The original question was in regards to my lack of experience with a specific film stock vs a scan quality issue to determine what was exactly going on. It may have morphed into the latter from other people but is this forum really like this?
Every other website and forum about photography has a high amount of digital content. This place is the oasis where we don't talk about it. What's why DPUG was launched.
I enjoy it being that way - I print my film optically because I enjoy it that way more. The other sites have a lot of people talking about shooting film and scanning it; here we have a lot of posts by people shooting film and printing it in a darkroom.
The Internet is a big place! There are places that'll talk to you about the scanning if you want - this just isn't the place.
That leaves lots left and I hope you'll stick around; this really is a special place.
Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.
The original question was in regards to my lack of experience with a specific film stock vs a scan quality issue to determine what was exactly going on. It may have morphed into the latter from other people but is this forum really like this? Jesus
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And just to note, the person who gently reminded that detailed scanning issues are better left to DPUG is a moderator. There's a link to DPUG at the top of the page and I believe you can use your same login there as here (I don't remember if you have to register separately, but most use their same handle). While many of here know and use digital and are well-versed in scanning, APUG is intended as an oasis from those discussions - hence DPUG. It was not necessarily you who were being reminded, but also those who took it further into scanning than just your original query.
OP it seems to me that you need to get a print at say 5x7 or 8x10 done and then determine if that print meets your requirements as a print. If it doesn't and this cannot be cured by changing DoF or other factors that affect exposure and have nothing to do with it being a 35mm neg per se then it would seem that 35mm negative photography is not for you and the answer is to remain with MF where you are satisfied with the prints you get.
I am assuming all along that you have prints from MF. Unless you have prints done in both media which you can compare then I don't know how you reach a decision.
I thought that the scan of the 35mm indicated that a print of it would be OK but that's me. Only you can decide if it's OK for you but you do need a print in you hand for that decision.