Transition - Darkroom to Digital room

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I have been shooting film for almost 3 years now, and that started with about a year in a darkroom. I mostly shoot TriX (in Rodinal 1+50) for BW work, and various colour emulsions for the rest. </p>

<p>I have recently acquired a Minolta Dual Scan II, and I'm getting a Coolscan IV from a friend in a few days. As far as scanning goes, I'm sure I can get good results from the Coolscan IV and Vuescan. </p>

<p>I am also quite familiar with photoshop and illustrator. However, I am having a hard time getting the same tones I'm use to getting in the darkroom with my BW negs. I know it can't be replicated, but many properly printed photography books still achieve the rich mid tone range that I attribute to darkroom printing. </p>

<p>I have been playing around with levels and curves, but I'm open to starting from scratch as I'm setting up a small photo hobby studio at the moment and would like to eventually print on an epson inkjet with proper BW inks. </p>

<p>Any suggestions? Workflow? Software?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance, </p>

<p>J</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Black and white is harder to deal with in the digital realm than you might think, but with the right techniques and equipment, you can make masterful prints. For a website speciallizing in the business of making and selling prints, browse through <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com">www.luminous-landscape.com</a>. Among the essays and techniques folders, there are many articles on B&W scanning and printing.</p>

<p>To start, always scan in 16-bit mode. That gives you the same dynamic range, but more steps within that range for adjustments without posterization. Some people scan at several exposure settings and combine the results. I don't think this is necessary, since you can't really change the exposure in the scanner, just how its software interprets the results. If you set it up properly, you can capture the whole dynamic range in one scan.</p>

<p>Secondly, you cannot use Nikon's Digital ICE for dust removal. ICE depends on infrared light. Color dyes are transparent to infrared while dust is not, which gives ICE the tool it needs to work without affecting photographic content. Unfortunately, silver emulsions are also opaque to infrared, so you get thoroughly unpleasant results. Software only solutions to dust control produce disappointing results, and affect image quality. Learn to work clean, wear lint-free gloves and make liberal use of canned air (or a small compressor). On the plus side, once you de-dust an image file, you can make as many prints as you want without repeat treatment. You can do it non-destructively in Lightroom, or using adjustment layers in Photoshop. Likewise with dodging and burning.</p>

<p>Finally, always scan at the maximum useable resolution. Most of the time scanning is setting up and processing the results. Low resolution "proof" scans are a waste of time. You can always make thumbnails of the results. The maximum resolution of a Nikon IV is 4000 ppi, so use it. The maximum resolution of a flatbed is usually a fraction of the advertized value because of the limitation of micro-lens arrays and overlap of images. You don't gain much from a consumer flatbed (not a $20K professional model) if you scan more than 2400 ppi.</p>

<p>You can get inksets which have several shades of black and grey instead of colors. With the right software, this might work well, but generally voids the warranty of the printer (e.g., Epson). A professional model like the Epson 3800 may do well enough with the standard inkset. The ultimate tool might be RIP (Raster Image Processing) software, such as ImagePrint, which gives you complete control over ink application and tonality.</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>One of my big problems is getting the tone curve right. In the darkroom, even if I'm using split filtering, the mid tones seem to just fall into place. In photoshop, not so much. </p>

<p>I have a small air compressor on my to buy list as well. So far not too many problems with dust, since I built a cabinet</p>

<p>J</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>An interesting technique is to use unsharp masking to improve mid-range tonality. Its use in sharpening detail is actually an offshoot of the original intent. You can learn more about this at <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com">www.luminous-landscape.com</a>. I haven't used it, but it's widely used in astronomical photography, and by various digital (and darkroom) craftsmen.</p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>You need a good printer now not "eventually," preferably one that's supported by QTR (www.harrington.com) or if not that then at least one that will allow you to use Epson's Advanced B&W. If you're going to print b&w exclusively consider dedicating the printer to one of Jon Cone's inks (www.inkjetmall.com) now rather than later. You might as well be learning with the inks you plant to eventually use anyhow. Have you calibrated your monitor? That's essential to getting predictable results. What kind of paper are you using? I prefer matte paper myself but glossy will give you somewhat deeper blacks and perhaps something closer to what you're used to from the darkroom, especially if you used RC paper in your darkroom.</p>

<p>You should know Photoshop very well. Although you say you're "quite familiar" with Photoshop, you also say you've been "playing around" with levels and curves. If you know Photoshop very well you shouldn't be playing around with them, you should know precisely when and how to use each for what purpose (hint: generally use Curves, not Levels). How about Layers, selections, masking, selective sharpening, multiple exposures and blending? All of those things and more go into making a fine print digitally, at least they do for me and for people who are better printers than I am.</p>

