I have a dream

[mysteryscribe]

Sometime in my sleep (happens way to often) I had a thought. I am experimenting with my scanner now. It is making me crazy. worst of all in my negative stash I had 645 and 35mm and even 6x7 negatives from over the years. I can't get a good read on what is the scanner and what is the quality of the negative.

So I am planning an experiment. Probably over a few days minimum. I am going to set up a reasonably intricate yet simple still life on my tabletop. I am fortunate in that I can leave it set up a few days.

I'm going to shoot it with my 4x5 and then at least one of the 2x3 sheet film cameras. (my 5x7 and 3x4 camera are not going to be used since one I have no film for and the other I'm too lazy to cut film) Then to a roll film 120 and a 127 tlr and a cobbled 127 and finally at least three 35mm cameras. I really do want to see how much difference there is between them after they leave the same scanner.

Why you might ask... Well these days everything is printed from the digital file, in my case anyway. So how much difference is there in the file after it hits the great equalizer aka scanner.

My question is would anyone else like to see the results....

 

[mysteryscribe]

Just in case there is any interest this is the digital five megpix pns camera base line copy of the subject matter.

 

[ksmattfish]

If you can't tell the difference between 35mm, 120, and 4x5 scans, you really need a new scanner. I'm using a Microtek flatbed scanner, not the optimum for scanning film, but there is still a huge difference in file size and image quality between scans from the different formats.

 

[mysteryscribe]

So far all I have scanned have been 645...127...35mm...

I would like to see for myself what the differences are in all of the formats available to me. Each step incrementally.

The difference between a good 35mm and a mediocre 127 super size is minimal best I can tell...

a good 645 blows it away....

I haven't yet convinced myself that it isnt the lens not just the format.... I want to see the spread of the same thing. Not a pretty girl on one and a group on the other.

I imagine when I finish I am still going to be stuck with the 35mm vs 645 vs what the actually print looks like from a digital lab kind of thing... But I still want to see it for myself in a spread.

One of the scan things that bothers me is: when I go from 1200 dpi to 2400 dpi, in 35mm, the image goes noticably softer. I want to know what I can do to prevent this.

Do I need to go to a dedicated scanner or do I need to go to a different size negative. In a five by seven print there is little to no difference between the prints but if I want to use a scanned image to go larger say 16x20 I need a higher pixel count for sure.

Still I'm curious, since I have about decided to go hybrid digital..If I go back to shooting real things at all.

When I finish this little test, I will then have to worry about things like can I get a sharp enough image from a dedicated 35mm film scanner. I'm reasonably sure that I can get a good 645 image from a flatbed scanner. Good enough to make a 16x20 and keep it sharp around the eyes.

A 35mm slr system is easier to haul around, easier to get a variety of lenses for, easier to find film and processing, and easier to get low res scans for proofs & 5x7 prints from. (I can't see myself making 150 proof scans,,, life is too short) So of course it is my first choice.