Follow us on Twitter!
Follow us on Facebook!
 

Go Back   Pixtus - Photography Forum, Photographers, Photo Tips > Photography Information > Post Processing Central


What size to scan film images?

This is a discussion on What size to scan film images? within the Post Processing Central forums, part of the Photography Information category; I am about to start scanning my library of negatives into the computer. I am curious what others have done ...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#1) Old
Member
 
Photographer557's Avatar
 
Posts: 197
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arlington,
Real First Name: Greg
Camera: D200
Can Others Edit My Photos: No
iTrader Rating: 0

Likes Received LIKES Received: 0
Likes Given LIKES Given: 0
What size to scan film images? - 05-09-2007, 01:29 PM


I am about to start scanning my library of negatives into the computer. I am curious what others have done concerning the size at which you scan them in?

I know some scan at 300 dpi and others scan larger.
I would like to be able to make good size prints from the scanned negatives say 16x20 and maybe a little larger.

Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated. As I do not want to have to scan them in again. As this is going to take some time.

Thanks in advance.
Greg
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Premium Members do not see Google advertisements. SIGN UP today and help support our community.
  (#2) Old
Light Moderator
 
srwatters's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,942
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: West Plano, Texas
Real First Name: Scott
Camera: Nikon D3 & Hasselblad H2
Can Others Edit My Photos: No
iTrader Rating: 16

Likes Received LIKES Received: 47
Likes Given LIKES Given: 10
05-09-2007, 01:48 PM


Greg,

For best results, I scan my 35mm negatives at 4000dpi. Remember that's dots in the 35mm format. Once you enlarge them, that number will decrease as the print size increases. Scanning a negative at 300dpi won't yield you anything that's printable at more than a couple of inches across.

print
16x20 @ 300dpi = ~27.5MP
16x20 @ 180dpi = ~10MP

35mm negative
.945x1.417 @ 4000dpi = ~20.5MP
.945x1.417 @ 3000dpi = ~11.5MP

I would choose at least 3000dpi and most likely 4000dpi if you want to make large prints.

I just happen to have a Nikon CoolScan 5000 that does an excellent job at 4000dpi!

---------------------------
Scott Watters
PoloDigital | Flickr | Pbase
Nikon | Hasselblad | Phase One | Hensel | Apple

Last edited by srwatters; 05-09-2007 at 02:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  (#3) Old
Supa Dupa Poster
 
xseption's Avatar
 
Posts: 4,035
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Richardson, TX (DFW), Texas
Real First Name: edd
Camera: Canon 50D
Can Others Edit My Photos: Yes
iTrader Rating: 3

Likes Received LIKES Received: 0
Likes Given LIKES Given: 3
Send a message via Yahoo to xseption
05-09-2007, 02:39 PM


Thanks gentlemen for the question and the answer!


---------------------------
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seuss
Reply With Quote
  (#4) Old
sbp sbp is offline
Forum Regular
 
sbp's Avatar
 
Posts: 966
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Houston, Sugarland, Texas
Real First Name: Sachin
Camera: Canon
Can Others Edit My Photos: Yes
iTrader Rating: 2

Likes Received LIKES Received: 2
Likes Given LIKES Given: 5
05-09-2007, 02:43 PM


I was going to scan few next week. this answered my question.
Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  (#5) Old
Member
 
shutterdrone's Avatar
 
Posts: 128
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: houston,
Real First Name: church
iTrader Rating: 0

Likes Received LIKES Received: 0
Likes Given LIKES Given: 0
05-09-2007, 03:11 PM


You should always scan at the highest resolution possible w/o serious interpolation on the scanner's part (e.g. 6400 vs. 4000 dpi on the V6700 - 6400 can result in worse quality in some cases, in my experience) and then bounce down to print resolution after doing your post-processing work. The more data you have to work with, the better your changes will be. Also, prefer 16-bit scans over 8-bit, even if they do fill up your HDD =)

!c
Reply With Quote
  (#6) Old
Member
 
Photographer557's Avatar
 
Posts: 197
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arlington,
Real First Name: Greg
Camera: D200
Can Others Edit My Photos: No
iTrader Rating: 0

Likes Received LIKES Received: 0
Likes Given LIKES Given: 0
05-09-2007, 03:26 PM


Thank you very much for that information Scott.

I was goofing the other day and scanned some in at 12,000 dpi. That took awhile!

But they were really big.
Reply With Quote
  (#7) Old
Light Moderator
 
srwatters's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,942
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: West Plano, Texas
Real First Name: Scott
Camera: Nikon D3 & Hasselblad H2
Can Others Edit My Photos: No
iTrader Rating: 16

Likes Received LIKES Received: 47
Likes Given LIKES Given: 10
05-09-2007, 04:00 PM


One thing to also consider is the film you are scanning. If it's high speed with golf ball size grain, scanning at 4K or higher isn't going to make the film resolve any better. Use the right tool for the job at hand. If you have a bunch of ISO25 chromes, then crank it up.

The 35mm format has it limits. That's why MF and LF exist (or maybe the other way around ).

---------------------------
Scott Watters
PoloDigital | Flickr | Pbase
Nikon | Hasselblad | Phase One | Hensel | Apple
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
film, images, scan, size

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Visit Our Sponsors
 

Google Sponsors

Premium Members do not see Google advertisements. SIGN UP today and help support our community.

Copyright ©2004 - 2011, Abel Longoria - www.Pixtus.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.