How do you "print" your 4x5' neg?

Hi gentlefolks,

 

My question is related to the following two options for printing a

negative:

 

1st: scanning on a flatbed/drum scanner then printing on a

inkjet/bubblejet/whatsoever printer.

or

2nd: use of an enlarger and do the siver gelatine method.

 

For me the 1st option seems easy: No enlarger no wet darkroom.

Buying a huge and heavy enlarger plus lensens etc. sounds tough.

However, option 2 seems still superior when it boils down to quality

of the final print and maybe also to stability of the print in terms

of time.

 

How do you print yor negatives? Is home flatbed scanning really a

serious alternative to printing a 4x5' negative on an enlarger?

 

Cheers

Rick

When I firsrt got into 4x5 I thought 16x20 inch prints would be about as big as I wanted to go.

 

Now my 20x24 inch prints are the smallest I do. 4x5 film can enlarge, like smaller formats, about 10 times before things fuzz out, which means you can go to about 40x50 inches.

 

For digital printing that's a bit of a challenge as the cheapest injet printer that goes that large (Epson 9600) is about $5000. No small investement.

 

For enlarger printing the enlarger will cost $700-1000 on ebay (possibly less as wet darkrooms are shot down and equipment dumped on the market), but there is a limit on how big paper you can buy. I do color reversal, and sheet printing material comes 20x24 max. I've never tried bigger, but it would involve buying a roll of paper and cutting off what I need in the dark. Tricky, but I suppose doable.

 

As for quality, I'd say they were about even. With digital (and a good scan, say with an Imacon, another $10000 investment) you can out-do wet processing if you are careful with your image prep work. But if you stick with a flatbed scanner and are a bit sloppy with your image editing you can ruin an otherwise easy-to-print image.

 

When it comes down to total investment, wet printing is a lot cheaper, but digital can go bigger in the end.

I bought my Omega D2 4x5 Enlarger with Dichroic color head, cold light head,

135mm lens, electronic timer, power supply, neg holders all for $300 and its

all like new. The problem is i don't hava anyware to set it up at the moment. I

also have a Epson 3200 but have not bought a printer yet in fear of spending

$700 on something that will only give me 11x14 prints and be replaced in 6

months with a improved model that is "so much better." If you do B&W, I

would stick to the wet darkroom.

I have a Beseler 45s enlarger and a Chromega. I have negatives from my Speed Graphics and Horseman. I print up to 16x20 regularly and have gone to 20x24.

 

Color neg paper is available to 30x40, but I have not printed that size. Other than handling problems at 16x20 and higher, I think that the quality is great. Getting digital that size may be possible, but I rarely see it and the prices are high. The quality of the ones I saw were not very good either. I saw 2 poster size digital (professional quality?) that both had small artifacts introduced by the digital printing process, and the two prints varied in color by more than I would tolerate in my darkroom process.

 

I use a Jobo with the 3000 series drums for the large sizes, Kodak RA chemistry, and Supra Endura paper. Total cost to me for materials is under $2 / print in 16x20. I ran off 7 of them the other night for one of my projects. I had good uniformity and good repeatability in 4 prints that were intended to be identical.

 

I have found that the RA Endura paper can be processed at room temp (68 deg here) with excellent quality and no need for a hot water bath using the EK chemistry.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

�Is home flatbed scanning really a serious alternative to printing a 4x5' negative on an enlarger?�

 

Absolutely! I�ve been very happy with the results I get scanning with an Epson 4870 and printing on an Epson 2200. Of course, I can only print up to 13� wide, but if I need a bigger print I can send my file out to a lab. And hopefully, large format printers will continue to get cheaper and better in the future. You didn't say how big of prints you normally make, and I supose this will hve some bearing on which direction you choose to go. However, I'm not all that enamored of prints larger than 16x20. If the only thing impressive about an image is the size of the print, then the photographer needs to get out and take more photos.

