What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Scanned images from Hassy Negs

austin

austin

Member
Hi All!
Whilst my scanner only lets me scan my negatives at 50 x 50 mm, it has a resolution of 2400 x 2400 dpi. The same scanner is able to go up to 4800 x 4800 dpi by interpolation. (or is the real term extrapolation?)
When I use fine grain B&W film, Ilford Pan X or Dela 100 for ex&le, the images improve in quality up to the 2400 x 2400 level. After that the images get a bit too large to handle on my computer, and the improvement is less noticeable.

My question is this: If I invest in a scanner able to handle 4800x4800 will the images be any better, or am I reaching the level where the grain of the film will be the limiting factor?

(I've looked through my reference books here, but I haven't found an indication of the size of crystals deposited in film emulsions, and I'm sure that that is not the only factor involved)

OK, we are already at something in the region of 23 mega pixels when scanning at 2400, and at the end of the day the best (and probably the most economical) solution is to produce large prints with an optical enlarger, so as soon as I have built the darkroom in our new house the question becomes somewhat acedemic. But I would be interested to hear of other peoples experiences.

Best regards to all,
Gerard
 
Gerard,

First, why not post this question in the "digital darkroom" section?
This bit is reserved for things about 500 C and 500 C/M cameras. Quite something else.

Yes, the extra bit will produce more detail. Both a more detailed view of grain ;-), and (!) more image detail. Not much, but still...
 
Gerard

frfom 6 x 6 dias scanning sizes to about 130-150 mb in true dpi is an enhancement after that it is more like just making everything bigger - also there is the whole isue about 8/16/32 bit - I am only talking fromexperience with scanning not mathematics - some else - pehaps in the digital sections as Q.G suggest will know - TO Q.G you are right - i think that we are experiencing a lot of people here are on other lists were everything is mixed together - I for one do not mind but on camerainfo.com I am of the impression that things should be seperated.
 
Thanks QG,
You are of course (and as usual) right for the section, I don't usually look at the digital darkroom section, because I don't use my digital camera, so the thought didn't cross my mind, sorry. (how do we transfer a thread to another section?)
However if someone might have to hand an indication of grain dimensions for some of the high res. B&W films I'd be most obliged.

Thanks also Ruben, I'm still working on this, but I just printed a 1/16 frame enlargement onto A4, and it's amazing, despite the fact that i'm limited to 16 bits on B&W.
Someone told me yesterday that I should try scanning in colour in order to get better tones, despite the B&W negative, could that be right?

Regards to all Gerard
 
I you scan in colour use the channel mixer in photshop set on monocrome to adjust to gray scale before converting it intop grayscale for best results
 
I've had a 35mm tmax frame drum scanned and printed to 20x24 and it looked great with better detail than I ever got with wet printing at 16x20, so I'd say a good quality scan and good quality printing process (mine was a giclee print) will beat a traditional print. I've done the same with my 645 shots, but haven't had the chance (or money) to do a 6x6 frame yet...
 
> and good quality printing > process (mine was a giclee print)

"Giclee" simply means inkjet. The quality of inkjet prints can vary fro m really poor to really good. It depends on the skill of the person from the scan to the print. I am assuming you are talking color?

For B&W (grayscale) inkjet printing, quadtone printing is a must...p rinting B&W with simply black ink typically won't give you very good results.

Regards,

Austin
 
technically, you are correct. giclee comes from a french term which means "to spray" and refers to an inkjet printer. But in real day to day terms, people refer to an epson 2200 (under $1000) as an inkjet, and they refer to a $50,000 iris printer as a giclee. I was talking about a pro print that cost me $100 for a 20x24 print... Sorry if I was too vague and general in my description. I don't want to mislead anyone...
 
> But in real day to > day terms, people refer to an epson 2200 (under $1000) as an inkjet, > and they refer to a $50,000 iris printer as a giclee.

Perhaps we travel vastly different terrain, but I personally see most people selling inkjet prints from Epson printers calling them "giclee" prints these days. I see no one advertising them as "inkjet".

I'm also not sure that, today, there is much of a difference between the output from a $50k Iris printer (or what ever they cost these days, I'm sure prices are much less due to competition) and a top end inkjet. I'v e seen identical prints from both just to see the difference. Most of the

"work" is in preparing the file for printing, and a skilled person can get

absolutely superb prints from an Epson inkjet printer (and even some of th e new Canon printers are superb as well), and of pretty substantial paper size these days. 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago, I'd see a significa nt difference between the Iris and Epson. But, not near as much (if any in

most cases) these days.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin, the level of Ink-jet B&W has been steadily advancing, and with the introduction of the 3 black Epson 2400 is getting better by the year. Not Quadtone, but a lot closer. I am amazed by the B&Ws I now get. No color cast. And a choice in the printer menu of warm, neutral or cool. Quite nice.
 
I am currently working with an EPSON 1160 using MIS INK (B+W only) in parallel to my darkroom (JOBO 4x5 with heiland splitgrade head).
The results are rather good but i can only use matte paper .
So i am planning to buy an EPSON R2400 or even an R4800 (ink cost is obviously much less) . Has anyone experience with one of these 2 printers , regarding especially the use of glossy paper .
I have been reading all tests in the available magazines , but could not find anything about which papers should be used .
uhoh.gif

To Q.G. some time ago i opened a thread about this topic , but obviously nobody looks in there , so i take the chance in this thread .
 
See my post above Jurgen. The newer Epson 2400 is way better than my previous 2200. More depth and less "bronzing" when using Premium Luster paper for color work (my personal preference). Glossy is also excellent, and also a bit better than before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top