply don't have the time.

[JSPhoto]

I will completely agree that DSLRs offer a "cleaner" b&w. Personally, I don't think you can replicate the look/feel of scanned B&W film with a digital camera 99% of the time though. If you like clean images, digital is probably the best for you but, if you like even a touch of the grainy look, there is not beating film.

I know one guy who does use a digital for B&W and does a pretty nice job of making it look like it was done with film. He said his secret is using slightly older DSLR's like the 300D and bumping the ISO up and then doing his post processing using some actions he made to "work the noise" up or down as needed. He's won some awards for it so he must be doing something right :thumbsup:

JS

[mjs1973]

I recently took a class that was taught by a pro comercial/fine art (B&W) photog. He owns his own photo lab as well. He shoots mostly MF film, but has recently started shooting with a 30D. All of his fine art B&W work is still shot on film. Color negative film that is. Then it's scaned and porcess and printed digitally. He said he gets better scans, and better results by shooting with a color negative (Portra) film than he can with a traditional B&W film. He considered himself to be pretty good in the traditional dark room, but said he can get better results scanning and printing digitally.

I realize that "better" is a pretty subjective term, and may mean something different for you.

I loved the time I spent in the darkroom, but my time there was pretty limited, and I only printed on glossy RC paper. I have yet to duplicate that look with digital, but I haven't really tried either.

I think that the only way to really know if you can get the look you want, is to try doing it both ways, and seeing what you get.

[Xia_Ke]

I know one guy who does use a digital for B&W and does a pretty nice job of making it look like it was done with film. He said his secret is using slightly older DSLR's like the 300D and bumping the ISO up and then doing his post processing using some actions he made to "work the noise" up or down as needed. He's won some awards for it so he must be doing something right :thumbsup:

JS

Sorry, 99% was probably a little high. I am by no means saying it can't be done. I've managed to get pretty close. Here's the same scene. Without checking EXIF, which is film and which is digital?

[another view]

I've managed to get pretty close. Here's the same scene. Without checking EXIF, which is film and which is digital?

1 = digital
2 = film

I'll email you a beer if I'm wrong...

Thanks for all the comments - I haven't had a chance to read and absorb everything yet, but the overall is what I expected. I found a similar and recent thread on another site and haven't had a chance to read thru that one either - but one reply from someone who sounded like a moderator was that they thought it was a troll. Hardly! This isn't film vs digital like the usual wide-open arguments, but something specific.

[photophorous]

Sorry, 99% was probably a little high. I am by no means saying it can't be done. I've managed to get pretty close. Here's the same scene. Without checking EXIF, which is film and which is digital?

With these kinds of shots, especially viewed at this size, it really is hard to tell them apart. I'd be guessing if I said one or the other. But, I will take a chance and say that which ever one was done on film was done with a tabular grained film, like Tmax. If you compared a digital shot to a TriX / D76 shot, it would be obvious, even at this size. So, it really depends on what kind of look you're going for.

[Xia_Ke]

...which ever one was done on film was done with a tabular grained film, like Tmax. If you compared a digital shot to a TriX / D76 shot, it would be obvious, even at this size...

You are correct. This was shot with TMAX. If it was Tri-X you would definitely know the difference. The above was my closest attempt for replicating B&W film

Those of you that mentioned photographers that achieved film look with digital, do you know of any links to tutorials on how they did it?

[photophorous]

The above was my closest attempt for replicating B&W film

Both of your shots look good, and I like your conversion. I think you did very well with it. I think if you're going to shoot landscape shots with 35mm B&W, very fine grain film is almost a requirement. (just my opinion, of course) For medium or large format, the more traditional films work well, but I don't like to see a bunch of big fat grain in a landscape shot. I do like to see big fat grain in other types of photos though.

[Xia_Ke]

I agree for the most part. Though sometimes I like the dark landscapes with tons of grain. Guess it all depends on the effect you are going for.

