Scan negative or print

[KSB]

My scanner can scan negatives or scans up to 2400, I have both the negatives
and the prints of many pictures. Storage space and time are not issues. Any
recommendations appreciated,

 

[Joseph Meehan]

My scanner can scan negatives or scans up to 2400, I have both the
negatives and the prints of many pictures. Storage space and time are
not issues. Any recommendations appreciated,

Experiment. Some scanners don't do well with negatives some have
problems with certain types of paper. Use what works best for you with your
equipment.

I usually try to use the most original, which would be the negative.

 

[Dan M]

I nearly always prefer to scan from the negative -- as long as your
scanner can make high quality scans this way.

Scanning from the print is better if the negative has deteriorated (or
is scratched and dirty and you don't have digital ice -- if scanning
color negatives or slides).

Possible drawbacks to scanning from the print can be: dirty scanner
glass, difficulty in scanning satin or other textured papers, bad
prints (muddy or over burned shadows, blown highlights), cracks or
tears (these can be fixed) and, if the prints are very old, stains and
surface sheens.

Dan

 

[Dan M]

I nearly always prefer to scan from the negative -- as long as your
scanner can make high quality scans this way.

Scanning from the print is better if the negative has deteriorated (or
is scratched and dirty and you don't have digital ice -- if scanning
color negatives or slides).

Possible drawbacks to scanning from the print can be: dirty scanner
glass, difficulty in scanning satin or other textured papers, bad
prints (muddy or over burned shadows, blown highlights), cracks or
tears (these can be fixed) and, if the prints are very old, stains and
surface sheens.

Dan

 

[Marvin]

My scanner can scan negatives or scans up to 2400, I have both the negatives
and the prints of many pictures. Storage space and time are not issues. Any
recommendations appreciated,

There is much more detail in a negative than in a typical
print. The scanner may be able to scan a print at up to
2400 ppi, but above 250 or 300 ppi (depending on the quality
of the print)it will not capture any more detail.

 

[Surfer!]

My scanner can scan negatives or scans up to 2400, I have both the negatives
and the prints of many pictures. Storage space and time are not issues. Any
recommendations appreciated,

What scanner is it? How good are the prints you have? What condition
are the negatives in?

 

[Roger]

My scanner can scan negatives or scans up to 2400, I have both the negatives
and the prints of many pictures. Storage space and time are not issues. Any
recommendations appreciated,

You are a little short on information.

"Normally" the method is to scan the negatives if you have them as
they have more resolution and color depth than a print. I say,
normally as it depends on what you have for a scanner.

2400 dpi isn't a lot for scanning negatives. At that resolution it
sounds like it might be a flat bed and they are not noted for doing
well on negatives although the newer ones are getting better.

Typically I scan 35mm color negatives at 4000dpi and prints at 600 dpi
which is about twice the resolution they contain. Scanning prints at
much above 300 dpi usually uses more memory with no gain in quality.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Surfer!]

You are a little short on information.

"Normally" the method is to scan the negatives if you have them as
they have more resolution and color depth than a print. I say,
normally as it depends on what you have for a scanner.

If he has a suitable scanner.

2400 dpi isn't a lot for scanning negatives. At that resolution it
sounds like it might be a flat bed and they are not noted for doing
well on negatives although the newer ones are getting better.

And he might not, so scanning the prints might work better.

Typically I scan 35mm color negatives at 4000dpi and prints at 600 dpi
which is about twice the resolution they contain. Scanning prints at
much above 300 dpi usually uses more memory with no gain in quality.

600dpi = 300dip x 2 (e.g. is 100% greater), so what I'm not sure quite
what you mean 'much above 300dpi'?

 

[Roger]

If he has a suitable scanner.


And he might not, so scanning the prints might work better.


600dpi = 300dip x 2 (e.g. is 100% greater), so what I'm not sure quite
what you mean 'much above 300dpi'?

Compared to the scanner capabilities we are dealing near the bottom
end at 300 dpi and on mine the next even multiple resolution from 300
is 600. It's just a convenient number. I could also use 400 which is
one tenth of the native scanner resolution, but I prefer a bit more
binary information to play with.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Djon]

Many good suggestions above.

