Jack Hollis wrote:
>>From what I understand, the resolution of TriX developed with D76 is
>> less than 2700 dpi so scanning them at a greater resolution wont
>> improve the image. That makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. I
>> tried a couple at 3600, which is the best the scanner can do, but I
>> couldn't see any difference.
I would suggest that the resolution of TriX is in excess of 2700 ppi, but:
- it depends on the quality of your images, and perhaps more
importantly, how big you are likely to want to print them?
- was that scanner a flatbed? if so it probably maxed out well before
3600, and was just giving you interpolated (=useless!) results as you go
beyond its true ability to resolve. Name the scanner and I can be a bit
more accurate...
To get a feel for what resolution you need to scan film, work backwards
from the desired result. Eg if your requirements are for pin-sharp
(that's 300 ppi-ish) 7"x5" prints, then you need (7x300 x 5x300) 2100 x
1500 good, sharp pixels. To get that result you really do need to be
scanning at 2700 ppi, and of course the scanner must be *genuinely*
capable of that resolution..
If you do the maths, you will see that the 2700 ppi scan of a piece of
film that is about 1.5" x 1" gives you *more* than the required pixels
but for reasons I won't go into here (unless asked!), you need to scan
at about twice the desired size if you want true sharpness.
> tony cooper wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, how long does it take - roughly by the sweep
> second hand on your watch - to scan a neg at 2700?
>
> Try some at 300 to 600 dpi and compare the results and time taken.
???
Tony, can you explain how you would use a 300 ppi scan of a 35mm negative?
That will give you an image that is about 420 x 280 pixels. Suitable
perhaps for a very small image on screen, but of no use whatsoever for
printing, unless you are happy with blurry 4" x 2" prints.
Even the cheapest 35mm film scanner starts out at about 1800 ppi, and if
you are serious about scanning black and white for printing at anything
over 6"x4", 2700 ppi would be a bare minimum. The 300 ppi/dpi rule of
thumb is only applicable to final printing or for scanning *prints*.
DPI or PPI settings have no real meaning unless you refer to the size of
the source/destination image.
In the case of a negative, the source image is tiny, and scanning at
those resolutions is not a good idea unless all you want is a thumbnail.
tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:25:46 -0700, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:58:23 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 2. I scanned the negatives at 2700 dpi because someone told me that
>>>> the a higher resolution would not make any difference with TriX film.
>>>> Is that true?
>>> Always an argument. The higher settings take longer to scan, but some
>>> believe that's the only way to go. Some believe that 300 is as high
>>> as you need to go. I'm in the process of scanning 100s of old prints,
>>> and using the 300 setting. I experimented and found little, if any
>>> difference with higher settings.
>> The use of the term 300 is odd when someone is asking a question about
>> what dpi to choose for negatives. Do you mean the resultant file is at
>> 300 ppi?
>
> I don't see what's odd about it. With my scanner, you set the
> resolution at anywhere between 50 and 9600 dpi when you scan. I scan
> at 300. Surely, by context, you know what the "300" is.
Mais oui. But 300 is exceptionally low for scanning a *negative*.
>
> I just scanned a 3.5" x 5" print at 300 and it took 20 seconds. I
> scanned the same print at 2400 and it took 6 minutes and 25 seconds.
> His equipment may be different, but when you are doing a lot of
> originals the time difference is very significant.
>
> The result of the 300 scan is a .jpg that is 1210 x 1607, and the
> result of the 2400 scan is a .jpg that is 9,680 x 12,858.
>
> That was a print on a flatbed. I have a Minolta Dimage dedicated
> slide/negative scanner, and I didn't experiment on that. I would
> expect similar results, though.
>
>> Jack- Your own results and evaluation are probably your best guide;
>> certainly sounds in the ball park.
>
> My thoughts were similar, but it seemed rude and dismissive to say so.
> If it's me, I'll scan the same source at various settings and examine
> the results and make a couple of prints to see what difference there
> is.
