# Film Scanning: Resolution



## WhaleDaughter (Mar 22, 2017)

I love shooting film, but I'm trying to find a better way to handle processing and printing. I get my film processed at a lab (at Precision Camera & Video mostly) and have been going the traditional route of processing and printing 4"x6".

And before I go on, I want to make it clear that doing my own processing and printing in a darkroom is not an option at this point in my life.

However, I do a lot of learning and experimenting and getting the failures printed up is kind of a waste (not a total waste because there is learning since I track my exposures, but still it's wasteful). Precision offers film scanning and I'm thinking about having that done instead of printing and then working the images in Affinity.

They offer 3 options for scan quality, and I'm wondering what the best balance of resolution and fiscal gain would be. Here's a link to the page with resolution and cost.

Photo Lab - Film Processing - Film Scans - Precision Camera Store

If I get the medium resolution scans it's less expensive by several dollars than printing. If I get the high resolution scans it's cheaper for 36 exposure rolls but not 24 exposure rolls. The ultra-high resolution scan is too much more expensive so isn't an option right now.

I suppose I could also get the medium resolution scans of the whole roll and then if there is a frame that turned out particularly well I could have it individually scanned in at high or ultra-high resolution. I'm not clear on how resolution relates to printing size (I do understand that higher resolution = bigger possible prints, but I don't know the specifics, like how big could I reasonably print a medium resolution scan). My preferred printing size for shots I'm really proud of is 16"x20".


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 22, 2017)

The lab you linked -- their high res scan is close to an 8 megapixel camera. The medium res scan is only good for posting to the internet. Curiously they list proportions that do not match a 35mm aspect ratio. What they list is an 8 x 10 print aspect ratio. Do they crop your scans? If you print one of the high res scans to 16 x 20 your input PPI from the scan will be 150 PPI which is pretty marginal. I'd feel better keeping the res closer to 200 PPI, but you'll have to try one and see what you think.

Joe


----------



## table1349 (Mar 22, 2017)

One of these.

Learn to do it property yourself.

Technique to get the best scan possible. 

Then you control what you get for what you need.


----------



## denada (Mar 22, 2017)

you have access to what you have access to, but those prices are not good. my vendor develops and scans a 36 frame roll (including the extra frames i squeeze in) of negative for $6 usd (including tax) with full frame, about 3,000 or 4,000px wide scans. for higher res than that, it's less than a dollar per individual frame. this vendor is local, but you might look into others you can access for developing and scanning.

everyone has their taste and opinion, but i am neither happy with my results with v-series scans nor the amount of time they take. or i'm happy with the results until i compare to a lab scan. same thing happens when i compare a lab scan to the projected slide. that said, most of what you see is a v-series scan and people do create awesome results with them.

if you're only scanning 35mm, some people say the dedicated consumer scanners work better than flatbed.


----------



## JonA_CT (Mar 22, 2017)

denada said:


> you have access to what you have access to, but those prices are not good. my vendor develops and scans a 36 frame roll (including the extra frames i squeeze in) of negative for $6 usd (including tax) with full frame, about 3,000 or 4,000px wide scans. for higher res than that, it's less than a dollar per individual frame. this vendor is local, but you might look into others you can access for developing and scanning.
> 
> everyone has their taste and opinion, but i am neither happy with my results with v-series scans nor the amount of time they take. or i'm happy with the results until i compare to a lab scan. same thing happens when i compare a lab scan to the projected slide. that said, most of what you see is a v-series scan and people do create awesome results with them.
> 
> if you're only scanning 35mm, some people say the dedicated consumer scanners work better than flatbed.




Want to share your vendor? That's a pretty solid price. I pay about $14 a roll for shipping, processing, and scanning that size.

I mention this because I was going to say that the OP's pricing for developing and scanning is pretty fair, imo.


----------



## denada (Mar 22, 2017)

of course. it's dodd camera.


----------



## limr (Mar 22, 2017)

WhaleDaughter said:


> I love shooting film, but I'm trying to find a better way to handle processing and printing. I get my film processed at a lab (at Precision Camera & Video mostly) and have been going the traditional route of processing and printing 4"x6".
> 
> And before I go on, I want to make it clear that doing my own processing and printing in a darkroom is not an option at this point in my life.
> 
> ...



I would get the high-res scans and only print what you want to print. To get it rescanned, you'd have to do it locally or send the negative back to the lab for them to rescan and then print. Not a huge deal, but kind of a PITA. If, however, you already have the high-res scans, then you can just use the digital file to print at whatever printing service you like.

Also, if you do any kind of editing, it will be more useful to have the higher resolution.

