35mm vs Medium format

You are right, no one should compare a flatbed scanner with a dedicated film scanner.

In the future I will use the Epson scanner mainly for scans from my Fuji 690 negatives and I think the quality will be sufficient at least for me as I will not do a pixel level check for a scan from a 6x9 film.

Another option would be to buy a Nikon 8000 or 9000 scanner, but analog MF photography is not my main business and so I won't spend the extra money on a new MF scanner.
I use a Nikon 9000 for all my scanning, and I am satisfied with it.

Luckily, photography is not a business for me. So I have the luxury of choosing what to spend on based on my own subjective criteria, without having to "justify" anything.
 
A nice situation for you.

I am also lucky that photography is not a business for me. I will buy a Nikon 9000 or 8000 when I find a reasonable deal that suits my wallet, until then I can live with my Epson.
 
Maybe late with my comments, but while the 35mm films are excellent, medium films (formats) deliver "always" better results. Or, from my own experience, medium format is far more "forgiving" i.e. if you make some mistakes :-) . But regarding the films, negative film is far more forgivable than the positive. Actually with (today's) scanning, the gap might be much narrower.
 
I realised the 67 Ektachrome scan came out a little dark... so I lightened it slightly to better reflect what the original transparency looks like on a bright light table.

Also, I am now posting full resolution 4000ppi scans for both, to better appreciate the IMHO significant improvement in technical quality that the larger format gives:



35mm Ektar 100

35mm Ektar 100



View attachment cbdeb237adfd432c9f044eff7b227622.jpg
6x7 Ektachrome E100



--
Marco
 
The 6x7 does look better. But a couple of thoughts on your methodology.

While some 35mm desktop can get close to 4000dpi res 3200dpi is more realistic.

If you are using an Epson flatbed for the 6x7 then 2400dpi is about its max. I find I can talk myself into 3200dpi for my V700 2400 is more realistic.

Why not scan to 20mp if that is your goal, resizing is just adding another step, I would think scanning to 20mp would make a consistent work flow.
 
The 6x7 does look better. But a couple of thoughts on your methodology.

While some 35mm desktop can get close to 4000dpi res 3200dpi is more realistic.

If you are using an Epson flatbed for the 6x7 then 2400dpi is about its max. I find I can talk myself into 3200dpi for my V700 2400 is more realistic.

Why not scan to 20mp if that is your goal, resizing is just adding another step, I would think scanning to 20mp would make a consistent work flow.
I am scanning with a Nikon SuperCoolscan 9000ED.

4000dpi is its native nominal resolution, and independent tests have shown that the actual optical resolution is very close to it.
 
Gotcha, definitely a greaat scanner, but still why scan at 4000 when you are going to resize afterwards. Especially a large resize for the 6x7.
 
Gotcha, definitely a greaat scanner, but still why scan at 4000 when you are going to resize afterwards. Especially a large resize for the 6x7.
I aim to scan once, at max resolution, and archive. Then I resize if/as needed for specific purposes.
 
I realised the 67 Ektachrome scan came out a little dark... so I lightened it slightly to better reflect what the original transparency looks like on a bright light table.

Also, I am now posting full resolution 4000ppi scans for both, to better appreciate the IMHO significant improvement in technical quality that the larger format gives:

35mm Ektar 100

35mm Ektar 100

View attachment cbdeb237adfd432c9f044eff7b227622.jpg
6x7 Ektachrome E100
Marco I never developed the skill to be able to photograph Medium Format film the way you do here. I am rather taken by this 6×7 photograph.



--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
I realised the 67 Ektachrome scan came out a little dark... so I lightened it slightly to better reflect what the original transparency looks like on a bright light table.
Not to everyone’s taste I know, but I preferred the original (dark) Ektachrome . Have you tried using a IT8 target ? That way (in theory) you get as close as possible to the original slide and don’t need to edit (this is to me one of the big advantages of slide film, I can do a perfect scan without messing about in Lightroom or Photoshop).
Also, I am now posting full resolution 4000ppi scans for both, to better appreciate the IMHO significant improvement in technical quality that the larger format gives:

35mm Ektar 100

35mm Ektar 100

View attachment cbdeb237adfd432c9f044eff7b227622.jpg
6x7 Ektachrome E100
 
I realised the 67 Ektachrome scan came out a little dark... so I lightened it slightly to better reflect what the original transparency looks like on a bright light table.

Also, I am now posting full resolution 4000ppi scans for both, to better appreciate the IMHO significant improvement in technical quality that the larger format gives:

35mm Ektar 100

35mm Ektar 100

View attachment cbdeb237adfd432c9f044eff7b227622.jpg
6x7 Ektachrome E100
Marco I never developed the skill to be able to photograph Medium Format film the way you do here. I am rather taken by this 6×7 photograph.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
Thank you!

--
Marco
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top