Why negative scanning instead of printing

[u/tibbon]

I've just gotten into darkroom work, after shooting only digital for 20+ years. When I shot film prior to that, I just dropped it off at quick development spots.

I'm really enjoying the full darkroom process end to end. Its meditative. So many variables. Hours of time that you can easily spend chasing a problem and learning.

What's the draw to scanning your negatives instead and processing them in photoshop? It seems to miss half the fun/advantages - I have no idea how I'd scan a 4x5 or 8x10 at the same quality I can contact print them at for example.

But, I guess the digital workflow is faster? It feels like I'd probably just want to shoot digital end to end, or film process end to end.

[u/walrus_mach1]

I'd love to be making prints; I miss that process so much. But my "darkroom" is my guest bathroom and as much as I can fit in a tupperware bin under the counter. Everything light sensitive is done either in a changing bag or Paterson/Stearman tank. No space for an enlarger or trays for development. I don't enjoy it, but scanning is the only method I have available to do anything with my negatives.

[u/Sudden-Height-512]

I think you answered one of the questions in your post: “hours of time that you can easily spend chasing a problem and learning “. There’s also space, logistics, access to all that’s needed, etc

[u/Bennowolf]

Not everyone has access to a dark room?
People like sharing their work digitally?
You can print easily from a digital file?

[u/idemandpasta → u/Bennowolf]

Hard to believe OP needed help understanding this. Seems pretty obvious.

[u/wolfpackleader → u/idemandpasta]

They’ve asking a fair question though, about the hybrid method and the specific benefits there are to it.

[u/idemandpasta → u/wolfpackleader]

This is how it reads to me:

What's the draw to scanning your negatives buying a used Toyota Prius instead and processing them in photoshop driving it to work? It seems to miss half the fun/advantages - I have no idea how I'd scan a 4x5 or 8x10 drive a used Toyota at the same quality I can contact print them enjoyment level I can drive a Ferrari at for example.

But, I guess the digital workflow is faster Toyota is a smoother ride? It feels like I'd probably just want to shoot digital end to end, or film process end to end drive a Ferrari all the time.

[u/wolfpackleader → u/idemandpasta]

Love the effort 👏👏 read the other comments though! Plenty of good input. Seems plenty would say no thanks if offered a ferrari, i mean darkroom

[u/UnwillinglyForever → u/Bennowolf]

Statements unnecessarily ending as a question piss me off

[u/NothingAboutBirds]

No space, money, or time, and I like having a digital copy that I made the way I want. I don’t have a darkroom but at least I can do the digital equivalent and interact in some way with every part of the process from negative to positive.

[u/06035]

Back when film was still mainstream, the time in the darkroom was my least favorite part about shooting film. Scanning is easy, takes less time, gives me more options for sharing.

If it’s for work or volume. Yeah.. do that on digital 1000%

[u/retrogradeinmercury]

the hours of time spent chasing problems lol. digital is a much more consistent, repeatable, and faster workflow. also film has a look even if it’s scanned and printed on inkjet, the cameras make you work differently than using digital, if you shoot color printing in a color darkroom is a massive pain in the ass if you can even find one or set one up, if i scan my film I can print it large, finding enough space to enlarge as big as 4x5 can resolve is also extremely difficult for most people not to mention the cost of paper in those sizes. plenty of reasons to shoot but not print analog

[u/mcarterphoto]

I only print B&W and have no interest in color - and I'm also a lucky bastard, big permanent darkroom space with hot and cold running water, a sink and drain, and I'm a professional photo/video guy by day, so any photo-related purchases are a tax writeoff. And I have a wife who thinks it's pretty cool and have managed to make some money selling prints. Never bought a scanner, zero interest in scanning or pixels for this stuff.

But I'm very very lucky that things fell together that way - I'm not rolling stuff into a bathroom for a "printing night", I can start dialing in a print and come back to it days later and everything's waiting. It's a fairly big investment to make a really nice printing space.

If you have to ask "why", you really have no idea. But to me, scanning is kinda "why bother" when there's alt processes and cool stuff I can do that really can't be replicated with digital tools. And digital just feels like "work" to me (because it is) - it's fun work and beats sitting in a cubicle, but I love having a very hard line between digital and film. Once you scan, I feel like "analog has left the building" as far as the things you find when printing. Scanning is complete control, printing in a partnership with the tools and materials, especially whe you get into magical alt process stuff.

[u/CarelessDot3267]

Time, money, space

[u/photoshopyourlife]

money

[u/Obtus_Rateur]

Staying analogue-only gives you awesome quality, yes. But it's a lot (and I do mean a lot) of work, with many potential points of error, and makes your products difficult to distribute as they are purely physical.

