Digital vs. conventional for MF B&W

[fp1]

Hi. I have been trying to decide (for more than a month now) between making an

investment in a film scanner or conventional darkroom equipment. My cybernetic

experience would probably make the learning curve involved with using a scanner far

less steep than that concerned with grappling with an enlarger and the necessary

expertise that entails. Unfortunately, I have developed a taste for black and white

(primarily tmax 100, 6x6 and 4x5) film, and I have read extensively about less than

stellar results involving scanning the same.

 

I am willing to spend $3,000- no more. Are there any fine art photographers using

scanning in the process? I dumped my D100 for the dynamic range I get from

scanned medium format film. I find the results I have obtained using the Epson 3200

( and several other Epsons) not CONSISTENTLY in keeping with the high quality

standards I wish to achieve.

 

This question has been asked, skirted, flirted with, diverted, and all but definitively

answered, to my knowledge. Help. Please. I am becoming inundated with negatives

which need to be printed from...some way....some day.....

 

F.

[brandonhamilton]

What is wrong with B&W from a D100? Is there something wrong with this B&W from my d100? Do you think it is lacking "dynamic range"??

[fp1]

Hi again. I really do not wish to get involved in the tiresome "film vs. digital" debate.

Suffice it to say, I PERSONALLY feel that scanned B&W negatives have a much wider

range, greater shadow detail and, well, finer resolution. Oh, and that imperceptible

thing called "depth". (not dof...) Highlight resolution I find to be far more satisfactory.

 

The photo you posted is nice. I prefer the look of scanned film. Oh, and yes, I know

they BOTH yield digital images.

 

F.

[mdanger]

If you have never worked in a darkroom, don't just dive in. Try taking a class at a local college with one and see if you are hooked. I have a few friends who print & exhibit scanned large format photos and they are beautiful. The jury is still out on their archival permanance. Also, investigate whether there are custom photo labs in your community who will print for you. I'd rather see you give local businesses your dollar than jumping in on setting up a complete darkroom from scratch!

[fp1]

Thanks for the advice. What are your friends using to scan their work?????

 

F.

[bruce watson]

<i>Are there any fine art photographers using scanning in the process?</i>

<p>

There are plenty. I scan and print digitially. I scan my 4x5 Tri-X on a drum scanner without problems. I get consistently excellent results.

<p>

That said, the only reason that I can think of for getting inconsistent results from <b>any</b> scanner, is lack of experience. The more you scan, the better you get at it. Just like the more you print in a traditional darkroom, the better you get. The lack of experience, I think, is why so many people post to the 'net about "less than stellar results involving scanning." People who are getting good results would rather scan that post about it ;-)

<p>

I suggest that you fully research the two different workflows (darkroom and lightroom) and determine the total costs to get from where you are to where you want to be. That includes the equipment, and the papers, chemicals, inks, etc. With all the used darkroom equipment pouring into the marketplace, I'd be surprised if you didn't find darkroom the way for you to go right now.

<p>

If you do, I second the suggestion that you take a darkroom class before you buy anything. It'll make your choices informed choices.

[beauh44]

We had a darkroom in our house when I was a kid, so I technically started there, but I took the digital plunge a few years ago. I have 6X6 negs/slides, but it wasn't until I bought a field camera and none of the labs in my town would develop 4X5, that something simple hit me. I really didn't need a whole darkroom when shooting B&W - just some chemicals and a sink. The scanner and printer made it so I didn't have to have an enlarger and photographic paper - all I wanted was the negative. So, with a little ingenuity around the house, I was able to cobble together a dark(ened) room. I spent about $40 on some developer, fixer, stop bath and a few odds and ends. I use an Epson 2450 scanner and 2200 printer. The only thing that would give me pause with your situation is that you're "inundated", and scanning, retouching and printing takes quite a while. Best wishes . . .

[shotz]

I used to enjoy spending hours on end in the darkroom making prints from my negs. I did commercial work and exhibited in galleries and shows. I also did work 'just for me'. I studied with some excellent artists and technicians in New York for several years.

