MF or 35mm for home scanning

[j. rivera]

As an amateur photographer with a new family (son, 10 weeks old) my

budget for photography has become somewhat limited. My goal is to

produce excellent images in the 8x10 to 11x14 size, both color and

B&W, at home on an inkjet printer.

 

Currently I have an EOS 35mm system for family and grab shots and a

Rollei SLX. I only have the normal lens for the SLX. I have fairly

fast computer and an Acer 1240UT flatbed scanner. I'm trying, as most

people are, to get the best quality for the most reasonable amount of

money. Here are some of my thoughts; I was hoping you could find the

time to comment on them.

 

1. Use the Rollei with the flatbed scanner (1200 dpi optical, dmax of

around 3.0). I'm able to generate decent 8x8's with this system. If I

need to print larger I can have prints made (either scanned or

traditional). The up side of this is the zeiss glass and the bigger

negative. The down side, as I see it, is the cost of the equipment.

Lenses, even used, are very expensive for this system. An affordable

(~ 1-1.5k $) scanner is not on the horizon any time soon.

 

2. Switch to a cheaper MF system. I looked into some other

possibilities, but 'am limited because I really like SLR's and don't

care to much for TLR's and RF's. You can put together a decent

pentax 67 kit or old RB-67 with C glass pretty cheaply. Same for the

M645 and ETR which, as the previous two choices, keeps compatibility

with new equipment. Still, for home scanning and printing affordable

options are limited.

 

3. Expand my EOS system and get a 35mm scanner. The upside is a 2nd

body, a wide angle fixed, and the 100-300 5.6L would complete my

outfit to cover 95% of what I think I'd want to do. Good 2700 dpi

scanners are relatively inexpensive (under $500) and I could always

get a drum scan when I needed larger output. The down side is that

it's not MF. There is something magical about composing on the WL

finder. I think I could live with out that, but I'd have to work to

compose as good of photos with 35 as I do with MF.

 

I'm leaning toward the 35mm expansion with the following

reservation. With traditional printing, 35mm craps out at about 8x12

(IMO). Does scanning really get you the extra oomph for 11x14? I'm

going to test that myself by getting a slide printed both ways, but I

wondering if there is a consensus yet.

 

Thanks for reading this long post.

[squareframe]

Jeff,

 

let me just relate my own findings, to start the discussion, and go from there. I have a 4000spi scanner I use for 35mm, and an Epson 1200U 1200spi scanner for the Hasselblad and 4x5 films. without any hesitation, the 1200spi scans on the $300 scanner are far superior in every measured parameter compared to the 4000spi 35mm scans.

 

this is contrary to many opinions here, and I should qualify it by saying this is B&W negative scanning. understanding the entire process is crucial, such that you pick films, developers, and scanner to match. TMax densities are adjusted to scan properly with a limited dynamic range scanner. 1200spi yields non-resampled 9" final images that print beautifully on the Epson 1270 printer. the secret, from my evaluations, is to not use bi-cubic resampling. print quality doubled without it. again, opinions vary, but the differences between the two formats are so dramatic, that I find it very difficult to pick up the EOS-1v and shoot small images in any situation where I can use the Hasselblad.

 

good luck

[squareframe]

well, not every parameter. however, side by side comparisons are dramatic and not contested. MF clearly wins, even with a low-end scanner. you have to modify your thinking about ultra-dense, bullet-proof negatives, and assess your source/target sampling requirements.

 

unfortunately, colour introduces a myriad of problems, and my methodology tends to break down at the scanning front-end. my thoughts are that the scanning requirements are much greater for MF colour and (generally) require large infusions of money to guarantee a satisfying outcome.

[gleep_wurp]

My experience has been the opposite of Daniel Taylor's...not that I intend to shoot him down (he obviously knows a lot more about photography and computers than I do) but this has been my anecdotal experience. I'm not familiar with your scanner but I have found that 35mm scanned at max resolution on a friend's cheap Polaroid 35mm scanner beat 6x6 scanned on my cheap scanmaker 4. The polaroid scans look a little sharper and "unsharp mask" can only do so much (I think digital images that have been sharpened too much look worse than slightly soft scans). Of course, I plan to eventually add a 35mm scanner to my setup and my scanmaker 4 scans are intended for quick prints and web work and for this the scanmaker 4 is more than enough -- for prints, I like the kind that come out of the darkroom. For my money, lightjet prints cost too much and the last set of Fuji Pictograpy prints I had made were dissapointing even though the price was less than a conventional c-print from a 6x6 negative. For better quality from your computer with the least amount of fuss, might I suggest 35mm scanned onto a Kodak CD? Usually costs $1.25 per slide plus an initial charge for the CD and they give you several sets of scans, from low res suitable for thumbnails to high res which will look good on the inkjet. I've also had 6x6 scanned onto Kodak CD for around $15.00 per image and the quality is FANTASTIC -- most Kodak CD places offer "amateur scans" (35mm only, $1.25 each or less in quantity) and "uppergrade scans" (35mm or MF, better scans, larger scans, $15.00 or so each). The Kodak CD with amateur grade scans will allow you to make a few prints with your existing computer (providing you have photoshop or similar and a printer) and help you decide if this is an avenue you want to pursue before you sink money into a film scanner, more RAM, a CD burner or ZIP drive to store all your scans, an additional storage drive for scratch disk, etc.<p>

