 Stephanie Meyer |
Is scanning a Neg better quality that a digital c I really like film.. however I was just about to jump on the digital bandwagon when someone told me the quality was not as good as 35mm film. I am very concerned with the final product. Soo I started thinking about a film scanner instead. I enjoy being able to do corrections etc digitally but was the film quality print. I am wondering if buying a personal scanner is worth it or if I should just continue to spend the extra $18 to $20 for a roll of 36 exp film getting scanned at 30 meg at my custom lab?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig m. Zacarelli |
I dare say no. Turning a photo or negative into a digital file cannot be as good as a true digital file (for lack of a better term) although, I could be wrong and there are tons of awesome scans here.. Im just thinking it would take more post processing to get them to look as good as a true digi file. if I am wrong please let me know, this is an interesting question.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie Meyer |
Craig do you shoot digital? what is it? when you get your pics printed how is the quality? Is it printed as good as film? That is a concern of mine? thanks steph
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
It really all depends more on the quality of the scanner. A drum scan can give you an awesome file but they are expensive!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
hey craig,did you see what she is getting her film scanned at?30 meg.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
yeah with a 30 meg file you're doing good. now if you get great glass and use pro films then you'd have to get into some very pro Dcameras to get the same quality. what's a drum scanner start at 4,000-5,000 dpi? That's pretty darn good I must say. Steph, what camera do you shoot with and what film do you use?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie Meyer |
WOA I am not looking to buy a drum scanner <<,,,,, I was just trying to figure out if I used a ccd scanner at home if it would compare at all to a 30 meg scan from the Lab I use. I have a Nikon N80... and I've only shot with kodak portra .... I am just trying to decide if I want to go digital or keep on with the film only and maybe by a 4000 dpi CCD(?) scanner. Sorry if I mislead you. I am concerned about the final print quality of the two options.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
No what I was saying is that you can't beat the drum scanners and that they START at 4,000 - 5,000 dpi. Yeah those are quite pricey. I've never used a CCD scanner but hear that the Nikon CoolScans are a great line and yes they usually scan at like 4,000 dpi. no you can't beat the drum scanners at the lab but hey these CCD scanners might be a good buy. maybe Bob Commantra will see this thread. He uses a CoolScan 4200 or somethign like that.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Craig m. Zacarelli |
hey Steph. I shoot digital and the prints I get from it are every bit as good as a film Pic. I have an 8 MP camera and I print out at home at 300DPI. I get most of my prints from labs like MPIX and through my web site www.brokenfencephotography.com and I have no complaints. It would seem to me that getting film scanned at 30megs would result in some really good looking images... now, I guess the question is.. which is less expensive and time consuming for ya? I do like film but I also love the "Instant" gratification of seeing the pics that day....lol
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
Justin, Thanks for the referral. (Did I spell your name right?) ;) Stephanie, I shoot only slides and mostly use my scanner to create digital files for web use. When I get a request for a print, I take the original slide to my lab and get them to generate one. Scanning film negatives or slides gives you the advantage of both types of capture mediums.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
Yes Bob you got mine right, my apologies on butchering yours! Lol. I noticed it when I was rereading it but didn't repost the apology. Anyways my apologies Bob Cammarata!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie Meyer |
Thanks guys... Craig how do you archive your digital files? also what is the best way to preserve the file (tiff. jpeg. raw?) and will the quality fade over time or last? Do CD's last forever? This is another concern of mine.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
Scanning a neg or slide is, I think, would deliver better results than a digital camera I can afford. The full-size sensor cameras are STILL too expensive. My best two camera bodies and best four lenses, AND my $500-range consumer scanner don't total the $3,000 the Canon 5D body alone costs. I agree with Bob C on scanning; its shortcomings, compared to a first generation digital image, are negligible. Digital, however, is catching up fast. The Photoshop skills you learn processing your scans can easily be applied to raw digital shots. Scanning should not be considered a dead end. Another factor is that a film negative or slide, properly stored, is a true archive. I can't get a definitive opinion on the longevity of CD's. What would my grandchildren do with CD's that won't open, or can't be converted to the current digital media? Stephanie, the article on my site about archiving is about all I know so far.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
Stephanie, As a working photographer who does both digital and film work, slong with my own film scanning, let me throw in my dollar's worth: Speaking only of 35mm vs DSLR, here are some specs (you can't argue with specs!) - Assuming you have a quality film image or raw file to begin with, you can be assured that the 68 MB scanned file is going to produce more detail in your print than a 35 MB or 18 MB file. It IS possible to interpolate the smaller files to a larger size, but this DOES NOT add detail. Personally, I shoot digital quite often with a 12 MP camera, and I get very good results, even on interpolated 24x36" prints from an Epson 7600 printer. I am not disappointed with any aspect of the digital process, BUT...35mm scans that I personally make with a Nikon LS-9000ED scanner @ 4000 ppi are markedly more detailed, and sharper than the digital files I produce from a 12 mega pixel/35 mega byte file.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||