Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Okay, a little background and maybe you guys can help me out, because I know zero about scanning...but think I might have had a clever idea.
I have a part time job writing magazine articles which I illustrate with photographs myself. I have a good film set up and a couple of the publications I sell to still prefer slides for quality so all is good there.
The others pretty much prefer digital for convenience and since they havnt used the old film gear for publishing for a while, theyve halfway forgotten how to use it....
I have no real interest in dropping thousands of dollars on a digital DSLR kit that does the same job, and I cant afford it anyway, Im happy the way I am.
My question is this: for the publications that prefer digital - if I want to shoot colour negative and then get a lab to scan 10 frames onto a disc - can I get a resolution and size from a scan like this that will be good enough for publication? (That would compare with the pictures from the little Olympus 5 megapixel point and shoot I have used?)
If I want to do this, what should I tell the lab I want? 300 DPI at 8x12 inches and as a TIFF file?
Something like this?
I have photoshop on the computer so I can tweak things afterwards...what do you reckon would be the ins and outs of this approach?
I have a part time job writing magazine articles which I illustrate with photographs myself. I have a good film set up and a couple of the publications I sell to still prefer slides for quality so all is good there.
The others pretty much prefer digital for convenience and since they havnt used the old film gear for publishing for a while, theyve halfway forgotten how to use it....
I have no real interest in dropping thousands of dollars on a digital DSLR kit that does the same job, and I cant afford it anyway, Im happy the way I am.
My question is this: for the publications that prefer digital - if I want to shoot colour negative and then get a lab to scan 10 frames onto a disc - can I get a resolution and size from a scan like this that will be good enough for publication? (That would compare with the pictures from the little Olympus 5 megapixel point and shoot I have used?)
If I want to do this, what should I tell the lab I want? 300 DPI at 8x12 inches and as a TIFF file?
Something like this?
I have photoshop on the computer so I can tweak things afterwards...what do you reckon would be the ins and outs of this approach?
Last edited:
bensyverson
Well-known
Answer: Yes, a lab will do this. Ask them for cheap web resolution scans when you get your film developed, and go back to get 4000 DPI scans of your selects.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, 8x12 @ 300 dpi would be fine -- IF you trust them to deliver. Or buy a scanner yourself, such as a 5400 II. That's what I did until I got digicams. Quality under ideal conditions is about equivalent to an M9. Ask them if they want to sell their old scanners, too!
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
scan
scan
Okay!
Thanks guys. I wont have to worry about running out of batteries on those projects - two days walk from the nearest powerpoint!
For digital stuff I have been using my point and shoot compact...which is limiting. (Although that little cheapy camera has made me a lot of money when I think about it.) But if I can get my Olympus SLR into action on those as well it will make things a lot easier...
(Roger, if I can get M9 quality from a scanned $5.00 roll of film, I may balk at spending the $10,000 on the actual M9 itself...!)
scan
Okay!
Thanks guys. I wont have to worry about running out of batteries on those projects - two days walk from the nearest powerpoint!
For digital stuff I have been using my point and shoot compact...which is limiting. (Although that little cheapy camera has made me a lot of money when I think about it.) But if I can get my Olympus SLR into action on those as well it will make things a lot easier...
(Roger, if I can get M9 quality from a scanned $5.00 roll of film, I may balk at spending the $10,000 on the actual M9 itself...!)
Last edited:
CorreCaminos
CorreCaminos
Carlsen,
I'm the photography editor for RIDE TEXAS magazine and about 50% of the photos we use are from film (35mm and 120 film, C-41, E6 and B&W). Qualitywise, I would describe them as equal or better than the digital photos (the other 50%). I have a personal preference for film but a good part of that is because I like the controls of the film cameras better than what's available on the digital bodies.
We print at 175 ls (350 dpi) and with a trim size of approx 6x9 inches, we need about 7MB files. I scan everything at 4000dpi (scanner native resolution) and then resize to the size I need and 350 dpi before sharpening.
I don't bother with high-res scans for the photo selection and initial layout as it's cheaper to get low-res scans and they take up less hardfile space. I use low-res 2 MB scans done when developing the C41 film by a commercial lab. But I doubt that most photo editors would be willing to accept anything other than a high-res final file as this would introduce a couple more variables to an already hectic schedule; the photo editor will want to have the final file on hand before doing the photo selection. Once the layout is finalized and I scan whichever photos are selected but I know there will be no surprises as I'm in control of the entire process at this point.
The problem with commercially scanned photos is that the quality of the scan (resolution, color balance, film flatness) will vary from day to day and it's out of your control. I'd suggest getting a dedicated film scanner, Vuescan and learning how to use the the two. Scanning well has a pretty steep learning curve and it will take you several months to a year to master it, but RF and other websites are a good source of information.
I'm the photography editor for RIDE TEXAS magazine and about 50% of the photos we use are from film (35mm and 120 film, C-41, E6 and B&W). Qualitywise, I would describe them as equal or better than the digital photos (the other 50%). I have a personal preference for film but a good part of that is because I like the controls of the film cameras better than what's available on the digital bodies.
We print at 175 ls (350 dpi) and with a trim size of approx 6x9 inches, we need about 7MB files. I scan everything at 4000dpi (scanner native resolution) and then resize to the size I need and 350 dpi before sharpening.