>
>>>> 3. I still have my old Nikon ftn camera and one lenses. Do people
>>>> still shoot B&W film and then digitize the negatives?
>>>>
>>> You can take color film into most processing centers and get back a CD
>>> with .jpg images. I've never tried it with B&W. Ask. A phone call
>>> to a Walgreen's or CSV or Costco or camera store will answer the
>>> question.
>> Apparently some do, but I see no good reason to do so, when shooting a
>> normal RAW or HQ JPEG [in color] results in an image that can be
>> converted into a smashing B+W image,
>
> Jeez, John. Which of the two of us is not reading what the man wrote?
>
> He's talking about shooting B&W *film* in a older Nikon. How could he
> shoot RAW?
>
>> New high end printers can produce B+W prints that rival silver prints,
>> in the opinion of some. This latter takes some doing, though. Still,
>> very good to excellent prints are the norm. with some knowledge and
>> practice.
>>
>> In general, scans produced by a Walgreens etc. will never be as good as
>> an original digital image, other things being equal.
>
> Again, who's reading correctly here? The comment about Walgreens is
> about getting *film* processed and, instead of prints, getting back a
> CD with .jpgs of the images.
>
> The OP has a scanner. He says so here. No one's talking about
> Walgreens doing scanning. I mentioned Walgreens or a camera store to
> do the developing of the *film*. (You remember film, don't you?) I
> have no idea who processes film in his area.
Jack asked if folk still shoot B+W, and in the context of him
considering a good quality DSLR, I made my response. 2-3 years ago,
even, the statements I made couldn't be supported. If one has a good
DSLR as I believe he's considering, there's no good reason to do the
film and scan and chemical print unless one enjoys that, which many do.
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:07:05 -0400, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> On occasion,
>>> it cokes up with a nice photo but I want to have control of
>>> everything. Is there a true SLR digital camera where you can have easy
>>> (I stress easy) control of aperture, shutter speed and focus.
>>
>> All of them do, and all of them do it almost exactly the same. I've
>> never seen one that doesn't have Automatic, Programmed Auto, Aperture
>> Priority, Shutter Priority, and full Manual.
>
> That sounds nice. I still have one of my Nikor lenses. It's a 55mm,
> f1.2. If I bought a Nikon DSLR camera, could I put it on the camera.
> BTW, what ASA speeds can you get for color and B&W. I only want to do
> natural light photography. In the old days, getting enough light was
> always an issue shooting indoors. Have things improved?
800 or 1600 easily with any DSLR.
Color & B&W is the same ISO(ASA) for digital... much better than film.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:06:19 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, how long does it take - roughly by the sweep
>> second hand on your watch - to scan a neg at 2700?
>>
>> Try some at 300 to 600 dpi and compare the results and time taken.
>
>???
>Tony, can you explain how you would use a 300 ppi scan of a 35mm negative?
Easily. I made the mistake of not trying to scan a negative. I've
been scanning prints on a flatbed and didn't stop to think that
negatives would be different.
I did pop some color negs of a trip to Kenya I made some years ago
into my Minolta Dimage slide/negative scanner. The default is 700 dpi
input/300 dpi output. That scan resulted in an image of 1002 x 672 at
300 dpi. Too small, as you say, to print. Changing to 2820 dpi
input/300 dpi out results in an image 4008 x 2688 at 300 dpi. Large
enough to print. There's an appreciable difference viewing the two
on-screen.
>That will give you an image that is about 420 x 280 pixels. Suitable
>perhaps for a very small image on screen, but of no use whatsoever for
>printing, unless you are happy with blurry 4" x 2" prints.
>
>Even the cheapest 35mm film scanner starts out at about 1800 ppi, and if
>you are serious about scanning black and white for printing at anything
>over 6"x4", 2700 ppi would be a bare minimum. The 300 ppi/dpi rule of
>thumb is only applicable to final printing or for scanning *prints*.
