scanning

"alexdigital" wrote in message

Is it better to scan in a 35mm negative to the original size or to select a target size like 4×6 before it imports into Photoshop? Or is better to just scan in the 4×6 photo prints from the developer? The file size must be under 100mb. The inkjet prints will be around 11×14. thanks,
alex

I would definitely scan the negative because that removes at least one source of problems. I would scan the negative at the maximum scanning dpi for my scanner. I would not bother to tell the scanning software what size of output I want. By the way, you should use a flatbed scanner for prints and a slide scanner for negatives.
Jim

In article ,
"alexdigital" wrote:

Is it better to scan in a 35mm negative to the original size or to select a target size like 4×6 before it imports into Photoshop? Or is better to just scan in the 4×6 photo prints from the developer? The file size must be under 100mb. The inkjet prints will be around 11×14.

Scan the negative. Select an output size that matches the size you want to print the image. If you want to make a printout that is 11×17, select an output size of 11×17.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

alexdigital writes …

Is it better to scan in a 35mm negative to the original size or to select a target size like 4×6 before it imports into Photoshop?

Most of us with our own scanners just scan at the max resolution of the scanner and then crop or resize later for different size prints.

Or is better to just scan in the 4×6 photo prints from the developer?

You will *always* get better results scanning the original, assuming you have a decent film scanner. Especially if you want to scan small prints and print several times larger, as you mention.

The file size must be under 100mb.

Not a problem with most non-drum scanners, I typically get around 55 MB with 35 mm scanned at 4,000 dpi in 8 bit mode.

Is there a huge different between a "decent film scanner" and a flat-bed scanner with the film option? My flat-bed scanner has a holder for the file and seems to do a decent job.

Dot

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message

alexdigital writes …

Is it better to scan in a 35mm negative to the original size or to select a target size like 4×6 before it imports into Photoshop?

Most of us with our own scanners just scan at the max resolution of the scanner and then crop or resize later for different size prints.

Or is better to just scan in the 4×6 photo prints from the developer?

You will *always* get better results scanning the original, assuming you have a decent film scanner. Especially if you want to scan small prints and print several times larger, as you mention.

The file size must be under 100mb.

Not a problem with most non-drum scanners, I typically get around 55 MB with 35 mm scanned at 4,000 dpi in 8 bit mode.

"dot" wrote in message

Is there a huge different between a "decent film scanner" and a flat-bed scanner with the film option? My flat-bed scanner has a holder for the file and seems to do a decent job.

Dot

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message

alexdigital writes …

Is it better to scan in a 35mm negative to the original size or to select a target size like 4×6 before it imports into Photoshop?

Most of us with our own scanners just scan at the max resolution of the scanner and then crop or resize later for different size prints.

Or is better to just scan in the 4×6 photo prints from the developer?

You will *always* get better results scanning the original, assuming you have a decent film scanner. Especially if you want to scan small prints and print several times larger, as you mention.

The file size must be under 100mb.

Not a problem with most non-drum scanners, I typically get around 55 MB with 35 mm scanned at 4,000 dpi in 8 bit mode.

Hi there.

It might seem like a facetious answer, but it is not intended to be.

Film Scanners only have 1 purpose, to scan Film. They tend to be a fair bit more expensive than dual purpose Flatbeds.

They are considerably better at Film than Flatbeds, and that is the only reason we are willing to buy them.

Roy G

dot writes …

Is there a huge different between a "decent film scanner" and a flat-bed scanner with the film option?

Which scanner are you talking about? I think guys shooting large format sheet film do OK with the best Epson flat beds (especially compared to the expense of the other options), but for medium format scans the Nikon 9000 class scanners seem to do better than flatbeds, and for 35 mm scans the best 5400 dpi Minolta and 4000 dpi Nikon film scanners seem to do a much better job than flatbeds.

My flat-bed scanner has a holder for the file and seems to do a decent job.

Which scanner do you have? What format film? Have you compared the scans to a scan of the same film with a Nikon or Minolta dedicated film scanner?

Bill

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message

alexdigital writes …

Is it better to scan in a 35mm negative to the original size or to select a target size like 4×6 before it imports into Photoshop?

Most of us with our own scanners just scan at the max resolution of the scanner and then crop or resize later for different size prints.

I agree. Ffor best scan quality, scan at native scanner resolution, then resample down to desired pixel dimensions for the output size needed. It’ll reduce graininess (actually grain-aliasing), especially for negatives which will need a contrast boost to fill the available coding/density range.

One important issue then becomes, selecting a proper down-sampling method which should not by itself increase aliasing artifacts.

Bart

I have a relatively inexpensive Canon flatbed scanner – I don’t remember the model number (and I’m not where the scanner is.) The only film I scan is 35mm.

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message

dot writes …

Is there a huge different between a "decent film scanner" and a flat-bed scanner with the film option?

Which scanner are you talking about? I think guys shooting large format sheet film do OK with the best Epson flat beds (especially compared to the expense of the other options), but for medium format scans the Nikon 9000 class scanners seem to do better than flatbeds, and for 35 mm scans the best 5400 dpi Minolta and 4000 dpi Nikon film scanners seem to do a much better job than flatbeds.

My flat-bed scanner has a holder for the file and seems to do a decent job.

Which scanner do you have? What format film? Have you compared the scans to a scan of the same film with a Nikon or Minolta dedicated film scanner?

Bill