 

�However, option 2 seems still superior when it boils down to quality of the final print and maybe also to stability of the print in terms of time.�

 

Actually, I think you will find that the quality of the prints you will get by scanning and digital printing will be far superior to your wet darkroom prints. Not because the process is better, but because you can do far more in the digital darkroom, in terms of dodging, burning, saturation, contrast, touch-up, etc�, than you could ever do in the wet darkroom (unless you are a real master printer). And once you get a print to look like you want it to, you can make an unlimited number of the same quality. This also addresses the longevity issue. I mount my prints so I can easily take them apart and replace them if they fade or discolor unacceptably. Replacing a print only costs a few bucks and by the time it happens, inks will likely have improved to make it even less likely to happen in the future. If not, just replace it again. (Of course, this is more of a concern if you sell a lot of prints.)

 

The digital darkroom also allows for much more efficient use of time. If you have a challenging print that you want to get just right, you can work on it when you get a chance and if you don�t finish, you can save the intermediate results and come back to it later. Try doing that in the wet darkroom.

 

There are many other advantages I could mention, but I won�t because this has been discussed a lot. Suffice it to say that in my opinion, you will get far better prints with the digital process. (I�m sure that there will be those that strongly disagree.) I haven�t sold my darkroom equipment yet, but that�s mostly because there are a few alternative printing processes that I would like to explore when I get the chance.

 

Tom

Tom;

 

You made some excellent points about efficient use of time. I liked your reply. I too use the Epson 4870 and agree with your comments.

 

OTOH, I can turn out 4 8x10s in 6 or 7 minutes in the darkroom, and as an experienced DR person, I can do as well as I can with photoshop except for some special effects. (Reversing an image is time consuming in the DR but seconds in photo shop but then I get a kick out of the DR work, and accurate Sabattier effects are a snap in the DR but a pain in Photoshop.) You see how personal preference and the job at hand enters into this of course.

 

Also, I like being able to sit back and page through negatives, slides and proofs and picking one out, then going to the DR and turning out a 16x20 cropped just the way I want with custom dodging and etc. So, again, personal preference.

 

So, I think digital vs DR is a matter of job at hand and personal preference. I use both and most pros I know do the same. Depends on assignment.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

What really boils down to, is what will you enjoy doing most. For every advantage that Tom listed above I have a response and a further advantage of using a darkroom, but this putrefact horse has been beaten enough.

 

If you enjoy the process you chose, then you will photographs and do more prints, if it is not enjoyable then regardless of what you choose it will be more like work than fun. It seems to me you feel digital is easier, so go for that. If going into the darkroom is going to be a chore for you then your work will show that. Personally I rather stick my gonads in a blender than sit at a computer editing prints, but that is me...what do you like best?

Jorge,

 

Thank you for the visual image. Ever been to joecartoon.com???

 

I agree with Jorge. The discussion of digital vs. analog has been beaten to death here. I personally don't want to sit behind a computer either. When I come home the laptop stays at school. Working in the darkroom is what I find to be enjoyable. Thus, that's where I spend my time.

 

If you're not experienced with darkroom work, I suggest that a local community college course might be a good choice. This would let you experience both options before you part with you hard earned money.

I scan 4x5 Tri-X on a drum scanner (Optronix ColorGetter 3 Pro) I picked up on the used market. Seriously good scans. I print to an Epson 7600 running Cone's Piezotone inks - particularly the selenium tone ink.

 

But is it easy? No way. People seem to have this idea that all you do is hook the pieces together and press a button and out come Ansel Adams level prints. If you are thinking that's true, do some more research. For me anyway, digital printing takes more work than conventional dark room printing. And there are many learning curves, particularly scanning. You can get good scans from 4x5 film and an Epson flatbed, but it isn't just set everything on automatic and push a button - unless you want mediocre scans.

 

The prints I make this way are better than the darkroom prints I was able to make. They are perfectly linear from black to white, with excellent shadow detail and excellent highlight detail in the same print. The "color" is excellent, the sharpness is outstanding. These prints are worth the extra effort.

