paper negative resolution/scanning/enlarging?

[mh2000]

So continuing forward with my paper negatives and wondering if I'm limited using my old mid-range Epson flatbed/film scanner which will only scan flat art at 600 dpi. This essentially limits my enlargement to 2X. I read a long time ago that prints have much lower resolution than film due to the media so they can't be enlarged that much. I've searched the web and can't find a reference for paper negatives and actual resolving power and since I can't see beyond what I'm scanning, it's hard to know if buying a newer higher resolution scanner will actually buy me anything.

Just like the Epson film scans--they say 2400 dpi, but you'd have to really work to convince yourself that you were getting anywhere close to 1200 dpi actual data.

I can live with 600dpi scans from a 4x5" paper negative if that's all that is there, but if a better scanner would pull more data off the neg and allow me to enlarge prints to the next step up, it'd be nice.

Thanks!

 

[Godfrey]

My Epson 2450 permits me to scan at values up to 4000 ppi, I think, but I've long since discovered that anything beyond 2900 ppi are interpolated values and net little additional data to work with. The scanner on my multifunction Epson 7100 seems to be similarly limited at about 1600 ppi.

Both do better on detail resolution and tonal scale at 1600 ppi than at 600 ppi, even with Polaroid prints, so yes there is some value to a better scanner.

The 7100 does a darn good job, really, and is pretty inexpensive.

G

 

[mh2000]

My Epson 2450 permits me to scan at values up to 4000 ppi, I think, but I've long since discovered that anything beyond 2900 ppi are interpolated values and net little additional data to work with. The scanner on my multifunction Epson 7100 seems to be similarly limited at about 1600 ppi.

Both do better on detail resolution and tonal scale at 1600 ppi than at 600 ppi, even with Polaroid prints, so yes there is some value to a better scanner.

The 7100 does a darn good job, really, and is pretty inexpensive.

G

Thanks! I have a similar Epson (maybe it was Perfection 2350?) and I've always hated it! But the stupid purchasing decision loop i'm in regarding a new scanner right now is do I just pay $100 and get the highly rated Canon Lide 400 for just scanning prints or do I put the $100 towards an upgraded midrange Epson with film scanning ability. I doubt I'll be happy with a newer flatbed film scanner though.

I remember discussion of the resolving power of paper years ago, I just can't find anything online. Seems weird.

Best!

 

[mh2000]

My Epson 2450 permits me to scan at values up to 4000 ppi, I think, but I've long since discovered that anything beyond 2900 ppi are interpolated values and net little additional data to work with. The scanner on my multifunction Epson 7100 seems to be similarly limited at about 1600 ppi.

Both do better on detail resolution and tonal scale at 1600 ppi than at 600 ppi, even with Polaroid prints, so yes there is some value to a better scanner.

The 7100 does a darn good job, really, and is pretty inexpensive.

G

The new issue is that neither the low end Epsons or Canons will scan or output 16-bit grayscale files! Ugh! At this late stage of the game they won't do this basic feature??? At least the Canon 300 will scan to 48-bit color files and then I guess I can find a commandline convert utility to channel mix them down with a single run command, but I have to reinvent the wheel here?

Do you know anything about available utilities that will do this best?

 

[PRJ]

I am curious why you are shooting paper negs...

If it is because of money, you can buy ortho film from Photowharehouse/Ultrafineonline for very little money per sheet.

Somehow I've accumulated three scanners...

 

[mh2000]

I am curious why you are shooting paper negs...

If it is because of money, you can buy ortho film from Photowharehouse/Ultrafineonline for very little money per sheet.

Somehow I've accumulated three scanners...

I just ordered a new Canon Lide 300 scanner for $68 ...but *why* shoot paper negatives... that is a fair question!

First, I have never done it before! Then some practical reason: I still haven't found my 4x5 developing tank. I haven't found my box of 4x5 film. I don't have a 4x5 enlarger. I'd have to make contact prints to scan if I wanted to post or send out for prints. Paper is cheap! I like learning new things and taking on new challenges! I'm kind of liking the look!

Thanks!

🙂

 

[mh2000]

Just follow up on the scanning issue. I bought a Canon Lide 300 for $68. Completely blows my Epson Perfection 4390 out of the water! Always hated that thing! I bought it thinking it could scan 4x5 negs pretty well, buy I was happier with 35mm from my Coolscan V! Pathetic! The Achilles heel in the system is the crappy Canon scan utility. Even though it does scan at 16-bit per channel (unlike the new cheap Epsons which are limited to 8-bit per channel), the software does not let you specify 16-bit gray scale for output, so I'm having to scan at 48-bit color and then mixing down. Luckily, it scans this pretty fast and the tonal detail I'm getting is very impressive for a scanner this cheap! I might write an ImageMagick script or something to batch convert color->gray. The other limitation is that the Canon utility only allows a max scan resolution of 1200 dpi, even though the specs says it should go to 2400! Not a big deal for scanning 4x5 negs though! Maybe you need some third party software to access this? GIMP isn't seeing the scanner. All that aside, for a cheap tiny device, I am blown away with the detail it is pulling from my paper negatives!

 

[mh2000]

I guess a sample is in order. Bausch and Lombe Rapid Rectilinear f32, Ilford RC developed in Tmax 1:9, scanned with Canon Lide 300. The RR isn't that great in the corners. Better than the Kodak meniscus, but I think I may like the effect from the meniscus lens better... at least for some subjects.

 

[zuiko85]

I shoot paper negs also. Mainly because loading and developing can be done under safelight.
That and they are cheap.
Plus. I have a big pile of unused photo paper.
I’m not scanning them. Will use my m4:3 to photograph them if I want a digital file.
Edit;
The 4x5 cameras I’m using are all home built with found lenses.
Such as a Kodak 130mm f7.7 off of an old folder.
Or the 110mm plastic meniscus lens from a Jollylook instant camera. (Stopped down to f64)
Or a 100mm f9.5 plastic triplet from a Polaroid.
Or a series 5 Vivitar +3 (333mm) close up lens on a helical and stopped to f16 to focus and f45 to expose.
Most of these cameras are made to expose a 95x95mm square format.

 

[mh2000]

I shoot paper negs also. Mainly because loading and developing can be done under safelight.
That and they are cheap.
Plus. I have a big pile of unused photo paper.
I’m not scanning them. Will use my m4:3 to photograph them if I want a digital file.
Edit;
The 4x5 cameras I’m using are all home built with found lenses.
Such as a Kodak 130mm f7.7 off of an old folder.
Or the 110mm plastic meniscus lens from a Jollylook instant camera. (Stopped down to f64)
Or a 100mm f9.5 plastic triplet from a Polaroid.
Or a series 5 Vivitar +3 (333mm) close up lens on a helical and stopped to f16 to focus and f45 to expose.
Most of these cameras are made to expose a 95x95mm square format.

A box of Fomapan is pretty cheap, but I can't find my developing tank after my last move!

I completely agree about working under a safelight! And it takes almost no time (aside from drying) to just develop a few negs in my little 4x6" trays! 100ml in little bottles last a few weeks as well, so it's just dump, develop and pour back into the bottles.