Printing pictures question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by battlelance, Dec 5, 2003.

  1. battlelance

    battlelance Guest

    This is not exactly related to digital photography, but I figured it
    was digital enough to ask the very knowledgable folks in this
    newsgroup.

    I've since gone digital, but I have a drawer full of 35mm color
    negatives so I've scanned the negatives in (I have a Epson Perfection
    1200U Photo.. what a nice scanner), and I want to print 8x10s...

    Now my problem is, when I look at the picture at 4x6, it looks great.
    When I set the size to 8x10 in photoshop, it looks really grainy. Is
    this normal with film? I was under the impression that with 35mm film
    you could produce good quality 8x10s?

    Any help or insight (or just a slap on the head if I'm out of whack!)
    would be great.

    Cheers!

    _BL
    battlelance, Dec 5, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. battlelance

    Robertwgross Guest

    battlelance wrote:
    >This is not exactly related to digital photography, but I figured it
    >was digital enough to ask the very knowledgable folks in this
    >newsgroup.
    >
    >I've since gone digital, but I have a drawer full of 35mm color
    >negatives so I've scanned the negatives in (I have a Epson Perfection
    >1200U Photo.. what a nice scanner), and I want to print 8x10s...
    >
    >Now my problem is, when I look at the picture at 4x6, it looks great.
    >When I set the size to 8x10 in photoshop, it looks really grainy. Is
    >this normal with film? I was under the impression that with 35mm film
    >you could produce good quality 8x10s?
    >
    >Any help or insight (or just a slap on the head if I'm out of whack!)
    >would be great.


    First of all, tell us what the approximate file size is for a typical scan.
    Second, tell us the file format (TIF, JPEG, etc.). That should tell whether you
    have enough data to print to a larger size.

    Most of my 35mm film scans start at about 100MB and go up to about 150MB, each.

    ---Bob Gross---
    Robertwgross, Dec 6, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. battlelance

    Jim Townsend Guest

    battlelance wrote:

    > This is not exactly related to digital photography, but I figured it
    > was digital enough to ask the very knowledgable folks in this
    > newsgroup.
    >
    > I've since gone digital, but I have a drawer full of 35mm color
    > negatives so I've scanned the negatives in (I have a Epson Perfection
    > 1200U Photo.. what a nice scanner), and I want to print 8x10s...


    You've digitized photographs, so the photographs are now digital so it's on
    topic :)

    > Now my problem is, when I look at the picture at 4x6, it looks great.
    > When I set the size to 8x10 in photoshop, it looks really grainy. Is
    > this normal with film? I was under the impression that with 35mm film
    > you could produce good quality 8x10s?
    >
    > Any help or insight (or just a slap on the head if I'm out of whack!)
    > would be great.


    Wow.. Hard to answer with no information.. What resolution did you scan the
    pictures at ? How did you change the size ? Did you mess with the PPI and
    constrain boxes ?

    Here's a great resource that tells you everything you want to know about
    scanning and printing: www.scantips.com
    Jim Townsend, Dec 6, 2003
    #3
  4. battlelance

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: battlelance

    >I've since gone digital, but I have a drawer full of 35mm color
    >negatives so I've scanned the negatives in (I have a Epson Perfection
    >1200U Photo.. what a nice scanner), and I want to print 8x10s...
    >
    >Now my problem is, when I look at the picture at 4x6, it looks great.
    >When I set the size to 8x10 in photoshop, it looks really grainy. Is
    >this normal with film?


    The specs on this scanner say it scans at 1200 x 2400 dpi, so I'd guess you're
    actually scanning at 1,200 dpi, right? If so, this means your file size is
    about 1100 x 1650 pixels.

    If this is right then your problem is you don't have high enough rez to get
    enough pixels to make a good large print. If you printed 8x10" at 200 ppi
    (pixels per inch) you'd need 1600 x 2000 pixels. Printing your file (if I have
    the size right) means you're printing at ~130 ppi and this is not enough
    resolution for good results.

    >I was under the impression that with 35mm film
    >you could produce good quality 8x10s?


    I can do a lot better than 8x10 prints with my film scanner. It scans at 4,000
    dpi so my 35 mm scans are about 3,600 x 5,400 pixels and I can print 12 x 18"
    prints at 300 ppi. 8x12" prints mean I have 450 ppi rez. See the problem with
    a 1200 dpi scanner?

