What's the difference in print, if any?

[buzzardkid]

In another thread a fellow member stated that all shots shown here on RFF are digital, because they might have been shot on film, but were scanned at some point to allow for them to be uploaded. And, with a completely 'un-digital' print, the higher printed-image quality would be obvious, he/she went on.


So here goes: will there always be a quality difference between a shot taken on film, scanned, then printed on the one hand, and a shot taken on film and wet printed on the other hand? Or can they be equally good?

For the sake of the argument, lets assume a 35mm sized frame, equal lighting, equal lens, etc. for both approaches.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

If you know what you're doing in scanning and have the skill in photoshop, and have a good enough scanner, then you will probably have a better print from the scan. People who try to say that scanning sucks are mostly those who have either not tried it or who have crappy flatbed scanners because they won't spend the money for a proper scanner, or who suck at editing on the computer. Many are just ignorant and will hate scanning just because it involves digital techniques, regardless of the quality. I have encountered many such people, mostly older men, and seeing my prints from scans destroys their worldview quite quickly and completely.

[Pickett Wilson]

Will there always be a quality difference? From my experience, yes. The question, though, is will it matter? Too many variables to draw a blanket conclusion, I'm afraid. From the quality of the scanner to the skill of the person doing the scan and their ability to process and print the photo. The difference in quality can be huge or negligible. With either the wet print or digital process, various things in the workflow affect quality.

I think you've asked a question that can't really be answered except on a print by print basis.

[newspaperguy]

The quality of the printer (machine, not man) would have to enter into this discussion, especially in B&W photography.

[Roger Hicks]

Will there always be a quality difference? From my experience, yes. The question, though, is will it matter? Too many variables to draw a blanket conclusion, I'm afraid. From the quality of the scanner to the skill of the person doing the scan and their ability to process and print the photo. The difference in quality can be huge or negligible. With either the wet print or digital process, various things in the workflow affect quality.

I think you've asked a question that can't really be answered except on a print by print basis.

That's my view too.

The point is that most people who disparage all scanning, etc., are (as Chris points out) using poor scanners or printers or are no good at manipulating pictures. That's in colour, though.

But with an ink-jet B+W, things are different. There are three possibilities. One is that it's not as good as silver halide. One is that it's as good, but looks different. The third is that it is indistinguishable. In my experience at trade shows -- and I'm NOT talking about salesmen doing demos, but about galleries of the best a given manufacturer's machine can do -- the latter are fairly uncommon, and restricted to a limited range of subjects, and the other two are about 50/50. I've come to the same conclusion at exhibitions.

Cheers,

R.

[sepiareverb]

Like Roger I've seen very few B&W digital prints that were the equal of silver prints. Color is another story, as the range of paper types is so limited in silver that digital can have an edge. I know one of the finest digital printers in the US, his prints are simply stunning in person and part of this is in choosing the right paper. Impeccable scanning and post production make a world of difference as well.

That said, I've not seen a side by side comparison of the same image in either B&W or color.

[monochromejrnl]

I recently printed ten B&W fibre-base silver gelatin prints with the help of a 'master printer' using a Durst Lambda printer. Each image (35mm neg) was scanned on a Imacon Flextight scanner and the exposed onto Harman Digital Fibre archival paper. The digital negatives were dodge and burned in PS CS4. The resulting B&W print is archival (the media is fibre-base paper optimized for exposure using a laser (lambda)) and was wet developed and toned by hand.

Bob Carnie the master printer I worked with asserts there is no 'difference' in the 'quality' of the most prints done this way versus a traditional optical enlargement. Where the digital fibre print wins is with images/negs that are too thin, dense or have shapes that are just too difficult to burn by hand, but that can be better done in PS CS4. In addition, because I was able to sit down with him for a couple of hours discussing each of the ten images and how I saw them (dodging and burning on the screen), I was better able to communicate with him about my interpretation of the negative, then we would have been able to in the darkroom or off a test print. Having said that, we agreed that we wouldn't modify the print image any more than could be done by him by hand with an optical enlarger.

Traditional optical prints were available to me as option as well at a similar price but I opted for the digital fibre because:
1) the resulting print is also an silver halide print of archival quality that I was able to hand tone (sepia for highlights, selenium for shadows);
2) the process is more precise and replicable (important because I'm offering my prints as a limited edition of ten);
3) control - my own darkroom skills aren't sufficient to produce prints using an optical enlarger that I feel are of the highest quality and because I'd rather see a relatively close approximation of what the final print will look like on screen rather than leave it open to interpretation by the printer, I opted for this hybrid process.

I'm extremely satisfied with the quality of the prints and although they are not 'vintage' prints, they are of a higher quality than I could print by myself. This hybrid process is ideal for those who don't have the wet printing skills to produce the prints they want yet are still committed to producing a permanent, archival B&W silver gelatin print.

check out my website for more info: www.monochromejournal.com

[mabelsound]

If you know what you're doing in scanning and have the skill in photoshop, and have a good enough scanner, then you will probably have a better print from the scan. People who try to say that scanning sucks are mostly those who have either not tried it or who have crappy flatbed scanners because they won't spend the money for a proper scanner, or who suck at editing on the computer. Many are just ignorant and will hate scanning just because it involves digital techniques, regardless of the quality. I have encountered many such people, mostly older men, and seeing my prints from scans destroys their worldview quite quickly and completely.

This makes me want to go make some inkjet prints today...

[oftheherd]

If you know what you're doing in scanning and have the skill in photoshop, and have a good enough scanner, then you will probably have a better print from the scan. People who try to say that scanning sucks are mostly those who have either not tried it or who have crappy flatbed scanners because they won't spend the money for a proper scanner, or who suck at editing on the computer. Many are just ignorant and will hate scanning just because it involves digital techniques, regardless of the quality. I have encountered many such people, mostly older men, and seeing my prints from scans destroys their worldview quite quickly and completely.

Well, you nailed me. Oh, you forgot, my feet stink too.

And just to make things worse, I have never considered myself a good wet printer either. But I seem to enjoy it more. One more strike against me I guess.

Actually, I have seen some stunning digital prints, done as manufacturer's examples. I guess if they can do it, others can too. I'm not one.