Diffusion or condenser enlarger, which is equivalent to scanning?

What is the equivalent of scanning with conventional enlargers, condenser or diffuser

head?

Neither

 

Now let me predict how this thread will go: 40% of the replies will be full of simple math which tries to equate a hypothetical enlarger's 'resolution' to spi (ppi,dpi)to a known (or not) scanner. It will all be impertinent nonsense. Someone will put up a speed-bump when he asks for degree-of-enlargement, and the thread might actually go somewhere, then it will go bad again.

 

A colorist will chime in that scanning produces better color than chemical prints, but nobody will care because nobody here does color printing because is just soooo much trouble, terribly expensive, and messy.

 

Then there will be those who claim a condenser (not point source) makes a sharper negative than a diffusion enlarger, and they will be wrong; they are, FAPP, equal in that regard.

 

Finally, the thread will almost collapse under the usual digital vs analog arguments on each side, when out of the wings will come the chap who knows that DeVere mades/made a digital enlarger! Which sucks.

Scanners are more like the condenser head enlargers. That is why they work less well with conventional silver monochrome film. The original Konica/Minolta has a diffusion source which is what I have and perhaps why I am am able to scan my black and white negs designed for a condenser enlarger printing without knowing what I am doing. Low contrast negs and a scanner designed for high contrast ones seems like an easy combination.

 

If you have negs designed for diffusion printing and try to scan with a condenser source, I can see why this would be very difficult, much like printing an overly contrasty neg.

 

Just my simple minded explanation after reading a lot of questions and answers here.

 

Condenser head enlargers work equally well for color neg or transparency printing in my darkroom. Conventional black and white negs are best printed on a condenser enlarger if they are of reduced contrast compared to negs developed optimally for diffusion enlargers. This seems to be true for scanning also.

 

Color printing is not difficult or messy, just expensive as the chemicals age fast. Nova slot processors cleaned up the process for me. If you want complicated and messy, try inkjet printing and then read all the trouble people have. Such as fading ink, clogged heads, getting custom curves made, monitor calibration and the list goes on. I must be lucky here too as my experience in color printing enabled me to calibrate the monitor by eye and the Epson makes prints that match the monitor. I feel fortunate to have entered the digital world without a mishap!

Pico... hows about another dubble-espresso?

Ooops... forgot to say: "I was 'smiley-facing' when I said that!"

I think Pico has it pegged pretty well. Enlargers have little to do with scanning and I can make perfectly good prints from any halfway decent negative using either type. If the negative is very thin, I can do better with a scanner and post processing.

Thank God for Pico - nipped it in the bud! I don't know why the simple statement "neither" is inflamatory, but you know that people on both sides of the fence would take it to mean "better" or "worse" and the mud would fly. Still, neither is the right answer, and as a traditional darkroom guy, I sometimes wonder why people go to all the trouble of trying to duplicate a simple process of traditional B&W with what seems to me like a lot more money and a lot more effort. Then again, to each their own...

well at least you don't have the callier effect with scanning.

When has a callier effect hurt printing? Seriously. I use a Focomat II for MF work, and never

had issues; same with the 35mm Focomat.

I really don't care what you use Pico, my comment refers to my own needs.

mark L: "I really don't care what you use Pico, my comment refers to my own needs."

 

That's a puzzling statement. Does that mean you don't use an enlarger, never have, don't know, or that physics changes depending upon your own needs?

no pico, it means that I am picky enough about what traditional printing I used to do that the callier effect and how it affected my prints was important to me.

Mark, although I know it is unlikely that we could meet, I would very much like to see/know what you are referring to regarding the Callier effect in conventional prints. Until then, I remain unknowing, puzzled, and interested.

 

Very Best,

Pico

My concern about scanning compared with conventional printing is that it generally requires a high end, very expensive scanner to produce results equivalent to those of a fairly ordinary and affordable enlarger.

 

Even in photographic prints (and other graphics) produced by local pro shops I occasionally see scan lines, tho' they're using some of the best equipment available. I always see scan lines in scans of large prints on my flatbeds (admittedly mine are dinosaurs).

 

If we agree to disregard money as a factor, sure, it's possible to achieve comparable results - altho' I have no opinion about whether scanning is more comparable to prints made from a condenser or diffusion head enlarger.

 

But, assuming a reasonably rigid mounting surface and reasonable damping of vibration, I don't think any conventional printing process is equivalent to scanning. None of them involves the light source moving across the path of the negative and/or paper, altho' such a process could be devised for certain types of contact printing.

LEX: But, assuming a reasonably rigid mounting surface and reasonable damping of vibration, I don't think any conventional printing process is equivalent to scanning.

 

Could be. Perhaps someone will post a scientific test. There is the issue where, for example, a taking lens resolving 100lp/mm is put to film that will resolve 100l/mm and printed through a lens that also resolves 100lp/mm and the very best outcome can be about 70lp/mm. It's an optical fact. But megosh, that's quite enough.

 

There are other things that make a difference, too, but they involve personal judgement and religious convictions. :)