>DPI or PPI settings have no real meaning unless you refer to the size of
>the source/destination image.
Yes, I see that now that I've tried to scan a negative. However, I've
never scanned negatives. I did scan a few hundred slides with the
dimage (at 700/300) for use on-screen only and that setting worked
fine.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:23:37 -0700, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:25:46 -0700, John McWilliams
>> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:58:23 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 2. I scanned the negatives at 2700 dpi because someone told me that
>>>>> the a higher resolution would not make any difference with TriX film.
>>>>> Is that true?
>>>> Always an argument. The higher settings take longer to scan, but some
>>>> believe that's the only way to go. Some believe that 300 is as high
>>>> as you need to go. I'm in the process of scanning 100s of old prints,
>>>> and using the 300 setting. I experimented and found little, if any
>>>> difference with higher settings.
>>> The use of the term 300 is odd when someone is asking a question about
>>> what dpi to choose for negatives. Do you mean the resultant file is at
>>> 300 ppi?
>>
>> I don't see what's odd about it. With my scanner, you set the
>> resolution at anywhere between 50 and 9600 dpi when you scan. I scan
>> at 300. Surely, by context, you know what the "300" is.
>
>Mais oui. But 300 is exceptionally low for scanning a *negative*.
Yes, I see that now.
>> I just scanned a 3.5" x 5" print at 300 and it took 20 seconds. I
>> scanned the same print at 2400 and it took 6 minutes and 25 seconds.
>> His equipment may be different, but when you are doing a lot of
>> originals the time difference is very significant.
>>
>> The result of the 300 scan is a .jpg that is 1210 x 1607, and the
>> result of the 2400 scan is a .jpg that is 9,680 x 12,858.
>>
>> That was a print on a flatbed. I have a Minolta Dimage dedicated
>> slide/negative scanner, and I didn't experiment on that. I would
>> expect similar results, though.
>>
>>> Jack- Your own results and evaluation are probably your best guide;
>>> certainly sounds in the ball park.
>>
>> My thoughts were similar, but it seemed rude and dismissive to say so.
>> If it's me, I'll scan the same source at various settings and examine
>> the results and make a couple of prints to see what difference there
>> is.
>>
>>>>> 3. I still have my old Nikon ftn camera and one lenses. Do people
>>>>> still shoot B&W film and then digitize the negatives?
>>>>>
>>>> You can take color film into most processing centers and get back a CD
>>>> with .jpg images. I've never tried it with B&W. Ask. A phone call
>>>> to a Walgreen's or CSV or Costco or camera store will answer the
>>>> question.
>>> Apparently some do, but I see no good reason to do so, when shooting a
>>> normal RAW or HQ JPEG [in color] results in an image that can be
>>> converted into a smashing B+W image,
>>
>> Jeez, John. Which of the two of us is not reading what the man wrote?
>>
>> He's talking about shooting B&W *film* in a older Nikon. How could he
>> shoot RAW?
>>
>>> New high end printers can produce B+W prints that rival silver prints,
>>> in the opinion of some. This latter takes some doing, though. Still,
>>> very good to excellent prints are the norm. with some knowledge and
>>> practice.
>>>
>>> In general, scans produced by a Walgreens etc. will never be as good as
>>> an original digital image, other things being equal.
>>
>> Again, who's reading correctly here? The comment about Walgreens is
>> about getting *film* processed and, instead of prints, getting back a
>> CD with .jpgs of the images.
>>
>> The OP has a scanner. He says so here. No one's talking about
>> Walgreens doing scanning. I mentioned Walgreens or a camera store to
>> do the developing of the *film*. (You remember film, don't you?) I
>> have no idea who processes film in his area.
>
>Jack asked if folk still shoot B+W, and in the context of him
>considering a good quality DSLR, I made my response. 2-3 years ago,
>even, the statements I made couldn't be supported. If one has a good
>DSLR as I believe he's considering, there's no good reason to do the
>film and scan and chemical print unless one enjoys that, which many do.
