Beginner Q: Are higher-res scans worth it?

<p>Hi everyone, <br>

I'm a beginner shooting 35mm color film and I'm about to send my second batch of canisters out for processing & scanning. The first time around, I used Dwayne's Photo and did their regular process and scan. Their scans were kind of small and since they've recently increased prices, I started looking at some other labs and am now considering getting higher-res scans. <br>

Do you think it's worth it to spend the extra money for higher-res scans? I'm definitely be interested in getting photos printed sometime in the future, so the other option would be to get regular scans now and pick individual photos to be re-scanned at higher-res which could be a bit of a hassle. <br>

Also, does anyone know what mp size scans are good for different print sizes? I looked at a couple different mail order labs and some have different scan sizes. </p>

<p>Thanks so much for your help!</p>

<p>Yes, I recommend you get higher res scans because you never know when you are going to want some decent prints made. The standard low res scans are barely good for a 4x6. I STRONGLY suggest you get the good scans at time of film processing. Yes, it is definitely a MUCH larger hassle to have the negatives scanned at a later date, but also MUCH MUCH more expensive. Far more cost effective to get the scans done right from the start. I have always liked the large scans from North Coast Photo, but you can also use The Darkroom which has a "super" large scan available by download only, but still at a reasonable price when done at time of processing.</p>

A lot depends on how many photos you plan to shoot/print. At some point it may be advantageous to buy a moderately priced

scanner which can scan negatives. Even the one I have (canoscan 8800f) provides a much better scan resolution (up to 1200 -

2400 dpi) what my local developer provides (72-300 dpi). I usually negative at about 600 to 900 dpi. Add Vuescan and photoshop to the mix and you will be surprised with what

you can do if you are a novice like me and you will save money in the long run and have a much better experience. It may

not be up to snuff for the real mavins but far far superior to what you are getting now. Only the most trained eye could tell

the difference especially at this level. With these and the negatives you will have a lot of latitude to tune up your photos

and have high resolution.

<p>Or you could do what we all used to do last century: Don't get any scans and just send away the negative when you want a print made :-)</p>

<p>The rule of thumb is, 300 pixels/inch for prints. Very large prints can be less, say 200 ppi for prints you would look at from several feet away, fewer yet for billboards.</p>

<p>However, more than pixels are at stake. The color and quality of scans can vary widely. Many commercial scans are "enhanced" for color and contrast based on some technicians concept of beauty, then saved in a lossy compressed JPEG format so hundreds can fit on one disc. Custom scans, like custom prints, are going to be expensive.</p>

<p>Scanning film yourself is complicated since most of the better scanners were discontinued years ago. Flatbed scanners tend to have low resolution, bloated by resampling to make the files seem larger. Plus you still pay a lot just to buy film and have it processed. You avoid most of those problems by shooting digital directly. Your corner drugstore can make excellent prints at low cost if you provide a good digital image. (Too good, and you may be accused of copyright infringement.)</p>

<p>Trying out the higher resolution scans certainly won't hurt, but larger resolution does not always necessarily mean better quality. I've had scans from a lab that were basically a 20 MP resolution; later I scanned these negatives myself on my cheap but pretty cheerful filmscanner, and despite being 'only' around 15MP, results were far better. I posted an example once in an old thread (on a different subject, but well): http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00dIpr?start=20 .<br>

The scanner I use is a 'dedicated' 35mm scanner (slides and negatives), and in the US it can be found for about $200 on Amazon (Pacific Images PrimeFilm 7200); the newer higher resolution version new for about $100 more. I've done relatovely large prints myself from these files (13"x20"), and its output holds up easily. I've had a good printer do a much larger print, and even that holds up fine (it's not close to 300 dpi, but it doesn't need to be as it's viewed from a larger distance).<br>

Scanning is a time consuming thing, but still scanners at these prices do make a case for calculating how much rolls you want to pay for having them scanned until it becomes cheaper to do so yourself.</p>

<p>Sorry, left out, the much larger print is 24"x35" - from a 15MP file. What helped is that it was a graphically relatively simple image, and the printer somebody with skill.</p>

