[jbrowning]

So i got my zx-5 and am wondering about what type of film to use and how to get these images into my laptop to be editted with photoshop and Paintshoppro. I will be wanting to get high quality prints off these photos to post on my website and sell probably as large at 11x14 prints. I will only be shooting in 35mm film but I will be shooting both black and white and color.

Should I be getting the film for prints or slides?

Should I scan a print or negative or slide?

Which scanner is best for the above techniques?

Thanks
Jim

[Canada_Rockies]

So i got my zx-5 and am wondering about what type of film to use and how to get these images into my laptop to be editted with photoshop and Paintshoppro. I will be wanting to get high quality prints off these photos to post on my website and sell probably as large at 11x14 prints. I will only be shooting in 35mm film but I will be shooting both black and white and color.

Should I be getting the film for prints or slides?

Should I scan a print or negative or slide?

Which scanner is best for the above techniques?

Thanks
Jim

You may use either print or slide film. Use a dedicated film scanner. Nikon has several and they are excellent. I use an el cheapo, but it only scans 1800 dpi, so it maxes out at about 4 Mp. This is ok for quick and dirty web shots and so on, but not for critical work in PS.

When you go to print the max resolution for most output will be 300 dpi. If a shot is going to web then resolution only needs to be about 100dpi. CRT monitors have a resolution of 72 and lcd is 96 so anything above that is lost and just makes for a large file. I've scanned 4 x 6 photos @ 400% 300dpi and got awesome 11 x 14 prints from my color lab. I also do prepress work and have printed same as cmyk with great results.
GK

[Lowell Goudge]

So i got my zx-5 and am wondering about what type of film to use and how to get these images into my laptop to be editted with photoshop and Paintshoppro. I will be wanting to get high quality prints off these photos to post on my website and sell probably as large at 11x14 prints. I will only be shooting in 35mm film but I will be shooting both black and white and color.

Should I be getting the film for prints or slides?

Should I scan a print or negative or slide?

Which scanner is best for the above techniques?

Thanks
Jim

Jim

I changed over from film in 2003, but even before that, back as far as 2000, I wanted digital images of my shots.

What I did at the time, was to get a Minolta Dimage II Scanner. This is a USB connected device, with 40 bit color depth, and 2880 dpi, creating a 10MP image.

It came with carriers that could take a strip of 6 negatives at a time, or 4 mounted slides.

Over the period of 30 months, this scanned approximately 20,000 images. Durability of the unit amazed me as this is not a production unit.

There are similar scanners from others, and Minolta is sadly no more. But go for a good scanner, dedicated to film. I have not been impressed with flat bed scanners with film attachments, maybe others can comment to this point.

As a second possibility, many processing stores will also scan for you. There is one near me in toronto (that does not help you) that will scan for $1 per strip, plus $6 for the photo CD. Note that $1 per strip is any strip, up to 40 shots. they recommend simply don't cut the negs apart.

Other stores also will provide photo CDs of film, but I got badly burnt in this area once. They use 600 x 480 resolution for printing 4x5 and as a result, that is the resolution I got on the CD. Make sure you can specify the resolution if you are having a store scan them.

Film may be easier to get processed than slide, but you have to decide what you want based on images. Film generally has better exposure lattitude than slides, and you may be able to do more with the images from film

[DigiFilm]

I shoot both digital and film but lately have been leaning more towards film ... just bought a 645N. Have a pair of ZX-5n's that sit in a dresser drawer more than they should. Those and some Nikon 35mm gear as well.

I can only say what I do, which may or may not work for you.

Most B&W I shoot is film. Most color I shoot is slide film, or digital. Don't really mess with color print film now, but with the new 645N addition, I may want to try Portra out.

If the film isn't the C41 process B&W, I take the film to a custom lab and tell them to just develop it and print a contact sheet. Then I just pick the ones I like off of it and scan them with my own scanner. I just have a Canon CanoScan 8800F .. nothing fancy but it works fine for me.

If I use the Kodak C41 process B&W, I take it to local grocery store lab, just have it developed and a low res CD made, no prints.

