120 film scanning quality ?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

I scanned on Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro at 3200 pixels.

I could put some full size samples on my webserver if someone is interested.

What I have on mind is one image I made 30x40" (70x100) cm print on Durst Lambda and that turned out absolutely stunning, if I find the original, that is. I could also add my latest test on Ektar 100 and some scans from medium format Technical Pan at 3200 and 4800 PPI. The scanner I have can scan the center part of MF at 4800 PPI. Finding the files can be some digging...

Best regards
Erik

Hi guys, I just posted this over in the MF section too, so sorry if I am in the wrong place here, or there...

I am about to buy a 120 film camera Contax 645.

I have heard that the pro labs do a pretty good job at scanning the negatives they develop nowadays. I last shot 120 film 13 years ago, and the scanners weren't much good back then..

I am wondering what kind of workable quality that the files will be from the 120 scans ? ? ?

Also, I am wondering how much photoshopping the files will need to be "workable", or "printable".. and to what size/quality can I expect to print from a file which they are saying will be around the 40MB scanned file size ?

Please help me to clarify what quality and printability I will get from my scans ?

Thanks heaps for your answers...

Cheers
Rich.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

I posted some sample images. Full size jpegs. The images are here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/images/Scaninfo/

One is scanned from Technical Pan at 4800 PPI the others are from Ektar 100 at 3200PPI

Best regards
Erik

Hi guys, I just posted this over in the MF section too, so sorry if I am in the wrong place here, or there...

I am about to buy a 120 film camera Contax 645.

I have heard that the pro labs do a pretty good job at scanning the negatives they develop nowadays. I last shot 120 film 13 years ago, and the scanners weren't much good back then..

I am wondering what kind of workable quality that the files will be from the 120 scans ? ? ?

Also, I am wondering how much photoshopping the files will need to be "workable", or "printable".. and to what size/quality can I expect to print from a file which they are saying will be around the 40MB scanned file size ?

Please help me to clarify what quality and printability I will get from my scans ?

Thanks heaps for your answers...

Cheers
Rich.

[artobest]

There's something mighty strange going on there with those red flowers, and the scans make a good argument in favour of using digitalICE. But apart from that, something about those images makes my nostalgic heart flutter. Film, with all its eccentricity and imperfections, still has a special quality that I prefer to the sterile sheen of digital capture. I know others will disagree.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Dust removal works very well, but I didn't want to use it because it could be argued that it reduces resolution or contrast. Also dust gives some indication on the sharpness of the scanners optical system.

Still looking at the red flowers... had the same issue on Velvia and now on Ektar.

Best regards
Erik

There's something mighty strange going on there with those red flowers, and the scans make a good argument in favour of using digitalICE. But apart from that, something about those images makes my nostalgic heart flutter. Film, with all its eccentricity and imperfections, still has a special quality that I prefer to the sterile sheen of digital capture. I know others will disagree.

[pfigen]

Having made thousands of drum scans over the years, I'd have to say that only a very small minority of scans can actually benefit from 8000 dpi resolution. I've done quite a few comparisons scanning the same film at both resolutions (and yes, there's a bug in Trident that defaults to 6 microns at 8000, so you have to set it manually for the highest rez) and only the images that are shot on the sharpest film with the sharpest lenses at the optimum apertures will show any real benefit. Images on Velvia 50, T-Max100, Technical Pan and Kodachrome 25 are all good candidates. All too often, images are suffering from camera movement, missed focus or diffraction, all limiting what is available in any scan. Very few people actually need scans from 2-1/4, let alone 4x5 higher than 4000 ppi, and it's highly doubtful that any 8x10 lens can resolve that kind of detail on film. Super large file sizes are a waste for most people most of the time and should only be made when the output requires it and the image supports it. Most clients do not want a two hour download from YouSendit.