- This topic is empty.
Converting traditional B&W to digital.
-
I’m sure a few of you have neg scanners (I have one myself) and that you scan b&w negs for photoshopping.
My question is this, is this the best way to convert your images to digital? My point is that the darkroom printing process is such a large factor in the way a traditional image is finished would you rather scan a print and show the image as it was ment be be seen, or would you scan the ned and attempt to recreate the printing process in Photoshop?
This Image has been kicked arround a bit, and I should reprint it before scanning again but it gives you an Idea what I mean. Shot on a Holga 8) using delta 3200.
Ryan Montgomery wrote:
I’m sure a few of you have neg scanners (I have one myself) and that you scan b&w negs for photoshopping.
My question is this, is this the best way to convert your images to digital? My point is that the darkroom printing process is such a large factor in the way a traditional image is finished would you rather scan a print and show the image as it was ment be be seen, or would you scan the ned and attempt to recreate the printing process in Photoshop?
This Image has been kicked arround a bit, and I should reprint it before scanning again but it gives you an Idea what I mean. Shot on a Holga 8) using delta 3200.
I think you answered your own question!
The darkroom is an integral part of black and white. But it doesn’t have to be a “wet” darkroom. Finishing can also be done in Photoshop. What you use depends on your own requirements.
I gave my own opinion on it, I was interested to see how much importance others put on the wet process as part of a finished product.
I do both and enjoy both. Its easier and quicker to scan negatives especially for uploading to Blogs and Websites. There is also a bit of fun to it and you see the result quickly. I take a lot more than i will ever have time to print so the scanning can help you filter the images you might like to print.
With prints a 16*12 print is difficult to scan and i have resorted to photographing them with a digital compact , which is troublesome and i only do this on rare occasions. Nothing beats a fine fibre mono print and scanning of any type will never do it justice.
A print scan would be preferable to me. But I do agree with Eddie, nothing will come close to the print.
The size of prints is a problem though but I’ve just scored an old A3 Epson GT100000+ scanner, and if I can get a suitable SCSI Card I’ll only do print scans.
wet printing will give you better quality results but if you get the right scanner then you can get excellent results as well.
there are so many variables for both as well, like the quality of your enlarger lens or the max dpi of ur scanner, id say if you want to exhibit then go the traditional route but for digital archive then i would prefer scanning negs (you can make scans with more pixel info than hallides on the negative with a ?350 scanner these days). i use the epson v700 and its fabulous for colour neg, B&W and reversal, i tend to do as much level/curve tweaking as i can before i make the scan as once you pick a certain balance then its unreversable in photoshop, but you can just re-scan i suppose :)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