    You need more resolution to get quality large prints, it's not the film's fault
    as you're leaving a lot on the table with your scanner.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Dec 6, 2003
    #4
  5. battlelance

    Mark Herring Guest

    On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 23:55:49 GMT, battlelance
    <> wrote:

    >This is not exactly related to digital photography, but I figured it
    >was digital enough to ask the very knowledgable folks in this
    >newsgroup.
    >
    >I've since gone digital, but I have a drawer full of 35mm color
    >negatives so I've scanned the negatives in (I have a Epson Perfection
    >1200U Photo.. what a nice scanner), and I want to print 8x10s...
    >
    >Now my problem is, when I look at the picture at 4x6, it looks great.
    >When I set the size to 8x10 in photoshop, it looks really grainy. Is
    >this normal with film? I was under the impression that with 35mm film
    >you could produce good quality 8x10s?
    >
    >Any help or insight (or just a slap on the head if I'm out of whack!)
    >would be great.
    >
    >Cheers!
    >
    >_BL

    This scanner has an optical resolution of 1200dpi (ppi to be more
    accurate)
    35mm film is roughly 1 x 1.5", so you are getting total files of 1200
    X 1800 pixels. Put that on 8 X 10 and you have around 150 ppi after
    cropping. Not good.

    As a minimum, get one of the newer scanners with higher optical
    resolution---AT LEAST 2400 ppi (true optical resolution).

    Better: A 2800 ppi dedicated film scanner---now very cheap

    Best: 4000 or 5400 ppi film scanner ($$$$)
    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
    Mark Herring, Dec 6, 2003
    #5
  6. battlelance

    Rafe B. Guest

    On 06 Dec 2003 01:08:21 GMT, (Robertwgross) wrote:


    >Most of my 35mm film scans start at about 100MB and go up to about 150MB, each.



    At what bit depth? Or, asked another way, how many megapixels?

    Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt that even the most perfect 35 mm
    frame holds much more than 20 Mpixels worth of real information.

    See: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis

    Feel free to send me a scan snippet if you feel you can beat
    any of those scans. (0.25" by 0.25" at native scan resolution.)


    rafe b.
    Rafe B., Dec 6, 2003
    #6
  7. battlelance

    battlelance Guest

    battlelance, Dec 6, 2003
    #7
  8. battlelance

    Ronald Hands Guest


    > battlelance wrote:


    >>
    >>Now my problem is, when I look at the picture at 4x6, it looks great.
    >>When I set the size to 8x10 in photoshop, it looks really grainy. Is
    >>this normal with film? I was under the impression that with 35mm film
    >>you could produce good quality 8x10s?


    Something's amiss here. If, as others have suggested, you're
    achieving a resolution of 1600 x 1200, or 150 ppi when set for an 8 x
    10, then I can't see why Photoshop is showing a "grainy" image, since
    150 ppi is far more resolution than the average monitor provides. Are
    you sure Photoshop isn't locked to 72 ppi (and consequently when set to
    8 x 10 is displaying an image that's far bigger than your monitor screen)?
    If this sounds like what's happening, then it's probably time to find
    out how to change the display resolution in Photoshop.
    Perhaps, in Photoshop, you could do the same thing that I do in
    Photoshop Elements 2.0: use the crop tool, set the options bar for 8 by
    10 (or 10 by 8, if it's a horizontal shot) and delete any box that shows
    resolution. Turn on the rulers, do the crop, do any other improvements,
    save it, and send it for
    printing. I get the exact size I want (and the rulers confirm it) and
    I'm always surprised how good the 8 x 10s are, even at 150 ppi or less.
    I never seem to see any grainy image in PSE unless I really zoom in.
    My camera is a 2 mp model so it does 1600 x 1200 as its best
    resolution and I haven't yet lusted for more. (Pix from a recent trip:
    <www.mountaincable.net/~rhands> )

    -- Ron
    Ronald Hands, Dec 6, 2003
    #8
  9. battlelance

    battlelance Guest

    On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:29:34 -0800, Mark Herring
    <> wrote:


    >This scanner has an optical resolution of 1200dpi (ppi to be more
    >accurate)
    >35mm film is roughly 1 x 1.5", so you are getting total files of 1200
    >X 1800 pixels. Put that on 8 X 10 and you have around 150 ppi after
    >cropping. Not good.


