scanning old negatives

On 05/24/2015 04:36 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:
Does it appear possible that re-scanning the film in higher resolution
would produce better results? (Of course one can scan it in arbitrarily
high resolution and produce arbitrarily large JPEG files. The point is,
what resolution is meaningful and what file size should that produce.)

I think film is around 4000 dpi

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

On 05/25/2015 02:57 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)
wrote:
snip

When one gets film developed these days, are the prints made from
scans?

Depends on the equipment. There are film developers that scan to an
intermediate format and then print with a digital printer, and then churn out
low-quality JPEG's for the CD/download.

Most self-contained film developer machines for the past ten years (more
or less) scan the negs and print from scans. A print made optically from
a negative is becoming harder to find.

A couple ways to tell: (1) Look at the print under a strong magnifier.
If the "grain" pattern is regular rather than random, it's likely a
print from a scan. This will show up most in solid color areas. (2) Does
the photofinisher offer enhancements like borders or text, or red-eye
retouching on the finished photos? This is done easily in software
printed photos, and is difficult with optically printed photos.

If someone is making actual optical enlargements from your negatives, I
would bet they would trumpet that fact!

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Most self-contained film developer machines for the past ten years (more
or less) scan the negs and print from scans. A print made optically from
a negative is becoming harder to find.

who cares. a print from a scan is better than pure optical.

A couple ways to tell: (1) Look at the print under a strong magnifier.
If the "grain" pattern is regular rather than random, it's likely a
print from a scan. This will show up most in solid color areas. (2) Does
the photofinisher offer enhancements like borders or text, or red-eye
retouching on the finished photos? This is done easily in software
printed photos, and is difficult with optically printed photos.

how often you look at your prints under a microscope?

If someone is making actual optical enlargements from your negatives, I
would bet they would trumpet that fact!

what for? savvy customers would avoid it.

On 05/27/2015 05:21 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Most self-contained film developer machines for the past ten years (more
or less) scan the negs and print from scans. A print made optically from
a negative is becoming harder to find.

who cares. a print from a scan is better than pure optical.

As someone who routinely prints 20"x30" optical prints from 35mm
negatives, I have to disagree, based on the smaller size, poorer quality
scan-prints I've seen. But history has shown that your mind is firmly
closed on that issue.

A couple ways to tell: (1) Look at the print under a strong magnifier.
If the "grain" pattern is regular rather than random, it's likely a
print from a scan. This will show up most in solid color areas. (2) Does
the photofinisher offer enhancements like borders or text, or red-eye
retouching on the finished photos? This is done easily in software
printed photos, and is difficult with optically printed photos.

how often you look at your prints under a microscope?

The original poster wanted to know if his older prints were scan-prints
or optical. A scan-print will usually have a regular dot pattern,
similar to a newspaper or magazine photo. For an optical print, if grain
is apparent, it will usually be a random pattern.
If I am looking for something specific, I may use a microscope on my
prints, but not for general viewing- that would be silly.

If someone is making actual optical enlargements from your negatives, I
would bet they would trumpet that fact!

what for? savvy customers would avoid it.

Persons who think of themselves as "savvy customers" might avoid optical
prints, because they are not easy to find; they are not "commonplace".
The corner drugstore and WalMart do not have an actual darkroom with
enlarger and processor. On the other hand, medium and large format
shooters who want to get everything out of their negatives and onto the
print will search for, and find optical enlargements.

It is axiomatic that if a certain method of scanning will yield a
certain resolution, than there must be a finer resolution extant. If you
can look at a negative or photo and see two side-by-side lines, then
there must be something between those two lines. So now we must resolve
what's between those two lines. If we are capable of doing that, then we
have achieved an even greater resolution. But wait... now we have an
even finer resolution to detect. It goes on until we get down to a
sub-atomic resolution. Of course that's not practical for most
applications known today. But what applications will we have tomorrow?

Photography is both an art and a science. Don't we owe it to the art to
advance the science as far as it can go?


--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Most self-contained film developer machines for the past ten years (more
or less) scan the negs and print from scans. A print made optically from
a negative is becoming harder to find.

who cares. a print from a scan is better than pure optical.

As someone who routinely prints 20"x30" optical prints from 35mm
negatives, I have to disagree, based on the smaller size, poorer quality
scan-prints I've seen. But history has shown that your mind is firmly
closed on that issue.

that's because it's based on facts.

if your scanned prints are worse, then it's either due to a low quality
scanner or poor technique, not the fact that one is scanned and one is
not.