<p>The 300 dpi 'rule of thumb' is for small to medium-sized prints, that will be viewed from a close distance; the larger a print goes, the more viewing distance there typically is. The more distance, the lower dpi one can use without loosing the impression of a print being sharp and well defined.<br>

So, it is hard to say what resolution you need for what size print. Sticking to the 300dpi rule of thumb is safe, and will ensure you have prints that will hold up perfectly fine even when seen from really close. But it's not unimportant to know that it leaves room to print larger still, as long as you know people will not need to see pinsharp details from short distances.</p>

<p>Do not want to take attention away from the OP but I did get some answers to questions about scanners that I should have asked myself. </p>

<p>Anne,<br>

<br />I paid $150.00 for a new Epson V550 flatbed. I scan 35mm and 120 to TIFF files at either 3600 dpi or higher. With my Canon ProMarkII 9500 pigment-based printer ($100.00 used) I can get very nice prints on 11x14 Arista II Baryta paper from Freestyle Photo. I have wet prints and pigment based prints of the same image and there's no difference at this size or lower. I have images I scanned with the V550 that I had previously paid a top-end lab here in Los Angeles to scan at their medium size (12-18mb) and upon close inspection they are identical in quality. Certainly images scanned for the internet is a no-brainer. They're are people that will have you believe that only a drum scan can deliver a quality image - maybe for very large prints - but for most practical purposes and general printing sizes, this is not true. I've been in and out of the darkroom since 1976 and I know if something looks like crap or not. Hope this helps.</p>

I paid $130 for my canon scanner and $449 for canon pixma pro 10 printed and for a novice just lerning I think the quality is very good.

The printer is also a pigment ink. From there is no limit to how much better thre return on investment curve is steep

It all comes down to math to help understand what is going on.<P>

 

To get an 8x12 inch photo printed at 300 pixels per inch (ppi) you need <P>

 

<center>(8 inches times 300 pixels per inch = 2400 pixels<P>

 

12 inches times 300 pixels per inch = 3600 pixels<P>

 

2400 pixels times 3600 pixels = 8,640,000 pixels = 8.6 megapixels (MP) )</center> <P>

 

a 2400 x 3600 pixel image printed at 300 PPI to get a 8x12 inch photo.<P>

 

or a 2400 x 3600 pixel image printed at 200 PPI to get a 12x18 inch photo.<P>

 

or a 2400 x 3600 pixel image printed at 100 PPI to get a 24x36inch photo.Not recommended.<P>

 

You see how all you do is take the imgage dimensions in pixels and divide by the pixels per inch you are going to print at to get the photo dimensions in inches.<P>

 

A film negative frame is 24mm x 36mm or ~0.94 x 1.4 inches. I will call it 1 x 1.5 inches for simplicity. So, if you want a 2400 x 3600 pixel image what do you have to scan the negative at?<P>

 

1x = 2400 pixels = 2400 pixels <P>

 

1.5x = 3600 pixels = 2400 pixels <P>

 

Easy peasy. Scan the negative at 2400 PPI. And, when dealing with pixels that make up a digital image I prefer to use pixels per inch (PPI) not dots per inch (DPI). A small pixel may look like a dot but why not call the small pixel a pixel. That is much more clear.

<p>I'm going to come at this from a slightly different angle. It may be that technically, I'm totally wrong. But what I perceive is that high resolution scans of medium format film presented on a good quality monitor are far more densely rich with fine gradations of color. 35mm is great, but Medium Format is better. My Nikon Coolscan is very good with the 35mm slides, but NCPS Enhanced Scan of Medium Format is better.</p>

<p>This could be all psychology. But then again, I've never achieved a look like this with 35mm. I can see the individual facets on the sugar crystals, even after Facebook makes a hash of the larger file. Larger size here: https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/12010530_10203631838111487_941145993327250876_o.jpg?dl=1</p>

<p><img src="https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/12010530_10203631838111487_941145993327250876_o.jpg?dl=1" alt="" width="2048" height="2017" /></p>

Just one point for the initiated, the amount of data increased by the square of the density. Those 300 dpi has 9 time more

data than 100 dpi 900 dpi has 81 times more data to manipulate. This can really slow down your processing at some

point.