[squareframe]

> My experience has been the opposite of Daniel Taylor's

 

yes, I think most would agree that a good 35mm scan will print better than a flatbed 6x6 scan. after a year of experimentation, which is key for optimum results, I find that the 6x6 images hang in my studio gallery. it took this long, to discover the exact process that would yield results comparable to an Imacon Flextite. I preferred the flatbed scans over the Flextite, but this was a hastily setup evaluation at 1200spi, which is all that is required for 4x, 9" output.

 

I would love to hear of similar evaluations. I was asked to write a magazine article, comparing low and high-end scanners, and attempt to find the sweet-spot that yields the best performance/cost ratio.

 

as mentioned previously, my testing discovered that the bi-cubic resampling algorithm introduced an artifact that degraded the output. no investigation as of yet, but dramatic improvements in the printed image. it took a year to get a 6x6 scan/print that approached (for me) something as satisfying as a silver/gelatin print.

 

it required Epson's new Premium Glossy and Satin papers and optimized negatives.

[mark_uehling]

Jeff,

 

Like Daniel, I have achieved better results with medium format and a flatbed (Epson 1200 and now 1640 photo). It's not even close. However, I imagine if I were to shoot more Kodachrome 25 on 35mm, it might be a better match. Usually, I am shooting either Fuji NPH negative film or Kodak EPP100 for slides as I prefer better skin tones.

 

However, I have found that medium format, especially SLRs, are not the best for shooting kids. With a 10 week old, MF SLRs are not a problem, but wait till your kid is two years old. They don't sit still, and they won't slow down till they are adults. You will also need to shoot alot of film, to increase your chance of success.

 

I would recommend a good 3 megapixel digital camera that will support external flash. They are good for a reasonable 11x14. You can shoot till you get a good shot, and you will know it right away. The color and tonality are also excellent. With kids, ultimate sharpness is not an issue, facial expressions and good skin tones are more important.

 

I have a medium format SLR (Pentax 6x7), a rangefinder (Mamiya 6), and a 35mm SLR (EOS). I use a digital camera (Epson 3000Z) for 90% of the shots of my kids. I have used the 35mm twice in the last 6 months. The quality of the digital camera generally exceeds that of the 35mm, is much more convenient, and you know when you have the shot. I send the digital files over the internet to be printed (printroom.com), so I end up with lots of pictures to send to Grandma.

 

The other benefit of the digital, is the kids can see themselves right away. Most kids don't like their picture to be taken, they would rather play. When they can see the results immediately, they become part of the process and will often clown around, etc. This results in significantly better pictures. With digital, they are not complaining about when will the pictures be over. Instead, they see the shot and if they don't like it, they ask to have another picture taken to see if it will be better.

[Marc453]

I have an eight month old and a four year old. I shoot them with both medium format and 35mm and scan the images using an Epson 1200. I will soon try out the Minolta Dimage Elite, however, I am very, very, partial to the Nikon 2000 35mm film scanner. You can get a very excellent, even outstanding, 11X14 inch print from any Epson printer (I have the Photo EX) using this scanner. Granted, it costs more but, did I say I was partial to the Nikon 2000 film scanner??

If you decide to get a film scanner, here is a test for you, try to find a peice of cloth that has subtle colors in it. The colors should be pastel and have just enough shading to show the difference. Place this cloth in the background, not prominent, but where you can see it and pick up the colors by eye. Shoot your subject with both color print film and color slide film. Scan both at 300 dpi. Normally the print film will reproduce the pastel colors whereas the slide film will not.

 

As far as MF cameras go, you already have one of the best available. Keep it. The EOS system is also hard to beat.

 

But again, I'm partial to the Nikon 2000 film scanner. Did I say that I'm....