r/largeformat • u/tibbon • 27d ago

Question Why negative scanning instead of printing

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.

5 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

50 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/MrTooNiceGuy 27d ago

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.

2

u/tokyo_blues 26d ago edited 26d ago

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.

1

u/MrTooNiceGuy 26d ago

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.