Image quality of a 35mm scan high res

I wanted to know from those of you who have worked with both

Digital images of a D100(or any other DSLR) and the Digital images

from a high resolution scan of a 35mm slide. Which one is better as

far as quality, which one is better to use if the prints I want are

say from 13"x19" to 24"x36", thanks for yuour input.

 

Danny

At 24x36", both of those are compromise solutions. The D100 will have less grain, and a drum scan from a 35mm slide will resolve slightly more detail. It really depends what look you want. For subjects without a lot of very fine detail, like portraits, either one would probably look fine. The quality of the print depends a lot more on the skill of the person making it than it does on the difference between a 6MP DSLR and scanned film.

Danny-

 

For best resolution, up to about 10x15", I would rather be shooting a D100 at its minimum ISO, 200. This assumes that I'm not going to crop the D100 image. At 12x18" and beyond, I would rather be shooting a 35mm body with Fuji Reala at E.I. 80 to ISO 100, with careful scanning to follow.

 

Understand though that 13x19" to 24x36" are not optimal outputs for a D100 or a 35mm camera. No matter how careful you are shooting with a D100 or a fine-grain 35mm neg or slide film, at 12x18" or beyond, you are enlarging so much that your image really has to be perfect. Every dust speck, less-than-perfect focus and any camera movement will stand out like a sore thumb. This isn't to say that a talented digital technician can't flog a relatively small original image to yield bigger prints; its just a chore.

 

Any more, if I know I'll be enlarging to 11x14 or bigger, I'll shoot medium format- primarily Mamiya 7IIs. Scanning with a Nikon LS 8000, I start with a 500MB file with virtually bottomless resoultion, and I would rather have the luxury of throwing pixels out than having to rez up in making a larger print.

 

Regards, E

Andrew said it better and more concisely than I did.

I sold my scanner and now I am waiting for DSLRs to become even more practical. As far as resolution and grain between the two are concerned, I think it is sort of a wash. I used a Nikon LS-4000 to scan E100S, E100G, some Velvia, and some Provia. The reason I quit scanning was that color correction was taking way too much of my time and effort. The folks with $300 digital point and shoots are getting nicer looking colors without even trying, unless I got REALLY involved with PhotoShop correction. But with with help from Fred Miranda's action, and a lot of PS color correction, I got several 16 X 24 prints of antique autos that are very well respected and are still on public display. But it just takes way too damn much time.

I have not done both but the slide should still be better if: it is a modern emulsion of 10 RMS or less (Velvia, Provia, Astia, ...) and (as important) the scan is made at very high res from a pro model, like drums.

 

In these conditions, 11x14 is perfect and 16x24 is optimal. Larger than that should look fine as long as you are not too close. At 24x36, medium format would show much improvement in definition but better tonality is already perceived at 11x14.

 

If you plan enlarging more than 11x14 on a regular basis, film medium (or large) format should be consider or a so expensive 22mp digital back for some of those MF cameras.