If you're a good darkroom printer you'll probably prefer to work from
the neg, though that involves more learning if you're not already good
at scanning negs.

If you're NOT a good darkroom printer, just want good copies of good
original prints, you probably should scan those prints...much easier to
copy than to learn how to make good original printed images (might
entail contrast adjustments, density adjustments, dodging, burning,
dust spotting) as well as how to copy.

 

[Roger]

Many good suggestions above.

If you're a good darkroom printer you'll probably prefer to work from
the neg, though that involves more learning if you're not already good
at scanning negs.

I guess I'd have to disagree here. I've now scanned over 30,000
negatives and slides. The only difference I see between scanning them
and scanning prints is the way I feed the scanner(s).
Beyond that I see nothing different except telling the scanner program
you are scanning negatives. They come up as positives on the screen
and you can't tell the difference between those scans and the ones
from prints. Some scanning programs make the change from positive to
negative on their own.

If you're NOT a good darkroom printer, just want good copies of good

I still have my complete color darkroom setup and I just don't see the
connection made here particularly to the references made to dodging
and burning. When you get your prints from the photoshop or processor
they do not do any dodging or burning. If a print is in such shape
that dodging and or burning is needed I think it will require using
the negative any way as the process is the same for either and there
is more information to work with in the negative making it easier in
digital processing.

We are also looking at the difference between "acceptable" prints and
the "salon print" the purist strives for with each.

original prints, you probably should scan those prints...much easier to
copy than to learn how to make good original printed images (might

It does take a *good* printer, but generally for the average user they
scan, select the image, crop if they wish and hit <print>. Most will
not bother profiling the monitor and the scanning program will
probably make its own adjustments. The purist would do both. Most
don't.

entail contrast adjustments, density adjustments, dodging, burning,
dust spotting) as well as how to copy.

With the common image manipulation programs such as Paint Shop Pro,
PhotoShop, and Photoshop Elements, Density adjustments can be selected
from menus with the option of *automatic* saturation, contrast,
brightness and even an option for automatic "touch up" of the entire
image. If you don't like the results you can always quit, or back up
after the "preview", or if you've already made the changes you have
the option of <undo>. These programs also have a <step back> function
which allows you go back *through* the steps undoing them as you go
which generally allows you to get back to where you started. This
would undo all changes, but it's kink of the long route. OTOH it is
some times necessary.

As a start the *original* image should be always be set to <read only>
and any changes saved under a new name even if it's only a letter
prefix or suffix which is what I use.

However, "I find" the true equivalents of dodging and burning to be
far easier in the dark room than in image processing. OTOH I find them
to be far less necessary in digital image processing. These are
really advanced darkroom techniques and rarely used. For example, in
college I did a B&W image of the moon. It took hours of dodging and
burning to get what I wanted. Of course part of that was due to a
sloppy freshman on the other side of the table splashing chemicals.
With digital, all it took is a properly exposed negative along with
the manipulation of brightness and contrast.

Few of us work from prints if the negatives are available and in good
shape.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[false_dmitrii]

Experiment. Some scanners don't do well with negatives some have
problems with certain types of paper. Use what works best for you with your
equipment.

I usually try to use the most original, which would be the negative.

Yeah, same advice here. Try them both and compare. Negative
theoretically will be better, but it depends on physical condition and
how easily you can correct the colors (only an issue if your scanning
software isn't doing its job). They also respond much better to
hardware defect removal (ICE). One particular advantage I saw from
scanned negatives over equivalent consumer prints was recovery of
highlights--there was a lot of detail available in the negative that
the print had blown out. It's also easier to line them up with the
scanner's edges, but harder to keep them perfectly flat in their
holder. They have more resolution available, but that only counts if
your original photos were sharp to begin with. One major downside of
negatives can be grain aliasing and amplification; depends on film
type, scanner design, how tightly the scanner focuses, and resolution
used. Again, you'll have to compare.

By all means explore the benefits of negatives, but don't expect
someone else's experiences and expectations to match your own material.


false_dmitrii