A couple ways to tell: (1) Look at the print under a strong magnifier.
If the "grain" pattern is regular rather than random, it's likely a
print from a scan. This will show up most in solid color areas. (2) Does
the photofinisher offer enhancements like borders or text, or red-eye
retouching on the finished photos? This is done easily in software
printed photos, and is difficult with optically printed photos.

how often you look at your prints under a microscope?

The original poster wanted to know if his older prints were scan-prints
or optical. A scan-print will usually have a regular dot pattern,
similar to a newspaper or magazine photo.

it's not all that similar to a newspaper or magazine print.

For an optical print, if grain
is apparent, it will usually be a random pattern.

which is exactly the same if the print is done via a scan.

the grain comes from the *source*, that being film.

and grain is not desirable. shoot with a digital camera and the grain
is gone, but it can always be added back for special effects.

If I am looking for something specific, I may use a microscope on my
prints, but not for general viewing- that would be silly.

exactly, so the way in which the printer produces a print makes no
difference.

If someone is making actual optical enlargements from your negatives, I
would bet they would trumpet that fact!

what for? savvy customers would avoid it.

Persons who think of themselves as "savvy customers" might avoid optical
prints, because they are not easy to find; they are not "commonplace".
The corner drugstore and WalMart do not have an actual darkroom with
enlarger and processor.

why would they, when a digital system costs less and produces better
results.

On the other hand, medium and large format
shooters who want to get everything out of their negatives and onto the
print will search for, and find optical enlargements.

not if they want the best quality they won't.

let me guess, you still shoot film, mistakenly believing it's somehow
better than digital.

It is axiomatic that if a certain method of scanning will yield a
certain resolution, than there must be a finer resolution extant. If you
can look at a negative or photo and see two side-by-side lines, then
there must be something between those two lines. So now we must resolve
what's between those two lines. If we are capable of doing that, then we
have achieved an even greater resolution. But wait... now we have an
even finer resolution to detect. It goes on until we get down to a
sub-atomic resolution. Of course that's not practical for most
applications known today. But what applications will we have tomorrow?

complete nonsense.

if the scanner can resolve individual film grains, then it is capturing
*all* of the detail the film holds.

today's scanners can *easily* do that and then some. maybe not the $100
model on sale at walmart, but that much should be obvious.

a high quality film scanners, such as a nikon coolscan or flextight,
certainly will.

Photography is both an art and a science. Don't we owe it to the art to
advance the science as far as it can go?

nobody said otherwise.

nospam wrote:

if the scanner can resolve individual film grains, then it is capturing
*all* of the detail the film holds.

That is true in the sense that if you could run 300 km/h you
would be faster than any taxicab.

But in fact a 4000 dpi scanner can't resolve anything smaller than
12.7 microns, and that is larger then the largest film grains in
any normal film. Film grains are on average less than a micron
in size, but there is a large variation especially in fast films.

When you see "grain" in film you are not seeing individual film
grains but patterns formed by the random distribution of grains.
Detail resolution in films is limited by the way film grains
cause light to scatter in the emulsion. Film grains are not
pixels.

today's scanners can *easily* do that and then some. maybe not the $100
model on sale at walmart, but that much should be obvious.

If by scanner, you mean SEM, then sure.

a high quality film scanners, such as a nikon coolscan or flextight,
certainly will.

No. They can resolve lots of grain patterns, but not any individual grains.

Peter.
--

On 2015-05-24 11:19, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-05-24 05:36, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

What resolution do people recommend for ISO200 film? What would be the
resulting JPEG size?

I likes various Kodak chromes (elite chrome, kodachromes...) and Velvia
from Fuji.

For negatives, the cleanest scans were from Fuji Portra 160 (exposed as
doh! Kodak


100). Colour was just a tad above neutral.

In article , nospam wrote:

Ken Hart:
Most self-contained film developer machines for the past ten
years (more or less) scan the negs and print from scans. A
print made optically from a negative is becoming harder to
find.

nospam:
who cares. a print from a scan is better than pure optical.

Ken Hart:
As someone who routinely prints 20"x30" optical prints from 35mm
negatives, I have to disagree, based on the smaller size, poorer
quality scan-prints I've seen. But history has shown that your
mind is firmly closed on that issue.

that's because it's based on facts.

if your scanned prints are worse, then it's either due to a low
quality scanner or poor technique, not the fact that one is scanned
and one is not.

That's the catch though. An optica enlargement will most of the time be 1:1 to
the negative, while a digital scan and print more often than not is very much
lower quality. So given the choice, an optical enlargement is always preferred,
since you know it is done with all information available.