 

The reason I now do the digital darkroom thing is time. Not so much that it's faster to generate prints digitally. The idea is that time and process can be segmented to suit me. I can sit down at the computer whenever I have an hour and get some satisfying work done. Then come back to it in two days and everything is right where I left it.

 

In the wet darkroom days the minimum commitment of time to accomplish anything was three hours. Between setting up, printing, washing, cleaning up, mixing chemicals, etc., etc., etc. A typical session was four hours or more. I just don't have those kinds of blocks of time anymore.

 

Also, when I lived in Manhattan there were really good rental darkrooms available by the hour whenever I wanted one. Now I live in Connecticut and there are none. Supplies are all via the mail, too.

 

I develop my B&W film - 120 and 4x5 and the occasional 8x10 - in Jobo stuff in my basement darkroom and then it's onto my Epson 2450 scanner and my new 2200 printer. An easy process to live with and live around.

[sjmurray]

I can pretty much echo what Peter and Beau said. I used to do strictly darkroom printing, but that was when I had time, before Kids. I still develop black and white film, 35, 120 and 4x5, and I really enjoy scanning and producing inkjet prints. Like Peter, I simply don't have blocks of time for long darkroom sessions, print washing, etc. With the digital process of printing, I am doing more than I have in years. I use the Epson 2450 for medium and large format, and the Minolta Scan Dual 3 for 35mm.

[scott_eaton]

This thread seems to be concentrating on the wrong problem.

 

I'll take color film, desaturation and a mediocre scan along with a top notch printer vs a $3000 scanner, perfect Tri-X negs and flaky out-put.

 

You guys can also keep the coated ink-jet papers and synthetic looking monochrome ink-jet prints on that stuff. The one time I actually agree with a wet darkroom work is resin coated B/W paper vs coated ink-jet. I'll take my matte B/W ink-jets any day over either.

 

My Epson 1640 does a better job with 6x7 B/W negs than a Nikon 8000. The Nikon is sharper, but trashes the grain structure and makes forensic looking scans from Tri-X. If you really think you need a 4,000dpi hyper sharp scanner to get good scans from MF, you're not using the 3200 right.

[fp1]

Thanks for all the responses thusfar. Scott, based on your comments, as well as

some of the photos in your portfolio ( I am assuming you are using the 3200 to

scan the film images...), I am considering trying the 3200 again....if I can find one.

 

F.

[leonard_evens]

I've been using the Epson 3200 (and perviously the 2450) for medium format. For 6 x 7, it produces pretty good results, and it is acceptable for 6 x 4.5, (or 6 x 6 cropped), but just barely so. If you are really demanding, you won't be satisfied with that scanner. There are several excellent medium format film scanners which will give you 4000 ppi scanning resolution or higher. Check out the contributions from Nikon and Minolta. They are within your $3,000 budget. I think there is a new Nikon medium format film for just over $2,000.

[john_welton3]

I shoot both 6x6 (Zeiss Ikoflex TLR) and 4x5 (Crown Graphic) in mainly TMX or TX, usually developed in Rodinal 1:50. I have a negative developing darkroom at work (on old dorm room is my office with interior bathroom) and a local public darkroom for printing here in Charleston. I usually take my Fuji 2600Z digital camera and shoot a couple of digital pictures to document the B&W.

 

I finally got a chance to develop my stuff from Christmas vacation down in the FL Everglades. Spent all day Saturday developing the negatives then all day Monday doing the prints. I use Agfa MCC111 FB with LPD 1:1 to produce a slighly warm print with deep blacks. Just for giggles, I have been experimenting with printing the digitals on my Epson 2000P. I desaturate them, adjust contrast, put a little sharpening then print on Red River Ultra Pro glossy paper. I took my 8x10's framed them, then put the digital and fiber prints side by side on the wall. Asked my wife which she thought were the better prints and picked all the digitals. I'm heart broken. I do have to agree with her. At normal viewing distances, the digital prints have a richer quality to them. Yes, the highlights tend to get blocked up, and the shadows are not in the same class as the fiber prints, and if I look at the digital prints with a magnifier glass, I can see the dots quites easily, BUT AT NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCE, the wimpy 2megapixel digital really shines. I can't go over 8x10 with these bu I will send out the 4x5 negative to get scanned and printed to make a comparison.

