What to scan in this case, the print or the negative?

[jos__miguel_ferreira]

Maybe someone can help me here...

 

I printed a large project a year ago on FB paper, on 11x14 paper, and

these final "master" prints were intended to be used for a high-

quality book project. These prints are the only ones available - I

couldn't afford to print several copies.

 

These prints are going to be sold at an exhibit soon, but I would

like to keep an exact "digital copy" of the image as it is on the

print, so that there is consistency in the look of the silver print

and the image on the (upcoming) book. On the other hand, I might want

to make digital negatives of these images later on to propose more

affordable versions of the image. What would be better, keeping in

mind that image quality is the first priority: having the prints drum-

scanned and "ready" for any sort of output (book, digital negative,

inkjet) or drum-scanning the 4x5 negatives and re-doing the work on

the computer? Also, what's the least expensive of the two,

considering that I would be doing this to 50-70 images through a

service bureau?

 

Any help would be great.

 

Thanks,

JMF

[joey]

The negative will give you better quality, although it might not be as faithful to the darkroom print. The solution is to scan them <i>both</i>, and then adjust the neg scan to match the density of the print scan. That way, you'll have a higher-quality digital file that matches what you've produced in the darkroom. You might be able to find some software that will automatically adjust the two images to match each other (I'm not sure if Photoshop's "Match Color" feature works with B/W, but it's worth a shot).<br><br>

 

I have no idea what the least expensive option should be... but in this case, none of your options will be prohibitively expensive, so you should focus on absolute quality, rather than small differences in cost. If you decide to go with the dual-scanning route, you can get away with scanning the print on an ordinary flatbed, and then getting the actual negatives scanned with a drum scanner--that'll save you the cost of an extra drum scan.

 

Have fun...

[jos__miguel_ferreira]

Joe, thanks for your answer. The cost of *any* drum-scan here is far more than what I can afford right now. I'll buy a new Epson F3200 or a new Canon 9950, depending on the reviews of these machines, unless I can find a good Epson 4870 in the used market. For what I understand, scanning my 4x5 negatives with one of these will give me the same if not better results than drum-scanning the print. I have a 72dpi scan of all the prints, so I can compare the results as I re-do the work on the high-res file.

 

José

[nikos peri]

José, I've seen you mention this in your two threads. I have the 4870 which I primarily use for 4x5" scans. While it is very good, and affordable, you will NOT get as good results as a proper drum scan. Depending on the file size you need, you could max out the effective optical resolution of the 4870 (which is generally given at 2000dpi), but more importantly, you will have much better dmax in a drum scan.<p>

That said, I do understand your dilemma, as drums are not cheap. IMO the Epsons are a good choice for second-best.

[ransomsix]

If you have really good custom prints already, and intend to produce a book as you

say, I'd drum scan from the prints personally. Many, many great photo books are

produced that way. Look at the amazing tonality and quality of all the master printer

hardback photo books on the shelves. They're as beautiful as the prints they were

scanned from. The key there is a great drumscan, with great communication between

the prepress people, yourself and the printer. Scanning the negative in theory saves

loosing a generation, but you will also have to do all your fine tune printing again on

the computer. Also, a lot of high end publishers prefer to work and drum scan from

the master print. As you said in your second post, drum scanning can be expensive,

but with high quality book printing it's not an option, it's a must have. However you

can get passible scans on your desktop. It's just a matter of the user and his or her

ability to correct to a great scan. It's no drum scan, but it could be a good result

regardless. Try scanning both the neg and the print, since you have them, and

determine which is working best for you. My guess is with a desktop scanner you may

loose some shadow and highlight detail from your print, especially if there are a lot of

important tones in those areas. Also, is it you publishing the book yourself or

someone else? If it's a publisher, you may consider asking them what they'd like to

have in the long term. Like I said, personally for a high end book with high quality

b&w printing, I'd get great scans from the prints if at all possible. It is quite

expensive, but in many respects worth it. You likely took the time to make perfect

prints. You don't want a decent scan then if you can avoid it. You want a perfect one.

[jos__miguel_ferreira]

Nicola, Jared,

 

I totally agree with you guys. That's why my first intention was to have a local service-bureau do all the drum-scans from the master prints. The book will come out sooner or later, either self-publishing or through a high-end publisher. The trouble is that these prints are going to be sold during next month, and my initial idea, of drum-scanning them before the buyers take them home, is simply financially impossible. I'm asked around US$80 per scan and per print! Unless a publisher shows up during the show and advances the money for the drum-scans, I have no alternative but to scan the negatives. I even thought about acquiring a Imacon scanner, but that's out of my pocket's league. Unfortunately I don't know when I'm going to be able to print these images again in the traditional darkroom.

Decisions, decisions... Much easier to make with deep pockets!

José

[mike dixon]

Why would you need a drum scan of the print? A good flatbed should have no trouble handling the dynamic range of a print, and if you scan at 1600 dpi, you'll have a 394 mega"pixel" file (big enough to make a 44" x 56" print at 400 dpi).