Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,755   Online: 1097
      
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Berlin Wi.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    249

    What does a 6X7 negative scan to?

    I'm planning to use my RB67 Pro S for some stock photography. Everybody says you have to go digital, but I'm thinking that if I have a negative (or slide) professionally scanned, I will be getting a scan that is equal to a 50 meg. digital camera, right? The digital backs that are made for that camera go up to a 50 meg. so that is where I'm getting my info. Even if there is a 50% loss, at 25 meg. I'm better off than a 20 meg. Nikon or Canon, right? My scans on my old Epson flatbed scanner look great to me, but I would think if these were scanned on a drum they would blow away a digital cameras shots. Or am I way off on this? Ric.

  2. #2
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    I feel like this is also not on topic for this forum. But I will answer.

    The flagship ability of digital, which makes it irreplaceable in the modern, especially sports photography world is it's ASA. The ability to crank a D700 to 6400 ASA and get a 12mp but still clean image cannot be replicated in film with the same sensor size. Low speed film is still better than digital, however, excluding white balance issues.
    --Nicholas Andre

  3. #3
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    If you print it in the darkroom you can get enormous "files"
    K.S. Klain

  4. #4
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,525
    Images
    65
    It depends on the resolution you have set for the scan. I have scanned from low to high resolution and have created files from several hundred K to several hundred meg. The resultant images have gone from grainy, unsharp, pixellated to sharp, grainless and almost like analog in quality.

    PE

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    I'd ask on DPUG. The link is at the top of APUG.

    But it scans to HUGE if you want it to.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  6. #6
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,333
    Images
    12
    Slightly OT as phrased, but it's perfectly reasonable to want to know the total information content in the medium you're using. "pixels" might be a discrete/digital term, but they're no different from linepairs-squared except for a scaling factor.

    I get about 95MP (4000dpi) from a Nikon LS-8000, RZ67 and Velvia/Provia/Pan-F/Acros but 90% of the time, the rest of the system (optics, tripod, subject motion) is the limiting factor. 50MP is about as much as you can hope for with a practical shot and if you're even slightly sloppy or like shooting wide open, you can expect that to be more like 10-20MP at most. The same applies to any other capture medium like a digital back though, and btw they're past 80MP now in 645 if you have $25k.

    I generally shoot with my RZ instead of a DSLR for things that matter (and where I have full control of the scene) because, when careful, I can get at least twice the resolution as from the best (21-25MP) DSLRs. However, the DSLRs will work well at higher ISO (e.g. 400 easily, some fairly cleanly but with reduced DR at 3200) and larger relative apertures (no f/1.4 lenses for 6x7!) and can therefore capture things with faster shutter speeds, less care and in low light much more effectively. If you go to ISO400 in 6x7, most of your resolution advantage is lost. Of course, there's little need for high ISO in stock photography since everything tends to be flash-lit.

    I would never want to shoot stock at 6x7 because the market tends to want a bazillion different subtle variations on things, 95% of which will be completely ignored and therefore successful stock shooters each have many tens of thousands of images for sale concurrently. Your per-frame costs (film and E-6 soup) and scanning time/cost (a few minutes or a few dollars per frame) will kill you. Consider also that while you can do twice as good as a DSLR on a good day, the DSLR is quite good enough for advertising (magazine double-spread) purposes so no one is really going to care that your files are a bit bigger. And the per-frame sell-prices are depressing.

    Commissioned commercial shoots are a different matter.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    The Cape
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,929
    6x7

  8. #8
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,745
    Images
    139
    This is off topic, and best asked over at DPUG.

    http://www.dpug.org/forums/home.php
    Last edited by SuzanneR; 02-28-2011 at 06:26 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Added a link



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin