Digital BW, The Print

i'm thinking about getting into digital  B&W printing, and i can't 
seem to find any serious comparisons of print quality between 
traditonal wet darkrooms and the digital alternative.  I'm aware of 
all the benefits that computer photo editing offers, but is the final 
print truly compareable in terms of contrast, sharpness, grain, 
shadow detait, etc.?  any thoughts anyone?

thanks,

torrey

I believe that this is a difficult question as they ARE different media
(meant here as plural of medium.)
 
Inkjet prints (or whatever we're calling them this week) have their own
look and characteristics.
They aren't silver prints as platinum prints aren't silver prints. I'm
quite sure some guy in 1860 said the much the same thing as he inhaled
ether from his ambrotypes.
Each photographic process from VanDykes, to salt prints, to gum
bichromates is different. Dye transfer printers hated the "look" of "C"
prints. Polaroid transfers have a uniqueness. We need to decide what
best presents the image as we saw it and use that process. I would love
to have a row of printers with VM's and Piezo and probably some custom
inksets.  
Rant over.
S.
 
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
 
215 751-8320
 <mailto:sshire@...> sshire@...

-----Original Message-----
From: torreyvosk [mailto:torrey.v@...] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 6:38 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] print quality: digital vs. wet darkroom
 
i'm thinking about getting into digital  B&W printing, and i can't 
seem to find any serious comparisons of print quality between 
traditonal wet darkrooms and the digital alternative.  I'm aware of 
all the benefits that computer photo editing offers, but is the final 
print truly compareable in terms of contrast, sharpness, grain, 
shadow detait, etc.?  any thoughts anyone?

thanks,

torrey  





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.2097561.3556641.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http:/www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085> 

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=213858.2097561.3556641.1829184/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705019182:HM/A=763352/rand=625454546> 

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> i'm thinking about getting into digital  B&W printing, and i can't
> seem to find any serious comparisons of print quality between
> traditonal wet darkrooms and the digital alternative.  I'm aware of
> all the benefits that computer photo editing offers, but is the final
> print truly compareable in terms of contrast, sharpness, grain,
> shadow detait, etc.?  any thoughts anyone?
>
> thanks,
>
> torrey

Hi Torrey,

As far as image quality (not print quality), digital wins hands down for two
reasons.  One is the ability to get the entire tonal range on the film on
the print...where with chemical darkroom, you end up sacrificing one end or
the other without a lot of work.  The other is the ability digital has to
adjust tonal curves...with ease.  Chemical darkroom has no equivalent,
really, well, kind of sort of but not really.

As far as I am concerned, digital has better tonality as well as equal, if
not better, image detail.  I have compared 24 x 24 chemical prints (I'm
talking B&W here, not color) with my digital prints of the same
negative...and I must say, the digital prints show detail that the chemical
prints don't.  I used Schneider Componon-S lenses and Oriental papers...and
Dektol developer...so I was certainly printing on the high end of the
chemical printing scale.

Digital printing is also far far more repeatable.  If you make one print,
you can make 100 that are pretty much exactly the same.

The only downside is that chemical prints have a darker black (higher dMax)
than digital prints.  If you compare them side by side, that will show.  If
you were to simply go from one room to another, with identical prints on the
wall of each room, one chemical, one digital, you would hardly notice the
"dark" difference.

I gave up my chemical darkroom to go to a scanner/digital printing method,
and I have not regretted it one bit.  No more messy chemicals and clean-up
for prints!  Certainly for film processing, I still do it...but it's a lot
less messy than printing.

Regards,

Austin

I'm sort of straddling the digital fence.  I have been scanning prints,(conventional wet b&w prints), from the last 30 years, on a flatbed scanner and printing them digitally in b&w.  I likemthe look ofmthem better than the originals on F paper.  If your eye is a few inches away, they appear as sharp or sharper.  Images that were done with 4x5 negs are extremely smooth and grainless, just like the originals.  Street style photography, ala Frank & Klein do equally were in digital form.  At this point I still make a small b&w wet print, witha little bit of manipulation, then scan it and finish it off in photoshop.  I would challenge anyone on this list to say that these prints don't look as good as scanned negs, rather than prints.
David Aschkenas

Torrey,

You wrote:

>i'm thinking about getting into digital  B&W printing, and i can't
>seem to find any serious comparisons of print quality between
>traditonal wet darkrooms and the digital alternative.  I'm aware of
>all the benefits that computer photo editing offers, but is the final
>print truly compareable in terms of contrast, sharpness, grain,
>shadow detait, etc.?  any thoughts anyone?

I'll put in another vote in favor of digital printing.

