If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging from negatives versus print
Hi.
This is probably a lame question, but when enlarging, what gives better quality, scanning from photo negatives, or print? I have a person that says he/she wants something enlarged, but only wants to do it with the negatives, because the print wouldn't yield acceptable quality. This is CD cover/booklet size to probably A4 or A3. If negatives are so much better to use, can anyone give me a layman's explanation as to why, i.e. are there points on a negative or is it all intertwined or layered or what. Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging from negatives versus print
In article , xyz123
@broadpark.no says... Hi. This is probably a lame question, but when enlarging, what gives better quality, scanning from photo negatives, or print? I have a person that says he/she wants something enlarged, but only wants to do it with the negatives, because the print wouldn't yield acceptable quality. This is CD cover/booklet size to probably A4 or A3. If negatives are so much better to use, can anyone give me a layman's explanation as to why, i.e. are there points on a negative or is it all intertwined or layered or what. Thanks. Prints have lower resolution than negatives. The paper limits the amount of detail. In order to make use of the better detail in the negatives you need a scanner with enough resolution as well. A typical flatbed with 1200 dpi resolution and a film adaptor will permit about a 4x enlargement. This will be a 4x6 inch print from 35mm. Not much different than scanning from a snapshot. Dedicated film scanners have resolutions up to 5400 dpi. This allows a magnification of 18x (at 300 dpi print). Colors are also better when starting from the original film. -- Robert D Feinman Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips http://robertdfeinman.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging from negatives versus print
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging from negatives versus print
"Vertical Pan" wrote in message om... Hi. This is probably a lame question, but when enlarging, what gives better quality, scanning from photo negatives, or print? I have a person that says he/she wants something enlarged, but only wants to do it with the negatives, because the print wouldn't yield acceptable quality. This is CD cover/booklet size to probably A4 or A3. If negatives are so much better to use, can anyone give me a layman's explanation as to why, i.e. are there points on a negative or is it all intertwined or layered or what. Thanks. Prints have far poorer resolution than negatives. Scanning a print at more than 150 to 200 ppi won't bring out more detail. It is OK for making same-size copies, but won't give quality enlargments. On the other hand, even scanning at 1200 dpi won't catch all of the detail in a negative. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging from negatives versus print
This is probably a lame question, but when enlarging, what gives
better quality, scanning from photo negatives, or print? I have a person that says he/she wants something enlarged, but only wants to do it with the negatives, because the print wouldn't yield acceptable quality. This is CD cover/booklet size to probably A4 or A3. If negatives are so much better to use, can anyone give me a layman's explanation as to why, i.e. are there points on a negative or is it all intertwined or layered or what. The layman's explanation (I don't know any other kind) is that negatives are generally better because they contain more detail than the print. The print has already lost some detail just by being printed. Then when you scan it and print it again you're losing still more detail. However, negatives aren't necessarily always better to use, it depends to some extent on the size of the negative and the desired size of the final print. If, for example you have a good 8x10 print from a 35 mm negative and a flat bed scanner that scans at say 1200 actual ppi, and you want to make say an 11x14 print, you'd probably be better off scanning the print rather than trying to enlarge such a small negative so much with a scanner that doesn't produce many ppi. "Dave Martindale" wrote in message ... (Vertical Pan) writes: Hi. This is probably a lame question, but when enlarging, what gives better quality, scanning from photo negatives, or print? I have a person that says he/she wants something enlarged, but only wants to do it with the negatives, because the print wouldn't yield acceptable quality. This is CD cover/booklet size to probably A4 or A3. If negatives are so much better to use, can anyone give me a layman's explanation as to why, i.e. are there points on a negative or is it all intertwined or layered or what. When you print a negative, there are losses in fine detail that are on the negative but don't make it to the print. Also, only a portion of the brightness range captured by the negative can be printed in a single print, which is determined by the printing exposure. If you really wanted to capture the full brightness range, you'd have to make several prints at different exposures, scan each one, align the scans, and do some processing to fit the sections of brightness range back together. In comparison, a slide scanner scans the original at very high resolution and good scanners can capture the whole brightness range present in the negative (which is by design lower in contrast than the print). Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging from negatives versus print
Just about any analog process will loose information in going from one
