LF darkroom enlargement vs scanning

[patawauke]

I'd be interested in members' views as to whether there's still any advantage today in enlarging/printing LF negs (providing one had space for a LF darkroom) versus scanning them, given the improving quality of scanners and printers?

What are current trends in this regard? I have a hankering to recreate a darkroom like I used to have long ago, but with a 6x9 or 5x4 enlarger. Or is this increasingly unnecessary/ill-advised with new digital tools available?

ps-I'm hoping not to start a analogue/digital war, especially as a newcomer to this forum!

[mark e mark]

All depends if you like swanning around in the dark, with wet chemicals, so sitting in front of a PC/MAC screen all the time. I find the darkroom a 'nice' change. Plus all the enlarger stuff now second hand is dirt cheap. I have a Meopta Magnifax 4 for negs up to 6.5 to 9cm, its not that big, similar size to 6x7cm enlargers. Its when you go up to 5x4 that is a concern. My dark room is the spare bedroom. Film developing is done in the bathroom.

[mark e mark]

Having said the above, I would like to get a V750 or similar, because I have one or two negs with scratches on which I would like to repair digitally .

[Joanna Carter]

What are current trends in this regard? I have a hankering to recreate a darkroom like I used to have long ago, but with a 6x9 or 5x4 enlarger. Or is this increasingly unnecessary/ill-advised with new digital tools available?

I don't have room for a darkroom, so scanning is my only option unless I want to spend lots of money getting a lab to do my printing.

I am currently showing 30" x 24" prints from 5" x 4" negs, scanned, adjusted and sent to Ilford for them to print on a 50" Lightjet printer with their own RC pearl silver gelatine paper. As long as I send two images at the same time, it costs me around £30 per print.

The beauty of scanning is that I can print small sizes to my inkjet printer and, without much extra work, send the same file to a lab for larger prints. Once the spotting, dodging, burning and split contrast work is done on the file, the prints don't need spotting. What's more, once the film is scanned in, I can work on the image when and where I like without all that smelly chemistry and fumbling around in the dark.

But don't get the idea that scanning is the easy option, it can take me several hours, sometimes days to get some prints as they should be. IMO, neither scanning nor darkroom produces better or worse results; they are both different and they both have their strengths and weaknesses depending on the original film and the expected result.

[IanG]

Despite having scanning capabilities for 5"x4" I prefer to enlarge, it's quicker & easier and I much prefer the results, I print up to 10"x8" negs, mainly B&W but sometimes colour.

Ian

[Alan Clark]

For me the main consideration is the quality of the final print. The best inkjet prints I have seen have been done on Epson's latest printers on Harman FB Gloss paper. These can be very good but to my eye are still not quite a match for wet prints done on glossy fibre paper.

Alan

[Joanna Carter]

For me the main consideration is the quality of the final print. The best inkjet prints I have seen have been done on Epson's latest printers on Harman FB Gloss paper. These can be very good but to my eye are still not quite a match for wet prints done on glossy fibre paper.

It might be interesting for you to see just what can be done in Photoshop, under the direction of a darkroom printer. Part of the problem with digital prints is that most people seem to use a different "look and feel", simply because they can. I tend to try and match that "darkroom look". Let me know if you are interested in coming to our next Photoshop for LF Photographers workshop at the end of October.

[Alan Clark]

Joanna,
Apologies for not expressing myself clearly.
First, I was referring to black & white prints, which I didn't actually mention.
Second, I wasn't thinking about competence/incompetence in Photoshop, but more about differences between digital and wet prints which come more from their inherent characteristics. Digital prints have their image on the surface, where the ink is, wheras wet prints have their image below the surface emerging out of a silver halide emulsion. I find that ,as a result of this, and maybe other things, they look quite different. I am not saying that wet prints are "better", only that I prefer them, and therefore do all the printing for my own collection in the darkroom.

Alan

[Joanna Carter]

First, I was referring to black & white prints, which I didn't actually mention.

I had assumed that

Digital prints have their image on the surface, where the ink is, wheras wet prints have their image below the surface emerging out of a silver halide emulsion.

Actually, some inkjet papers, like Fuji Satin, have a permeable coating which allows the ink to pass through and, unlike other papers, don't suffer from the problem of gloss differential where there is no ink.

I find that ,as a result of this, and maybe other things, they look quite different. I am not saying that wet prints are "better", only that I prefer them, and therefore do all the printing for my own collection in the darkroom.

And, from this point of view, I would be interested to know your opinion of the prints that Ilford did for me, from my scanned images. Which brings me to the point that a silver print does not always mean that the photographer has not scanned the neg or used Photoshop.

[Alan Clark]

Joanna,
I have an HP printer, and HP's premium plus paper also uses the swellable technology to take the ink below the surface. Trouble is these papers suffer from a resultant loss of sharpness. And they just look like glossy and semi-matt resin coated darkroom paper, in terms of surface finish.
Do I sound hard to please? I suppose I am.
Are your new Ilford prints on Fibre or RC?

[Joanna Carter]

Do I sound hard to please? I suppose I am.

