prints from scanned 35mm

[photophorous]

I don't want to start a digital vs film debate, but I am looking for some practical advice from those who are experienced making prints. I want to compare digital prints from scanned 35mm film (shot with my RF), to prints from my DSLR. I'm planning to make some 8x12s to help me decide which camera I want to use for an upcoming backpacking trip. My DSLR is 6 Mp (3000x2000), and the scanned film files that I'm planning to print are the same size (3000 x 2000). They are good scans, made at a pro lab, but they're just not very big. Is this a fair comparison? I ask because, I know full res scans from film are generally much higher resolution than this. Is this a waste of time, or do you think it will give me a good idea of the differences?

If I go with film, I'll eventually get a good scanner and be able to make prints at much higher resolutions. For now, I'm just testing.

Thanks,
Paul

 

[Bryce]

The best thing you can do right now is a direct comparison between the two methods you have at your disposal.
Try shooting a few images of the same scene with the same lighting with both your digital camera and on film, get the film developed and scanned, and look at them side by side.
My experience with scanned color film has been less than spectacular using lab scans or low end film scanners. YMMV.
On the rare occasion that I shoot color (I'm a B+W junkie) I usually use digital unless I need truly wide angle, i.e. 15mm perspective.
Hope this helps!

 

[dmr]

I like to print at 300 dpi, and your 3000x2000 would come out to about 6.6x10 inches at that res. My old printer would give a very good print if you fed it exactly 300 dpi images, but so-so prints if you made it scale to fit.

What I've been doing lately is scanning at 3200 dpi and scaling/cropping down to 8.5x11 at 300dpi (2550 x 3300) for the new printer. I get excellent results.

Of course the files are enormous!

 

[mich8261]

If I was planning a backpacking trip (and I wish I was), I would consider the type of photography I am likely to want to do rather than the medium. By this I mean are you likely to want a long lens (wildlife, compressed perspective, etc.) or close ups and macros? If yes, then an SLR (d or not) would seem to be the better choice.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[photophorous]

Thank you all for the comments.

What I'm really trying to figure out is if comparing 8x12 prints, made at 250 DPI, from a high quality 35mm scan and a digital SLR, is a fair comparison. I've always heard that 300 DPI is best, but you can make pretty good prints as low as 250 DPI. So, if I do this test at 250 DPI, knowing the film could be higher res. but the digital could not, am I going to get results that really show the differences between film and digital?...or, am I wasting my time by not printing the 35mm shot at 300 DPI? The inability to get higher resolution scans is what's making this comparison difficult for me, although the scans I've got are high quality.

With all due respect, I've considered all of the differences between my cameras and the subject matter I'll be shooting, and the only unknown at this moment is which setup is capable of the best prints. That is the deciding factor.

Thanks,
Paul

 

[Fabian]

I think the only way to get higher resolution from film is mf. I think if you are just interested in resolution digital is the way.


Fabian

 

[photophorous]

I think the only way to get higher resolution from film is mf. I think if you are just interested in resolution digital is the way.


Fabian

I'm not just interested in resolution. I'm interested in the way the prints look, and I'm wondering if this resolution is going to give me a fair comparison.

Thanks,
Paul

 

[RML]

I'm not just interested in resolution. I'm interested in the way the prints look, and I'm wondering if this resolution is going to give me a fair comparison.

Why not have them both printed at 20x30cm (is that 8x10")? If you have both files (one from the dSLR and one from the scan), why not actually get the prints and see for youraelf which one will hold up? 20x30cm prints aren't that expensive, so some empirical testing is in order.

My R-D1 delivers 2000x3000 px files. From the RAW developer I save these as 300dpi TIFs. I have yet to run into problems when having these files printed at 20x30cm. Bigger is more expensive, so I'm rather loath to go that way. But now my wife wants me to have one shot printed large so I may shell out some dough to see how this shot holds up at (a cheap) 50x75cm. If that works, I may go to 100x150cm.

Point? You never know for sure unless you get the prints yourself and see them up close and personal. What is adequate for some may be perfect (or poor, of course) for you.

 

[mrtoml]

At 8x12 you probably won't see much difference in quality, but the look might be different. Digital might look cleaner (it also depends on what sensor is in the camera versus what film you will use, and what speed you shoot at). There are also other considerations with film versus digital such as dynamic range. In high contrast outdoor situations film might handle things better than digital. You haven't given us enough information to assess any of this. There are lots of variables to consider.

Then there is the issue of interpolation. If you want to go bigger later on the digital may rez up better than film, but film can be scanned at higher resolution. This also varies depending on subject matter. Lots of detail in a landscape does not rez up well, whereas rezzed up portraits often look pretty good even from small sensor digitals. It all depends...