[jbrowning]

Thanks for all the replies everyone. I went to our local Wolf/Ritz camera and they say they do one hour film processing for $8.99 per roll for 36 or 24 exposure. If they burn them to cd it doesn't cost anything extra. If the print them then it will cost another $8.00 per roll. I don't know what resolution they will burn the photos. I will ask the next time I'm talking to them.

Thanks
Jim

[little laker]

Jim,
Ernie and myself (he's from a fishing site that both Jim and I belong to) were talking about just that.

Originally I was just going to buy a transparency scanner, and scan the negatives or slides.

However I came to realize that if I want the full film advantage I'm better off to develop it in an actual darkroom, and use a normal scanner to post my results.

Ernie agreed with me, although we might be the only 2 people with that opinion.

I know that it's hard to find a shop where they'll actually develop film these days, but I understand that developing your own B&W isn't all that hard

I'll find out soon enough on my own.

I should mention that not every shop can develop true B&W, or slides.
And they don't always look to see what you hand them.
I understand that their chemicals will actually destroy the film.

So before you hand them either make sure that they can, and they know what your giving them.

[Lowell Goudge]

Jim,

I understand that developing your own B&W isn't all that hard

Too bad I sold my darkroom.

B&W is not difficult at all, temperature for control of processing is not as critical as color, and only the transfer film from the casette to the developing reel is done in the dark. Everything else can be done under a safe light.

It was a lot of fun to do, and generally, I did B&W because I wanted to do push processing. I was quite interested in shooting at 3200 ISO using my KX and 50mm F1.4 set wide open and 1/30th shutter.

You got great candid shots because no one believed you were actually taking pictures in the middle of the night.

All I did was change the developing from , if I recall correctly 6 min 30 seconds, to 30 minutes using Tri-X 400 film.

I used a meopta enlarger with 24mm lens which allowed great big blow ups.

In the end when I sold the darkroom, I got $240 for my 2 enlarging lenses and they took the rest for free off my hands. Put the money towards my first digital camera

[filmamigo]

Hi Jim,

For web posting and digital proofing/experimenting, I like to have the lab scan the film at the same time as processing. A consumer place like Ritz is fine for that. What size/colour depth you get back depends on the machine they use and the resolution they are willing to set it to.

I'm not a big fan of Fuji Frontier scans, but lots of places use them so it's often the cheapest option. I find that the medium-resolution scans from a Fuji Frontier don't hold much detail and tend to exagerate grain. A pro lab I use has a Noritsu that they run at high res (2000x3000) and I prefer the look of those scans. Price for scanning this way ranges between free (included with processing at the local Shopper's Drug Mart) to $5/roll with developing at the pro lab.

But the best quality I get is from a smaller pro lab with an Imacon scanner. You pay $5 per frame, but get the personal attention of the operator who will do the best to give you the scan you want.

You suggest you want large prints that you will sell. Unless you are willing to spend >$1000 on a Nikon film scanner, and invest a few years in becoming a scanning expert, I say go with the pro lab if you have one close. You can have the Ritz camera soup your negs, give you the cheapy scans for proofing, and then rescan the very few frames which you are considering worthy of framing and selling. My relationship to pro labs isn't any different in digital land than in analog. I get to know the folks, and communicate with them what I like and need.

Best,

Dave

[jbrowning]

Hi Stu thanks for the reply. Please let me know how your developing goes. That is something else in the back of my mind. But that might be down the road a ways.

This is the prolab that I have found here in Colorado Springs. My Darkroom, Inc.: A traditional photo lab specializing in color, b&w and type R prints from film, slides and negatives I haven't been in contact with them yet. I am hoping to maybe get out and take some shots this weekend and then decide on whether I will take them to Ritz or My Darkroom.

Well maybe by the end of the weekend I will have more info for you all.

I want to thank everyone for their replies, I really appreciate them all.

