how do people that sell their prints scan?

[iridium7777]

this only pertains to 35mm film.

at this point, development + scan only at target costs a measly 1.99$. the resolution is crap, so if i want to splurge walgreens does the same for 5.99$ and the resolution is good enough to print at 8x10. my girlfriend actually even blew up some of the walgreen scans to something like 10x13 for me and some of them looked very decent, but not something i'd comfortably want to charge money for.

so, if i was scanning in order to print 10x13 and larger and sell the best quality print to be derived from film, would i:

1) buy a flat bad scanner and scan my own
2) buy one of the cheaper nikon dedicated film scanners and scan my own
3) pay someone $12 a pop to drum scan into a super resolution file and be done with it?

to me, option 3 seems like the best one, just was wondering if any "pro" scans their own on something that costs around 500$ and does large prints that are acceptable.

 

[Pherdinand]

for 35mm i dont think it's a matter fo the scanner. I am sure a better dedicated film scanner will suffice.
I have scanned 35mm on my epson v700 flatbed and printed at approx. 10x13 (i.e. 20x30 cm) and they look more than decent. With iso400 black and white film the scanner can easily resolve the film grain already. With a dedicted 35mm film scanner it only can get better, both resolution and color depth-wise, and the limit will be your film/lens, not scanner.

 

[Pherdinand]

But i'm far from a 'pro'.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

so, if i was scanning in order to print 10x13 and larger and sell the best quality print to be derived from film, would i:

1) buy a flat bad scanner and scan my own
2) buy one of the cheaper nikon dedicated film scanners and scan my own
3) pay someone $12 a pop to drum scan into a super resolution file and be done with it?

to me, option 3 seems like the best one, just was wondering if any "pro" scans their own on something that costs around 500$ and does large prints that are acceptable.

Well, don't get a "bad scanner"! Get a good scanner! If you're getting one, anyway.

If this is for only a few photos, you may want to begin by paying those "$12 a pop" with a drum scanner. If you think that it'll add up to over a few $2000 over a short period of time (~1 or 2 years), then I highly recommend the Nikon Coolscan 9000, if you're not the impatient kind (like I am, which is why I got the Coolscan 5000, which scans twice as fast and whole rolls at a time) and intends to use it at full 4000 dpi resolution; otherwise, just get a flatbed Epson (which work for me just fine with Medium Format)

 

[iridium7777]

i used the epson to play around one time to scan some of my velvia 50 and a couple of my other shots. i don't know if i didn't know my away around the software or the technique but a lot of my scans came out pretty moot, maybe i just needed to crank up the sharpness, but some weren't even as crisp as the fuji machine from walgreens. and it looks like it'd run out of light on the edge, look at the upper right corner of the sky here:

for 35mm i dont think it's a matter fo the scanner. I am sure a better dedicated film scanner will suffice.
I have scanned 35mm on my epson v700 flatbed and printed at approx. 10x13 (i.e. 20x30 cm) and they look more than decent. With iso400 black and white film the scanner can easily resolve the film grain already. With a dedicted 35mm film scanner it only can get better, both resolution and color depth-wise, and the limit will be your film/lens, not scanner.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I pay for 3000x2000 scans from 35mm film for my own prints (up to A4 on paper), samples, and giveaways.

Serious prints are made from the negatives directly.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Iridium: like anything else in photography, there is a lot of art and personal interpretation in scanning. Actually, the same for printing.

So you can either learn to do it yourself and have complete control of the process or pay someone very very good to do it. Personally, I like the control, so I do everything myself. Possibly if I lived in NYC or LA, I might consider one of the true pro services as Fred does. But that is not an option for me. I believe I do better than the prosumer places do.

The hardware is not a significant limiting factor in scanning once you get to a real film scanner. So with the appropriate skill level and $500 in hardware (for 35mm) you are good to go. The key is your personal skill level.

 

[Rhoyle]

I can get considerably better scans from my Coolscan V than what the discounts stores can provide. Most if the improvement is in shadow and highlight detail. I also have complete control over color balance. My $550 was money very well spent.

 

[dmr]

so if i want to splurge walgreens does the same for 5.99$ and the resolution is good enough to print at 8x10. my girlfriend actually even blew up some of the walgreen scans to something like 10x13 for me and some of them looked very decent, but not something i'd comfortably want to charge money for.

My experience at Walgreens is that it's inconsistent. Sometimes yes, you can do a fair 8x10 or 8.5x11 from their scans. but other times they show JPG artifacts or blown highlights or shadows in the mud! Add to that the fact that Walgreens now uses a mix of Fuji and Noritsu scanners. I haven't figured out which one gives most consistently less-vile results yet.

One of the first things I noticed after getting the film scanner a few years ago (K-M SD IV - now an orphan product) is how much better the final print is over the mini-lab scans. It's definitely visibly different on a 8.5x11 print.

 

[titrisol]

If you are going to charge money for something get the highest quality scan,
There maybe a pro lab close to your home that will do a good job for a bit more than $20 but with good results.

 

[iridium7777]

My experience at Walgreens is that it's inconsistent.

oh absolutely. with walgreens the scans are always consistent, the scratched film is , hapily, inconsistent. from the cost perspective, to develop and scan at target for 1.99 or even at 5.99 is worth it and is not something that i'd want to do myself. it's cheap and good enough to use as a proof, post online and even print small pictures.

only select few prints would require more work, and this is what i'm trying to decide, to see if i can do the whole thing myself with a nikon scanner or pay someone to do it. my idea was that even though i pay someone $25 to do it, i'm only paying them for their equipment, which i thought would blow away the nikon film scanners, but doesn't seem to be the case. i didn't want that person to have control over my prints so i'd still work on the scan myself and then bring it in to have printed after i worked it.

seems like the nikon is the way to go, all i gotta do is sell 20 prints now and it's paid off

 

[Avotius]

oh my looking at this really makes me happy to have my scans done here in china where it costs about 90 cents for the max resolution scan at the lab, the same said scan from a 6x6 will print 50x50 no problem.

Anyway my advice is not to be cheap with the scan, if you make a 8x10 and someone likes it but wants it 24 inch then you are stuck. Plus the extra resolution is really handy in post process.

By the way if you are serious about printing you should know that more often then not, big sales. And also printing directly from the negative unless black and white is a really bad idea, and if it is bw know there are some good techniques out there for excellent bw lab printing