generation of information to another. The original negative or slide contains less information than the actual scene. A print made from this will contain even less information -- some is lost due to poor focus and abberations in the image path, even more will be lost when the image diffuses into the emultion on the print. This is not always bad -- sometimes the softness of a print, crisped up through edge sharpening in Photoshop produces an image which when printed appears better than the original. It is an illusion -- which unfortunately encourages relatives to troop out even more pictures of long deceased aunt X to 'make a few copies for the family, please...'. With the same sort of massaging, the original negative would produce really good images, but when all one has is the print, the same size or smaller results can be pretty good. But remember, every generation of copy from the original scene looses information -- the best results come from the shortest path. -- Greg Latiak Images http://members.rogers.com/greglatiak/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging from negatives versus print
Quoth "Gregory N. Latiak" :
.... | With the same sort of massaging, the original negative would produce really | good images, but when all one has is the print, the same size or smaller | results can be pretty good. But remember, every generation of copy from the | original scene loses information -- the best results come from the shortest | path. I should try it myself, just for curiosity's sake. Some percentage of my color negatives basically will not scan. Entirely my fault, apparently, they seem to be overexposed and color shifts in the highlights, but in some cases I believe the proofs if I can dig them up were not as bad - like RA4 has a much narrower range than a scanner, so doesn't see the problem. Anyway, for thinner negatives the negative is a much better bet than the print, my point is just that in some cases the print may be the only way. Donn |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging from negatives versus print
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 05:09:32 -0800, Vertical Pan wrote:
Hi. This is probably a lame question, but when enlarging, what gives better quality, scanning from photo negatives, or print? I have a person that says he/she wants something enlarged, but only wants to do it with the negatives, because the print wouldn't yield acceptable quality. This is CD cover/booklet size to probably A4 or A3. If negatives are so much better to use, can anyone give me a layman's explanation as to why, i.e. are there points on a negative or is it all intertwined or layered or what. Thanks. It all depends on the quality of the original print. I would opt for going to original material (neg) for best quality. Prints are second generation. Copy a print and you now have a third generation from the original. Each generation will lose something although the losses are not always apparent. If the end result is a CD cover, I'm not so sure the concerns are the same since the enlargement is not that great. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging from negatives versus print
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:00:18 -0000, "Donn Cave"
wrote: Quoth "Gregory N. Latiak" : ... | With the same sort of massaging, the original negative would produce really | good images, but when all one has is the print, the same size or smaller | results can be pretty good. But remember, every generation of copy from the | original scene loses information -- the best results come from the shortest | path. I should try it myself, just for curiosity's sake. Some percentage of my color negatives basically will not scan. Entirely my fault, apparently, they seem to be overexposed and color shifts in the highlights, but in some cases I believe the proofs if I can dig them up were not as bad - like RA4 has a much narrower range than a scanner, so doesn't see the problem. Anyway, for thinner negatives the negative is a much better bet than the print, my point is just that in some cases the print may be the only way. This runs entirely contrary to my five or six years of film scanning -- mostly from negatives, on a variety of film scanners. It is ludicrously easy to expose negatives properly in the first place, given their huge lattitude. And easy to scan also, since the density range on the film is lower than for chromes, by an order of magnitude. I've used film scanners ranging from a Microtek 35 to a SprintScan Plus, to Nikon LS-8000 and Epson 1640. No problems ever getting negatives to "scan right." (I'll soon be scanning LF negs on a Microtek 2500.) On the Nikon (my current scanner for MF) I've been scanning negs as positives, then inverting the colors in the scanner driver. This is mostly to work around a bug in the scanner driver that compresses shadow detail in negatives. See http://www.marginalsoftware.com/LS8000Notes/LS8000Notes.htm rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging from negatives versus print
"Raphael Bustin" wrote in message
... It is ludicrously easy to expose negatives properly in the first place, given their huge lattitude. And easy to scan also, since the density range on the film is lower than for chromes, by an order of magnitude. Yah, but what does an order of magnitude amount to on a log-scale? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak Easyshare won't Print | Andy Ody | Digital Photography | 1 | June 30th 04 02:04 AM |
Why dontcha print? | William Graham | Digital Photography | 19 | June 25th 04 08:39 PM |
B&W negatives from digtal files | Sheldon Strauss | In The Darkroom | 4 | February 26th 04 02:10 AM |
DIY print washer | f/256 | In The Darkroom | 10 | February 6th 04 01:44 PM |
photos to print: slides or negatives? | Carlo | Film & Labs | 1 | October 9th 03 02:43 AM |