I was doing tradition "fine art" silver printing, with the 16 x 20" display
print under glass my final product.  The inkjet with quad inks finally
crossed the line for me and caused me to switch to digital.

Let me address each of your points separately.

Contrast -- The silver print still wins the Dmax contest.  However, what
I've found is that in real world display, the digital usually wins.  The
reason is that the inkjet print is a shoulder-less and toe-less medium.
That is, you can run a straight-line curve right up to the paper white and
right down to 100% black.  With silver prints you can seldom get as good
highlight contrast -- unless you are very good at bleaching and do it
regularly.  (I confess I usually did not do bleaching.)

The Dmax is also great on my selenium-toned silver prints, but the
separation down in those shadows is nil.  Another very significant factor
I've found is that the duller matte surface of the inkjet print (I use Epson
Archival Matte paper) may be a primary reason the ultimate Dmax is less.
However, it also makes the Dmax better/more useable where ever reflection is
likely to be a factor.  So, with ideal 45 degree lighting the silver print
is better, but with more typical diffuse office (and even most gallery)
lighting, the lack of reflection off the inkjet compared to the air-dried,
"F" surface silver print gives the inkjet the advantage.

I might add that I am not a fan of the dull matte surface when it is not
mounted under glass.  However, under glass the matter surface really works
well.  It's very difficult to tell which of my prints are silver prints and
which are inkjet prints.  I doubt most even experienced viewers would notice
any difference in normal viewing.

Sharpness -- The inkjet wins with my medium format, Tmax 100 negatives
enlarged to 16x20.  The Photoshop unsharp mask (applied differentially and
to those parts that need it -- and not the sky) does magic.  The inkjets
resolve 7 line pairs/mm when the file size is 360 dpi/inch at printing
size -- slightly more with higher resolution files.  That is probably beyond
what most people can resolve at normal viewing distance.  True, the eye's
sensitivity to acutance may be well beyond that, and I'm not sure where the
inkjet print scores on a measure of that.  However, my opinion is that with
my medium format Tmax 100 (all tripod shots with top equipment), the digital
prints have the clear advantage in sharpness.  If you are accustomed to 8x10
contact prints, then the inkjet loses.

Grain -- Here it is only close where the contrast of the image is not
increased in the printing, but the bottom line is that the digital print
wins again in my 16x20s.

In general, I'm finding the *film* grain of my Tmax 100 is becoming my weak
link.  I didn't used to think I had that problem in the wet darkroom.
However, what I'm finding is that the inkjet prints can be so good that the
grain is becoming more obvious.  Most importantly, I'm now able to do more
local contrast enhancement, and with this comes more of a grain problem.

There are two digital characteristics that are helping.  First, the GEM
grain reduction program in many enlargers really works -- not perfect, but
far better than the wet darkroom tools for this purpose.  Second, the film
scanners can handle much higher contrast negatives.  So, I'm now able to use
Tech Pan at a contrast level which is more consistent with the film's
natural tendencies -- i.e., high contrast.

Shadow detail -- No contest here.  Digital with a good scanner blows away
the wet prints.

So, I'm obviously in the digital print camp.  But, they are not perfect yet.
The longevity is still being questioned.  Most of the inksets warm up with
light exposure (and then stabilize).  (The [almost] exception is MIS FS-N on
EAM and possibly other papers.)  Many people have at least intermittent
problems with micro banding.  And, perhaps because of the above and other
reasons, many galleries and others are prejudiced against inkjet or other
digital outputs.  A perfectly-done silver print is still really hard to
match.  But my "fine art" Epson 3000 16x20s, on average, beat my darkroom
16x20s.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Paul,

> In general, I'm finding the *film* grain of my Tmax 100 is
> becoming my weak
> link.

I have never liked TMax films...  Have you tried Delta 100?  I develop it in
D-76 1:1 (as I do Plus-X and Tri-X), and find it absolutely spectacular
film, for both 35mm and MF.

> I didn't used to think I had that problem in the wet darkroom.
> However, what I'm finding is that the inkjet prints can be so
> good that the
> grain is becoming more obvious.

That might be your scanner...

> But my "fine art" Epson 3000 16x20s, on average, beat my darkroom
> 16x20s.

My sentiments exactly!

Regards,

Austin

As a general rule, I think Digital inkjet prints are much better than
darkroom prints in shadow detail, highlight detail, sharpness and wide
tonal scale. They still don't "Look" like a darkroom print. No paper
available to inkjet papers looks exactly like a darkroom print. Can't
understand what the reason for this is. You'd think that by now paper
manufacturers could make such a paper. Once behind glass, you can't tell
them apart though.

