Scanning prints vs. scanning film

[lgoodwin]

I have a number of medium format (6x7) images that I want to

digitize, initially for posting on a web site, but eventually to be

able to print up to 16x20 or 20x24. It seems that my options are to

scan the negatives, or to scan the prints that I have made from the

negatives. Most were printed 11x14, so I would need a scanner with a

bed at least that large.

 

I am leaning toward scanning the prints, since that way the darkroom

manipulations I have done before will be captured. Also, I have read

about problems with scanning medium format negatives, such as newton

rings (the film was T-Max 100, which seems prone to newton rings in

the darkroom). However, I am interested in opinions (technical or

aesthetic) about these two options.

[Ed_Ingold]

Scanning prints results in modest but often acceptible quality, if reproduced not larger than the original size. You get the best results if you scan the negative directly with a dedicated film scanner (4000 dpi and up). Besides resolution issues, prints have a much smaller dynamic range than film, and smaller color gamut (if applicable).

 

Film scanners are not inexpensive, but neither are ledger-sized (and larger) flatbed scanners. Anything you have done in the way of darkroom manipulations you can do in Photoshop - and more. Best of all, you only have to do it once.

 

This topic has appeared on Photo.Net may times. Google is your friend!

[peterblaise]

.

 

Hi Lee,

 

Don't forget you can also re-shoot the prints -- using a digital camera!

 

I scan twice.

 

Once for everything for cataloging (appropriate for the web, anything over 1024x768 pixels, 8-bit JPG is superfluous).

 

Once again for "keepers" only at the higest qualities for subsequent printing, sales and stock (16-bit maximum resolution, multiscan, TIF, and so on).

 

So, Lee, you may also want 2 unrelated "scanning" systems.

 

Good luck finding an 11x18" flatbed!

 

That's why I suggest a digicam -- even a modest 2-megapixel or larger digicam with close focus capabilities, on a tripod with diffuse bright lighting may handle your catalogging quickly.

 

And then you can scan film separately at your leisure!

 

Let us know what YOU eventually do!

 

CLick!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[jtk]

Shoot the prints with 4X5 film and a proper lens, scan them with Epson 4990 and a wet mount setup. You'll lose nothing from the print Vs your original negative, gain additional controls that can actually improve your image if you wish.

[Ed_Ingold]

Scanning the film directly, using a Nikon LS-8000, would give you at least twice the resolution and 2-3 more stops dynamic range than shooting a 4x5 internegative scanned on a 4990. A film scanner is the best route toward getting gallery-quality prints in a digital work flow.

[jtk]

Edward, you're right in the abstract, especially if someone wants to wade into old negatives and do better by them than he did years before...but Lee believes his existing darkroom manipulations are valuable.

 

The Photoshop skills necessary to emulate (or exceed) subtle darkroom manipulations involve a steep learning curve: an relatively unmanipulated scan of a fine 4X5 copy negative (from print) wouldn't be nearly as demanding.

 

Of course, if a person lacks film expertise, that's a learning curve in itself. Few digital photographers seem to have good film skills...it does take years, IMO.

 

Lee sounds sharp technically: maybe he's got plenty of traditional skills under his belt.

[roger_smith4]

Why not just scan for web with any old half-way decent flatbed and reprint traditionally to the desired output size? This should give you good results for both instead of compromising the prints.

[Ed_Ingold]

"Few digital photographers seem to have good film skills...it does take years, IMO."

 

Like three weeks with coaching (or never)...

 

Uh, how long has digital been available to the masses? What is it that digital photographers are switching from (in droves, mind you)? Into which category does film scanning belong?

 

Digital is a medium, film is a medium, photography is how and when to get light onto that medium (plus a few other details).

[bmg5]

Lee, I will add my $.02 as well. I have a large catalog of 6x7 and 6x9 negs and started with a similar goal as you have stated. After 2 years and 500+ scans I would not trade my film scanner (Nikon 8000) for anything (except a better film scanner). You are right that newton rings can be a problem but proper scanning and handling can eliminate this issue. I think bottom line is if you are planning to print digitally you want to seriously consider a film scanner, if you are just looking to cat images then lots of quicker (and cheaper) methods will work. As a note the output (BW, color neg and chrome) coming from this scanner looks great printed to 30x40 and beyond on inkjet. Best of luck in your journey. Regards BG