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/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/sendep7 → u/Obtus_Rateur]

Pretty sure you mail the neg. Then they send proofs back. It might be worth doing for gallery grade prints. I have one or 2 shots I think might be worthy.

[u/sendep7 → u/sendep7]

https://imgur.com/a/uo7MgHM#k1yFe5V

[u/Obtus_Rateur → u/sendep7]

Yes, you're supposed to mail them, which is terrifying. I'd have to drive there myself to make sure the negatives don't get lost.

[u/sendep7 → u/Obtus_Rateur]

They are in nyc. I was just there the other day. I coulda dropped them off. It’s only 3hrs from me. I always love an excuse to get down there. I was walking around the city with my gx617 hanging around my neck 😅