And yes, a_v you are correct. Damn, and I was really looking forward to a beer :cryin:

[mtbbrian]

My thoughts..
A "wet print" from a negative is far surperior than a print from a scanned negative.
I have a few photographs that I have both types of prints from and the wet print is far better.
Here's an eaxmple:

In the digital print of this photograph, there is some detail in the floor of the pool that is missing in the digital print. But in the wet print, the detail in the pool floor is there.
I realize that it could be my scanner or something like that, but if it is possible I will always get a wet print made from my film photographs.
With my slide film photographs, there isn't anyone who makes Ilfochrome prints, so I have no other choice. But for my color negative and b&w photographs I ALWAYS get wet prints made, becasue they are SUPERIOR!
:thumbsup:
Brian

[another view]

If you really want the traditional look of B&W prints, you have to do it the traditional way. But, scanning film and printing digitally will get you much much closer than doing digital camera conversions.

I think that pretty much sums it up - but also what Brian says about the detail in the pool with his shot. I guess film + scanner will give you good results; close to wet prints. But it's that last little bit that I'm interested in...

As far as a darkroom goes, I have a very small upstairs bathroom that I may be able to work with at some point. It has an exhaust fan and no windows, and I could set a 35mm enlarger on the toilet. I've read posts elsewhere with people making do with a setup like this. I may replace my DSLR for a few reasons, but plan on getting back into film too - at least developing and scanning for the time being. Chemistry is mixed up, just need to see if the cameras still work. And also if I still work!

[photophorous]

The quality of the scanner makes a big difference, especially at larger print sizes. I've seen the same slide scanned on my Canoscan 8400f, a Noritsu from my photo lab, and my Coolscan V, and the difference between each is huge...as big as the difference between a crappy lens and a superb lens.

I think wet printing has some advantages and digital printing has some advantages. I don't think there is a clear winner, when both are done right. They can both produce fantastic results, but I never realized how good scanned film could look until I saw that show. Once I discovered that, the biggest deciding factor for me was choosing which method of working was the most practical.

If I had a decent sized room that I could dedicate to wet printing, I'd do it in a heart beat, because I prefer standing in a dark room, jamming to my favorite tunes, and watching prints come to life in the trays. I sit in front a computer all day at work and I hate that I go home and do it more. But I considered the alternative, which would be setting up a storable darkroom in my little guest bathroom. I thought about how hard it would be to constantly set it up and take it down. Where would I store everything? Where would I dry my prints? How would I press them flat (fiber curls like crazy when it dries)? I know how much trouble it was to drive across town and use the darkroom I rented for 9 months. It wasn't worth it unless I could stay for at least 3 hours...which felt like 15 minutes. A temporary bathroom printing set up would drive me crazy.

It's much easier for me to work for short periods of time spread through out the week. Developing a roll or two of film in the evening after work makes for a long evening, but it's not too bad. I finish in time to clean up, relax for a few minutes, and go to bed. The next evening I spend a few hours scanning. I can do some chores between setting up each batch. Then for the next couple of weeks, I work a little bit at a time to prepare the best 5-10 files for printing or web display. If the phone rings, I can answer it. If someone wants to go for a beer, I can hit "save" and head out the door. And when I'm done, there's no clean up.

Paul

[another view]

Yeah, the more I think about it the less appealing that tiny bathroom is as a darkroom. I can't imagine being able to do much at one time before I'd run out of space. I know myself, and it would be such a pain to work that way that I just wouldn't do it. Someday maybe I'll consider it again...

[mtbbrian]

Yeah, the more I think about it the less appealing that tiny bathroom is as a darkroom. I can't imagine being able to do much at one time before I'd run out of space. I know myself, and it would be such a pain to work that way that I just wouldn't do it. Someday maybe I'll consider it again...

I'm having similiar thoughts Steve.
I have a space in my home, that's probably a little bigger than your bathroom that I have been planning to make into a darkroom.
I am a little more a head of you, in that I have an enlarger, a Gray Lab timer and a 16''x20" easel.
But that's all I have.
In order to make this space a decent darkroom, I have to find a way to create some drainage for it, build a sink, a wall, add some eleltrical to the space and a few other things.
All of which equals a lot of money as you can imagine.

So I am kind of reconsidering a darkroom in my home.

Moreover, I have somehow gotten the fly fishing bug and am really getting into it.
I recently caught my first fish ever in my entire 30 something years.

So I am thinking of utilizing this space as a place to tie flies and what not.

I am not giving up film and photography, just re thinking things.
I can still shoot film and have a lab make prints for sale and exhibition.

