Scan B&W print instead of 6x7 neg?

<p>I currently use a Mamiya RZ for B&W. I have my own darkroom etc. However, I don't have a high end film scanner, just a basic HP 4050, which I use to make scans of my prints for the web etc. I've noticed that, when I open the scanned print in PS/LR I can still tweak the image even more. Until I get a better scanner for film. Would making 5x7", or 8x10" prints, and then scanning them for further editing as digital files be a good alternative? I do use a Nikon D200 for color, and I have a Canon Pixma Pro-100 printer. I'm thinking that, maybe I could make prints in the darkroom, then finish editing (dodge/burn etc.) in PS, and print digital, or wet. Do any of you use a similar work flow?<br>

Thanks</p>

 

<p>That is what I do for my black and white photos.</p>

<p>As Ansel Adams wrote, "...the print is the performance." Much creativity goes into making a print. You want people to see not only the image from the camera, but what you created from it in the darkroom.</p>

<p>I was wondering if the scanned print would have the same quality as a high res scan of the neg. I have plenty of darkroom experience. I just think some techniques would be easier to do in PS. I don't mind most darkroom steps, but, I can do without bleaching and toning smells!</p>

<p>Just my guesswork, but anyhow: You loose something in a print on the optical way to it. Already getting your enlarger perfectly focused is kind of questionable. It doesn't matter for viewing the image but most likely for scanning the heck out of it.<br>

You should maybe try doing the same neg as 5x7" and as 8x10" and see how much detail you'll loose.<br>

I think scanning a silver print for reproducing it 1:1 or maybe even mildly upscaling it via a digital or mass printing process should be fine. I just wouldn't expect any resolution miracles (usually associated with film in film vs. digital discussions) to be revealed that way.<br>

To put it the other way round: have you ever compared an original slide or neg to a reproduction of a silver (or wet optical) print? <br>

But there is nothing entirely wrong with scanning darkroom prints, if you have modest or realistic expectations.</p>

<p>Thanks for the help. I guess I'll continue to work in my darkroom for b&w. Seeing there isn't any talk by others doing it. I din't think it would become part of my hybrid workflow. </p>

<p>You will probably get as much or more from scanning with your 4050 directly from the neg, if you are referring only to the tonal aspects and adjustment. Sharpness, maybe not, depending on how large you customarily print. The problem is that with your process, there's the original, then there's the neg, then the print, then the scan, then the final print. With every analog step there's a loss of information, so by the time you scan the print you don't have everything that was in the neg, only what was in the print.</p>

<p>I don't find it surprising that you can then do a lot in Photoshop. That's why many of us have long given up the darkroom for printing, but still use film, because there is so much you can do in the computer that is difficult or impossible in the darkroom.</p>

<p>I use my 4050 and make my final prints from those scans, but I'm doing this only with large format. For smaller film I use a different scanning method. 6x7 is on the edge for a flatbed scanner. If you're careful, you may be happy with the results, or maybe not.</p>