If you ultimately get your own scanner, you will have more options. I've always used a Canon flatbed and it has always suited my purposes. Recently, my bf and I split the cost for a used Plustek dedicated film scanner. It only does 35mm. We found it makes a significant difference for color film but not so much for black and white. We still use the flatbed, then for black and white 35mm and for medium-format.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 22, 2017)

I arrived at this total


  cost: $5.49 for the B&W or C-41 color negative development, then $11.99 for the roll at their highest resolution scan size.


----------



## webestang64 (Mar 22, 2017)

Here at the lab I work at Home - we use this scanner..... http://www.noritsu.com/pdf/Flyer_HS-1800-Scanner-Flyer.pdf

4492 x 6774 35mm scan is about a 85mb file. I've printed 40x60's with a Epson 9900 and the prints look great from this scanner.

Cost

C-41 dev $6.00 w/cd $4.95 2048 x 3072 (18mb per frame). Large scan above $15.00 per roll.


----------



## denada (Mar 22, 2017)

picked up rolls today, so correcting and specifying my numbers. $6 _not_ including tax for development and 3000 x 2000 scans. but those files are only 2 - 3 mb big. you have to pay $20 a year to get that pricing. and go to the store.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 22, 2017)

My Plustek 35mm scanner does a better job than my V850 scanner.  For me, 120mm is a minimum size negative for a flatbed.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 22, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> My Plustek 35mm scanner does a better job than my V850 scanner.  For me, 120mm is a minimum size negative for a flatbed.



I agree...35mm film is best handled with a dedicated film scanner. I have an old Minolta ScanDual that does my 35mm slides and negs; my EPSON flatbed does "just okay" with 35mm sized images, but is better with my 645,120 square, and 4x5 sheet film images.

The one thing I have found the flatbed useful for with 35mm sized film images is scanning an entire long strip of negatives, in one pass, as a sort of quick, set-it-to-scan-then-go-make-a-sandwich, 6-frame-long index scan, so I can later open the scan, and look at the images. This method of scanning 35mm strips compacts an entire roll in just a few scanned images, which are made shall we say, "casually".

I have a massive backlog of B&W negs that I just do not have the time to scan one frame at a time with the dedicated film scanner. I think the time versus dollars part of the equation is where having high-resolution lab scans might be worth the time to a busy shooter who has more money than time.


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 22, 2017)

Isn't it a requirement that to be a photographer to have more money than time?


----------



## WhaleDaughter (Mar 23, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> The lab you linked -- their high res scan is close to an 8 megapixel camera. The medium res scan is only good for posting to the internet. Curiously they list proportions that do not match a 35mm aspect ratio. What they list is an 8 x 10 print aspect ratio. Do they crop your scans? If you print one of the high res scans to 16 x 20 your input PPI from the scan will be 150 PPI which is pretty marginal. I'd feel better keeping the res closer to 200 PPI, but you'll have to try one and see what you think.
> 
> Joe



I'm used to working with dpi. I won't scan anything at less than 300, usually I want 600 dpi for a scan. I'm going to see what the other photo lab that is local to me offers for scanning.

Thanks for helping explain this. 


"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit." ~Aristotle


----------



## WhaleDaughter (Mar 23, 2017)

denada said:


> you have access to what you have access to, but those prices are not good. my vendor develops and scans a 36 frame roll (including the extra frames i squeeze in) of negative for $6 usd (including tax) with full frame, about 3,000 or 4,000px wide scans. for higher res than that, it's less than a dollar per individual frame. this vendor is local, but you might look into others you can access for developing and scanning.
> 
> everyone has their taste and opinion, but i am neither happy with my results with v-series scans nor the amount of time they take. or i'm happy with the results until i compare to a lab scan. same thing happens when i compare a lab scan to the projected slide. that said, most of what you see is a v-series scan and people do create awesome results with them.
> 
> if you're only scanning 35mm, some people say the dedicated consumer scanners work better than flatbed.



I'll shop around, see what I can find. 


"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit." ~Aristotle


----------



## WhaleDaughter (Mar 23, 2017)

limr said:


> I would get the high-res scans and only print what you want to print. To get it rescanned, you'd have to do it locally or send the negative back to the lab for them to rescan and then print. Not a huge deal, but kind of a PITA. If, however, you already have the high-res scans, then you can just use the digital file to print at whatever printing service you like.



Luckily for me, right now, it is local (theyr'e about a 20 minute walk from my house). I may take some of my negatives I have now and try my parent's scanner.


"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit." ~Aristotle


----------



## WhaleDaughter (Mar 23, 2017)

Derrel said:


> I arrived at this totalView attachment 136928  cost: $5.49 for the B&W or C-41 color negative development, then $11.99 for the roll at their highest resolution scan size.