<p>There are several books available on printing b&w digitally. I'd suggest getting one of them, probably the one written by George DeWolfe (there were none available when I started so I haven't read any of them but I know George DeWolfe and I'd be surprised if anything he wrote on printing wasn't very good).</p>

<p>I used film (6x7, 4x5 and 8x10) for quite a few years and printed in my darkroom. I switched to printing digitally about 8 years ago. It's no big achievement to make a print digitally that's indistinguishable (except by the paper surface or with a loupe) from a darkroom print. But why do that? The idea is to make a better print than can be made in a darkroom and you have the tools at your disposal to do that if you know how to scan, edit in Photoshop, and print properly.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>[Disclaimer: I am <em><strong>not</strong></em> the B&W wizard in the digital darkroom that I'd like to be. Unfortunately, my experience has been that often I like prints I made wet better than prints of from the same negative, drum scanned, edited by me in the digital darkroom, and printed digitally. So there is definitely a significant learning curve, and some of what follows is based on what I've seen others do, which of course proves what can be done, if you know what you're doing.]<br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>I know it can't be replicated ...</em></p>

<p>Says who? I think it can be, almost whatever "it" is.</p>

<p><em> but many properly printed photography books still achieve the rich mid tone range that I attribute to darkroom printing.</em></p>

<p>Which of course suggests that it can be replicated, unless none of those books is printed digitally. Also, what exactly are "rich midtones"? That's one of those imprecise descriptions that people tend to throw around. You mean darker, lighter, higher contrast, lower contrast, what? Identify the problem in a truly meaningful way and I think you'll have it half-solved.</p>

<p><em>To start, always scan in 16-bit mode.</em></p>

<p>Amen. While the need for 16-bit-per-channel editing of color files is often exaggerated, when you're talking about B&W film scans, sometimes you need to do relatively radical curves-type adjustments, where the extra bits (and their resulting smoother tones) can be really useful.</p>

<p><em>One of my big problems is getting the tone curve right. In the darkroom, even if I'm using split filtering, the mid tones seem to just fall into place. In photoshop, not so much.</em></p>

<p>You may find that having two layers, editing each separately (curves etc.) and then using masks to selectively combine them into the final image helps.</p>

<p><em>hint: generally use Curves, not Levels</em></p>

<p>Amen. If there's anything levels can do that curves cannot do, I don't know what it is. AFAIK, if you know what you're doing (and on this point I think I do, but I could always learn something new), anything you can do with levels you can fairly quickly and easily do with curves, but with more precision and flexibility.</p>

<p>One other point: if you're scanning B&W film that takes a big item out of your hands, but if you're either scanning color film or starting with color natively-digital capture (digital cameras that truly capture only B&W are rare), and then trying to make B&W prints, you have the added issue of the color response of B&W film that you're used to seeing. Some people advocate using the channel mixer to dial in relatively more or less of the red, green, and blue channels into the mixdown to B&W. Doing that is often (not always) better than nothing, but to really do it right, you need to first use the curves tool independently on each color channel. Getting that right takes knowing what you're doing.</p>

 

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Thanks for all the thorough replies, </p>

<p>I am picking up a Nikon Coolscan IV this week and have just purchased Vuescan 9 Professional. This should take care of the scanning end (?)</p>

<p>I also built a rendering machine last year, a good solid i7 processor that I'm dedicating to this project. All I need is a decent monitor and learn to calibrate it. I think for this winter I will focus on learning to scan properly and editing. I'll get my friend to print a few of them on his high end Epson. </p>

<p>One question; The Coolscan IV is a 12 bit scanner? Are the newer scanners, such as the Plustek 7600 any higher? </p>

<p>J</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>Any suggestions? Workflow? Software?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A recent thread touched upon many issues while transitioning from film to digital:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00axTm?start=0</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>After reading tons of books on digital photography, I came across this book in 2007 and wished that it was available when I first transitioned from film to digital. Its merit is not the "how to", many other books are far superior. But it is a godsend for those transitioning from film to digital. Amazon's comments eloquently explained why.<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/158115433X/?tag=nmphotonet-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(link)</a></p>

</blockquote>

 

[julien_boudreau]

<p>It turns out my friend was selling me a Nikon Coolscan V ED. After a few test scans I can say it certainly exceeds my expectations. I'm having a lot of trouble with fuji colour film, but as far as getting a "raw" scan file, it's a great machine. My TriX in Rodinal negs are coming out crisp with tight grain. </p>

<p>I also purchased Vuescan and have been playing around with it. </p>

<p>The only remaining piece of the puzzle is a decent monitor. I only have a few hundred dollars to spend here so I'm looking to buy used or big sales. </p>

<p>Any recommendations for a decent monitor in the $200-$300 range?</p>

<p>Julien</p>