Several people seems to use 35mm to shot their films and then scan them and print them on their own. Some says the quality of print in black and white can be superior using this digital process compared to a standard processing. Is that true? I would like to be able to scan my negatives and my slides. For about $500 is there a excellent scan around? Which printers do you use? (HP versus Epson) ? What is the total cost for a print 11x14 for example (paper + inks)? How will this print look 10 years down the route?

-- Angelique (abischop@earthlink.net), August 30, 2001

Answers

I've been using an HP Photosmart scanner since it came out, and have been satisfied with the results, though the decidedly amateur interface is a problem. For printing I use the Piezography system (piezography.com) through an Epson 1160 printer. The Epson printers, up to the most recent ones, were the ones most used by serious printers and graphics people because they were most adaptable to aftermarket inks--leading to things like the Piezography program. Long before Epson was pushing their very lame idea of "archival" ("prints that last as long as drugstore prints!") there were REAL archival inks available from various venders, including Luminos, the photo people, for Epson printers. Prints I've seen from HP printers are just fine, but don't have all the ink options that Epson people can tap (B&W inks, such as the Piezography inks, for instance, for real black and white prints instead of ones made of little colored dots that change hue in different lightings).

I'm using a continuous feed ink system (4-oz bottles on the side, feeding the carts) and haven't priced out the cost of prints. For me the main advantage is to be able to make prints greatly superior to what I was doing in the dark, with no setup time and no chemicals (and no dark!).

For me, the key to computer photo processing is the use of the curves dialogue. That's a way of modifying brightness and contrast locally, defined by position on the grayscale---want more contrast and brightness in the shadows? No problem. More in the highlights? No problem. Less contrast somewhere? No problem. Once you get the hang of it, the darkroom seems downright primative. Doesn't sound like much in print, but it's great in real life-- it changes your whole idea of what is a printable neg.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.

Michael

The thing no one can explain to me is how it is possible, assuming you start from B & W negative film, to approach the kind of quality in a silver print when Photoshop can only output what is effectively 8 bits per channel, that is, 256 levels of gray. This is so inferior to a conventional silver print as to be laughable. IF your source is a color slide and you are using the piezography process then you can manage some sort real 24 bit output which might indeed be pretty good, BUT if this is the case then you need to use color neg or slide film, so all the usual film and developer combos so beloved of B & W workers has to go out the window and you are stuck with using color film. Maybe this is the way to go, but it is very different from the Leica users using their favorite Tri-X/Delta 400 or whatever makes them tick.

I am assuming this is what you do (i.e desaturate RGB channels from color film to produce your B & W prints), when you say you make very good black and white prints?

I think it is not really possible to produce fine art quality prints from B & W film at present using scanners and Photoshop. This is not to say that some prints are not good, but they will have a compressed tonal range.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.

I use a Polaroid 45i scanner and have done 8x8" prints from 6x6cm transparencies on Epson 1280 and P2000 and to me they aren't even close to what I can get from my local pro lab--whatever it is they're using. Plus, the time I spend fiddling with scanning and twiddling with Photoshop I can be outside making more photographs, so for me the answer is to establish a good working relationship with a lab knowledgeable in technology and passionate about quality, and I don't care how or what they use to get me the results I want as long as I get them. I will not shoot digital, though, except for screen viewing, until I can get resolution equal to film.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), August 30, 2001.

"I think it is not really possible to produce fine art quality prints from B & W film at present using scanners and Photoshop."

This is a very narrow definition of art and one that has reduced the "fine-art" photograph to a boring and predictable cliché.

For the first time in the history of photography a photographer now has the ability to create an image precisely the way he/she would like it to be—to be able to sculpt an image in its every detail and nuance. This is a very exciting possibility.

To answer your question, I personally use a CanoScan FS2710 for 35mm and an HP 7400c for b&w medium format. I also shoot digital. My printers are a Canon S450 and an Epson 3000.

No one really knows how these prints will look 10 years down the line. A lot depends on storage and display conditions.

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), August 30, 2001.

Peter

I think you know what I meant by this statement. Of course everything is art if produced by an artist -- I take this as an obvious truism.