 

As to longevity, I think you'll find that carbon-on-cotton has a very long expected life, longer than selenium toned silver gelatin prints. This is accelerated life testing however. You won't really know for another couple of hundred years. If this bothers you...

 

You are right to be asking these questions. The more you learn, the more informed choices you can make. Above all else, the method of printing you decide to use has to fit your needs and wants. If it makes wonderful prints but you don't enjoy the process, then what's the point?

<p><i>Is home flatbed scanning really a serious alternative to printing a 4x5' negative on an enlarger?</i></p>

If you don't already have a darkroom, space for one, <i>etc.</i>, yet it is. A better question is wether either option is worth the hassle, as a print from a good lab will blow either one away. In my case, a 4x5 Heidelberg Tango drum scan run to a Durst Lambda and printed at 20x24 is about $57, including tax. I've never printed bigger than 24x30, so other options aren't worth bothering with.

I see a lot of good points being made here. I enjoy reading them.

 

I do believe scanning in a negative with a good scanner or using a large format scanning back on a camera will give better results than straight digital. Just a feeling without making that comparison, but based on years of seeing scanning work back to the 80s from a KS Paul scanner.

 

I do all three. Digital camera, scanned negatives up to 4x5, and original in camera work and DR enlargements up to 16x20. I'm surprised that a 20x24 digital print would be that much becuase I can do the same in the DR for about $8. OTOH, a professional lab making the 20x24 is probably up there as well.

 

I think sitting in front of a computer is truly a pain and hurts my eyes after a few hours, but after working in the darkroom, I get a backache. Oh well, nothing is perfect. It boils down to what is the bottom line here. Do what you enjoy and are best at. I prefer and love the darkroom work.

 

Regards to all.

 

Ron Mowrey

I have both options: scanner and wet darkroom. I am a strictly monochrome for personal pleasure type, so if it isn't pleasant, I don't want to do it.

 

I also administer computer systems to pay the bills. I am trying to keep them from taking over my entire life! I only scan things that need to be digital, like the web. I could do a better job digitally in a given time than I can by traditional means. But speed and simplicity are not as important to me as they are to someone with a commercial bias or a need to work in colour.

 

The product are different too. A good silver gelatin print has a different physical presence than an ink-jet print. And if you are interested in the really physical process, like Bromoil (to pick a niche example), there is no alternative in the pure digital world.

 

Of course, I started photography before 8-bit microcomputers were commodity items (let alone the 64-bit stuff), and spending time in a darkened room with strange-smelling chemicals is a 'normal' experience.

Graham;

 

I love that comment of yours. Nothing like the smell of acetic acid, right?

 

I started out in the darkroom working my way through school at a photofinishing lab doing B&W and Color. I ended up at EK. Talk about a kid in a candy shop! Darkrooms on every floor. Equipment coming out my ears. So, I took up a new hobby, computers.

 

Hah. EK said "hey, we got a live one here" so I ended up working on computerizing the emulsion making and scaling process from R to D. Now, I get tired of computers and am back to prefering the wet darkroom, but I'm very familiar with both.

 

I've worked on color paper, negative films, reversal materials, and whatnot. It was all fun, and I still love photography.

 

I enjoy it and the relaxed feeling it gives me to stop and smell the roses, and then take a half dozen pictures of them and the tiny bugs on them. Heh.

 

Regards.

 

Ron Mowrey

>Jorge Gasteazoro , apr 04, 2004; 03:16 p.m.

 

> but this putrefact horse has been beaten enough.

 

That's funny coming from one of the most dogmatic darkroom people alive--one who, by the way, won't ever refrain from grabbing that whip and beating a downed horse.

<i>That's funny coming from one of the most dogmatic darkroom people alive--one who, by the way, won't ever refrain from grabbing that whip and beating a downed horse.</i><p>

 

LOL..obviously if what you say is true I would have jumped at the chance with Tom's response. Seems I did refrain this time...so is it really your problem with my opinions or with the truth behind them?. Oh, and BTW this thread was very much on topic until you decided to post your idiotic response. Bottom line bubba, I will gladly put any of my pt/pd prints against your ink jet prints, I will even let you pick the person who judges them...put your money where your mouth is.

