Scan the Negative, or a Print?

As can be seen in illustration #3 below, as scanner technology approaches 5,000 samples per inch and prices reach down into the "home darkroom" range, scanning the negative will become the process of choice. BUT, the results WILL differ and scanning a print will most likely yield expressively different results. Pixel count will soon be irrelevant to the argument, leaving only expressive considerations.

The new 2400 spi Epson 2450, with built in "Cold Light" transparency adapter for 4x5, will rattle a few cages.


Arguments for scanning the negative, rather than a print, generally include the following:

  1. Negatives have a greater dynamic range than prints.
    • This is certainly the case, BUT, as is shown in the discussion on density range, the negative scanner compresses and distorts the tonal range, as does photographic paper. Flatbed scanners, with their bright, direct illumination, tend to "see into" the shadows of photographic silver prints, seeming to increase the apparent range.
  2. The print is a secondary source, thus information is lost in the translation.
    • Certainly true, IF the negative and print are of the same size (see below).
    • Perhaps the loss of some grain, dust, and scratches is not a liability. If the optical print is first rate and large enough, it can provide a superior tonal balance. Indeed, the making of a "corrected" print can make available information that cannot be isolated by the transparency scanner. Loss of detail , if present, can be minimal.
  3. Negative scanners render colors more accurately than flatbed scanners.
    • Certainly true in my experience.
  4. The print is subject to degradation from the optical system used to make it.
    • The scan also is subject to degradation from the optical system used to make it
  5. Print detail can be a function of the paper used.
    • Certainly true, however the use of glossy RC paper, which is then polished with paste wax, provides an excellent platform.
  6. Negative scanning eliminates the cost of maintaining a traditional opto-chemical darkroom.
    • At present, the cost of negative scanners is 5 to 6 times that of flatbed scanners, and perhaps similar to that of a basic, good quality, traditional darkroom. If one does not already have a darkroom, this argument has merit.
  7. Negative scanning is the most convenient method of converting photographic data to a viewable form.
    • No question about it, and the best argument for acquiring a negative scanner.

Consider scanning a standard 3.5"x5" print, available from a photofinishing lab, with a flatbed scanner. Scanning such a print at 600ppi (within the capacity of current "under $300" scanners) yields the same pixel count as scanning a Minox negative at 6927ppi (impossible at this time) or a 35mm negative at 2223 (roughly the resolution of a PhotoCD).

In the case of a 35mm, or larger negative, arguments 2 and 3 above are certainly valid, but for the Minox negative, scanning a print is an attractive option.

The enlargements below were made from the area, outlined in red, of the Minox image shown, full frame, at the right. The selected area, of the Kiaora, measures 71 pixels of the 1171 total pixel width of the 11mm Minox negative - roughly 0.67mm on the negative.

#1 - from a scan of -

Silver Print
16 x 20 inch
600spi, HP 3c flatbed scanner
8370 x 12000 pixels
99.8 MB file

To achieve this same pixel density, a Minox negative would need to be scanned at 30,480 samples per inch Such a file would yield enough information to print a 32x44 inch print on a machine requiring source files of 300 pixels per inch.

#2 - from a scan of -

Minox Negative
8 x 11mm
2,700spi, Nikon LS-1000
850 x 1169 pixels
0.971 MB file

Each pixel in this image is represented by more than 10 pixels in image #1 above.

It is evident that, for small negatives, any defects in the optical enlargement system are completely offset by the lower pixel count of the negative scan. As digitizing technology improves, the gap will narrow - as shown below

The effectiveness of interpolation can be assessed by the image at the right which is from the Minox negative scan #2 above. The file size was increased to equal that of the "16x20" print scan shown directly above. It is clear that increasing the file size (pixel count) simply forces the software to increase the number of pixels representing the same amount of information. Just as with the photographic negative, the initial data capture establishes the maximum information available for output.

Image #1, resized with Photoshop to an image size of 8mm x 11mm and a pixel count of 5,000 pixels per inch. This SHOULD yield a result similar to scanning the original negative with a 5.000 spi transparency scanner as #3 shown below.

#3 - from an ePixel.com scan of -

Minox Negative
8 x 11mm
5,000 spi, Fuji Frontier. Resampled up to a density of 10,000 ppi by the Frontier
1575 x 2165 pixels
3.26 MB file

When the negative is scanned, the final print size is entered and the sampling rate is calculated to provide the optimum resolution for the Fuji Frontier printer. If the required pixel density exceeds the optical sampling rate of the scanner, the image is resampled upward to the required pixel count.

The quality and detail are remarkable, yielding a 10 x 15 inch print which is unsurpassed in visual quality, and accutance - practically eliminating the need for this discussion.

Assuming the nominal 300 ppi for quality printing, the various print sizes and the required scanning densities are shown. To create a 300 ppi file for a 16x22 inch print (a 50.8 x enlargement) the Minox negative must be scanned at (or resampled up to)15,240 pixels per inch.

BUT

A lot depends on the software used by the scanner AND the algorithm used by the printer. Both, for the Fuji Frontier, appear to be remarkable as shown by results from ePixel.

 

The 16 x 20 inch print (actually 13.2"x19.4") was made on Ilford Multigrade RC paper and scanned at 600 samples per inch to provide an 87.9 MB file. No sharpening was done.

The enlargements below were made from the area, outlined in yellow

Douglas DC-2
Clover Field, Santa Monica, California, c.1985
Minox IIIs, Kodak High Contrast Copy Film

The 13.2"x19.4" print provided a 44.7964x enlargement, equivalent to scanning the negative at 26,878 samples per inch. Print size limited only by the quality of the film and skill of the photographer.

Pixel count reduced to simulate scanning the negative at 5,000 samples per inch. Although 1/5th the information, still adequate for 5x7 or, with good printer software, 8x10 inch prints.

Pixel count reduced to simulate scanning the negative at 4,000 samples per inch. Still good information for top quality prints to 5x7 inches.

Pixel count reduced to simulate scanning the negative at 2,700 samples per inch.

RETURN HOME