What I meant, of course, was, if we take a fine conventional black and white print with a beautiful gradations of tone - then it will be very difficult/impossible to match this using digital black and white output if the source was scanned in from black and white film at present. It will be different. We can argue until the cows come home whether it is better or not. But most of us share some kind of common photographic language here so my statement was not really that ill considered.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.

Speaking as a 'fine-art' photographer (as pretentious that sounds), who has been exhibiting and making a good part of my income from it, EMPHATICALLY NO a digital print will not at this time stand up to a well crafted fibre print. To the previous poster who mentions the control one has in Photoshop - yes you are correct that you can do more extensive contrast control and such - but I guarantee you that if I have a high quality negative produced from the file, and print it conventionally it will knock the socks off of a digital print from all but the IRIS printers. At a price of about $250.00 (US) to have a 16X20 IRIS print made, the average photographer is better off with conventiona printing. I have an extensive digital darkroom and have extensive training in how to use it. As in the Ralph Gibson interview linked to here a month or so back, I found that my digital prints are better than my RC prints, but definitely lack the scale and depth of my fibre prints (not to overly pat myself on the back I am considered to be a very good custom printer). As Mr. Gibson has found, my personal experience is that the digital output has replaced everything I do except gallery display prints and what I sell to

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), August 30, 2001.

Peter,

Thanks to answer my questions. I am not a professionnal and I am not sure I want to go digital but given the huge flexibility I want to give it a try...at least to be able to post my pictures on the web and be more actively involved in this or other photo group. Can I safely assume that :

1. A 35 mmm scan 2500dpi (or above) is sufficient for small color and black and white print (up to 5 x7) and for all web application? In any case the size of the file for one picture would be so big at 4000dpi that it is useless for web posting, right?

2. An Inkjet printer offers more flexibility in the size of the print than a dye sublimation one?

3. A 2880 x 720 dpi resolution is adequate for small to medium prints (up 11 x 14)

4. A PC Pentium II 350 MHZ 96 RAM is adequate to start this kind of business.

-- Angelique (abischop@earthlink.net), August 30, 2001.

Angelique

1. A 35 mmm scan 2500dpi (or above) is sufficient for small color and black and white print (up to 5 x7) and for all web application?

YES

In any case the size of the file for one picture would be so big at 4000dpi that it is useless for web posting, right?

NO - you can always scan at lower res. if needed.

2. An Inkjet printer offers more flexibility in the size of the print than a dye sublimation one?

YES

3. A 2880 x 720 dpi resolution is adequate for small to medium prints (up 11 x 14)

YES, 1440x720 is just fine too. Some people maintain the 2880 is no real improvement

4. A PC Pentium II 350 MHZ 96 RAM is adequate to start this kind of business.

PROBABLY, but I would go for a pentium 111 with at least 128 RAM, better to have 256 if you really want capacity.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.

The learning curve for digital is VERY steep. As Jay has already noted, you can't just sit down at your computer and equal what a lab could do for you. . . . and yet how many of you, when you started in photography, made the highest quality prints right from the start, in the first week---or the first year, for that matter, if you were working entirely on your own?

I don't know what to say to the people who say you can't make acceptable prints digitally, since there are a number of people who ARE doing it, exhibiting, and selling them. The event that caused me to cross the line was an exhibit I went to where the print that most impressed me, in terms of print quality--it stopped me for no other reason, in fact--was an ink jet print. I think that the mistake photographers make in evaluating digital prints is to apply silver standards to them. Using that logic and standard, the platinum prints I've seen could be called abysmal and a pathetic waste of time, as well. Digital has its own look (a number of different looks, in fact.) Someone who's spent a lifetime honing his silver print skills has quite a hump to get over in appreciating what digital can offer. Go to some (good) shows, look at some prints, and decide for yourself!

Angelique, in general I'd answer yes to your questions, except that raw printer resolution isn't actually much of an issue these days. Even 1440 dots per linear inch is a LOT, and more memory is always better (I just upgraded from 200mhz/64K to 1.2ghz/512K, and there's a world of difference).

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.

