prints from scanned negatives vs. prints directly from negatives

[vikramdmello]

i had my lab scan a roll of b&w (chromogenic) film in hi-res. i now want

prints of those scanned images.

 

they told me that printing from the scanned image is fine up to about 8x10, but

above that, i should print from the negative.

 

of course, printing from the negative is more expensive.

 

what is the truth behind this distinction? what exactly is the difference in

printing procedure? where does the quality difference come from? isn't the

same printer used whether it's from a digital image or film?

 

thank you for shedding light on this.

 

appreciations - vikram.

[tom_s.]

Well, the "high-res" scans you got from the lab originally probably weren't of a particularly high resolution. I know that when I used to get Kodak Picture Disks, they were only about 1.5 megapixel scans. Good for Web posting and 4x6's, marginal for 5x7's, and too low for 8x10's, by my standards. For those with lesser standards, maybe they're considered good for up to 8x10.

 

Anyway they're probably right. It's best to rescan for larger images. Personally I'd re-scan anyway... if they're scanning a whole roll, they're just doing it quickly. If you're enlarging one particular frame a lot (anything above 8x10 is a lot for 35mm), it's worth it to spend the extra time to get the best scan possible.

[edward_karaa1]

Labs usually scan at 1200X1800 pixels, hardly enough for an 8X10. Best option is to scan yourself with a dedicated film scanner which usually can give you plenty of resolution. My Nikon 5000 gives me 22MP files. Optical prints in my opinion are fine up to 8X10 or 10X12, after that you loose contrast and saturation as well as corner sharpness.

[vikramdmello]

the hi-res scan i get is 3000x2000. would that still be okay up to 8x10?

 

i'm still unclear as to what the difference in the printing procedure is, though.

[pico]

I'd only trust a professional custom printer to make enlargements of B&W negatives beyond snapshot size. Why? Because, for the sake of economy (speed) many, many enlargments are done by varying the aperture of the lens rather than varying the exposure time. Without fail, such enlargements just don't give what the negative could deliver with a custom printer who uses optimal settings. And to make matters worse, there must be a dozen good commercial B&W (and chromogenic) printers in the whole country. And they charge good money.

[dave_powell2]

Hi Vikram,

 

Your high-res scans would seem to be sufficient for 10x8 prints output at 300 dpi (which would require 3000x2400 pixels), or for larger prints output at (say) 240 dpi.

 

Another factor to review might be the actual quality of the scans themselves. I once had high-res scans of this size come back to me with faint lines and speckles throughout. (I changed labs.) You may want to try one 8x10 test print, just to check this out.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave

[tom_s.]

3000x2000 should fine for 8x10... IF the scan was done well. Frankly, if a lab is quickly scanning a whole roll of 36 they're just doing it as fast as possible on automatic settings. But if you're taking your time to make a good enlargement of one single frame, you can can take the time to clean the neg, adjust everything as well as possible, make the best scan possible, etc.

 

Heck, I know that I do that with my own scanner. I'll dry scan a roll on full auto settings to get a quick look at all the frames... dust and all! When I identify which frame(s) I want to work with, then I'll take my time and wet-mount the film, and tweak settings manually.

[darrengold]

You should get good results at 240dpi so your scan should be good enough. Cheapest way to tell is to crop a section from each photograph of 1440 pixels by 960 pixels and print them at 6 x 4.

 

That will show you what the same portion of the image would look like if you printed the whole picture at 10 x 8. If you are happy you're good to go.

 

Regards

[profhlynnjones]

Save your money and buy a decent scanner (Epson 47800 comes in at about $500). It won't cost more than a few scan from a lab that doesn't know how to scan and burn CD's in the first place (as in your case). The noted scanner has a native resolution of 4000PPI, has Digital Ice, film sizes up to 4"x5" (roughly 100x125)and works well with color print film, b/w, and old Kodachrome (which doesn't work well with many scanners) and any thing else you can thnk of.

 

I shoot digital and film from 35mm to 8x10. My 35mm Fujicolor 200 print films scan at over 16x20 from my personal 4780. Our Photo Technology Dept. uses Epsons, Nikons, and Minoltas. We have used others prior to these.

 

Lynn