now50
newbie
Reged: 13/03/2008
Posts: 4
|
|
hello,
i was not too sure where to post this question.
i am sticking with film but I would like to print some of my scanned negatives and slides in other words i would like to have digital prints. can anyone advise on this one or does anyone on the forum do this and can you advise me.
i saw some digital prints some time ago and on enquiring i was told that the photographer had used a medium format camera then digitally produced the prints. the prints were lacking in detail which one would expect of the medium format and i wonder if it is worth doing digital prints from film??.
thanks
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1185
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
I still use film although it's mostly large format 4x5. I have said elsewhere that I think the results from scanning 4x5 on my Epson 4990 are at least as good as I used to get from optical enlargements. I have also been scanning my old medium format negatives with complete success. Well as complete as you might expect from a teenager's efforts in the 1950s.  So I don't think that there should be a lack of detail.
You do need a decent scanner and to set it up appropriately.
|
NorthernMonkey
enthusiast
Reged: 01/05/2007
Posts: 271
|
|
How big a print do you want. If its just up to 10x8, then you can take your digital files to tesco on a memory card. If you need bigger, upload to peak imaging
|
Per
old hand
Reged: 28/11/2005
Posts: 716
Loc: UK Berkshire
|
|
I scan 135 negatives using a prosumer scanner (Nikon Coolscan V) and have compared a couple of my image scans printed at 12x8 by Peak Imaging with prints supplied by Peak from the negative (i.e. via their megabucks scanner). There is a small difference, but you've got to have a really sharp shot (50mm prime f/8 territory) and squint until your eyes hurt to see it. Page 13 in April 5th AP is one of my home scans reproduced at full-page and it seems fine to me. Any bigger and I'd get someone like Peak to scan it. Basically I'm quite happy with home scanning at the moment.
--------------------
There are two things to aim at in life: first, to get what you want; and after
that, to enjoy it. Only the wisest of mankind achieve the second.
Logan Pearsall Smith (1865-1946)
|
mart1st
Walt
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 60
|
|
Having compared my Minolta scan 111 to my Epson 4870 scanning 35mm film I compared them. On the Minolta you have to remember to autofocus and use a high resolution to compare it to the Epson flat bed.
|
K10D
member
Reged: 25/09/2007
Posts: 100
Loc: Herts UK
|
|
Hi Large format.
I have the 4990's little brother the 4490 and I was wondering if you use the OEM holders or perhaps something like the Doug Fisher holders. I find the OEM a little flimsy and have been looking around for an alternative though Dougs seem to be the only real choice. How do you find epson's offering, any problems so far?
All the best.
Scott.
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1185
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Nope, I find Epson's offering fine.
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 3034
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Quote:
hello,
i was told that the photographer had used a medium format camera then digitally produced the prints.
.......the prints were lacking in detail which one would expect of the medium format.
Eh?
Medium format is capable of outstanding quality whether scanned or wet printed. I can scan my 6 x 4.5 cm negs or trannies to around 56 megapixels at 4,000 dpi, which is roughly 2.7 times greater than for 135 exposures.
If you are saying that medium format is not good enough I suspect you either have very, very high standards, or more likely, someone is doing something wrong.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37916
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
hello,
i was told that the photographer had used a medium format camera then digitally produced the prints.
.......the prints were lacking in detail which one would expect of the medium format.
Eh?
Medium format is capable of outstanding quality whether scanned or wet printed. I can scan my 6 x 4.5 cm negs or trannies to around 56 megapixels at 4,000 dpi, which is roughly 2.7 times greater than for 135 exposures.
If you are saying that medium format is not good enough I suspect you either have very, very high standards, or more likely, someone is doing something wrong.
I think there's simply a definite article missing, or rather in the wrong place - try
"the prints were lacking in the detail which one would expect of medium format" and it all makes a lot more sense.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 3034
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
hello,
i was told that the photographer had used a medium format camera then digitally produced the prints.
.......the prints were lacking in detail which one would expect of the medium format.
Eh?
Medium format is capable of outstanding quality whether scanned or wet printed. I can scan my 6 x 4.5 cm negs or trannies to around 56 megapixels at 4,000 dpi, which is roughly 2.7 times greater than for 135 exposures.
If you are saying that medium format is not good enough I suspect you either have very, very high standards, or more likely, someone is doing something wrong.
I think there's simply a definite article missing, or rather in the wrong place - try
"the prints were lacking in the detail which one would expect of medium format" and it all makes a lot more sense.
Reading it again I'm sure you're right Nick - or at least I hope you are.
Maybe I have been deluded all these years. 