Michael, I beg to differ ( very respectfully, do please don't take this as an insult) . I would like to know whose work you have seen exhibited using conventional methods. I too have seen exhibitions of digitally output prints that were done by very competent artists, but have also seen orginal silver prints by the likes of Helmut Newton, Robert Mappelthorp (outstanding), Ralph Gibson, John Sexton and a number of others, and to these tired old eyes there really is no comparson............................

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), August 30, 2001.

In my experience, the only thing missing in ink jet prints is the nice semi-gloss surface.

I also personally find scanning and Photoshop to be not as fun as darkroom. But that's because I wrote software for a living and get tired of using the machines.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), August 30, 2001.

Thanks all for your contribution. I will go for a good scan and a printer, without looking for max. resolution. As always there is no right answers and clear path for going into digital.

-- Angelique (abischop@earthlink.net), August 30, 2001.

Darned. I KNEW you'd go there. I just went over to the Art Institute of Chicago to see what they had up, for some ammo, but they had a Weston show :-( My problem is that I look at pictures, not the names next to them, usually. Well, I still think it's a different taste, and anyone considering it should look at some prints to see if they like the look. Speaking of Weston, there were a lot of prints there I really didn't like, and could have easily made better digital prints :-)

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), August 30, 2001.

I think the learning curve on digital (scanned from prints) is not all that steep. I recommend scanning good quality prints as the resolution greatly exceeds that of any of the negative or slide scanning systems. I use an HP7400 scanner (2400DPI) and an EPSON Photo 2000 (the best there is) ink jet printer with archival inks. The prints are amazing.

-- mark (mramra@qwest.net), August 30, 2001.

Do others agree with Mark's post?

Mark: your approach adds a step in the process: you must first have a print. So the larger your original print the more accurate is the picture on the screen but then why would you print it with a Inkjet printer?

-- Angelique (abischop@earthlink.net), August 30, 2001.

Angelique,

Everything you ever wanted answered, with pix to boot!

www.luminous-landscapes.com

and specifically these links:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/digital_b&w.htm http://www.luminous-landscape.com/epson_1270.htm http://www.luminous-landscape.com/duotone.htm http://www.luminous-landscape.com/b&w_better.htm

Cheers.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), August 31, 2001.

Ooops, that didn't come out as I planned. It's 4 seperate links. I'm going to try again.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/digital_b&w.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/epson_1270.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/b&w_better.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/duotone.htm

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), August 31, 2001.

Angelique:

I found a great 1 hour processing place in Albuquerque. Imagine, they actually have a trained individual physically watch every print. Most mistakes are never seen by the customer as the operator quickly reprints the image. Also, they use quality materials and change their chemistry often. They're more expensive than others but well worth the drive to get there and the extra cost.

Anyhow, I get good prints and can scan up to 2400 DPI if I need that. A slide or negative scanner, even up to 4000 DPI will only give you 4000 points along the short side of a negative. Scanning the print, I can get 7200 to 10000 without really trying but I usually scan at much less than 2400 DPI.

I don't know what software people use for working with their images but I have found PhotoShop to have everything I need for most applications. However, I use MIRA and Maxim DL on ocassion to remove the effects light falloff in the corners from my Noct and 12mm V'lander.

-- mark (mramra@uswest.net), August 31, 2001.

Simon

Reichmann's site demonstrates once again what I am saying. Color digital, I am not denying, is a good idea; but the only black and white really that Micheal discusses on his site is using color film as the source. So, if Angelique wants to keep all the convenience of choosing and using black and white films and processing at home, it is not a lot of help - assuming she wants to match silver prints from a decent darkroom.

If she wants to desturate color films then she can - but she will have to get her films developed commercially - with all that entails.

I have to say that scanning anything in black and white (print or neg) it is going to be very difficult to get a good reproduction of the original for the same reason I indicated above. So I cannot see how scanning a print is going to help - quite apart from the fact that you have to have made the print in the first place.

It is all, as usual, really down to how you want your prints to look. I know how I want mine to look having got used to a silver darkroom, and, at present, black and white digital is for most of the time not what I want.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), August 31, 2001.