4x5 b&w ; scan, or contact print?

[fw1]

I've recently really got into black and white LF, after some time of using reversal film only. Prints from slides was easy - go to the lab! However this doesn't seem the best option with b&w, and unfortunately there is no way that I can put a 4x5 enlarger in my apartment, so what are the best options for getting a print from my negatives? Several posters have mentioned that they scan their negatives - am I right in assuming that software packages will then convert the scan into a positive image which can be printed to a reasonably high quality? If so, what options for scanning and printing would people recommend, and what costs generally apply? For example, the Nikon 4x5 scanner I have seen is incredibly expensive - is there a good, not too expensive scanner that will handle 4x5 (and ideally also 6x17), or is it best to pay a lab to do this?

 

<p>

 

ALternatively, would it be easier to find an old contact printer, and produce traditional wet prints? If so, how would I control contrast in the print, other than using some kind of mask?

[dan_smith]

If you are going to make contact prints, go with what some of the

best in the business use. Try Michael A. Smith Amidol mixture(view

camera magazine article) and Kodak Azo paper. Nice stuff & it gets

excellent results.

Then, get a flatbed scanner & scan the contact print. Not as elegant

& probably not quite as sharp as the Nikon or drum scanners, but

thousands of dollars less expensive.

[shambrick007]

I'll speak to the traditional wet prints, since I've recently started

contact printing 5x7 B&W negatives. I don't know what scanners you've

been looking at, but I think only Bill Gates could afford one that

could give you the kind of resolution/detail that I've been getting in

my prints!!! It's absolutely amazing! At fist glance, you say "yeah,

it's sharp, but is it that much sharper than a professional

enlargement?" Then you pull out the loupe! I won't even try to

describe it with words - the best I could do would be to mail you a

print. OH MAN!!! It's kinda crazy, because there is so much detail in

the print that your eye would EVER need at normal view distances. I

say it's "funny" because you don't need that kinda detail, but it's

nice knowing it's there!

<p>

Of course, the downside is your prints will be no bigger than 4x5.

But a nicely matted 4x5 of a good subject can be damn nice. It would

be a shame to get into LF, only to settle for a computer scan. So, if

it were me, I'd scan em for wallpaper on my computer desktop, but for

exhibition, you gotta go with the contact print.

<p>

"If so, how would I control contrast in the print, other than using

some kind of mask?" Use multi-contrast paper and filters, with a

smaller format enlarger as your light source.

[tony_brent]

4x5 contact prints on AZO with a bit of selenium presented on an

appropriate sized mount are like little jewels. They encourage a very

intimate viewing, and if the detail and quality is there, they are

very satisfying. I dont have the chance to get to any galleries where

I live in dairy country, but I would love to see a show done this way.

[bill_glickman]

I will support your agrument about the expense of a high quality

drum scanner. For 4x5, the Imacon is the considered the low end at

about $14,000, while the high end can go to $60,000. A mid range

drum scanner for 4x5 that will suffice for up to 10x enlargments,

will be about $20k new and about half that used. Of course this does

not include the PC, about $4-5K and high end monitor so what you see

is what you get in the print... $3 - 4K. So a service bureu sure

would make sense. Oh yeah, drum scanners do not work as well with

negatives as they do with chrome film.. sorry to report if you use

neg. film..

 

<p>

 

My suggestion to you is this, find a two good labs that each are good

at their respective process, have them each make you a print, then

compare? I know I would certainly be interested in your opinion...

For me, contact prints are amazing, yes, but very limited in what you

can do... it must be a perfect chrome..or neg... and you can only end

up with 4x5. With digital, you can save a ton of images that are 70 -

90% perfect and fix them, then elect to print whatever size you

want. Of course correcting these mistakes with a lab is very

expensive also, most operators will chage $50 hr to work in Photo

shop. Hope this helps...

[mark_lipton]

I have been using a UMAX Powerlook III scanner (about $1000 street

price) with a transparency adapter connected to a Macintosh G-4 and

Epson 3000 printer. The results, after you learn the basics of the

scanning software and Adobe Photoshop, are spectacular. Incidentally,

the Epson 3000 can produce a 17x22 image, which is large enough for

almost any normal application. I am using MIS Quadtone archival inks

in the Epson along with archival paper manufactured by various

companies.