Or if you double the size of your picture you use 4 times the data. Above I meant uninitiated not initiated (damn you auto

correct)

Donald,

 

"... provides a much better scan resolution (up to 1200 - 2400 dpi) what my local developer provides (72-300 dpi)"

 

Your local developer scans the 1 x 1.5 inch negatives at 300 PPI max? That would get a 300 x 450 pixel digital image = 0.135 MP. That would be small even to display on the web. Photo.net allows up to 700 pixel images. Printing that 300x450 pixel image

 

at 300 PPI gets you a 1 x 1.5 inch photo

 

at 200 PPI gets you a 1.5 x 2.25 inch photo

 

at 100 PPI gets you a 3 x 4.5 inch photo

 

If he really scans the negative at 72 PPI you would get a 72 x 108 pixel image = 0.0078MP. That is even smaller than the thumbnails seen at the bottom of this page.

 

 

Am I misunderstanding something?

<p>I assumed that the OP is talking about her prints. His prints are 6" wide at 72 DPI which is 432 wide. His images on disc are usually 72 pixels per inch and a 4 inch image which is 432 pixels wide. Now I do my own processing and my parameters are 300 to 900 pixels per inch and 4 X 6 inches when I scan which is 1800 to 5400 pixels wide, a better image to start with all else being equal.<br /> When I post a photo on PN I usually resize them to 150 to 200 pixels per inch which comes out to 3.5 to 4 inches wide. Regardless, no mater what physical size photo ( I have even done 1") upload to photo.net, PN converts them to the same size on the page.<br /> PPI is only a property you also have to specify physical dimension. So scanning with an output of 300 ppi and 6" gives you an image that is 1800 pixels wide.<br /> With a photo you can change your density and size any way you want but will not improve the quality of the original scan significantly<br>

As I understand it when you set the parameters you are setting the out put and it is done in DPI and physical size and the final number of pixels is a function of both.</p>

 

<p>Donald, the "dpi" setting one reads in an image are just a setting; one really needs to look at the number of pixels. Which I do not see mentioned in the OP, so maybe it is the pretty usual 2000*3000 resolution of many lab scanners - 6MP which is quite usable. Many people confuse the DPI setting in an image for its resolution, but it's really just a figure in the metadata.<br>

<br>

Brad, I think what you see isn't just psychology, and is a real thing. Tonality tends to be richer, grain is less visible - all merit of a larger registration medium (it is equally so for digital). Starting with better data will always leave you better data all along - even when downsizing, this may remain apparent (though at some point, it does become hard to see, and JPEG compression isn't an ideal vehicle either).<br>

Taking James' calculation for the required amount of pixels to print a scan in decent quality, it is also obvious that Medium Format requires less "density" (ppi) when scanning, less enlargement - which helps a great deal. Point is though that MF scanners or scans are quite a bit more expensive; so even when MF gear has become a lot more accessible, there is still extra cost to it. As (nearly) always, you pay for the extra quality.</p>

Thanks. So I misspoke completely on the dpi and printing, am I also off on the resolution issue when I said the resolution is 72 PPI on the

images on the disc instead of prints am I getting a better image when I scan the negatives at home at lets say 300 or 600 ppl and a 6"

image.

 

Thanks again

Don

<p>Anne</p>

<p>The resolution of scan you need depends on what you want to do with it. Bigger does not necessarily mean better unless your purpose demands it. And neither as others point out, does a bigger scan automatically mean better colour , contrast control or whatever.</p>

<p>To support a 6" x 4" proof size print you need a scan of 2.16 MP ( or 6.48 MegaBytes) That's assuming te same 300ppi file size that others mention, and is the same maths as James Dainis uses, but simply to a smaller print size. </p>

<p>The complexities come in when you decide to make larger prints than 6" x 4", and decide in parallel to print some frames but not others. These decisions are often made together. Now, you <strong>need </strong> bigger scans, but not necessarily on every frame you shoot. However, as others mention it is generally cheaper per scan to get scans made as part of the "develop" process- <strong>if you get all the frames scanned.</strong> However if you want to make larger prints from only a fraction of the frames you shoot, this may be more expensive<strong> overall</strong> than getting small, relatively low cost scans on everything and paying more later to rescan at a larger size on a proportion of your better shots. It all depends on how big, how many you intend to print, and what sort of as deal is available to you. </p>