My impression is that one of his options is to use his older Nikon (he
said "I still have my old Nikon ftn camera and one lenses. Do people
still shoot B&W film and then digitize the negatives?") and shoot
film. To that, I suggested having the film processed as .jpgs on a
CD. No scanning involved.
Purchase of a dslr is another option he's considering.
tony cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:06:19 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>>> Try some at 300 to 600 dpi and compare the results and time taken.
>> ???
>> Tony, can you explain how you would use a 300 ppi scan of a 35mm negative?
>
> Easily. I made the mistake of not trying to scan a negative. I've
> been scanning prints on a flatbed and didn't stop to think that
> negatives would be different.
Cool, no problems. Kudos for saying so!
> I did pop some color negs of a trip to Kenya I made some years ago
> into my Minolta Dimage slide/negative scanner. The default is 700 dpi
> input/300 dpi output. That scan resulted in an image of 1002 x 672 at
> 300 dpi. Too small, as you say, to print. Changing to 2820 dpi
> input/300 dpi out results in an image 4008 x 2688 at 300 dpi. Large
> enough to print. There's an appreciable difference viewing the two
> on-screen.
I find the whole concept of resolution and dpi/ppi is very confusingly
presented, and scanner software often doesn't help make it clearer..
I wish there was an easier way to discuss it, but I don't know one!
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:23:44 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>From what I understand, the resolution of TriX developed with D76 is
>>less than 2700 dpi so scanning them at a greater resolution wont
>>improve the image. That makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. I
>>tried a couple at 3600, which is the best the scanner can do, but I
>>couldn't see any difference.
>
>Just out of curiosity, how long does it take - roughly by the sweep
>second hand on your watch - to scan a neg at 2700?
I was using a Prime Film PF3650U scanner and each frame took a little
over 90 seconds from start to finish. Add in the time to open up the
scanner and move the film to the next frame and it was about 2 minutes
each.
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:20:17 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:23:44 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>From what I understand, the resolution of TriX developed with D76 is
>>>less than 2700 dpi so scanning them at a greater resolution wont
>>>improve the image. That makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. I
>>>tried a couple at 3600, which is the best the scanner can do, but I
>>>couldn't see any difference.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, how long does it take - roughly by the sweep
>>second hand on your watch - to scan a neg at 2700?
>
>I was using a Prime Film PF3650U scanner and each frame took a little
>over 90 seconds from start to finish. Add in the time to open up the
>scanner and move the film to the next frame and it was about 2 minutes
>each.
That's great. Puts my Minolta Dimage slide/negative scanner to shame.
'Course I can't complain. I bought it used for $70 and scanned a few
hundred slides with it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news2l784963k5qlcnm19k5gk25sgk4mbkmsn@4ax.com...
> On 20 Jul 2008 20:16:59 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
> Easier, but some will say that a desaturated color image is not the
> same as an image shot in B&W. The dslr will shoot in B&W from the
> get-go.
>
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
No it won't.
It will shoot in colour, and then using some built in software, it will
convert to mono.
>
>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news2l784963k5qlcnm19k5gk25sgk4mbkmsn@4ax.com.. .
>> On 20 Jul 2008 20:16:59 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>
>> Easier, but some will say that a desaturated color image is not the
>> same as an image shot in B&W. The dslr will shoot in B&W from the
>> get-go.
>>
>
>No it won't.
>
>It will shoot in colour, and then using some built in software, it will
>convert to mono.
Interesting. I've not heard that before, but I've not made any effort
to look into it, either.
I thought that I'd read here or in another photo group that some
people do shoot in this mode and feel that the results are better than
desaturating a color image in Photoshop. More contrast or something.
Re: Back from the Dead 
2l784963k5qlcnm19k5gk25sgk4mbkmsn@4ax.com...
Linear Mode