[lightcraftsman]

Actually, Bill, drum scanners do a fine job on black and white

negatives. I recently drum scanned a lot of slides and negatives, and

was stunned at how well the B&W negatives came out. And it is not that

drum scanners do a poor job on color negatives, the problem is color

negatives do a poor job of storing information. Dan Sapper from Kodak

explained it on another board. Slide films hold more information than

color negative films. Color negative films have wider contrast

latitude, but they compress this latitude into a smaller space than

silde films.

 

<p>The best bet in FW's case is what Dan suggested. Contact prints.

I'd scan the negatives for web use instead of the prints though. Even

a $300 scanner can do a good enough job on 4x5 film. But if you're

after darkroom quality reproduction you'll need to find a lab with a

drum scanner and people who know how to use it for black and white

film.

 

<p>Check out <a href="http://www.westcoastimaging.com">West Coast

Imaging</a>. They do this stuff all the time.

[doug_paramore2]

Boy! Did you stir up some response! That's great. Why not set up to

make contacts in your apartment and send out any big prints? You can

use a standard light bulb to make contacts and don't need an enlarger

of any kind unless you want to use smaller size contrast filters. I

have used such a setup with the white bulbs and with the blue bulbs

to give more contrast. Wally-World sells blue bulbs as "party bulbs".

To have bigger prints made, first get a good contact and mark that

contact for burning and dodging. Then instruct the lab to make the

big print to match the contact density and do the necessary burning

and dodging. Most black and white CUSTOM labs can make you a good

print if you are specific as to what you want. Pay the difference for

a black and white custom lab. There are some listed in "SHUTTERBUG".

Enjoy your large format black and white work. Doug

[rusty_brooks1]

A question about contact printing:

 

<p>

 

With 4x5, what "method" do you use for bringing the negative into

contact with the paper? Here are a few methods I can think of:

 

<p>

 

1. Print through negative-sleeves

2. Place negative directly on paper with glass on top

3. place negative, and 4x5 piece of paper together in print sleeve

 

<p>

 

I am currently using #3 since it makes alignment much easier and I

don't worry so much about scratching the negative, etc. But negative

sleeves pick up fingerprint smudges and attract dust (I suppose

because of their static nature). Also it would be nice to have 4x5

contact prints on 5x7 paper (for example) so I can mount and frame it

without having to overmat much.

 

<p>

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[dan_smith]

First, forget contact printing with negative sleeves. Their density

isn't what good glass is and with a delicate print will show

differences. They also scratch & ding more easily with use. For

storage, forget them also & instead get the interleaving mylar or

polypro folders from Light Impressions & put it in a polypro or

interleaving paper storage envelope you can write on with pencil-to

record your neg number, etc.

Contact print directly on the paper with glass above, with a pressure

on the glass like a contact printing frame gives. This will give the

sharpest contact print & will take away the 'oops' factor of having

paper curl push the glass away from the negative/paper sandwich.

Use contact paper larger than your negative. In handling after you

process it, you will have extra space around the image as a safety

margin & to show a clean, consistent surround of your image. It will

also enable you to write notes on a work print-directions as to how

to do the final print, etc., to keep in your files if you want to.

Setting up for contact printing is easy-use pyrex pie plates if you

want as chemistry doesn't get absorbed, but if you are nervous-don't

use them to cook on. Keep it very simple. Try reading some of Michael

A. Smiths articles in View Camera. Read some of Weston's materials.

Look at the images of Morley Baer & others who did a lot of contact

printing.

With few really good images being done, why waste a lot of time on

trying to get less than your best work in final print form, whether

contact or enlarged? Work a bit slower with LF & print the finest

images you have. Be adventuresome in shooting as long as it helps you

to learn, improve & enjoy what you are doing. The suggestion of

sending out for enlargements is a good one, especially if you don't

have the space for an enlarger/trays/etc.

If you really enjoy the contact printing you can do a good scan &

have an enlarged negative made to size & contact print it as well.

This keeps your working habits the same & allows you to get larger

images of the negatives you would like to see bigger.

[fw1]

Gosh ; what a great response! I think I will try some contact prints

to begin with. Would it be sensible to try to find a secondhand

contact printer (they seem to appear reasonably frequently on ebay),

or could I use my existing slide viewing light table as a light

source, with the negative and paper firmly positioned on the light

table by something heavy (glass, perspex, etc)? Or would this be too

crude and difficult to control?

[rusty_brooks1]

Here's another question about contact printing that I'd like to hear

thoughts on.

