Do you scan from the negative or prints?

[3rdrate]

My plan with my newly acquired Canon 7 was to pay for development and scanning and skip the prints altogether, but I've been surprised at how scanning services generally only offer something like 1500x1000 scans at a low price, and to get something more in the 2500+ range, it adds on quite a few dollars. I've been looking at negative scanners, but it looks like if you want quality, you better be willing to pay for it, and I don't like the trade-offs for cheap scanners. So what about scanning from prints? Just curious what the consensus is when converting to digital.

 

[Swift1]

If you scan a print, you're not really going to get better than around 300dpi resolution from it. For a 4x6 print that is a 1200x1800 file.
Even my old Epson V500 will give me a lot better resolution of about 2200x3300 from a 35mm neg.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Use a good dedicated film scanner. Prints are actually not very sharp, film scans will show more detail, especially if you want to print larger.

 

[John Bragg]

I scan negatives on a Plustek dedicated film scanner. I then use GIMP to do any dust spotting etc so inkjet prints are a doddle. I started off scanning darkroom prints but no longer have room for a darkroom. I am happy with the final inkjet prints and it is the ideal hybrid workflow for my needs.

 

[Arbitrarium]

I often get 1 hour prints and scan them with an Epson Perfection. Needs some contrast putting back in in Photoshop but otherwise it's adequate for Instagram or whatever. The Epson can scan at 6,000 dpi or something but obviously it depends on how good the prints are.

Depends what you want to do with the digital images. For web and Instagram, scanning prints at 300dpi is fine. Otherwise, I get the dev and scan done by a proper film lab as it's about the same price as a rubbish 1 hour place, and I don't mind waiting a week for good quality scans.

 

[ray*j*gun]

I use an Epson V500 and if I am careful about dust neg scans are quite good. Flat bed scanners are not that costly and can do a fine job with some PP.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Since it is posted in Canon rangefinders, I recommend to look at earlier photos taken by Henri Cartier-Bresson. It is not just sharp, it is diamond sharp.

Why do you take pictures on film? For resolution? If so go digital, it offers more resolution.
I shot film because of how it looks. I'm not resolution maniac either. I have cheap Epson V500 for negatives and print scans and it is as good as my M8 ten mega pixels.
And because I like film photography, to me the print is preferable final product, scan of the negative is not.

 

[rogue_designer]

It depends. Are you a good printer, and do a bunch of dodging/burning, toning or things which if selling the print are better replicated that way, rather than trying to mimic in photoshop what you do in the darkroom? Then scan the print.

Otherwise, scan the negative (or have it scanned) with a dedicated film scanner.

 

[mike rosenlof]

For 35mm, I use dedicated film scanner, in my case, a Minolta Scan Dual IV.

For larger negs I have a New-Old-Stock Epson 1680 scanner that's adequate. I use the digital scans like a contact sheet, not normally for a finished product.

You do have higher sharpness and greater dynamic range from a negative compared to a print. At least you should.

 

[sepiareverb]

I'm likely the odd duck here. With B&W if I'm looking for a scan to post here, or use as a place holder during editing for a book project I scan from quick 8x10 proof prints. I print quickly, and usually can get a decent print with one piece of paper, and using a half sheet as a test strip for all images from any given roll. I printed in labs long before digital was around, back when one was given a stack of negatives and a box of paper, which was counted at the end of the day so you could get docked if you used too much paper. If I scan a negative I am spending a lot more time in PS cloning out dust than I want. Somehow I have dusty negs when scanning but not when printing. Guess my darkroom is cleaner than my office...

When I do a book project I make nice prints to final size that get scanned. The resolution of a printing press is pretty low compared to that print, so I don't worry about any potential loss of quality.

Almost all my color begins as a digital file, and if not I'll pay someone to do a good scan rather than battle it out myself if I want to make a big print. For book projects most mid-range lab scans from even 35mm are plenty good, considering that a mid-range printing press is about 180 dpi at best. YMMV.

 

[sanoire]

I Completely agree. You want the digital version to be as close as possible to your final expression. If that's happening in the darkroom then you have to scan the print. Otherwise, scanning the neg is easier and just fine.

It depends. Are you a good printer, and do a bunch of dodging/burning, toning or things which if selling the print are better replicated that way, rather than trying to mimic in photoshop what you do in the darkroom? Then scan the print.

Otherwise, scan the negative (or have it scanned) with a dedicated film scanner.

 

[:: Mark]

Surely it depends on your workflow? If the final output is a print and the scans are just for social media etc, then it makes sense to get the print right and then scan that.

I prefer a hybrid analogue-digital process, scanning the negatives and then editing digitally before printing - largely because the number of negatives I take and scan comfortably exceed what I could afford to print in both time, cost and storage...

FWIW, I now scan using an Olympus u4/3 camera and macro lens. The results are not perfect, but they are better than I get with a dedicated scanner - and the RAW file sizes are much more manageable than TIFFs even with the hi-res modes.

 

[Jake Mongey]

I use a flatbed and scan my negs as 2400 dpi for 35 and 1200 for 120 film. Ive found that the scans from negs have far more dynamic range. After scanning I can look at the files like a contact sheet and choose what I want to wet print - if any at all!