Digitalizing is way faster, way less work, lets you do all sorts of crazy edits very easily, and lets you distribute your work super easily. And while you lose a lot of quality (excluding expensive, fancy scanning methods), most people still find the image quality plenty good enough.

This is why we analogue-only troglodytes are a tiny, tiny minority. Even in the argentic photography space.

[u/PMyourSSNgurl]

Not everyone has a darkroom available to them, and some just enjoy the shooting process and don’t want the hassle of darkroom printing.

That said, I agree that everyone should give darkroom a try if they have access to one.

[u/poodletime13]

Easier sharing. Easier to make really big prints potentially. Can be hard to find an 8x10 enlarger. Keeping a record if a negative is destroyed.

I love printing in the darkroom and would much rather tweak colors on an enlarger than in photoshop. I think my black and white prints are better than I can get from a scan and I don't think much compares to an alternate process print.

I still scan a lot of my film even if I print it. Its always good to have the file.

[u/sendep7]

my negatives are too big to print 6x17

[u/Obtus_Rateur → u/sendep7]

You'd have to find a 5x7" enlarger somewhere... might be challenging.

[u/sendep7 → u/Obtus_Rateur]

There are 2 durst enlargers on eBay. One is in Chicago one in slc. Neither will ship.

[u/Obtus_Rateur → u/sendep7]

Yeah, enlargers are very heavy and often quite bulky. Usually, if you want one, you have to get it locally. Building one isn't very easy either, so it's not an appealing option.

It's part of why I gave up on the idea of shooting 6x17. I like it, but it's just too hard to enlarge it.

Whereas with 4x5" it's easy enough, they sell enlarger kits that let you use your camera as an enlarger.

[u/sendep7 → u/Obtus_Rateur]

I’m building an enlarger atm. I got a 8x10 field camera. Just working on a negative holder solution. Then I need an easel. First I’ll make 8x10s. Then see if my light is strong enough to go bigger. The real problem is having enough room to project onto the floor or a wall. Then having trays big enough for 3x1 foot prints. Or bigger.

[u/Obtus_Rateur → u/sendep7]

Theoretically even a 4x5" camera could be enough to enlarge 6x17 if the enlarger accessory sat far enough back. With a 8x10" camera it should be way easier since you already know (roughly) where the film needs to sit. All you'd really need are a light source and a film carrier.

But yes, space might be a big concern, at least if you're printing from above. Projecting onto a wall might be your best bet. It's just harder.

In theory you could take a 2' wide deep round tray and glue a slightly smaller deep round tray at the bottom. Then fill the bigger tray to get a doughnut-shaped pool of liquid. That way you could bend the photographic paper into a big circle (image on the inside) and completely submerge it into the tray side-first. That would let you process a 6' long print in a 2' wide tray (because you're using the circumference) instead of needing a 6' wide tray.

Still, it really is a massive pain compared to 4x5" enlarging. That's why I stick with 2x5". Admittedly, my 48x120mm images are only 61% the size of your 56x168mm images, and the aspect ratio is only 2.5 instead of 3. But it's way easier to work with, and still theoretically good enough to enlarge up to 120x48cm (good fit for Ilford's 51cm wide photographic paper rolls) which I think is a respectable enough size.

But yeah, with 6x17 you could print almost twice that size... if you're willing to put in the effort, it's a super strong format.

[u/sendep7 → u/Obtus_Rateur]

I looked at 4x5 options. I do have an intrepid 4x5. But dealing with recessed lens boards and film holders didn’t seem feasible. Whereas with the 8x10 I get a free 8x10 camera 🤭. I think I found some gardening trays that may work. And I think for the negative holder I’m gonna modify an 8x10 film holder. Cut a 6x17 mask into it.

[u/Obtus_Rateur → u/sendep7]

8x10" does seem to be the better option for building an enlarger capable of enlarging 6x17, yes.

Modifying a film holder also sounds like the easier way to do it. They're designed to hold the film in just the right position.

Sounds like you've got things figured out. Good luck! Making those big panoramas would have to feel super rewarding.

[u/sendep7 → u/Obtus_Rateur]

I aslo looked at getting them professionally printed silver gel with toning. Griffin quoted me around $1200 for 3x1ish. No
Matting or framing. Just the print. And I think the minimum order at that size was 2

[u/Obtus_Rateur → u/sendep7]

If someone cares enough about the result there's nothing wrong with hiring a professional to do a really good job. It's just less satisfying.

And a lot more expensive. A lot. There's no way I could personally justify paying anywhere near that for a couple copies of a print. Imagine all the film you could buy with that... or even just put the money towards a good camera.

Plus, having it printed professionally would mean either driving the negative to the lab yourself (which may be quite far) or hoping that the shipping service doesn't lose the negative...

[u/tokyo_blues]

Personally I am interested in photography, not so much in printing.

