Digital BW, The Print

>... can you get better large prints
>(11x14 up) from 35mm B&W negs with a digital workflow,
>scan to print, or with traditional wet darkroom enlargement.

I certainly get better 16x20 prints, on average (not 100% yet), from digital
than I produced in the darkroom.

Getting a good scan is the first problem.  To do this I used to go through
an 8x10 film internegative to get enough pixels.  Now I use the Nikon 8000
and it's OK.

For 35 mm, however, I think I'd want more than the standard 4000 dpi scan.
It may take a drum.  My target scan would be about 5760 dpi (16" times 360
dpi).

Assuming you have a good scan then the fun begins.  There are
grain-reduction algorithms in some scanners that are beyond what the
darkroom can do.  However, you can do even better than this in landscape
photography.  For grain/noise-free skies (which is where it really shows),
have the camera on a tripod and shoot multiple frames -- at least 3.  Then
combine the frames in Photoshop.  The grain/noise averages out -- grain-free
skies from 35 mm (Tech Pan in Xtol preferred).

I do "straight" photography -- what the print shows is what the scene looked
like to me.  However, to get there it often takes more dodging and burning
than can be well-done in the darkroom.  Digital can do it much better.

After one sees the shadow and highlight contrast that is available from
digital, the usual silver print looks dull.  Of course, bleaching can also
achieve those brilliant highlights, but I was too lazy to bleach all my
prints.

The printers are not perfect yet, but they are very good.

Everyone wants darker blacks, but the difference is really just a matter of
glossy versus flat matte finish.  Mounted under glass, the flat pigmented
prints look like silver prints in most lighting.  Only in perfect spot
lighting with no reflections do you really see the difference.  Also, one
simple coat of varnish takes an Eclipse print Dmax from 1.58 to 2.17.  At
that point, more black isn't worth worrying too much about.

I occasionally have some unevenness that I'd like to get rid of, but usually
even what I object to is less than the grain I'd have from a medium format
Tmax 100 negative.  (I use an Epson 3000.)

So, yes, digital beats the darkroom for me.  If I were a master printer who
was able to sell each silver print for thousands of dollars, then I'd have
stayed with silver.  Now if some one wants to pay me thousands for a silver
print I'll pay someone else to make me a digital internegative and be done
with it.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com