6x6 vs 6 mp: what's wrong?

[Ed_Ingold]

My scans of 6x6 film on a Nikon LS-8000 are 8500x8500 pixels aat 4000 ppi (slightly cropped to remove the border). That is slightly over 72MP, or a 28x28 inch print at 300 ppi without resampling.

 

Tell me again about optical printing - no enlarger weighing under a ton is going to make a sharp print that size :-) Have you ever tried to process a print that size. It's not a rhetorical question - I've been there and done that, and scanning is sharper from corner to corner.

 

The cropped view is not grain-sharp as one would expect at 4000 ppi. This could be due to the reduced resolution or lack of flatness in the negative near one edge. My experience is that roll film is too floppy to stay flat in the standard holder. You need the glass holder to keep things sharp. Some traces of grain are visible, yet the detail in the rock face is unsharp by another order of magnitude. It is what I would expect if a tripod were not used - and probably the best of the lot at that.

 

I have attached a scan from Reala that is sharp in all regards (Hasselblad, 80mm lens). Some of you may have seen this before, but this question seems to never die either.<div></div>

[jeff_drew4]

Everyone else pretty much said it all. I would add the following observations comparing the 2 submitted images: the light was different; the composition slightly different; the metering etc different; seasonal differences (1 snow, 1 NOT). You make a good case for both images to use a tripod next time. I have been guilty of taking some really gorgeous shots and discovering that 4x6 is as big as I could print due to blur and hurried technique. How disappointed . . . and I still get caught occasionally. For me, the solid tripod is a terrific image enhancement! :-)