|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
08-07-2012, 10:37 PM
|
| |
Hi John,
I concur. If you have film in-hand and the intent of the scan is archival, gallery, museum, or other discreet purpose - and you have the equipment, and time to do it properly - then by all means use the negative. I prefer to scan from film too. And if you have $15,000+ for a drum scanner, or access to one thanks to your employer, then scanning a print would indeed seem foolish.
I am certainly impressed by your achievements and long experience in the darkroom. But, to amplify your point about using the original when possible - if you really want the best quality digital image, then you should skip the scanner completely and shoot medium format digital.
Egos aside, I don't believe that the OP's inquiry is in consideration of the requirements of fine art work. It reads to me they wish to find out if they can economize on equipment by scanning the B&W prints they are already planning to be making.
I simply stated that good quality can be gotten from scanning prints. Today's flatbed scanners have enough resolution to produce highly useable images from prints. But to start getting quality high-resolution scans from film, especially B&W, you really need to spend upwards of $500 on the scanner itself; whereas you can spend $175 on a more modest scanner and enjoy high enough quality scans from a 4x6 print to share the photographs online, or even re-touch them to satisfy your digital creative urges.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
08-06-2012, 10:46 PM
|
| |
I wouldn't dismiss scanning prints quite so quickly.
This is a scan of a 2.5 inch square print, of a photograph made in approximately 1935 (I'm not sure exactly how old Dad was when this was made). It was scanned at 4800 PPI, and I reduced it to 6000px in post. It'll make a very nice print 20" at 300DPI now.
 |