 

[Rhoyle]

Interesting conversation... However, the difference between the DSLR and scanned film will not be very noticible if you're only figuring resolution. Tonality is what turns a bw photograph into something spectacular. The DSLR will probably burn the highlights and block up the shadows. However, you have to roll up your sleeves and do a lot of work to get a really outstanding scan. If you can do that, then you'll notice the difference.

 

[mfogiel]

In my experience, at A3 print size, and with a good scanner, in colour it is a tie - but most people will prefer the digital, in B&W there's no contest - film wins hands down, so make up your choice accordingly. As for lab scanning, I would resort to this only if you really cannot afford a scanner yourself.

 

[photophorous]

Thanks to everyone for commenting. My plan is to have about 6 - 8 prints made, half digital and half film. If the film looks as good as the digital, then at least I'll know it can be scanned at higher resolution and can look even better. If it doesn't look as good, then I guess I still won't know anything with out getting a better scan.

I don't think I want to print a landscape shot from a 6MP DSLR any larger than 8x12, but I think the film could be printed a little larger, if scanned at higher resolution. Of course, in all these comparisons I'm assuming low ISO, low noise, fine grain, properly exposed and sharply focused shots.

Thanks,
Paul

 

[lZr]

Hi Paul,
Start from the lab. Ask the staff what they need and what profile they ask for the equipment they use. Keep in mind, that some Labs will prefer CMYK files. Go back home and rethink the idea simple way. If you begin with DPI, LPI ,PPI and RGB, you may be dissapointed and decide to redo all printings.

 

[Malo1961]

Hi Paul,

I think it also depends on the scanner you are using. A dedicated filmscanner like those of Nikon or Minolta are giving you much larger files and thus larger resolutions to work with. Scanned at 4000 dpi a 35 mm slide wil give you about 80 mp files( 16 bit) That goes beyond A2 at printinng res. of 300 dpi. I,ve worked with a nikon coolscan ls 50 ed, so i know this for a fact. Detail is of the same amount compared to a 10 mp dslr output.
If you are scanning with a good flatbed, you must halve the max. optical resolution they say it is capable of. When you take the epson v350, v700 etc... they won,t deliver the true optical res. they promise. For example. Scanning at 2400 dpi gives you the same detail as scanning at 4800 dpi with those Epsons.Just tested it with a new v350. Nothing wrong with that, it easely gives me files i can use to get a good a3 print. resolution scaled down to printres. 240 dpi. Scanning at higher res. only gives larger files, but no more detail. An other thing to think of is the fact of viewing distance. Hanging on the wall looking at a A3 print from a distance of 5 to 6 feet(normal viewing distance) will give you some lattitude in lowering print dpi.
And lastly i think that the choice between a print of a clean digital file from a dslr and a good and proper scanned negative file will always give away their original backround. A good scanner will produce and show you the fingerprint and feel of a specific film. No dslr is capable of that. Except maybe the Fuji S5. This dslr gives you the choice of producing velvia kind of files, sort of...... But no B & W film off course.
Just my 2 cnts,
regards,
martin

 

[mtscherning]

I've been printing A1 sized (90*60cm) prints on an Epson 9600, both from 35mm negative scans, as well as from as low as 5MP digital files, with great and satisfying results - 180DPI is plenty detail for a good looking print (that means your 3000*2000 picture would look fair at 42*28cm)

 

[photophorous]

Thanks to those who continue to leave comments.

Right now I don't have a decent scanner, but the scans I'm talking about printing were done at a professional lab, on a Noritsu machine. The only reason they are of a small size is because that's what I paid for. The next step up was about 100 times the cost...no kidding.

Anyway, at this point, I'm not trying to make fine art prints to hang on the wall. I'm just trying to make something good enough to evaluate the differences between one of my digital shots and one of my film shots. These are test prints to help me decide which camera to carry backpacking. If I decide I prefer the film, which is what I expect, I'll probably end up getting a Coolscan V to make my own scans.

This thread has made me feel more confident that the 6 mp files will be enough to show me what I'm looking for. Now, I just need to prep the files and send them off to be printed. Oh...and save for a scanner.

Paul

 

[keoj]

My bet is that for a 8 x 12 inch print, the digital print will look better at the proposed scan resolution that you mentioned. This assumes a couple of things: that the color rendition (or the color correction) from the digital is pretty good. The digital will be a little more noise free and probably have a few less artifacts. That being said, I scan slides at 4000 dpi at 16 bit. I use Neat Image to get rid of the noise (you can use neat image on digital stuff as well), I download color profiles from my local Costco and ask them to print (optimally at 320 ppi). This is an enormous file (50 mb at 8 bit) which by my count is roughly a 18 MP camera. That might be a little generous and say that its 14-16 MP equivalent. The slides provide a superior image to anything 10MP or less.

Hope this helps.

keoj