Not at all. Although, I have seen some inkjet papers that can give a sharper print.

Are your new Ilford prints on Fibre or RC?

Unfortunately, they are only on RC; Ilford do not have the archival washing facilities for fibre and Metro Imaging want considerably more per print for their fibre prints.

[scovell001]

Hey, is it O.K. if I put my 4 eggs in.

There's quality prints, and then there's QUALITY prints. The GREATEST QUALITY print currently available is on a profiled Chromira printer using Fujiflex (similar to Cibachrome) material. To get to this you need a high quality master from either a properly profiled drum scanner or, a betterlight scanning back. I've seen these prints in the flesh, and to put it on a scale, an Epson 3880 print on Exhibition Fibre Paper is at 1 the Chromira on Fujiflex is at 100. 3 dimensional would be a word I'd use.

This post has highlighted 2 distinct factors with prints. Look/feel & resolution. The traditional wet darkroom prints have a feel and a quality about them because the print is IN the paper (stated elsewhere in this post). Inkjet prints (or whatever you call them) rely on the ink sitting on top of the paper in whatever form. Inkjets have greater resolution, but darkroom prints have a greater substance and quality to them. Chromira prints are all the best things about the wet darkroom with the resolution of an inkjet. And just so we're on the right tracks here, I'm not talking about DURST Lambda prints made by Peak Imaging/similar or, OCE 5000 lightjet prints made by companies such as Spectrum Photographic in Brighton. I'm talking Chromira prints, look it up, spend the money, see for yourself!!!!

[patawauke]

That's interesting, and Jack Dykinga recommended something along those lines in his LF Nature Photography book: Heidelberg Tango drum scan, photoshop final adjustments and Fuji Crystal Archive prints, although his were output on Lightjet printers. So what we're saying is that at the top end, digital processing leaves traditional enlargement and wet processing behind. But is it affordable for the enthusiast, or just for the £0000's per shoot professionals? A 5x4 enlarger can be had for £500, probably the cost of just a couple of these digital uber-prints. Uum, gives me cause for reflection.

Thanks for all the input-John

[scovell001]

Have a look around 20x30 Chromira prints cost around £30-£40 depending on where you go, sometimes a little more. You need to find a lab which uses one and specialises in fine art printing, rather than just poster printing.

Its not that the traditional darkroom has been left behind, its just there's a real chalk and cheese thing going on. Darkroom prints look and feel different and perhaps more of a quality product, but inkjet prints have a higher resolution, allow more control and have greater repeatability. But always look a little flat in my opinion. However, what really drives this is if/how you're going to sell your prints (assuming you're going to do so). Are they gonna be framed/unframed etc etc. Because when a print gets behind glass nobody will be FEELING the paper! Its purely down to look, and surface reflections when viewed from an angle. And, ultimately cost. Do you want to be slaving away in a darkroom for half a day or more turning out 1 print that nobody will pay more than £45 for? Or, blast out 10 small prints on your inkjet in an hour that fly out for £8 each? Unfortunately, economics have an awful lot of say over the technology we use...

[DJ]

The GREATEST QUALITY print currently available is on a profiled Chromira printer using Fujiflex (similar to Cibachrome) material. To get to this you need a high quality master from either a properly profiled drum scanner or, a betterlight scanning back. I've seen these prints in the flesh, and to put it on a scale, an Epson 3880 print on Exhibition Fibre Paper is at 1 the Chromira on Fujiflex is at 100. 3 dimensional would be a word I'd use.

I can concur with this in some respect, the metallic prints made with "lightjet" type printers are very very pleasing to look at. There are several papers like this, Kodak Endura Metallic, Fuji Supergloss and Fuji Pearl which are all metallic type "Cibachrome" look papers. The Pearl paper has a "prismatic" base and kind of reflect light at low levels, very nice paper.

And just so we're on the right tracks here, I'm not talking about DURST Lambda prints made by Peak Imaging/similar or, OCE 5000 lightjet prints made by companies such as Spectrum Photographic in Brighton. I'm talking Chromira prints, look it up, spend the money, see for yourself!!!!

I've had many Kodak Endura Metallic prints from Peak with their Durst Lambda, which they unfortunately do not have ICC profiled, having said that, the prints were very good. I also have one or two done on a well profiled Chromira on Fuji Pearl, which are excellent. There's no real resolution difference between the Durst and a Chromira, they're both around the 300ppi mark ( 305ppi for Durst, 300ppi for Chromira ), so the differences are going to be in the profiling and setup, and unfortunately Peak are mainly about volume, not fine art. Both the Chromira and the Durst Lambda are LED printers, what I'd love to see is a Fuji Pearl print done on a Noritsu which uses lasers and can do 400ppi, but I've yet to find anyone who can do it

Unfortunately, the downside to this method is that there are very few labs doing this kind of thing, they don't like running the more expensive paper. Peak Imaging will only do a run on Endura Metallic when they have enough orders to make it worthwhile loading the paper, so maybe once a week at most, and to date I've only found one place who do the Fuji Pearl paper and they're in California, from whence the shipping is extortionate. These kinds of prints are also expensive in small volumes.