My pro lab has moved to hi resolution scanning negatives to make enlargements. What would this affect? Would it make my final image look digital?

Let me suggest checking in at hybridphoto, this is the kind of thing that we discuss over there.

Scanning should not make your final image "look digital" if the technicians are competent and if they use the very best scanning and printing equipment. These are pretty big "ifs" so you need to do some research and have some images made and find out for yourself. Needless to say, there is a very wide span of quality in scanning and printing.

For colour stuff, I usually have drum scans done and lightjet output and I am very satisfied. For b&w I do as much traditionally as possible.

One thing it may affect is the usefulness of your proof sheets. I like a contact sheet made with the film in contact with the paper emulsion, because you can use it to judge the sharpness of the neg that way without having to check the neg directly. I became suspicious of my lab when I got proof sheets that were printed with the negs in a file page, and they were sharp. Negs contact printed in file pages are never sharp, so either they were using an 8x10" enlarger and printing them 1:1 with the negs in focus (it's a big enough lab that they could do this), or they were scanning and sharpening and outputting to a laser or LED machine that prints on Endura. I checked with a loupe and sure enough, I could see the raster pattern. If the proof images are digitally sharpened, you have no way of telling how sharp the neg really is.

This lab makes real contact sheets. It's a really good lab from what have experienced. It says for scanning that they make 80 meg files that are capable or being printed up to 40" x 60".

This lab makes real contact sheets. It's a really good lab from what have experienced. It says for scanning that they make 80 meg files that are capable or being printed up to 40" x 60".

It sounds to me that they may have the same kind of set up as we do at my work. Imacon scanners and possibly exposing on a Cromira type laser printer and developed via RA4. If so, I would say it should be fine, you will probably be happy, but it was stated it also lies in the capability of the people running the machines. It does introduce a lot of variables in color management. "Profiles" matching from monitor to printer and how those profiles are made. Not as easy as it may sound to some.

Scanning negatives yourself is something people who love shooting films don't want to miss. I returned to my hobby of photography, after putting it aside for many years, because of discovery of film scanning. If you love shooting films you definitely should try to scan the films yourself. You will love films even more. You don't need an expensive film scanner. A lot of Nikon and Minolta film scanners are sold below $500 on eBay. Mine is one that is running around $300 only. There is a long learning curve involved though. I found it very unlikely for me to stop shooting films to go digital now. I paid $2k for my scanner 5 years ago. Although it has depreciated a lot in its value it is the single equipment that made the most significant impact to photography to me. Without it I probably would have abandoned photography as a hobby completely many years ago. I might have picked up the hobby again with digital cameras. I am glad it did not happen that way. Instead I stuffed half of my freezer with films. To most people this is hard to believe or understand. You really have to experiece film scanning to understand why.

I met a friend today who hold in his hands a new Canon 40D. It's a nice camera. But it's not for me. It's more fun to me with a simple camera and a sheet of film behind its shutter curtains. This is all because of film scanning that you can do yourself.

In terms of the original question. It's not really a question to ask or answer because it's really not an issue. You really have to scan your own films to discover the other half of the world about shooting films.

An 80 meg file won't make a good 40x60.

What JD said... it would work for about 11x14 though. When I do 16x20 lightjets for porfolios - those are just over 100mb IIRC. Okay - this thread's getting a bit digital for my comfort level (are there apug cops nearby??)... I'm going to split the scene of the crime...!

Sparky: no less than two Mods have already posted in this thread... ;)

But I have to agree with you - is this not starting to go rather off-topic for APUG?

An 80 meg file won't make a good 40x60.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying that, I was guessing at the equipment because of the sizes mentioned. Most scanners won't do a 80meg from 35mm other than Imacon and 40x60 output seems like a Chromira type, Though Chromira just makes a 30" or 50".

I agree.

ts103706@ohio.edu This topic is outside of APUG's scope and is best had on http://www.Hybridphoto.com