[John Poirier]

Eventually I will look into something for scanning film, but I much prefer to keep the digital and I just figured if I make a nice print with the darkroom I might want to share it on here and for that I think the scanner I have might do the job.

Yes, you're on the right track there. Have fun in the darkroom!

[artobest]

If you make a nice print, you should definitely scan it and show it here. A good print is very different from the negative.

[tuco]

...
I would never deliberately shoot anything with film with its primary purpose being posting online, just one extra step for quality to degrade.
...

I'm a little confused by that. In the case of a negative, you'll have a second generation image no matter what be it wet print or scan. There are some posters here that I never see posting in the film threads and apparently don't do much scanning judging from some of the statements.

[wildman]

There are some posters here that...apparently don't do much scanning judging from some of the statements.

That's the point of this thread right?

[PPPPPP42]

I shoot film for the sake of shooting film really, its just for fun but sometimes I want to share, so yeah that's what this thread is about. I was also just genuinely curious about the shortcomings of scanning prints because I figured the larger image to scan wouldn't need as high a resolution and I don't really feel like buying another piece of hardware even if its fairly cheap.

For most stuff I could use my DSLR and despite its shortcomings in sensor size and dynamic range have a 1st generation raw image that has far more editing potential than I could ever get out of a scanned image. If Pentax ever finishes that FF DSLR that will take away half my reason for preferring my film cameras and the dynamic range and high ISO will be a hell of a lot better than my old K20D.

[tuco]

...
For most stuff I could use my DSLR and despite its shortcomings in sensor size and dynamic range have a 1st generation raw image that has far more editing potential than I could ever get out of a scanned image.
...

Do you scan in 16-bit per channel and use a wide color space such as ProPhoto? And have you ever shot a film format larger than 35mm? I shoot digital and I shoot film. I scan to the noted specs and to a DNG file (which is a partial implementation of the spec). I can pull up shadows as much as my digital and inherently have better highlights with film's ability to compress them. But at the pixel level, film is not as clean as digital. I guess that is also the appeal - to get away from the sterile look of digital now and then.

[PPPPPP42]

Mmm, dirty film images, I the sound of that.

I've seen first hand how the image from a professionally scanned medium format film negative looks (probably the highest I'll ever see with unbelievable cropping and editing potential), meanwhile back in my reality I have zero skill and technology so its just easier to segregate things into separate purposes.

[Zivelot]

I use film scanner to check my B&W negatives before printing. It saves a lot of time and money (paper, developer etc.) as I only print those negatives that are worth to print. I can check if they are exposed well before printing etc. I am still using an old 1800 dpi scanner but want to upgrade soon.

Scanning a print in my opinion might be much more available for most people as the flatbed scanners are readily available as priter/scanner combos and can be found in more households. IMHO only those bother buying a film scanner who are determined and want better quality. Scanning a print might involve more loss to image quality as it has an extra step between negative (the raw file of analogue )) and scan (negative - print - scan). This is only some thought on the topic, not out of experience.