Printing scanned negatives, for that old fashioned look/feel using inject printer.

Ellie Jones

Ellie Jones

Messages
251
Name
jo
Edit My Images
Yes
I often use a metallic luster for printing a lot of my digital prints, but not sure for printing my scanned negatives..

I wondering what other sorts of paper will give me a old fashioned photographic feel to printing out prints of my negatives that I've scanned to my computer, as I'm not ready just yet to go down the fully fledge darkroom, faffing with an enlarger etc just yet.
 
Everything you print will look old fashioned because now only a tiny percentage of photographers even consider printing as a way to output their photographs.
 
redsnappa said:
Everything you print will look old fashioned because now only a tiny percentage of photographers even consider printing as a way to output their photographs.
Click to expand...

Thus they don't produce anything more than a pixelated image that has to displayed on a sreen.

A"true" photograph is an image captured by a photographic apparatus using whichecr medium ( film or sensor) and then the resulting image obtained "printed" onto photpgraphic paper be it with an electronic ( ink jet for eg) printer, or by using wet printing ( enlarger etc) techniques

A pixelated image on a screen / enclosed in a digital file, remains nothing more than that, most certainly not a photograph!
 
Depends how far back you go. In my young days, the standard photo was glazed glossy; there's a Canson paper that gives a good match for me.

BUT this is black and white, and many inkjet printers may still have problems producing a decent black and white print.

Others will have different recommendations, but I'll add one point based on personal experience. Two papers with virtually identical surface appearance can give different prints from the same file.

And as regulars know, I still have a darkroom but prefer to print digitally because the prints are better. Go back in history far enough, and photographers were searching for archival prints. The modern inkjet would, I think, had it been available then, have been the standard printing method.
 
P.S. I can name my favourite three papers if you'd like names once I can confirm them; at the moment I'm acting as a cat bed.
 
Ellie Jones said:
I often use a metallic luster for printing a lot of my digital prints, but not sure for printing my scanned negatives..

I wondering what other sorts of paper will give me a old fashioned photographic feel to printing out prints of my negatives that I've scanned to my computer, as I'm not ready just yet to go down the fully fledge darkroom, faffing with an enlarger etc just yet.
Click to expand...


I think there are quite a few togs on here who shoot film will agree that the scanning / digitizing is not only the weakest link in so far as ( possibly) losing IQ but also it effectively turns what we want to achie from film into a digital file.
Imo this file relates far too much like having obtained it from a digital camera which is probably why from that step throught o actual printing is, for me not enjoyable at all ( hence why i have rather large backlog of scanned neg files sat on the computer waiting to be "processed"
How that process is done could possibly render the image "old fashioned" by using software to manipulate although that for me is a difficult route to take.
If a change of paper will help you achive what you wish i dunno….I typically print onto glossy paper but have occasionally used matt which depending on subject matter, tones etc can offer a completely different result.
I think though wet printing and associated darkroom experimenting is where you may find easier the look of photograph that you are after.
 
I've done very little inkjet printing at home so I can't help in recommending any inkjet papers. However you might want to consider having your scanned negatives printed onto silver gelatin printer (ie close to the paper you would use in the darkroom). Harman Lab do this (www.harmanlab.com/page/61/Black-and-White-Prints-From-Digital.htm ) and there may be other places that do it as well.

Naturally, Harman Lab can also produce a print onto silver gelatin paper directly from your negative, but in that case you may find it difficult to stipulate any doging and burning requirements and so on. By postprocessing the scanned negative, you can do all the cropping, scratch removal, doding and burning that you want, then send the file to Harman to get a silver gelatin print which reflects the procesing you have done. (Of course if you ever go down the darkroom print then you can do all that yourself.)

You can, of course, also send Harman files which originated from a digital camera, which you have converted to mono, and get a silver gelatin print from them.

A 10*8 print made this way costs £4.26 so it's not dead cheap but then neither is ink and paper.
 
Asha said:
A"true" photograph is an image captured by a photographic apparatus using whichecr medium ( film or sensor) and then the resulting image obtained "printed" onto photpgraphic paper be it with an electronic ( ink jet for eg) printer, or by using wet printing ( enlarger etc) techniques
Click to expand...


I'd better bin my slide projector then!!! :p
A3+ prints for the win.
 