    Great information. Now, I know my scanner can only do 1200dpi optical,
    but how come it allows me to select up to 9600 dpi?

    Last time I picked 9600 dpi the file was like 600 meg and took about
    45 minutes to scan. What happens when I pick a resolution over the
    optical resolution, and does it do anything for the quality of the
    image?
    battlelance, Dec 6, 2003
    #9
  10. battlelance

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: battlelance

    > I know my scanner can only do 1200dpi optical,
    >but how come it allows me to select up to 9600 dpi?


    It interpolates, which means it's using the optical data and creating new
    pixels. This is not a good thing.
    Bill Hilton, Dec 6, 2003
    #10
  11. > I've since gone digital, but I have a drawer full of 35mm color
    > negatives so I've scanned the negatives in (I have a Epson Perfection
    > 1200U Photo.. what a nice scanner), and I want to print 8x10s...


    That scanner is *far* from ideal for scanning film. It is only 1200 dpi; to
    do justice to film, you need at least twice that. Also, I'm very wary of
    film adapters on flatbed scanners. A scanner designed specifically for film
    should do a substantially better job.

    > Now my problem is, when I look at the picture at 4x6, it looks great.
    > When I set the size to 8x10 in photoshop, it looks really grainy. Is
    > this normal with film? I was under the impression that with 35mm film
    > you could produce good quality 8x10s?


    Depends on the film. 400- and 800-speed film is likely to be grainy in an
    8x10.

    The excessive grain may also be a scanner artifact.


    --
    Clear skies,

    Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 6, 2003
    #11
  12. battlelance

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:30:33 GMT, battlelance
    <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 02:49:07 GMT, Rafe B. <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Feel free to send me a scan snippet if you feel you can beat
    >>any of those scans. (0.25" by 0.25" at native scan resolution.)

    >
    >Actually, the pictures in the link you provided are a great example of
    >the grain I'm talking about...
    >
    >Maybe it's just my eyes, but you can clearly see the grain:
    >
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/buildingb.jpg <- In the sky
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/duomo.jpg <- everywhere



    Yep, that's grain all right. But bear in mind you are looking at
    a piece of film 1/4 of an inch on a side.

    Jim's building pix are taken on Gold 400 film, so they're
    grainy as hell. The duomo pic was probably on Gold 200.

    If you want to see significantly less grain, you've got to
    shoot slides. Or at the very least shoot with the slowest
    possible print film, something like Reala.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe B., Dec 6, 2003
    #12
  13. battlelance

    battlelance Guest

    On 06 Dec 2003 03:48:23 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
    wrote:

    >>From: battlelance

    >
    >> I know my scanner can only do 1200dpi optical,
    >>but how come it allows me to select up to 9600 dpi?

    >
    >It interpolates, which means it's using the optical data and creating new
    >pixels. This is not a good thing.


    Not good, gotcha. :)
    battlelance, Dec 6, 2003
    #13
  14. battlelance

    battlelance Guest

    On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:48:33 -0500, "Michael A. Covington"
    <> wrote:

    >> I've since gone digital, but I have a drawer full of 35mm color
    >> negatives so I've scanned the negatives in (I have a Epson Perfection
    >> 1200U Photo.. what a nice scanner), and I want to print 8x10s...

    >
    >That scanner is *far* from ideal for scanning film. It is only 1200 dpi; to
    >do justice to film, you need at least twice that. Also, I'm very wary of
    >film adapters on flatbed scanners. A scanner designed specifically for film
    >should do a substantially better job.


    Well, I thought it was a nice scanner until everyone told me
    otherwise. It does do a good job for most things though :)

    I'm wondering if it's cheaper for me to have my negatives turned into
    a Kodak Photo CD instead of scanning the film. Now, not knowing what
    kind of images they give you on a Photo CD, I'm curious to know if
    this would give me the quality I need to print 8x10s.
    battlelance, Dec 6, 2003
    #14
  15. On 06 Dec 2003 01:08:21 GMT, (Robertwgross) wrote:

    >Most of my 35mm film scans start at about 100MB and go up to about 150MB, each.