I don't bother with high-res scans for the photo selection and initial layout as it's cheaper to get low-res scans and they take up less hardfile space. I use low-res 2 MB scans done when developing the C41 film by a commercial lab. But I doubt that most photo editors would be willing to accept anything other than a high-res final file as this would introduce a couple more variables to an already hectic schedule; the photo editor will want to have the final file on hand before doing the photo selection. Once the layout is finalized and I scan whichever photos are selected but I know there will be no surprises as I'm in control of the entire process at this point.
The problem with commercially scanned photos is that the quality of the scan (resolution, color balance, film flatness) will vary from day to day and it's out of your control. I'd suggest getting a dedicated film scanner, Vuescan and learning how to use the the two. Scanning well has a pretty steep learning curve and it will take you several months to a year to master it, but RF and other websites are a good source of information.
slumry
Member
Scan them in black and white and then convert them to color.
Kim Coxon
Moderator
I have tried several methods in the past but ended up getting my own scanner. I managed to get a Nikon 8000ED at a sensible price from a studio who were going fully digital and no longer needed it. Having seen what I can get out of that and the control I have over it, I wouldn't trust a lab to do it for me anymore.
Kim
Kim
laoyou
Member
How can this be done?
slumry
Member
Sorry, it was the wrong answer to the wrong question. I was just amused by the idea.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I did say 'under ideal conditions' (i.e. perfectly exposed slow slide film, or Ektar 100), but yes, that's about what I've found. Of course the speed of the M9 (no processing or scanning, and 'Polaroids' in camera) is a major advantage, but a lot depends on how much you shoot and for whom.
Cheers,
R.
Jamie123
Veteran
Also, a quality scan usually doesn't come cheap. If one were to get hi-res scans from all 36 frames on a roll, even at a modest $40/frame, that would add up to almost $1500/roll.
tlitody
Well-known
That is why a pre press quality scanner such as an IQSmart3 will pay for itself in no time. For the hobbyist its a lot of money. For a working professsional it should be easily cost justified.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Probably not. A digital camera would be vastly more cost effective.
For 'legacy' pictures and the occasional project where you can't recharge batteries, I've never had any complaints (from publishers) about results from my 'amateur' Konica Minolta 5400 II. Come to that, my Epson 1680 was given to me by someone who bought it for pre-press. It's not much cop with 35mm trannies, but it's adequate with MF and good with LF.
Cheers,
R.
Jamie123
Veteran
True, a dedicated 'consumer' film scanner will also do a very fine job. I'm certainly quite happy with my Nikon 9000 and I know a professional photographer who just recently did a solo exhibition with big prints using a Nikon 9000 to scan all his archive.
The resolution of this scanners is certainly more than enough for most professional uses, still I think that a proper drum scan or even an Imacon scan has a crispness to it that the Minolta and Nikon just don't have.
I agree that a digital camera is much more cost effective than a high end scanner especially since many pros I know never bothered to do their own scanning in the film days. It might be cost effective but not time effective.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'm 99% sure you're right, but of course, we may both be seeing what we want to see.
A couple of years ago I missed a FREE drum scanner. The owner scrapped it. I've known him for years, but don't see him very often -- he's divorced, and we see his ex-wife much more often, having met them as a couple. He didn't think anyone would be interested.
AAARGH
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
tlitody
Well-known
LOL
does a Minolta 5400 II scan 120,4x5, 8x10 and other assorted LF film formats which an IQsmart3 will. I said working professional meaning a photographer making a living from taking pictures and selling his photography not writing,consultancy or other occasional work.
I mean how much does a hasselblad digital setup cost compared to an IQsmart3 ? The scanner would pay for itself over a hasselblad system in no time and that is with all the film and chemical costs thrown in. Were not talking just about the low end slrs in professional photography. Or maybe we are.
Last edited:
Jamie123
Veteran
That does indeed sound annoying
I think sometimes the difference between a drum (or imacon) scan and a dedicated scanner like the Nikon 9000 is not always equally pronounced. It may have to do with the difference in light source between these scanners but I'm just speculating. One thing I know for sure is that my Nikon tends to pronounce grain a bit and that an ISO800 film scanned on an Imacon can seem less grainy than an ISO400 film on the Nikon.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
In which case digital makes even more sense. Anyone who can persuade clients to pay for the extra costs of film is not going to waste time faffing around with scanning. He (or she) can earn a lot more shooting.
Decades ago, the Polaroids-film-processing-courier costs were several thousand a year: enough to pay for a modern Hasselblad digital system in a very few years, even at 1970s materials costs and today's camera costs. I'd be surprised if the payback nowadays were even a year, for a half-way successful photographer.
In other words, I'm not sure what you're "LOL" about. When I say 'professional' I mean 'a photographer making a living from taking pictures and selling his photography not writing,consultancy or other occasional work'.
Cheers,
R.
Jamie123
Veteran
Most of the working pro photographers I know don't have the time to waste doing their own scans. Back when they shot film they just had the retouching place doing their scanning.
And no, an IQsmart3 or whatever does not 'pay for itself' over a Hasselblad back. How much is an IQsmart3? $15k+? A Hasseblad H4D-40 camera (camera body + 40mp back) currently costs about $18k at B&H. If you go for the 31mp back version you can even get a kit (body, back and lens) for less than $14k. That's WITHOUT film, dev, contact printing and polaroids. Let's not even mention the time spent scanning.