That's the right price for color processing. B&W processing is $7.60. Which is hard for me because I love shooting B&W, but my employer doesn't seem to take that into account when setting my pay scale.


"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit." ~Aristotle


----------



## WhaleDaughter (Mar 23, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> Isn't it a requirement that to be a photographer to have more money than time?



I must have missed that chapter, seeing as i have neither time nor money.


"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit." ~Aristotle


----------



## Gary A. (Mar 23, 2017)

Developing B&W at home is easy and relatively cheap.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 23, 2017)

WhaleDaughter said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > The lab you linked -- their high res scan is close to an 8 megapixel camera. The medium res scan is only good for posting to the internet. Curiously they list proportions that do not match a 35mm aspect ratio. What they list is an 8 x 10 print aspect ratio. Do they crop your scans? If you print one of the high res scans to 16 x 20 your input PPI from the scan will be 150 PPI which is pretty marginal. I'd feel better keeping the res closer to 200 PPI, but you'll have to try one and see what you think.
> ...



DPI is dots per inch and refers to ink on paper. PPI is pixels per inch and refers to your digital photo either from a camera or from a scan. They are not equivalent measurements. If you're scanning 35mm film (approx. 1 x 1.4 inches) you want scans in the 2400 PPI range. Beyond 3000 PPI you begin to enter the area of diminishing returns -- no benefit trying to scan between the film grains.

PPI for any given image is variable over output size or to put it another way the value only has meaning when the size of the photo is specified. For example the same exact photo that produces a 300 PPI 8x10 print will produce a 214 PPI 11x14 inch print or a 150 PPI 16x20 inch print. The bigger the print area the more you have to spread the pixels to cover.

300 PPI used to be the industry standard to address a 2400 DPI image setter for offset press output. You got professional standard quality. A 35mm neg or slide scanned at 2400 PPI coincidentally is that standard and gives you an 8x10 print at 300 PPI. I said used to be because we've made a major change. That standard was set back when we created press plates with line screens. The trouble with line screens is they would start to show a subtle pattern at lower resolutions because of the uniformity of the screen. We've stopped using those and modern printing is down with stochastic screening. We can therefore relax the resolution requirement a bit with no loss. As long as you can get the output PPI up around 200 with today's printer tech you're going to be happy with the result.

Another factor that plays into this is that the larger we make the print they farther we back away to view it and so the resolution requirement can also be relaxed a bit for large prints to account for the increased viewing distance. So for a 16x20 inch print you should be happy with 180 PPI.

So to scan your 35mm film with sufficient resolution to make an excellent 16x20 print you need a 2880 PPI scan from a good scanner honestly capable of that resolution.

Joe


----------



## WhaleDaughter (Mar 23, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> Developing B&W at home is easy and relatively cheap.



Right now my living situation doesn't allow for this. Maybe someday when I have my own place again.


"Rule 408: Time is not the boss of you"


----------



## gsgary (Mar 26, 2017)

WhaleDaughter said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > The lab you linked -- their high res scan is close to an 8 megapixel camera. The medium res scan is only good for posting to the internet. Curiously they list proportions that do not match a 35mm aspect ratio. What they list is an 8 x 10 print aspect ratio. Do they crop your scans? If you print one of the high res scans to 16 x 20 your input PPI from the scan will be 150 PPI which is pretty marginal. I'd feel better keeping the res closer to 200 PPI, but you'll have to try one and see what you think.
> ...


----------



## Michael Mc (Apr 28, 2017)

The 2000 x 3000 option is gonna give you scans that are the equivalent to a decent flatbed scanner. So they'll be okay -- just okay. But good enough for you to decide on ones you want higher resolution scans of. That might be your most economic route. Then send the negs back and have the ultra high rez scans done to only the ones you want.  You can then take those scan files to a local processor for printing. I use Costco. They have one of those giant Epsons for enlargements. I've gotten the results and I gotta say that it does a really good job.

Thanks for the link, by the way. Austin's just up the road a piece from me.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Apr 28, 2017)

You're in my neighborhood. I use Precision (who sends to Holland, I work next to Precision otherwise Id go directly to Holland) to develop my film but scan it myself. My scanner sucks but it was only $40 from craigslist and has paid for its self already. I did drop off 4 or 5 sheets of 4x5 for them to scan though. Ill have them back next week and can report back how they turned out. I opted for the 2400 dpi "High Scan".


----------



## SoulfulRecover (May 3, 2017)

Scans turned out great! Quite a bit of dust removal though but over all, Im happy with the results


----------

