Which better 8x10 prints?From 10 mpxls dslr,or from 35mm velvia+5400 dpi scanner?

[marco_landini]

Hello. I'm here agin asking for your kind suggestions. I'm interested in

shooting travel pics, basicaly reportage and people portraits, even candid

portraits . I do love the Steve McCurry style, his hi contrast colour

rendition and fine details.I've ever shot 35mm slides, velvia 50 e 100 for

enviromental reportage, and kodak e100gx for faces.I love slide colours and

contrast and overall rendition.The problem is about having prints from them.I

exclude drum scanner, 'cause I will require this service only for my 6x6 slide

work, totaly different from this topic , so don't we discuss here about

possibility of drum scanner. I just want to discuss about these 2 alternative

work flows ,to have the relative best 10x8 prints from the 2 ways. 1) 10 mpxls

dslr. By the way, I consider nikon d200 'cause I have good nikkor ais arsenal.

2) 35mm slides, 5400 dpi scanner , like a minolta 5400.

Which one of the 2 alternative ways will produce the relative best 8x10 print

in the real world, not only theoricaly, , in order to have great details and

contrast , using the same hi quality pro studio printer ? Thank you very much

for your kind help and patience . Marco .

[robert lee]

"Which one of the 2 alternative ways will produce the relative best 8x10 print in the real world ..."

 

No difference at this size.

 

An 8x10 print holds about 7MP. Both scanned 35mm reversal and DSLR provides more than enough high quality pixels to fill the page.

[dickhilker]

For relatively small prints of such subjects, I'd use a digital camera because the difference in quality would be less than you'd likely notice. The workflow with digital would be simpler, faster and cheaper. That said, I shoot film almost exclusively, principally MF and LF for the qualities I need in fairly large prints.

 

Althugh the Minolta scanners were great, they're no longer made and getting parts and service is nearly impossible.

[radfordneal]

My guess would be that they're roughly equal. But since the deficiencies of each will be different, there's no way to say exactly, and it all comes down to a matter of taste. Also, if there are any other deficiencies - camera shake, subject motion, poor focus,lens that's not sharp - any differences that there are may be irrelevant.

 

There's the convenience factors to consider too, of course...

[sprouty]

I've printed from slides in the past, but today I would shoot with the D200, if for no other reason than the freedom during post-processing.

[marco_landini]

Thank you very much guys. As you confirmed, I think for 8x10 prints the attention has to be directed to praticity and convenience. As I don't own any dslr, I think I should invest in a nice one , as nikon d200 or d80 , rather then in a 4000 or 5400 dpi scanner that will give me not better results than a 10 mpxls camera for that size prints. As I will need a scanner anyway, also for general computer work, I think I could have nice results from a good flatbet, as an Epson 4990, just for scanning my all formats slides to post them on internet and to archieve them. Am I right ?

[mendel_leisk]

marco, I have the 5400. I am very happy with it's performance, but as others have said it's out of production. I would say your best bet now is likely the Coolscan V, for 35mm. It's not much more than an advanced feature flatbed.

 

Regarding your original question, a DSLR is much more convenient (and less grief) than film camera/scanner, and easily the same quality in print.

[roger_smith4]

Didn't you get answers yesterday on almost the exact same question?

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00O1id

[marco_landini]

Hi Roger. Sorry, but please, be patient. I just re-formulated my answer in a better and more smart way in this post. In yesterday post the discussion was more wide and generalist, here I pointed out the real problem I need to discuss. Thank you for understanding.

[marco_landini]

Ok, I'm almost completely satisfied thanks to your kind suggestions.

Here my last question : you said for 8x10 prints I will notice no substantial differences between d200 and 35mm slide then scanned at 5400 dpi,cause the paper can't contain all the pixels produced by both systems.For the same reason, I desume also a drum scanned 35mm slide produces the same results for 8x10 prints, right ? And for 20x15 prints ,there will be much perceived difference between d200 and 35mm slide scanned with a drum scanner ? Thank you very much.

[roger_smith4]

I think it's time you start looking for actual examples. Don't you have any photography clubs, local galleries, universities or photo stores with prints you can look at?

 

You can also scour the web for full sized DSLR output, give it to a lab to print on whatever paper you like and see how it compares to other output. Test images are definitely out there!

 

Come back and let us know what you decide upon.

[fanta]

I have scanned 35mm slides for a few years before moving to a DSLR, when Canon introduced the RebelXT/350D. The scanner was a 10 megapixel Minolta. I must say the main difference was the nights and week-ends scanning slides. Moreover, I find it easier and faster to color correct RAW pictures taken with the digital camera; as much as I like the color palette of Fuji Provia 100F, scanned slides provided me with more challenging issues in correcting colors. As per picture quality alone I couldn't see a clear winner. I found scanned slides to be somewhat sharper in the centre, and RebelXT pictures to be sharper at the edges (probably because of the slight curvature of slides, not always within the scanner depth of field).

[sfcole]

I've been comparing a 6mp Pentax k100D with scans of Provia done at 4000 dpi on a NIkon

9000. I'm sorry to say that until you get to big enlargements--for me that means 11x17--

digital is not only sharper, but reaches into the shadows better.