Negative scanning

[tlitody]

This is the answer I was looking for.

I am wandering though my 12 MP D90 gives me a average file size of 4288x2848 +/_ which easily prints to 20x30 inch so why would a scan of a 35mm neg have to be larger?

because a digital file is a clean file with no imperfections like grain (unless it has noise). They can be upsized or printed larger (within limits) without any noticeable image degredation. But a scan always introduces softness and loss of resolution and upsizing from that emphasises it. So you are better off scanning at higher resolution (if your scanner can actually extract higher resolution cos most don't).

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I am wandering [wondering] though my 12 MP D90 gives me a average file size of 4288x2848 +/_ which easily prints to 20x30 inch so why would a scan of a 35mm neg have to be larger?

Doesn't have to be larger, you can take a file of any pixel dimensions and let the printer up-res it to print at 20x30. As they say, "Your mileage may vary."

You asked for a recommendation... I still recommend, if you want to print big, get the highest res scan you can. It will improve the result. 4000dpi is a good starting point, and much better than most mini-lab scans. Precision (sponsor here) and North Coast (Ken Rockwell recommendation) do a great job with their enhanced machine scans.

Hope this helps.

 

[DNG]

I scan at 5500dpi for a 85-90mb file size...
I have made 16x20s that are stunning, plenty room to make 20x24 or 20x30...

Film has grain.... so what...
scanning at high dpi's, allows a high quality print. And with slow film, the grain should be minimal, and not an issue if you look at the prints at a proper distance.

 

[gnuyork]

A 35mm neg is really too small to get a good print that big. If you insist, get it scanned on a drum scanner or by someone with an Imacon or a Nikon 8000 or 9000 with the glass carrier to get the neg absolutely flat so every detail resolves.

Au Contraire!

I used to believe that until I was in a gallery recently and saw work by Elliott Erwitt. He had 30x40" prints, and I asked him what he used - 35mm Tri X. Prints looked stunning!

These were enlarged darkroom prints, so maybe it's different from scans.

I just sent some 35 mm scanned images (kodachrome) to a Chromira printer service to test large prints and to see what I can get away with from my Epson v750. I've never done this before - I'm waiting on the results.

 

[hatidua]

I'm sure Tri-x would go to 30 x 40 with a master printer doing the work.

I've had 4'x6' prints made from 35mm Tri-X negs that turned out great (4x6 FEET). I'll try to post some images of them hanging on walls later.

 

[gnuyork]

Erwitt's 30x40s looked great with my nose glued to the print. I was stunned. I had to ask him if they were from 35mm. Of course I saw some grain, but the print was tack sharp. These were silver gelatins, not scans FYI.

I don't know if he did the printing or not, but I did ask him about his enlargers - Durst and Leitz. I have a focomat that I have not used yet. (got it from a friend recently along with an Omega that can do 4x5) I look forward to setting them up this year and making some darkroom prints.

 

[loranger]

I agree with above, except the method of computing the 7.25Mb file size. Besides number of pixels, file size is determined by:
1) 8 bit or 16 bit file
2) RGB or Greyscale file
3) file type (TIF, PSD, JPG)

I am sure there is some combination of 1, 2 & 3 that the 2X factor yielding 7.25 Mb file size works. But I can make a 2400x3000 pixel file come out to just over 1Mb without using any compression (i.e. 8 bit greyscale TIF)

The original post was not about a 7.25 Mb file, not a 7.25 Mp (megapixepls) file. So, assertion was correct