Not at all, nothing wrong with sharing / viewing images on screens be it computer or via a slide projector but the principle remains the same in that the image is not a photograph even on a slide, it’s nothing more than a positive negative.A3+ , A2 or postcard is irrelevant.... if printed out on photography paper then the captured image becomes a physical object ( photograph)
 
Asha said:
if printed out on photography paper then the captured image becomes a physical object ( photograph)
Click to expand...
According to the editors of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1983)...

Photograph: A picture, likeness or facsimile obtained by photography
Photography: The process or art of producing pictures by means of the action of light on a sensitive film on a basis of paper, glass, metal, etc.

Of course later editions may have changed or expanded on that definition. :naughty:
 
Like most folk I have a memory albiet hopeless at times lol which offers the ability to register images seen/ ‘photographed ´ with my eyesight and brain however again it is not a physical object and as such, not unlike electronic files that can be lost through computer corruption / virus, my internally stored ‘memory bank’ can also fail....think Alzheimer’s !
 
redsnappa said:
Everything you print will look old fashioned because now only a tiny percentage of photographers even consider printing as a way to output their photographs.
Click to expand...

Not helpful and borderline unpleasant. If you have nothing constructive to add then please refrain from adding anything.
As my old grandad once said "it's better to keep quiet and have people think your stupid than open your mouth and prove it".
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
I really do need to memorise ^^THAT^^
Click to expand...
Mind you, I was once present at a "warm" discussion where one party quoted it. The other party responded with "you're right. Why don't you take your own advice?" :wideyed:
 
Kevin Allan said:
Surely a slide is a physical object, albeit a smallish one, capable of being viewed with no aids or equipment other than light ... which is also required to view a print.
Click to expand...

Fair comment, …...A little difficult to view without specialised equipment due to its physical size but yes it is effectively a physical positive photograph;)
 
Where's the problem viewing a 10x8 slide?
 
I wish I had the patience (and skill!) to shoot large format slides.
 
@Kevin Allan I used Harman Labs for developing/printing of my first film roll, even though I liked what I got back, it a lot different than the roll I developed myself, I seemed to get a lot more contrast and blacks were a lot blacker and a lot finer grain on mine than Herman Lab, What made the difference really not sure.

I'm chuckling at the definition of 'Photograph' my definition, is a image captured with a camera be it film or digital, that's printed out and can be physical held to view...

Until I get a darkroom set up (haven't told hubby this part yet) and start the learning the art of wet printing I want to print some of my photographs, for a purpose of adding to my Talk projects I do at work.

So looking for paper that would give the feel of traditional wet printed photograph, rather than a modern inkject printed one.
 
I've been looking for an inkjet paper that gives a feel of the old Ilford Multigrade papers I loved for a while. And there are a *LOT* of manufacturers that claim to be able to do that.

- Permajet FB Mono Gloss Baryta is a super paper for glossy black & white (but nothing else). I can't get a decent colour print out of it mainly because their default profiles are pants, and you have to go through a rigmarole of getting them to build you a profile specific to your printer. I find many permajet papers to be a hassle to work with.
- Fotospeed "Unglazed" Legacy Gloss was sold to me at the photo show last year as their attempt to replicate darkroom papers. Having gone through almost the whole box, I'm not convinced. This is probably quite over-priced for what it is. Canson Platine Fibre Rag all the way for me for standard prints now.
- Ilford Gold Fibre Silk is highly recommended but I found it very plasticky. I was surprised to discover that Gold Fibre Gloss is much better, and probably the closest in feel and finish to a decent darkroom paper.

tl;dr - Ilford Gold Fibre Gloss unless you're shooting exclusively B&W in which case try the Permajet FB Mono Gloss Baryta..

Caveat: Paper is quite a personal thing, so your mileage may very well vary. Also your printer is likely different to mine, as is your ink.

Edit to add, many companies do test packs. Well worth doing before splurging out money on a box of paper you hate. E.g. https://www.on-linepaper.co.uk/test...-packs?zenid=4779456d3f7d47e22e099cf8447c3a6a
 
Last edited:
@Harlequin565

I can do my own profiles so not problems with relying on company supplied ones, Have found this much more practical, and looking at some of the papers you mention, do have some sample packs so see if any contain the ones you've mentioned.

But some good choices there.

I think yes paper choice can be very subjective due to not only difference in how the printer/ink reproduce but also personal taste will have some input. But for me it's getting the tonal range, and where needs be the whites showing as white with the same consistency as the black.

Some interesting times ahead me thinks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top