Jerry

torreyvosk wrote:

> 
> i'm thinking about getting into digital  B&W printing, and i can't
> seem to find any serious comparisons of print quality between
> traditonal wet darkrooms and the digital alternative.  I'm aware of
> all the benefits that computer photo editing offers, but is the final
> print truly compareable in terms of contrast, sharpness, grain,
> shadow detait, etc.?  any thoughts anyone?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> torrey
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

At 09:14 PM 6/4/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm sort of straddling the digital fence.  I have been scanning
prints,(conventional wet b&w prints), from the last 30 years, on a flatbed
scanner and printing them digitally in b&w.  I likemthe look ofmthem better
than the originals on F paper.  If your eye is a few inches away, they
appear as sharp or sharper.  Images that were done with 4x5 negs are
extremely smooth and grainless, just like the originals.  Street style
photography, ala Frank & Klein do equally were in digital form.  At this
point I still make a small b&w wet print, witha little bit of manipulation,
then scan it and finish it off in photoshop.  I would challenge anyone on
this list to say that these prints don't look as good as scanned negs,
rather than prints.
>David Aschkenas

David,

Having to make a print first seems like a step backwards. Do you find it
improves the digital print to scan a small silver print rather than the
negative?  I have been doing a lot of neg scanning with the E2450. I'm happy
with the results as long as the prints from 35mm are no larger than about
6-8 inches tall. I find certain subjects give the scanner fits - like rain
or grainy textures such as gravel. Perhaps these picures would work better
from a print.

AZ

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
         or
keyword.com lookaround

I recently scanned a 2,1/4 color neg, at 2400 dpi with an Epson 2450 scanner, I also had an 8x10 C print made from the same neg, which I flatbed scanned at 300 dpi.  The flatbed scanned print printed better on my 1280 than the scann from the negative.  I realize that it may indeed be a step backwords to scan prints rather than negs, but this project began with going thru old prints, it was so much easier to scan the existing print, which was a good fiber based toned print, rather than search for the negative and start from scratch. Also, a quality film scanner costs several thousand dollars, I picked up a used Umax Mirage II on ebay last year for 600.00 I can scan prints up to 12 x 17, and make a great print on my 1280.
Since I still have a darkroom in the house, I decided to take this route untill Nikon comes out with a full frame CCD digital 35mm camera.  Using mostly wide lenses, I couldn't get by with current 35 mm digital cameras.
In any event it works for me.
David Aschkenas

Hi David,

> ...which I flatbed scanned at 300 dpi.
> I picked up a used Umax Mirage II

Just as a note, the native hardware resolution of the Mirage II is 700 or
1400 (depending on the lense), so you may want to consider scanning at one
of the native resolutions to get better scans.

Regards,

Austin

Thanks Austin, I do not even know what a native scan is (700 or 1400).  I've just been basing my scans on the final printed size, usually in the 10 x 15 inch range, The prints scanned range from 5 x 7 to 12 x 17.
I don't see any differences.  What kinds of differences should I be looking for?
David

Hi David,

Do the following:

Scan at 700 SPI.  When you are in PhotoShop (this is assuming you are using
PS that is), select "image/image size" and UNCHECK the very bottom box
"Resample Image:".  then, change your width/height to suit your needs, and
let the resolution fall where ever it does.

See if that gives you a better print.  Oh, and please report back ;-)

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: daschkenas@... [mailto:daschkenas@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:53 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] print quality: digital vs. wet darkroom
>
>
> Thanks Austin, I do not even know what a native scan is (700 or
> 1400).  I've just been basing my scans on the final printed size,
> usually in the 10 x 15 inch range, The prints scanned range from
> 5 x 7 to 12 x 17.
> I don't see any differences.  What kinds of differences should I
> be looking for?
> David

Thanks Austin, I will let you know what happens.
David

Austin, I just did a comparison test as you suggested.
A 6x8 conventional b&w print was scanned on the Umax Mirage II at 300 dpi, then printed same size with no manipualtion in PS.  Same image was then scanned at 700dpi(native) and printed same size, no manipulation. The 700 dpi is slightly better.  It's not a day & night difference, but there is a difference. Oh, I also scanned the same image at 1400 dpi to see if that made a difference, the 700dpi still looked better. If I wasn't placing these prints side by side, any one looked good, but the 700dpi, showed a few subtle differences in just "holding together"
Thanks for the advice.
Does every scanner have a native resolution that it works best at??
David

Hi David,

> Thanks for the advice.

My pleasure!  (another satisfied customer proving once again, that theory
does in fact follow through to real life ;-)

> Does every scanner have a native resolution that it works best at??

Yes.

Regards,

Austin