hi guys.

Im deciding if I should get a film scanner or use my old enlarger to print B/W.

How is the quality different ? By scanning and then printing on injet printers versus just enlarging straight from the film using chemical prints.

If scanning followed by injet printing loses QUALITY, why are there so many people switching to the dry darkroom? Is it worth it?

pls advise. Thx.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), March 09, 2002

Answers

Travis, my experience is with color but there are some parallels. I find the degree of control in a "lightroom" far greater than in a darkroom; as a very handy bonus I can get rid of dust and scratches before printing. The best quality B&W inket prints use the piezography inks and software drivers but it's not cheap. These prints are excellent quality and archival on the right papers. see www.inketmall.com

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), March 09, 2002.

I'm with Douglas. I discovered ink jet printing at a gallery show a few years ago, where the one print that really knocked off my socks, when I read the fine print, turned out to be ink jet. I tried the technology for about a year, then called the local photo college and got a student to come over and pack off my darkroom so I could reclaim the space in the basement.

What I discovered, aside from the fact that it got me back into photography (the years I spend professionally in labs killed all the fun for me) was that I had much more tonal control than in the darkroom, and thus made consistently better prints like I'd always seen in my mind, but didn't have the hours to make in the dark, and then I found out I COULD MAKE TWO JUST ALIKE!!!! Instantly, just by pushing "print". :-)

Great technology, but don't bother printing B&W with color inks--get a separate printer and dedicate it to B&W, either with or without the Piezography system (which is what I have and prefer).

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 09, 2002.

Whether you want to do wet darkroom or digital has more to do with you than with the technology. I'm pretty sure if you get good at either one you can make high quality prints.

High quality B&W prints on fiber paper have a look all their own that is hard to match.

But, high quality ink jet prints also have a look all their own that is hard to match. Different, not better or worse.

For me... I work with computers all day (software engineering) and would rather do my printing without one. So I do traditional darkroom. I find it easy to make prints I like, and I don't have to learn photoshop. :-)

The only thing I don't like doing is contact sheets. Oh well.

-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), March 09, 2002.

Basically, if you have a scanner with enough resolution to allow a 250-350 dpi print output at the size print you want to make, and have a good inkjet printer with 1440x1440 class resolution, you can make prints of a quality indistinguishable from a wet lab enlargement process with a scanner and image editing software.

That's not to say that they will be the same. The prints could be better or worse, depending upon your skill in the use of the scanner and the image editing software. And inkjet prints produced through this process look different from a silver gelatin print, so you're working with a different aesthetic. But that's all more of a question of which media appeals to you and which process you have mastered to the greater degree of skill.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), March 09, 2002.

One problem to consider is grain aliasing. 400 speed films with 2800 dpi scanners are unfortunately a troublesome combination. 4000 dpi scanners will solve the problem and slower films work fine as well. Something to keep in mind when going digital.

-- John Collier (jbcollier@powersurfr.com), March 09, 2002.

Neg to print quality and scan to inkjet quality both depend more on the skill of the person using the process more than the inherent quality of the process itself. They can each produce good or bad results . BTW - Who has said scanning to inkjet loses quality?

-- John Griffin (john@griffinphoto.u-net.com), March 09, 2002.

Another issue to consider is the level of control in producing the prints. Although many of the image editing features of Photoshop are patterned after darkroom techniques, they tend to work a little differently. Dodging and burning in, for example, doesn't have the same subtlety in Photoshop, I've found. Conversely, other image manipulations are much easier in Photoshop than in the darkroom - things like retouching skin blemishes in portraits.

Thus, you might want to consider a combination of the two sets of technologies. Produce your best "master" print in the darkroom, then scan it at high resolution and retouch in Photoshop prior to making inkjet prints. Recognize, however, that "archival" doesn't mean the same thing with inkjets, although that is improving.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 09, 2002.

I have seen some really first class digital prints using a polaroid scanner (4000 dpi) but the cost of setting up with the printer was over $4,000. The paper is also more expensive than a wet process. Whilst it is true that you can duplicate a print exactly and simply, you will waste just as much paper trying to get your scan/printer output right as with a wet process. It's horses for courses again. Don't ask me why but you can always tell a digital print from an analogue.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), March 09, 2002.

Travis, depends whether you prefer being a computer technician tapping away at a keyboard or a darkroom technician working with messy chemicals. A darkroom definitely can be a hassle to set up, there's the need to keep chemicals at the right temperature, and the constant fight against dust (one of those compressed air canisters is the best weapon). Cleaning up also takes a while (unless your wife doesn't mind sharing the laundry with a tray of browning paper developer). And that's just with B+W. Colour looks even more fiddly and I've never tried it.... ......Computers and scanners: loads you can do, change tones and contrast, colour, use different paper, possibly a lower failure rate once you get the hang of it. But like anything to do with computers, the technology, especially the software, is not always straightforward. It's a different approach. The darkroom probably has more of the aura of old-fashioned craftsmanship about it; more variables and room for human error, thus possibly a feeling of greater satisfaction when you create a g

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), March 09, 2002.

Ralph, I initially found Photoshop to be a difficult replacement for darkroom work, but eventually have found that the problem I had was from approaching problems the same way as I would in the darkroom. After I learned to shift gears I found the computer better on all counts. For instance, just completely forget about using the PS burn and dodge tools--they do the job, I guess, but they do it very poorly. Select, feather, convert to a curves adjustment layer, adjust, and the results are MUCH better. A number of other problems solve themselves in ways which aren't immediately apparent. I don't miss the darkroom a bit. Does anyone know if there's a really good B&W Photoshop site? --I haven't looked recently.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 09, 2002.

I have found that the digital transfer is here. Some of the new 4000 dpi scanners can deliver 60 lpm which is pretty darn close to the limit of printed(wet process) film. If you already have a relatively fast computer (or ever to buy one these days - dirt cheap), these scanners are now coming in at about $2000.00. Fairly good value considering. Also, the ease of eliminating dust or scratches on your negs is wow! I night be too young at 40 (gasp) to have appreciated the dark room to its fullest. But, I can remmenber spending hours in there with my mentor to get one print. Learning photophop and digital technique is no tougher than learning the wet process, just different. The new papers and inks now are nothing short of outstanding - at a workable cost. And once you have it - press print!!!

-- Brooke Anderson (dbanders@videotron.ca), March 09, 2002.

Travis, Do both. Keep the enlarger and a get a scanner. The chief reason is not the scanning quality, but instead the print output. With a scanned neg you are forced to use an inkjet or dye-sub printer which for B&W, pale in compairson to a well exposed silver print. Color is another matter. Digital reproduction for color is the reason to have a scanner given the poor quality of most lab prints. Happy hunting---Marc Williams

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.com), March 11, 2002.