 

I agree with Scott that time vs. $ is always a consideration. The other interesting thing, is that my back is still sore from standing all day last Monday and my wife doesn't like the "vinegar" smell. My normal print size is 11x14 so the question for me is should I stay with medium/large format and have my negative sent out for drum scan or buy one for home. Also, should I stick with B&W or switch to transparencies and desaturate in PS?

 

Good luck with your decision and let us know how things work out.

 

John

[erik scanhancer]

"What is wrong with B&W from a D100? Is there something

wrong with this B&W from my d100? Do you think it is lacking

"dynamic range"??"

 

In my eyes the uploaded sample looks like desaturated color

(flat in the mid-tones), oversharpened (blocked up wrinkles and

lines) and with bad tonality (look at the blacks going to greys).

 

I'll try to upload a (heavily downsampled) sample from a

scanned B&W silverbased negative for comparison:<div></div>

[barry_kenstler]

I can't speak about the D100, but I can put in my two cents on the B&W scanning side.

 

I have been a long-time B&W Darkroom guy and work with 35mm through 4X5. Over the last year or two I have been scanning my negatives and have pretty much abandoned darkroom printing. At first my scanning and printing did not live up to the quality of the conventional process, but persistence and understanding have brought me to the point where I'm convinced that my digital work is superior to anything I could produce today in the darkroom.

 

The beauty of the digital process is the repeatability of the process. Anyone who has produced a run of prints that incorporated significant dodging and burning will appreciate being able to make those adjustments once and with greater accuracy than can be done in the darkroom. Another desirable advantage of digital is the ability to fine tune the tonality via adjustments such as curves, levels, and adjustment layers.

 

I scan raw/no sharpening as a positive on my Epson Expression 1680 and then adjust my image in Photoshop, first using levels,then curves, then unsharp masking, and finally inversion. A final tweak with the Brightness and Contrast controls may follow. I currently send out much of my printing to my pro lab and they print my files on their wonderful printer (similar to Lightjet) on RA-4 paper (Supra). The prints that come back are essentially indistinguishable from prints produced on resin coated B&W paper. There are labs that do similar printing to B&W stock, but I have not used them.

 

On the downside, I produce decent prints on my Epson 1280, but I have yet to invest in inks dedicated to B&W. The Epson prints are currently just for my amusement and for proofing. The Expression 1680 is a fine scanner and will produce great prints, with wonderful tonality to 11X14 inches with 6X7 negatives and to considerably larger sizes with 4X5 negatives. However, it doesn't produce as sharp a scan as a drum or Imacon scanner, though modest sharpening produces nice results. The 3200 should produce scans in the same league.

 

I suspect you could get better results with the 3200. Given that you don't currently possess the darkroom gear or experience, I'd encourage you to stick with scanning and printing via digital means. If you are scanning using the Epson defaults and allowing the scanner to select the contrast and sharpening, your silver based negative scans will almost certainly suck. A medium format film scanner, perhaps in combination with an inexpensive flatbed for 4X5, might be your best choice.

 

Good luck

[scott_eaton]

Most of my B&W work was done with a 1640, and a few shots a 2450. From the time I've spenton the 3200 it offers limited advantages over the 2450 aside from scan time.

 

I otherwise agree with Barry in that there is more potential with the 3200. The epson's may not be the sharpest nails in the can, but they are among the friendliest scanners on the market in terms of getting tonal rich scans from conventional B/W films. I hate to see you blow a lot of money fixing something that isn't broke. That will only lead to more frustration on your part, and that's not our goal here.