Brian

[photophorous]

I'm having similiar thoughts Steve.
I have a space in my home, that's probably a little bigger than your bathroom that I have been planning to make into a darkroom.
I am a little more a head of you, in that I have an enlarger, a Gray Lab timer and a 16''x20" easel.
But that's all I have.
In order to make this space a decent darkroom, I have to find a way to create some drainage for it, build a sink, a wall, add some eleltrical to the space and a few other things.
All of which equals a lot of money as you can imagine.

So I am kind of reconsidering a darkroom in my home.

Moreover, I have somehow gotten the fly fishing bug and am really getting into it.
I recently caught my first fish ever in my entire 30 something years.

So I am thinking of utilizing this space as a place to tie flies and what not.

I am not giving up film and photography, just re thinking things.
I can still shoot film and have a lab make prints for sale and exhibition.

Brian

I think a dark room needs to be convenient to use or you will end up not using it. I remember seeing the pics of your little room and I think it would work much better than a typical small bathroom with all the fixtures in the way. And, I think you could get away with out installing running water.

If you have room for the enlarger and four trays (dev, stop, fix, and either permawash or water) that's all you need. After the prints have soaked a little you could carry them in another tray to your bathroom where you could have the final washer set up in your tub. Drop them in, glance at the clock, and go back to printing. Over washing is pretty hard to do. Not a perfect idea, but much easier than installing plumbing, and only having to set up a washer each time wouldn't be so bad. You could store it in the dark room when not in use. You could also rig up a rack above the tub to hang the prints to dry. I think the most important thing is having a good space for the enlarger, at a comfortable height, with some space around it to set some things. Trying to do all this in a little bathroom would be uncomfortable and tedious, but having your little room plus a bathroom, wouldn't be too bad.

Sorry...I get to brainstorming on this stuff and I can't stop.

[Xia_Ke]

Alright, that's enough of that talk, I want to have my cake and eat it too...LOL I WILL make my tiny bathroom work... I hope :cryin:

[photophorous]

Alright, that's enough of that talk, I want to have my cake and eat it too...LOL I WILL make my tiny bathroom work... I hope :cryin:

If anyone is dedicated enough to make it work, it's you. :thumbsup:

[Xia_Ke]

If anyone is dedicated enough to make it work, it's you. :thumbsup:

Or stupid enough...LOL Stay tuned... Thinking this will make for a fun little thread. I'm drawing up a rough diagram of the bathroom and going to start a thread on it :thumbsup:

[mtbbrian]

Or stupid enough...LOL Stay tuned... Thinking this will make for a fun little thread. I'm drawing up a rough diagram of the bathroom and going to start a thread on it :thumbsup:

Good luck with that Aaron!
You'll need it!
:thumbsup:
Brian

[another view]

I'm having similiar thoughts Steve......I am not giving up film and photography, just re thinking things. I can still shoot film and have a lab make prints for sale and exhibition.

Interesting - maybe we're both going through the same "phase". One hobby can add to another; it doesn't necessarily take away from it. Curious to see where this takes you - and it's hard to argue with fresh trout for dinner!

[reverberation]

I am in an unusual situation. Myself, my eldest sister, and younger brother (all the divorced/single kids from our family of six kids) have gone in together on a house to care for our mother who is in the last years of our life (as well as hers). The house has a bar downstairs in the basement. The problem is that my siblings know me, and have already insisted on keeping the bar a bar and not building some shadowy space that takes all my money. I have already got a light table down there, insisting it was a high end bar type table. I have a line on the filters for free and the temp controllers and fiberglass sink for under a hundred. I have a dude within driving distance who has a cheap graphic arts camera he is selling for way too much. I know how I would layout my darkroom and the bar would be lost because I would need the water and making a sink on the other side would be too costly. The family thing is killing me, I know it would be a dumb move to take the bar out. This darkroom, I know will end up costing close to twenty grand if I go thru with it. The problem is that it is not my money. My brother is a carpenter and can make the rooms I need, the problem is the value of the house. I have him on my side for extra money, I know my sister will totally freak out, photoshop is so much easier for me. I do notice that handmade prints are far more expensive than digitally created prints. I currently have a working darkroom out of the basement bathroom.



I do have sheets of red photolith plastic that can be used for windows and lithographic tape I can mail to people who need to seal light. The best way to seal doors is to run lithographers red tape down each side of the door so there is no sticky holdup. I will tape together red plastic for windows. You don't need to use garbage bags or other drastic measures. Visit a college graphic arts dept. or a local printer.