--
Sandman

On 5/27/2015 7:33 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 05/27/2015 05:21 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Most self-contained film developer machines for the past ten years (more
or less) scan the negs and print from scans. A print made optically from
a negative is becoming harder to find.

who cares. a print from a scan is better than pure optical.

As someone who routinely prints 20"x30" optical prints from 35mm
negatives, I have to disagree, based on the smaller size, poorer quality
scan-prints I've seen. But history has shown that your mind is firmly
closed on that issue.

A couple ways to tell: (1) Look at the print under a strong magnifier.
If the "grain" pattern is regular rather than random, it's likely a
print from a scan. This will show up most in solid color areas. (2) Does
the photofinisher offer enhancements like borders or text, or red-eye
retouching on the finished photos? This is done easily in software
printed photos, and is difficult with optically printed photos.

how often you look at your prints under a microscope?

The original poster wanted to know if his older prints were scan-prints
or optical. A scan-print will usually have a regular dot pattern,
similar to a newspaper or magazine photo. For an optical print, if grain
is apparent, it will usually be a random pattern.
If I am looking for something specific, I may use a microscope on my
prints, but not for general viewing- that would be silly.

If someone is making actual optical enlargements from your negatives, I
would bet they would trumpet that fact!

what for? savvy customers would avoid it.

Persons who think of themselves as "savvy customers" might avoid optical
prints, because they are not easy to find; they are not "commonplace".
The corner drugstore and WalMart do not have an actual darkroom with
enlarger and processor. On the other hand, medium and large format
shooters who want to get everything out of their negatives and onto the
print will search for, and find optical enlargements.

It is axiomatic that if a certain method of scanning will yield a
certain resolution, than there must be a finer resolution extant. If you
can look at a negative or photo and see two side-by-side lines, then
there must be something between those two lines. So now we must resolve
what's between those two lines. If we are capable of doing that, then we
have achieved an even greater resolution. But wait... now we have an
even finer resolution to detect. It goes on until we get down to a
sub-atomic resolution. Of course that's not practical for most
applications known today. But what applications will we have tomorrow?

Photography is both an art and a science. Don't we owe it to the art to
advance the science as far as it can go?



The point is to advance the science until it interferes with the art.
Alternatively, we can use the science, to enhabce and create new forms
of art.
You are correct, nosam will never admit to being persuaded.


--
PeterN

In article , Peter Irwin wrote:

nospam:
if the scanner can resolve individual film grains, then it is
capturing *all* of the detail the film holds.

That is true in the sense that if you could run 300 km/h you would
be faster than any taxicab.

But in fact a 4000 dpi scanner can't resolve anything smaller than
12.7 microns, and that is larger then the largest film grains in any
normal film. Film grains are on average less than a micron in size,
but there is a large variation especially in fast films.

Film resolution isn't measured in grain size, however. It's mesaured in lines/mm,
and the absolut best film you could get back in the day was rated at 200
lines/mm.

And this 200 lines/mm is only valid for scenarios where you use a perfect lens,
camera on tripod, mirror up etc etc. The most ideal parameters possible. I use to
settle for a 75 lines/mm as a "really good" analog shot.

Each "line" is one complete light/dark cycle so in order to represent it, you
need at least 2 pixels per line. A 35mm frame is 36x24mm and 75 lines/mm
translates thus to 150 pixels/mm, which means that the comparable pixel
resolution of a very sharp analog film shot is 5400 x 3600 pixels, or 19.4
megapixel.

So, how big will a 36x24mm film negative be with a 4800dpi scanner? Well the end
result will be a 6803x4535 image, or a 30.8 megapixel image.

If your scanner maxes out at 4000DPI, the end result is a 21.4 megapixel, just
above the threshold of max resolution you can get out of a film negative, which
is probably why most scanner manufacturers have stopped at 4000 DPI. Epson has
the V750 that goes up to 6400DPI, which results in a 55 megapixel image, but
again, that's pretty wasted since the original only holds about 20 megapixels of
information.

nospam:
today's scanners can *easily* do that and then some. maybe not the
$100 model on sale at walmart, but that much should be obvious.

If by scanner, you mean SEM, then sure.

No, just about any 4000 dpi flatbed scanner. Some may be bad scanners, but not
due to lack of DPI for film neagtives.

nospam:
a high quality film scanners, such as a nikon coolscan or
flextight, certainly will.

No. They can resolve lots of grain patterns, but not any individual
grains.

Nor do they need to.

--
Sandman