    Yea... that makes the 8x10s look good. 3 or 4 meg doesn't blow up too well,
    does it? :)
    Kerry Sanders, Dec 6, 2003
    #15
  16. battlelance

    Don Stauffer Guest

    One problem is that the words people use may mean different things to
    different people. When you use the term 'grainy,' it means one thing to
    film photographers, but the term is often used for another problem in
    digital photography, where insufficient resolution (sampling frequency)
    is used. Another, better term for the result is 'pixelation,' Now, is
    what you are seeing REALLY grain, or is it the individual pixels. If
    the later, you should increase the scan resolution.

    If the former, this is strange. Unless you were using VERY fast color
    film, grain should not be a factor in a print of 8 x 10 or 8 x 12.

    Another factor, however. Sometimes the printer dither can look like
    classic film grain if a low res or otherwise inadequate printer is used.

    battlelance wrote:
    >
    > This is not exactly related to digital photography, but I figured it
    > was digital enough to ask the very knowledgable folks in this
    > newsgroup.
    >
    > I've since gone digital, but I have a drawer full of 35mm color
    > negatives so I've scanned the negatives in (I have a Epson Perfection
    > 1200U Photo.. what a nice scanner), and I want to print 8x10s...
    >
    > Now my problem is, when I look at the picture at 4x6, it looks great.
    > When I set the size to 8x10 in photoshop, it looks really grainy. Is
    > this normal with film? I was under the impression that with 35mm film
    > you could produce good quality 8x10s?
    >
    > Any help or insight (or just a slap on the head if I'm out of whack!)
    > would be great.
    >
    > Cheers!
    >
    > _BL


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
    Don Stauffer, Dec 6, 2003
    #16
  17. "battlelance" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:48:33 -0500, "Michael A. Covington"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >> I've since gone digital, but I have a drawer full of 35mm color
    > >> negatives so I've scanned the negatives in (I have a Epson Perfection
    > >> 1200U Photo.. what a nice scanner), and I want to print 8x10s...

    ....
    > Well, I thought it was a nice scanner until everyone told me
    > otherwise. It does do a good job for most things though :)

    ....

    Just to make you feel a little better, the 1200U is a nice scanner. }:) It's
    just not the best tool for scanning negatives or slides. A good *film* scanner
    will do a much better job on your negatives, but is not the tool for scanning
    a page from a book. You get the idea. Different tools for different jobs.


    --
    Dan (Woj...) dmaster (at) lucent (dot) com

    "These are the days of miracle and wonder / This is the long distance call
    The way the camera follows us in slo-mo / The way we look to us all
    The way we look to a distant constellation / That's dying in a corner of the sky
    These are the days of miracle and wonder / And don't cry baby, don't cry"
    Dan Wojciechowski, Dec 8, 2003
    #17
  18. battlelance

    Ron Baird Guest

    Hi Battle,

    Having used Photo CD many times over the past 10 15 years, I can say that
    yes, you would get some great scans and easily be able to make an 8x10 print
    or larger. Please try vsiting the Kodak webpages on this service. If I am
    mistaken and you are not relating to Photo CD (which is slowly fading at
    this point), but to Picture CD, then you can still make an 8x10 from the
    scans. The point is to be sure of the technology. Review the two links I
    am sharing to understand both.

    http://www.kodak.com/go/picturecd

    http://www.kodak.com/go/photocd

    Talk to you soon, Battle, let me know which is which.

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company



    "battlelance" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:48:33 -0500, "Michael A. Covington"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >> I've since gone digital, but I have a drawer full of 35mm color
    > >> negatives so I've scanned the negatives in (I have a Epson Perfection
    > >> 1200U Photo.. what a nice scanner), and I want to print 8x10s...

    > >
    > >That scanner is *far* from ideal for scanning film. It is only 1200 dpi;

    to
    > >do justice to film, you need at least twice that. Also, I'm very wary of
    > >film adapters on flatbed scanners. A scanner designed specifically for

    film
    > >should do a substantially better job.

    >
    > Well, I thought it was a nice scanner until everyone told me
    > otherwise. It does do a good job for most things though :)
    >
    > I'm wondering if it's cheaper for me to have my negatives turned into
    > a Kodak Photo CD instead of scanning the film. Now, not knowing what
    > kind of images they give you on a Photo CD, I'm curious to know if
    > this would give me the quality I need to print 8x10s.
    >
    >
    Ron Baird, Dec 8, 2003
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. elie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    957
  2. elie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    881
  3. elie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    932
  4. elie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    949
  5. elie
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    779
    shelleyleena
    Nov 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page