Pushing Tri-x and digitizing in high res

[whited3]

Surely he must be scanning at the appropriate resolution to get 10 inches @ 72 ppi? Although personally I do prefer seeing a megapixel or two, even on the web. I've got a big ass monitor 😎 yet it only shows about 3.5 megapixels which is still a far fetch from "high res".

So now that we are talking about megapixels and all that, what other people here use dslrs to scan? Convince me to not get a scanner!

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

What is the use of a 72dpi scan file of 35mm format? That's hardly a thumbnail. An image with 0.5cm in width on a retina display.

72dpi doesn't tell you the dimensions of the image/scan. You can have 72dpi at 20 feet wide.

And, an 8" x 10" at 300dpi is the same as 48" x 29" at 72dpi.

Regardless, my suggestion that the OP try a comparison scan with a dedicated scanner was for the purpose of ensuring he's not 'throwing away' quality by using the dSLR scanning method. The dSLR may sound like a great idea and be (sorta) economical, but if the results are only 75% of what you would get otherwise, then the economy might not make sense anymore.

Also, my thoughts about scans were that you always make them for your largest/best possible need, and then downsize a copy for your web purposes. Keep the larger one on file for printing, a book, whatever. I don't make scans just for the web.

 

[brbo]

72dpi doesn't tell you the dimensions of the image/scan. You can have 72dpi at 20 feet wide.

I know that. I also know that 135 frame is not 20 feet wide.

 

[whited3]

If I do get a scanner, cost and probably just as significantly the size will be a factor. Has anyone tried a Plustek 7600i or the likes?

 

[mfogiel]

Frankly, I think, that pushing (particularly 135 format ) B&W film, when you can shoot with a Canon SLR at ISO 6400 or more, is quite pointless. The result is tonally about as bad as a digital photograph converted to B&W, but less sharp and more complicated to digitize. On the other hand, if you pull your film to EI 200 or 250, the tonality and range of contrast clearly will outperform most results from digital. As to using the camera to scan, there was a thread on this recently, with someone stitching 4 frames to get a high resolution result, apparently to great satisfaction. If memory does not let me down, I believe that the (B&W)scans from 135 film I am getting from my Nikon CS9000 are about 24MB 16 bit TIFF - this is good enough for a decent A2 print.

 

[whited3]

Frankly, I think, that pushing (particularly 135 format ) B&W film, when you can shoot with a Canon SLR at ISO 6400 or more, is quite pointless. The result is tonally about as bad as a digital photograph converted to B&W, but less sharp and more complicated to digitize. On the other hand, if you pull your film to EI 200 or 250, the tonality and range of contrast clearly will outperform most results from digital. As to using the camera to scan, there was a thread on this recently, with someone stitching 4 frames to get a high resolution result, apparently to great satisfaction. If memory does not let me down, I believe that the (B&W)scans from 135 film I am getting from my Nikon CS9000 are about 24MB 16 bit TIFF - this is good enough for a decent A2 print.

Well that's fair, I suppose I'm not being so practical when I praise the flaws of film and yet talk about extracting all the details I can from 135 negatives in the same thread. I'll never move completely away from digital. It's just that I like the crappy tones like a fat boy loves cake. Haha no, that's not it, let me start over. It's just that sometimes crappy tones are nice in the same way killing brain cells with alcohol and the guys is nice. Plus, making something on film is fun in itself. Anyways, I probably sound like a weirdo at this point.

Going in the other direction, I am pretty darn interested in Ansel's exposing for the shadows / developing for the highlights concept where I'm sure I'll be pulling a stop or two as you mentioned.

And thanks for the dslr scanning info, I'll look for that.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well that's fair, I suppose I'm not being so practical when I praise the flaws of film and yet talk about extracting all the details I can from 135 negatives in the same thread. I'll never move completely away from digital. It's just that I like the crappy tones like a fat boy loves cake. Haha no, that's not it, let me start over. It's just that sometimes crappy tones are nice in the same way killing brain cells with alcohol and the guys is nice. Plus, making something on film is fun in itself. Anyways, I probably sound like a weirdo at this point.

Going in the other direction, I am pretty darn interested in Ansel's exposing for the shadows / developing for the highlights concept where I'm sure I'll be pulling a stop or two as you mentioned.

And thanks for the dslr scanning info, I'll look for that.

There's a big difference between "pulling" (metering at a lower speed and cutting development) and simply overexposing with normal development. The latter is normally a better idea except with subjects having a very long brightness range.

Cheers,

R.

 

[whited3]

There's a big difference between "pulling" (metering at a lower speed and cutting development) and simply overexposing with normal development. The latter is normally a better idea except with subjects having a very long brightness range.

Cheers,

R.

Interesting. Would you say for example, if I'm shooting a landscape with some interesting clouds and the whole scene having a fairly wide range of light values (not during the golden hours) - is this scene more suited for the former or latter? Or it depends on something I haven't mentioned?

I guess I'm wondering what you mean by long brightness range.