Digital BW, The Print

Steve,

Yes, you're right. The point of my post was just to simplify the 
sorting task and definitely not to print from. I recognize that this 
might not have been a side topic from the original post, but for me 
at least, it was a critical part of the workflow since I might only 
want prints from 2 or 3 out of 100. And with those 2 or 3, yes 
definitely scan with the best scanner available.

Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Err unless I am mistaken the point of the earlier post was to 
describe a
> fast and efficient means of sorting through a massive pile of negs 
in order
> to determine which should be worked on.....
> 
> 
> > From: Peter Nelson <pnweb@s...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:37:33 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: How Best to Scan older BW Negatives
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Scott 
Rowed"
> >  
> >> The fastest way I found was just to lay the negs on a light 
table
> >> and photograph them with a digital camera. In Photoshop I set 
up a
> >> batch that inverted the files and applied auto levels. The 
results
> >> were surprisingly good. Sure I wouldn't print off them, but for 
the
> >> initial sorting they were more than adequate.
> >> 
> >> You could also use a fast scanner for this purpose, but I think 
the
> >> camera saved a lot of time.
> > 
> > A 6MP camera will give you roughly 3000x2000 pixels.  And since 
the
> > the color CCD's in a camera use a bayer-pattern, the actual
> > luminosity resolution is even lower than that.
> > 
> > On the other hand, a 4000 DPI scan of even a SMALL MF negative, 
e.g.,
> > 6 x 4.5 cm, will yield 9600 x 7200 pixels.  And obviously it's 
even
> > worse for 6x6cm, 6x7cm or 4x5in.   So you are throwing away a 
TON of
> > detail, assuming the original negs were reasonably sharp.  You 
are
> > probably also thowing away a ton of dynamic range compared to a 
film
> > scanner.
> > 
> > MF holds LOTS of detail and lots of tonal-range subtlety.   
That's
> > the whole reason for using MF in the first place!  What you're 
doing
> > is taking all your Hasselblads or Mamiya RB67's or whatever and
> > replacing the film backs on them with a little APS camera.
> >