I've almost given up using the wet process, for two main reasons:

 

1. Time. Like most people, my 'darkroom' is temporary and needs setting up and putting away, this adds at least 1 hour to any printing session. There is also a marked time saving when doing re-prints. Once an image has been completed, it takes seconds to do a reprint; wet-work takes at least a couple of test prints (even with copious notes) to get an accurate reprint.

 

2. Cost. Believe it or not, I can get electronic 10x8 prints cheaper than I can do the Iflochrome equivalent myself (£1.75 per print). I've made a comparison of the number of sheets of paper, batches of chemicals etc I've used to get a final print I'm happy with. By using the correct ICC profile for the destination printer I know that what I see on my computer monitor is what I'll get in my hand.

 

B&W processing is still cheaper at home (unless I want to tone a print), but takes far longer than the alternative. The print service uses FujiFilm Frontier printers that expose an image on photographic paper, thus addressing some of the known issues about the keeping properties of laser jet prints. Of course I always keep my negatives so the concerns about the longevity of electronic archiving are not a concern.

Rick,

 

There have been a lot of interesting insights put forward. I will also jump into the mix.

 

Colour: I do it digitally. Mostly scanned by an external source, worked on by me and the printed either at home or externally depending on the output. Have no problem with this.

 

B&W: I develop at home in PMK pyro and then rent darkroom time to print. This is the method I enjoy the most.

 

Why do I like the B&W better. Mostly cause I spend 10-12 hours a day in front of computers for work. I like the process in the darkroom.

 

my 2 cents (about 1.3 US cents)

Rick, you've received a lot of answers, which probably boil down to do whichever you prefer. Some prefer the process of one method, some prefer the results of one methed, and others have the opposite preference. There are also plenty of older threads on photo.net with this debate.

 

Perhaps what hasn't been very clear on this thread is that the answer may be different for B+W vs color. Rick is probably thinking of B+W since he refers to silver gelatine as the output of using an enlarger (though color enlarger prints pass through silver gelatine as an intermediate step). The relative gap between what can be done in the darkroom and with digital methods is much smaller for B+W than it is for color work. Furthermore, the manufacturers of digital printers have placed almost all of their efforts into improving color output.

Again, one of the greatest forums I'm looking at these times, Thanks.

 

Michael was right. I'm interested so far only in B&W stuff and I wanted to know

if digital-homemade-flatbed-scanning B&W is feasible to get a good QUALITY

print, or if I better stick to the wet DR procedures. The goal is to get some

(more or less) nice 20x30 prints in a frame hanging on the wall to look at, and

to see the richness in detail of a LF photography, not less and not more.

Unfortunately, I don't have the space for a DR but could for shure arrange

something with a photo club etc. I don't mind the wet DR work which I did for

35mm work at home on a regular basis. Now I moved and don't have the

space anymore for big enlargers.

For now I will give the negs to an external lab for printing. To select the best

negatives, I scan them in a flatbed and make my decision how they look and

which one goes to the lab. It costs a bit but IMHO it's so far the most

economical solution since I don't produce large quantities of shots. In the

future maybe I will switch to digital myself for printing to get more control over

the printing process and not depending on a lab.

 

Cheers

Rick

I have hundreds of 4X5 negatives, but now I only use reversal film. A typical Fuji 64T

transparency is enlarged to a 30'X40" size by scanning (via Imacon) at 300DPI for a

file size of about 312MB, and then printed on a Chromira printer, using Fuji Matte

113-031 paper.

Considering my limited resources, (pesky mortgage) scanning with an Epson 3200 and printing thought a service is a very cost effective option. You gain considerable control over the process, and you might enjoy it from beginning to end.

And here I was all intrigued that someone was shooting 4X5'. WOW! COOL! I gotta see that!

 

 

But...

 

You meant 4X5"

 

Oh well. :(