Scanning Negatives vs. Printing right off of Negative?

[bherman]

All;

Maybe this is a stupid question, but I just picked up a Nikon Coolscan V ED negative scanner to scan and archive some of my older negatives.

Consider this scenario...

1.) Let's say I have a negative; Fuji Reala 100 ASA film and want to make an 8x10. I scan the negative on the Coolscan at high resolution and send it off to have a professional 'wet-print' made.

2.) I take the same negative and just have the same lab make me an 8x10 right from the negative.

Aside from the fact that the 'scanned' negative can now be manipulated in Photoshop, (generally speaking) which would yield the better print? Is there a definite advantage to scanning negatives and pinting off of a high-res scan vs. printing straight off of the negative?

Also, if I shoot some good negs with my M7 and scan them and/or perform the same test, what should I expect?

Thanks! Brad H.

 

[Michael I.]

if the negative is well exposed and doesn't need post processing a good optical print beats the crap out of scanned.

 

[x-ray]

I must agree.

 

[bmicklea]

I've not done that test with colour negative film but I've done it with colour slide and B&W. In both cases the direct-from-film print was miles ahead. I'd expect something similar with colour neg film.

That said, I do smaller prints 5x7 or 8x10 from scanned slides but only because I want to avoid the high cost of trans-negs.

 

[x-ray]

I always thing in terms of B&W. Color can be better in digital prints over R type from transparencies. Contrast has always been a major issue with R's withour using contrast masking. B&W is another story but there are exceptions.

 

[ffttklackdedeng]

I thought most of the lab's machines scan the neg anyway and then make the print based on the scanned image? I.e. no 'direct print' like you and I used to make in the darkroom.

Robert

 

[Michael I.]

most do - but in my post I specificly meant an optical print(there were\are some machines that had an enlarging lens and a chemical process)

 

[Nachkebia]

Yeah, most of the labs do scan negatives with crapy quality and print them out, I prefer to scan them, PP them and give cd to them 🙂

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

most do - but in my post I specificly meant an optical print(there were\are some machines that had an enlarging lens and a chemical process)

Fuji Frontier scans the negative, then uses a light source to print to photographic paper, and then chemicals to develop the image. It's not trad. wet printing but it's not inkjet either.

 

[rover]

Fuji Frontier scans the negative, then uses a light source to print to photographic paper, and then chemicals to develop the image. It's not trad. wet printing but it's not inkjet either.

Yes, and for a price at a pro processor you can get the scanned file from the Frontier machine (this will work with the new fancy Kodak machines too) which is ultra high quality. When looking to get scans of my photos for the RFF books this was an option I did not choose due to price ($27 per image I believe).

 

[rxmd]

Yes, and for a price at a pro processor you can get the scanned file from the Frontier machine (this will work with the new fancy Kodak machines too) which is ultra high quality.

Is It? I guess you'll have to convince them to give you anything reasonable. Before I moved to Berlin, the shop where I had my colour stuff developed did scans on their Frontier and refused to give me anything beyond 1840x1232 pixel JPEGs. I've got a Minolta Scan Dual I at home that does better than that.

Philipp

 

[varjag]

In my experience Frontier machines were unable to give the scan quality matching that of a dedicated film scanner (even the cheaper models like Dual IV). The prints they make turn out good though.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

They can go to 3000 by 2000 odd but the scanning time is high so they don't like to do it.

When I want this quality I go to a shop that closes for lunch and ask them to put my film in the machine before they lock up, and I'll collect the negs and scan to CD after lunch.

 

[Sparrow]

All;

Maybe this is a stupid question, but I just picked up a Nikon Coolscan V ED negative scanner to scan and archive some of my older negatives.

Consider this scenario...

1.) Let's say I have a negative; Fuji Reala 100 ASA film and want to make an 8x10. I scan the negative on the Coolscan at high resolution and send it off to have a professional 'wet-print' made.

2.) I take the same negative and just have the same lab make me an 8x10 right from the negative.

SNIP
Thanks! Brad H.

My local lab scans and “wet” prints, but they are happy to print from my own scans as long as I’ve done all the preparation, correct file, dpi, colour, space etc. so for me #1 is far better, I can get a “pro” quality 12x18 for £1.00 or 40p for a 8x10 that looks like it came out of a darkroom

regards

 

[jano]

Dang, that's cheap! The only place I've found 12x18's that cheap is at costco (here in the US)!

My local lab scans and “wet” prints, but they are happy to print from my own scans as long as I’ve done all the preparation, correct file, dpi, colour, space etc. so for me #1 is far better, I can get a “pro” quality 12x18 for £1.00 or 40p for a 8x10 that looks like it came out of a darkroom

regards