It's a savings in time, in set up, materials cost, and clean up. Scanning them and working on them in PS gives me a good idea of whether or not they are worth the effort, and gives me a good idea of what I need to work on at the enlarger. I am not going to buy a scanner the price of a used car, or a new digital camera to scan film and print it. They are scanning in at 200 times the data than is needed.īottom line, this is a hobby for me. PNet allows 700px by 700px images(which is a nominal web size), and my scans are coming in at 14,000+ per side. The scanned file sizes are huge at full scan. I did not mean that scans of "120 are pretty good for the web" they way that you are replying. I am going to wet print them if they are going to be printed. I have no interest in, or need to, printing scanned negatives. I would even bet that you could see film grain, long before you see scan lines. ![]() I don't know, but I doubt it without testing, I would assume that a 35 negative scanned at high settings would output rather well to a 300 dpi 8x10 lab print. If you are blowing the 35 up to same size print as the 120, your 8.5x11 for example, you may be seeing differences.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |