Scanning prints

[graybrick]

<p>If I print a 35mm negative to an 8x10, can I capture the full resolution of the film with a decent flatbed scanner? I'm curious because I want to start printing, and I want better results from my scanner (Epson 4490). Thanks.</p>

[swilson]

<p>Well to start you 35mm negative is going to produce an 8x12 inch print not 8x10.<br>

You would be far better off scanning the film with a film scanner, using the print will likely mean some loss in resolution and a lot of loss in dynamic range.<br>

A film scanner should give better results then scanning the print. I know the 4490 can scan film, not sure how good it is at it, most flatbeds don't do nearly as well as a film scanner.</p>

 

[marc_bergman1]

<p>I'll give you a not quite.</p>

<p>I have scanned hundreds of prints with the 4490 and it does a great job. However you are going to have loss of detail in the original print from the negative. This is true whether it is an optical print or a print from a negative scan.</p>

<p>Then you have another slight loss of detail in your scan from the print.</p>

<p>How are you getting the original prints made?</p>

<p>Have you tried printing from a negative scan from your 4490? Are you unhappy with the results?</p>

<p>I have found that from a sharp negative or slide that I can barely get a sharp 8x10 print from my 4490 scans. I have since gone to a Nikon Coolscan.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>I thoroughly enjoy this scanner now that I've learned how to use it after wrestling with it for about a year. All the images in my portfolio are scanned with it. The biggest issue is film flatness. If you can put your film in negative sleeves and let them sit under a weight for about 2 days or more (I know, it's a long time to wait), they should be pretty flat. You'll find your sharpness goes way up. I suspect you'd see a huge improvement with a glass mount, but I haven't gone that route yet, though I've contacted Scan Science to see if the 4990 35mm and MF will work with the 4490.</p>

[graybrick]

<p>I have noticed that the bow in film ceates uneven sharpness, and flatter film is easier to mount in the holders and scan. I'm not unhappy with the quality of the 4490's film scans, but I am noticing that optical prints are much more detailed than what I can get by scanning my film on it. I don't have money to invest in a dedicated film scanner, and I'm wanting to start printing anyway. I'm wondering, in theory, what size I need to enlarge to on an optical print to maximize the available detail from a 35mm negative. Obviously, it will be easier for the scanner to get detail from a print which is multiple inches versus a negative which is a fraction of the size. I'm comparing prints made professionally (not by me) many years ago which I have scanned to the scanned images from the same negatives, and the results are clearly in favor of the scanned prints.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>No, you're essentially scanning a copy. But if you have a good print with all the adjustments done and don't need larger size than it is, then it can make sense to scan the print.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>No you won't be able to capture the full details in the neg because not all of the details made it to the paper in the first place. You may find also that the shadows block up a bit more and some of the highlight detail could be lost compared to the original print. I have had good results scanning 8x10 B&W prints that I made in the darkroom. If you have the scanner and the prints give it a try.</p>