[gary_ferguson1]

The issue for me is at the very end of the process, namely the paper.

 

If I was happy to output everything on matte paper I'd shut up my wet darkroom like a shot and just use my piezzographic inkjet printer. But in the old days, of silver or nothing, I prefered gloss prints and that still holds true today.

 

There's the rub, even though matte inkjets can be outstanding, there's still no inkjet based glossy solution for black and white.

[scott_eaton]

What he said.

[ernie_tangalakis]

I too have just bought a 3200 scanner. I am thrilled with it. In two days I have already gotten good results from my BW scans. I can't wait to get good at this. This is one of the best all around scanners made at this price range. Now if I can just find the best BW paper. Any suggestions?

[david_henderson]

I'm sure you could get good results whichever you choose

assuming you execute it well. However if this is your hobby, or at

least something that isn't purely business, then enjoyment

comes into it too. Whichever, there's going to be a

set-up/learning curve and then a not inconsiderable amount of

ongoing time getting prints made. I'd vote for the solution that

would give me the most satisfaction and enjoyment - it's more

important than the probably small quality differences between

the two routes.

[michael_peters1]

$3000 won't get you that much of a darkroom.

Sure - a canister to develop film, even 4x5, isn't that expensive.

 

I'm sure on the used market an enlarger isn't that expensive either - but the costs go way beyond that. You will need to dedicate a room of your house to it, you probably want to dedicate a large sink to it - and that requires a plumber. You need ventilation set up, for safety reasons (fumes) - but not just any ventilation, it needs to move a lot of air and at the same time not let any light in. You may need to do some roofing work to install the proper hood.

 

Where do you live? Very often you can rent space in a dark room for much much less that it costs you to set up your own. Your local community college might have a photography class you could take just for the purpose of using their dark room.

 

Setting up your own darkroom is not financially advisable unless you are a pro doing a lot of work, or a hobbyist with a LOT of money to blow.

[oskar_ojala]

The learning challenges in a digital process are slightly different from those in conventional printing. I would tend to say that conventional is easier to learn with no prior skills of either, but a digital process is more efficient in most regards. Right now I use an epson 3200, but occasionally do prints in a conventional darkroom.

[kelly_hicks1]

Hey F.,

I'm lucky in that I have a bedroom dedicated to being a darkroom. However, I'm in grad school and also work, which limits my time that I can use it. Peter is right, unless you have a minimum of 3 hours its hard to do anything productive printing wise. From the fine artists that I've gotten feedback from it, seems that the concensus is to stick with using a cheap flatbed (3200 or 2450) for your preliminary scans. This allows you to see if you have anything worth printing. If you do have something decent send it out to be drum scanned. You will notice a difference between a 3200 or even a nikon MF scanner vs a $135,000 Tango Drum scanner. If your like most of us, you will only get a few "worthy" negatives a year that will merit to be drum scanned anyway :)

 

Once you get your file back you can then apply your photoshop adjustments and print out using a epson 2200. The 2200 is great b/c it uses the same heads as the more expensive 9600, just prints out to a smaller size.

[mmr]

Hi there! I'm using an Epson 2450 for scanning 6x6 and 6x17 B&W images and I'm very pleased with the results at 2400 dpi.<BR>

The only thing I'd like to add, is that you might have to upgrade your PC when going digital darkroom: manipulating images of more than 5000x5000 pixel in PS requires a lot of RAM and you'll never get enough CPU power. So don't forget to adjust your budget for an upgrade...<BR>

- MMR

[john_welton3]

"There's the rub, even though matte inkjets can be outstanding, there's still no inkjet based glossy solution for black and white."

 

Gary, have you looked at the Red River UltraPro glossy paper?

 

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/browse/cat=1&prod=21.htm

 

I'm printing off of an Epson 2000P, black only, and getting quite good results with this paper. Deep, rich blacks and a just very slightly warm tone. (see my post above)