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
daven1948
newbie
Reged: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1
Loc: West Yorkshire
|
|
I am in a similar situation whereby I have some "Excellent" slides that I wish to scan and am getting all sorts of info from people and books who I thought should know better. Therefore the question is - To produce a portratit print from a digitised slide what should I scan it at and what should I print it at to get a finished product of say 20" x 16" so that it does it Justice ps High Street Retailers call 72dpi High Resolution and that will produce a good 6" x 4" HELP... Why do all retailers now concentrate on printer sales now is it the popularity of Digital - Look for any mention of Descent Scanner nowadays
--------------------
Thank God for Sony using Minolta Lenses
|
K10D
member
Reged: 25/09/2007
Posts: 100
Loc: Herts UK
|
|
Quote:
I am in a similar situation whereby I have some "Excellent" slides that I wish to scan and am getting all sorts of info from people and books who I thought should know better. Therefore the question is - To produce a portratit print from a digitised slide what should I scan it at and what should I print it at to get a finished product of say 20" x 16" so that it does it Justice ps High Street Retailers call 72dpi High Resolution and that will produce a good 6" x 4" HELP... Why do all retailers now concentrate on printer sales now is it the popularity of Digital - Look for any mention of Descent Scanner nowadays
Hi Daven. If you pop over to Photo.Net and look up (How many pixels in an 8x10 neg? by bill youmans, Oct 03, 2000; 01:02 p.m.) I think you get some idea of what's what. I searched for the same info sometime ago and found this very helpful.
All the best.
Scott.
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1185
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Depends what you're scanning. For a 20" print from a 5x4 1200 dpi would be enough. From a 35mm you'd need 4000 dpi which is near the limit of resolution of film.
|
Mark101
addict
Reged: 15/03/2007
Posts: 583
Loc: Lincolnshire
|
|
Well I'm either going to buy an Epson V 700 or V 500, depending on the state of finances at the end of next month since I'm convinced either machine will give me what I need from a 6x7 neg/tranny.
--------------------
Cavyslave
|
SantiagoV
newbie
Reged: 02/05/2008
Posts: 2
|
|
I recently bought a Epson perfection v200 scanner since all my slides and negatives are 35mm. Up to date I've have scanned some 600 slides and negatives, some as 55 years old. At 3200 dpi grain is plainly visible in most negatives and slides, so, a higher dpi would only produce a bigger file but no extra detail. Only Kodachromes admit a 4800 dpi scanning (the maximum optical sanning of this scanner) without showing the film grain. Probably Velvia and other modern extremely fine grain films will also admit a higher dpi.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37916
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
That's simply not true - you can't actually detect grain at 3200 samples per inch. What you're seeing is not grain, but grain aliasing, and this effect is actually reduced by scanning at a higher optical resolution, if your scanner is capable of it.
Velvia (the original version) actually suffers from a phenomenon called "pepper grain", which again isn't true grain - it's actually particles in the film base. This effect can be reduced on my scanner (Minolta Scan Multi Pro) by diffusing the light source.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
SantiagoV
newbie
Reged: 02/05/2008
Posts: 2
|
|
After verifying all my scanned negatives and slides I've found that at 3200 dpi grain is visible in Ektachomes from the 60`s and early 70's, Agfachromes up to the 80's (this were really grainy) and even some Fujichromes from the early 80's (in this case the grain is compact and uniform and of little importance) In all these cases the grain was also visible under a microscope at 30 magnification. In modern slides (I use Fuji's Sensia and Provia) even at 4800 dpi no grain is visible.
With colour negatives my results are similar, old negatives are notoriously more grainy than modern ones. With some negatives from the early 80's grain is plainly visible at 3200dpi
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4987
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
In modern slides (I use Fuji's Sensia and Provia) even at 4800 dpi no grain is visible.
You must have the "grain dissolver" software turned on ... personally I prefer to see the grain in the image, if it's well sampled then it's better to remove it after the rest of the post-production (but before sharpening).
The only film I'm had trouble getting the grain well sampled at 4800 dpi is Kodak Technical Pan (type 2415) exposed at 32 ASA.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37916
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
After verifying all my scanned negatives and slides I've found that at 3200 dpi grain is visible
No, it's not - please read what I wrote.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Benchmark
Is it safe?
Reged: 12/07/2005
Posts: 3034
Loc: Sedgefield, Co Durham
|
|
Quote:
Velvia (the original version) actually suffers from a phenomenon called "pepper grain", which again isn't true grain - it's actually particles in the film base. This effect can be reduced on my scanner (Minolta Scan Multi Pro) by diffusing the light source.
I have noticed that too.
I also suspect that film scaners such as my Nikon (with a LED light source rather than a flourescent tube) excasserbate this effect.
--------------------
Nigel CRIPN and Bar
Beware of the Dark Slide
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