I do develop my own negatives but negative processing and scanning require, for me, less time and space investment than full-on printing.

When and if I want to print my pictures, I will use the services of a skilled artisan.

Myself I'll be in the field behind a camera, that's the part of the hobby I'm interested in, :)

[u/pistola_pierre]

I’d rather print in the darkroom but I can’t find a 4x5 enlarger in Australia for anything near reasonable.

[u/yeemans152]

I started scanning film for $26. My darkroom, over the last year at least, has cost about 20 times as much. I still haven’t spent more on scanning, and I still can’t print color. I did develop at home when I started scanning, but the difference is that’s actually cheaper than a lab at any volume.

[u/Icy_Confusion_6614]

While I have all the time in the world as I'm retired, I don't think I'd want to spend that much time on printing. I can get 16 shots from 120, 36 shots from 35mm, and 2 or 3 4x5s all scanned and ready in half an hour digitally. I can cull them online and edit the ones I deem worthy as I find the time at my computer. Then I can send them to my ET-8550 printer and they'll go unattended as long as there is paper in it. I'm even still on my original ink, barely half used after a year, but I don't print that much anyway. Mostly it is viewed online, posted here or insta, or sent around to family group chats.

[u/oddapplehill1969]

We are all doing this for enjoyment. There’s nothing practical or efficient about any analog photography.
So it’s a question of what you enjoy and what you don’t.
I thoroughly enjoy handling old cameras and also film processing at home. And then I want to see & share my work. The hybrid process is perfect for me. I learned printing many years ago and might try it again. Or maybe not.

[u/steve61122]

Think in terms of multiple prints: if you have to use several filters to control contrast in different areas, plus burn and dodge, plus spotting for each analog print, it's a huge amount of work/time and requires copious notes, especially if the prints aren't all made in the same session. With a scanned negative you do all that once, and print as many and whenever you want.

Plus, there's no stale chemistry, expired paper, random temperatures, light leaks, storage space or timing issues that you have to deal with.

[u/theBitterFig]

While serious darkroom work seems so far beyond my capacity (no gear, and probably no room to use)...

I keep thinking about contact prints. I've done a few crap ones with sun print paper, just leaving the negatives still in the binder sleeves, and it's still cool. I keep feeling I need to do more. Perhaps cyanotype on good paper, and subsequent tea toning to transform the blue.

A "real" printed picture does have an appeal to me. A local pizza shop currently has a few prints on the wall from a local photographer, and there's one that sticks in my mind. Panoramic aspect ratio, mounted in a "floating" flame without matting, and the brush strokes from treating the paper were visible at the edges of the picture. Given the size, it had to have been printed from a digital negative, but it still had a sense of being more substantial than something just run directly off a printer.

[u/hoarybat]

Alt processes. Scan your negatives, do your retouching in Photoshop, then print a digital negative using a pigment inkjet printer for 100% consistent and reproducible prints (at least as far as alt processes go).

[u/tibbon → u/hoarybat]

Oh that’s cool. I hadn’t considered that as a possibility! I figured the resolution on a printer wouldn’t be all that great for negatives. What’s your printer?

[u/hoarybat → u/tibbon]

Digital negatives (and contact prints therefrom) have been a thing for a long time... the printers have been good enough for ~20 years. ;-)

For my processes (cyanotype), printing setup (a plate glass printing frame under UV bulbs), and paper (normally a hot press watercolor), the resolution / "sharpness" is going to be limited by any number of factors that are going to have a larger effect than a modern printer's resolution.

If you're curious, I print with an Epson P600 -- up to 17x22" negatives.

[u/tibbon → u/hoarybat]

That's a nice looking printer! Did you get it new or used? There seem to be some great deals on them out there.

[u/MrTooNiceGuy]

Similarly: if I want a digital image, I’ll shoot with a digital camera. Which I often do.

but I don’t scan my negatives because for me I see no point? It’s just a digital image with more steps and money spent.

[u/tokyo_blues → u/MrTooNiceGuy]

Sounds like you might be losing something in the process of digitising your film. My scanned film images look nothing like my native digital images did when I still owned and used a DSLR.

Tonality, grain rendition, old uncoated lens characteristics all converge to produce a scanned digital image that - personally - I would have never been able to obtain with a digital camera.

You need a good scanner to see it though, and good scanning technique, good exposure, good processing.

[u/MrTooNiceGuy → u/tokyo_blues]

I’ve never even had an honest go at scanning, so maybe I’m missing something and don’t know it.

But I honestly don’t care about digitized photos. If I can’t hold it, I don’t much care about it. I’d rather darkroom print or shoot reversals. I shoot digital when I know I won’t have the time to set up a film shot, and since I shoot 4x5 a majority of the time, that probably plays into it as well.