| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/02/2005 01:44:18 PM · #1 |
What would render a better quality print, say a 16x20, a digital 8 MP file or a professionally scanned 35mm negative? Thank you all for your help.
June
|
|
|
|
08/02/2005 01:48:48 PM · #2 |
| 8 MP file no question. I've printed a 20x30 with an 8 MP file and there is zero grain, you won't get that with a 35mm film scan. Plus to get the best 35mm film scan you'd need them do do a drum scan which is pretty expensive. |
|
|
|
08/02/2005 01:54:17 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
8 MP file no question. I've printed a 20x30 with an 8 MP file and there is zero grain, you won't get that with a 35mm film scan. Plus to get the best 35mm film scan you'd need them do do a drum scan which is pretty expensive. |
Scan these days should be about $25. A lot also depends on the quality of the 35mm neg, and how the two exposures were made. |
|
|
|
08/02/2005 01:59:26 PM · #4 |
I've done a couple of 12x16 prints of 6mp files, even with some minor crop and I was amazed with it. I'm planning in doing some 20x30 art prints to sell in some galleries and I think it would be fine. Just treat your files correctly... and have them be photographed ina DSLR, not a prosumer.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2005 01:59:39 PM · #5 |
Well, I wouldn't be doing the scanning, the pro photographer would. I don't know how he scans it though.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2005 02:13:43 PM · #6 |
Although I have not done a side-by-side test, my experience tells me the 8 Mpx digital file will be superior, no doubt about it. There are specialty films that could reproduce more detail, but we're talking very slow black & white film, think 25 ISO and below.
Film grain isn't necessarily BAD, of course, it sometemes lends a nice effect, but it always obscures fine detail. Most of the added "information" from very high resolution scans of 35mm positives or negatives is just more accurate reproduction of grain. File sizes increase greatly, and the overall impression of the image will improve since the grain is rendered more naturally, but there will be very little additional detail. A drum scan is really necessary to obtain all of the dynamic range from dense film positives without adding noise, but with film negatives, which are not nearly as dense, a drum scan may be of dubious value. The dynamic range of the digital file (when exposed "to the right" will be superior to standard color films. Shadows will be more "open" and highlights more smoothly-rendered if exposed properly.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2005 04:39:02 PM · #7 |
I have a 4000DPI film scanner (pre-digital days) and a Canon 20D. The pics are much "better" (a subjective term) directly from the digital camera then scanned negs (positive slides I find hit and miss but certainly better than negs).
I was amazed at how scratched negs can be - depends on where it's processed and how it's handled. For consistency I would go with digital everytime. You usually end up doing more PS work on the scans and they tend to be more grainy from what I have seen (20D files are just so smooth - one of the biggest differences I have seen moving to digital). |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/19/2025 02:55:40 PM EDT.