<p>But there is no right answer to your question of "is it better to get bigger scans"</p>

To make 4x6 inch photos printed at 300 PPI you would need 1200 x 1800 pixel digital images. <P>

 

<center>( 4 times 300 = 1200; 6 times 300 = 1800)<P></center>

 

From 1 x 1.5 film frames you would have to scan at 1200 PPI. <P><center>

 

(1 times 1200 = 1200; 1.5 times 1200 = 1800)</center> <P>

 

"To support a 6" x 4" proof size print you need a scan of 2.16 MP "<P>

 

That is the area based on the dimensions.<P>

 

1200 times 1800 = 2,160,000 pixels = 2.16 megapixels (MP)

So basically I was misunderstanding that input resolution and output resolution are not linked in the fashion I thought they

were. I am better just to scan all negatives at 4,000 to 4.800 ppi (tif preferably) do my editing and then resize as needed.

Even resizing in 3 steps and color correct with each step maybe. Most printers as I understand it will have their defaults

around 300 to 600 dpi unless I can manually change that but it would not be noticeable in almost all prints anyway.

 

The way things are going here I am probably not correct in half the stuff I just stated.

However I would like to think that my first advice to Ann is appropriate which is what David said also. Depending on how

many photos you take and what you are going to do with them you may want to consider scanning. To add to the mix you

may want to get a developing kit and do you own processing. It is a lot easier then it appears and the learning curve is

very short and you get your images in about 2 hours after drying. It is fun the first 2 or 3 times to see how you can

overlook a step and get weird results.

I dislike DPI (dots per inch) being used mostly incorrectly by definition, than the accurate and better understood PPI (pixels per inch). A printer sprays out perhaps 900 ink dots per inch. This cannot be changed; it is determined by the ink spray head. These ink dots are used to create the pixels on the paper. You can print in image that is made up of 300 pixels per inch (PPI) or 200 pixels per inch or 100 pixels per inch. Each of those pixels will be composed of 900 (ink) dots per inch.

 

The dots per inch re picture size goes back to the old offset printing when a photo would be composed of ink dots.A photo may have been made of 36 dots per inch. You could see them with a magnifying glass. If a picture was 360 dots wide made up of 36 dots per inch then the picture was 10 inches wide. Simple math. If a digital image is 3000 pixels wide printed at 300 pixels per inch then the print is 10 inches wide. Again simple math.

 

Clearly it is easier to understand that pixels divided by pixels per inch gives inches. Pixels divided by dots per inch give what? One has to know that since a small pixel looks like a dot, sometimes they are called dots. So one dot equals one pixel by poor definition.

 

24 apples are to be put in boxes that can hold 4 apples each. How many boxes are needed? 6 boxes. Simple.

 

24 apples are to be put in boxes that can hold 4 oranges each. How many boxes are needed. What? Well since apples are about the same size as oranges we call them oranges, disregard the labels and just use the numbers . Good grief, why make things more confusing?

<p>there was a thread on this topic on PN in 2010. One fact that was brought up was originally the term ppi did not exist. DPI was used to refer both. Xerox's patent applications only used dpi to refer to both electronic and physical images. PPI came along later by other companies when referring to monitor resolution. At that time it seemed to be old school vs new school over how strictly to maintain this differentiation.</p>

<p>For me personally the current standard is to use dpi and ppi in their strict and I agree. But if someone else were to use the terms improperly I think I would be able to decipher what they are trying to say.</p>

<p>You can set up a darkroom for peanuts these days and forget the scans... </p>

<p>...If only Canon made a medium format film camera...sigh. I Have a Canoscan 9000MkII and a PixmaPro100. As disks are dirt cheap, I will scan at least at 4800...and play with "9600" DPI...my cut on this is...more information is always better...</p>

<p>Now those Mamiya's are catching my eye.....</p>