 

<p>

 

I've gone through the process described by Fred Picker in his book

(Zone VI Workshop) on how to fine-tune your exposure/development. So

I now have a routine for contact printing: print until film base + fog

is maximum black.

 

<p>

 

For every negative I expose (except for gross mistakes) I print at

this default. I can of course do these very quickly, no dodging and

burning, etc. I find these good measures of how successful I was in

capturing what I imagined. I compare these to polaroids (to get a

better understanding of how to interpret a polaroid) etc.

 

<p>

 

My question is: do (most, many, some) photographers tend to try to

make negatives that will print with as little manipulation as possible

(optimal negative) or do (most many some) photographers work to

develop their printing skills to produce the same/similar results

(optimal print). In other words, how much should I obsess about

trying to achieve artistic goals with minimal printing modifications?

 

<p>

 

Just a thought.

 

<p>

 

To anyone who hasn't read Fred Pickers book... I highly recommed it.

ASA ratings for film can be off by a stop or so in either direction,

and development times can be off by as much as 20 or 30% from suggeted

values due to various lenses, development procedures, water

quality/temperature, etc. For me the results were pretty close to

recommended values. I use calibrated lenses, filtered, temperature

monitored water, etc. For others I know the results were drastic:

Tri-X speed ratings of 200-250 (instead of 320)

[dan_smith]

The calibration game gets tiring & time consuming both. Take pictures

& fine tune from there. There is enough slop in most LF systems to

make calibration a joke at best, especially in field work in varying

temperatures. If you err with your B&W, err on the side of

overexposure-you still have shadow detail. Get too damn technical &

perfect with all your metering, putting shadows right on the edge,

etc., and when you hit the little slop factor you have clear negative

& no shadow detail at all. If you are contact printing, don't be

afraid of a negative a bit more dense than you might be used to for

enlarging. This is not an excuse to get sloppy. It is a working

method that will allow for some of the play you have that adds up

during each step you take in getting to the final print. Don't make

it more difficult than it has to be. Face the fact that even with all

the testing in the world not all your negatives will be perfect & go

out and photograph rather than spending six months in testing

everything.

[brian_ellis2]

Contact printing is very nice but you said you have a 4x5 camera.

Contact prints of 4x5 negatives are generally too small to be very

practical in terms of showing them to anyone and not really very

satisfactory even just for yourself. 5x7 is generally considered to

be the smallest size that can produce a usable contact print (usable

in the sense of exhibiting, even to friends). 4x5 film scanners are

very expensive, as you've discovered. However, the flat bed scanners

supposedly have been improving to a point where you can do something

with the print other than just show it over the web. I don't have any

personal experience with them. Unfortunately with 4x5 negatives I

think you really need an enlarger or a good lab to get the kind of

quality you should be getting out of large format.

[joe_sonneman1]

My answer to contact print or enlarge or scan was settled when a

salesman at Chicago's Standard Photo [now gone or moved] noticed me

drooling over an 8x10 Burke & James then [long ago] marked at $100.

He offered it to me for $50 and I grabbed it, later finding a 14"

Commercial Ektar. I knew I had neither space nor money for an 8x10

enlarger, not even for a 4x5 enlarger, and this was the pre-digital

age, so contact prints were the way to go.

Here was my simple set up for 8x10 contacts. I put the negative

and paper in a wooden printing frame [glass front, metal spring back].

This I set down, face up, on a shelf or bench. Overhead, I suspended

by its electrical cord an electric light, with 7 or 15w bulb, in a

large reflector. For a diffuser, I covered the reflector with double

thickness of white plastic garbage bag. To increase or decrease light

intensity, I would lower or raise the light by releasing or pulling

the electrical cord, which ran through an 'eye' or pulley screwed into

the ceiling. The cord was plugged into a Time-O-Light. That's all

you need, but for quicker operation, instead of a printing frame I now

use a hinged glass contact printer, mine is called a "Profile Custom

Proofer."

Color is another matter, however, and at present I have a few

transparencies scanned [about $10 each, here] onto a CD, and can use

very delicate controls even on an old Pentium 60 and even with

Photoshop Deluxe [i.e., the simple sample version] into an Epson 700,

which looks kind of like a new-art print when using Strathmore Velvet

[matte] paper. The cost of scans gets excessive you have a lot, and

scanners are getting better all the time, so I won't even try to write

about THAT.

Good fortune. Have fun and do good work!

--Joe Sonneman, photographer, Juneau, Alaska