Jim

If the lab will scan them at hi-res then just let them do it. If not then get them printed as large as you can afford ie: instead of getting 4 x 6 get 5 x 7 or even 8 x 10. This gives you a better starting point. Get yourself an Epson scanner, runs about a grand. Scan at the finished size you want at 300 dpi. this will print just fine. My customers usually only bring me a 4 x 6 and with correct scanning and resolution I can get up to 16" x 20" with great quality and very little photoshopping. It's what I do every day for a living.
Use to have a darkroom back in the late seventies. Had it for about 7 years. Did 4 x 8 foot murals and had to mop on the chemicals (color) it was a blast. Wanted to get my old stuff out again and set up a DR but the stuff is too much$$$ and the EPA is always on your case with the chems.

[Nesster]

While I haven't tried out all the higher end options, what I've settled on are minilabs - One in a local CVS, another in a Duane Reed near work (both drugstore chains) where development + cd runs less than $6 per roll, sometimes half that. They both use Noritsu machines. The scans are about 1540x1024 plus or minus a few pixels - 1.5 or 1.6 MP that would be called. Entirely sufficient for most of what I do, and very cost effective.

I also use a local MotoPhoto minilab, they use an Agfa machine and do good work. The scans are much more saturated. I get my medium format developed there - minilabs can do that, many just can't print.

My advice is to start with these kinds of local and low cost options, and see how you like the results. Burn up some film getting the hang of the whole process. Then if you're hankering for more, you can invest in high end processing/scanning, or your own scanner.

--

I have an Epson 4490, got it cheap, and it's fairly good. Newer and more expensive Canon and Epson flatbeds are better these days, and Pop Photo just had a fluff piece on a very interesting looking Microtek Artixscan. It's probably still hype, but it is said the flatbed scanners are starting to match the dedicated film ones.

But with scanning, as people above mention, you get into a whole new learning curve, and if you're like most of us, you'll be huffing and puffing, as you try to work past the basics.

--

Resolution is something that gets talked about... it really has two different sets of meaning. First is the capture resolution - this is equivalent to the camera 'megapixels' : how large a bitmap does the scan produce from the negative. Higher resolution scans produce larger bitmaps, and capture smaller specs from the film. This is like saying a 10MP camera will out resolve a 1.5MP one. (of course MP isn't the whole story)

Now that you have the bit map, the display resolution determines how large the resulting picture is. Photo print quality is usually quoted as 300DPI - though around 240 and above is plenty photo quality. That 1500 bit wide drugstore scan will print at 5 inches at 300DPI. It will display 21 inches wide on a computer monitor, at 72 DPI. Note that in either case, the information is unchanged, only the display is different.

The 10 MP image, say 5000 bits wide for the sake of argument, will hit physical limitations in the (inkjet) printing process - to print 5 inches wide somewhere the 1000DPI will be cut down to what the process can handle. The difference a large bitmap gives you: 1) you can do a larger print without 'enlargement' and 2) you can do more editing and throwing away of bits. But consider the 5000 bit wide image on screen is 69 inches. You'll be cutting that down to show us here... throwing away that resolution you worked hard to get in the scan... But that's starting to get philosophical.

[Nick_b]

Well I'm no pro and I don't have much experience but I just started developing my own B&W film because there aren't any local places that do it. Paying $1 a scan per negative got pretty expensive when I went in with 70 exposures! so I decided to buy my own scanner.... I bought an Epson V500.

It's a flat bed but it has the ability to scan light in from the top of the lid which apparently makes all the difference when scanning negatives.

Here is a scan at about 3300 pixles on the long side I think 800 dpi



100% crop

[Nick_b]

Here is what my local photo shop scan looks like right of the CD




And here is my scan of the same negative with no adjustments by me so I guess you could say it's right out of the scanner.




Looks better to me and I can do everything from developing to scanning right at home.

[ryan s]

Nick, I'm thinking of going with the V500 as well. Looks to have good features and as you've shown, produces good quality scans. Plus, it's like $800 cheaper than a Nikon Coolscan V and can do any format.

Newegg just happens to have it a bit cheaper than B&H...