Scan resolution and print output size

I have just had several 35mm b&w negs scanned commercially to their "economy" scan which yields a 3000x4500 file. The lab suggests this scan to be printed up to 10x15 inches (or 300 ppi). I have printed at 13x19 and the print seems to be "soft" to me suggesting(?) not enough res as this is printed to 230 ppi.

They offer "premium" scans at up to 8000 ppi which would give about a 96MP file and would go to 27"x40" if printed at 300 ppi. This scan is very expensive.

So my questions are as follows:

1) How much useful information can one expect to get from a 35mm T-max 100 negative? (It seems that regardless of the resolution that it is scanned at, the negative can only yield so much data.)

2) Or in another way, what is the largest digital print one can expect to get from a 35mm scan, yielding a sharp image?

3) What is the highest scan resolution that will yield a quality image? What I mean is, at what scan resolution are we wasting our time or money?

Also, what is considered the proper resolution for quality printing? 300ppi?

I'd say it depends on the film and the original quality. With film, for instance,ISO is a factor as well as technique. A 3000x45000 image should print a 12x18 (or 13x19) image but may show some softness (I was never comfortable printing film (35mm) above 11x14 or smaller, scanned or direct printin). However, yours (and others') mileage may vary.

Just for comparison, have you printed that negative directly at an enlarged size, 11x14 or better? That may be a good "point of reference" for this type of thing. My digital shots handle large printing much better than my direct enlargements or scans.

Actually you make a good point. The particular image was never printed in the wet darkroom. I need to find an 11x14 print and scan that and then print it. That would be a good comparison.

I never printed a 35mm above 11x14, but I did not have the ability to do so either.

Yeah, 11x14 was to me a good "make it or break it" print size -- it showed all the flaws, but was generally acceptable if framed and viewed at a decent distance despite its flaws. You would definitely be able to tell if the image could be printed larger, and if so what to expect from a high quality scan. By high quality, I'd think the one they delivered to you should be OK if the direct print was OK. But I'd think a scan would never be better than a direct optical print.

I used to make 16x20 prints from my home darkroom but it was usually pushing the limits of 35mm and my lenses (camera and enlarger) at the time so the result was just ok. 8x10's and 11x14's were excellent.

My Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED scans at 4000 and after removing grain and applying curves I down rez to 2400 x 3000 to yield an 8x10 at 300 PPI, then add some sharpening. I'm really happy with the resulting prints. Any softness I see looks to be due to manual focus errors and less than premium optics. Some day I should shoot some film with my 24-70 f/2.8L and scan it to see if a decent 16x20 can be had using T-Max 100, realizing I'd need to up-rez a tiny bit even if I print at 250 PPI.

8000 would give a ton of room for cropping and down rez'ing but the file sizes are huge.

Yeah, I always assume that my film shots were all sub-par in one way or another -- skills and the fact that I tended to use general-purpose ISO 200 or sometimes even 400 more often than 100, and then I could see the ISO breakdown at larger print sizes. That, plus my optics were no where what I shoot with today...

tonylong wrote in post #9731928
Yeah, I always assume that my film shots were all sub-par in one way or another -- skills and the fact that I tended to use general-purpose ISO 200 or sometimes even 400 more often than 100, and then I could see the ISO breakdown at larger print sizes. That, plus my optics were no where what I shoot with today...

I used to shoot an Oly OM-1MD with a 50mm f/1.4, and took a lot of shots with it wide open because for a long time I didn't have a flash. The images look decent as 5x7's, but they fell apart > 8x10 because of missed focus and softness from being wide open. I also remember that I changed the focus screen on the camera a few years after I got it because it didn't even come with a center split-screen. When my eyes got worse I had to either go for an AF camera or give up.

I used to like shooting Panatomic-X years ago because of the fine grain, but I also shot lots of Tri-X which was pretty gritty looking. The images from my Elan were better as far as grain and focus (shot lots of T-Max 100) but the optics I used were much worse than with my OM-1 (Canon 28-105). I'd really be curious to see how good it can get using film with a fine grain film and premium optics especially since I was able to make decent 8x10's with the equipment I used to use.

I've printed scans made with my Nikon Coolscan-V ED (4000dpi optical resolution) at A3 without any issues whatsoever...

René Damkot wrote in post #9732860
I've printed scans made with my Nikon Coolscan-V ED (4000dpi optical resolution) at A3 without any issues whatsoever...

A3 is just a bit larger than 11x14. Have you ever tried up-rez'ing to A2, which is just a bit larger than 16x20?

I can't claim any expertise in this stuff, but from what I gather most film shooters who want to print large just move on to MF shooting, for the various issues we had to deal with shooting 35mm. A3 or B3 is what I'd consider "pushing medium" -- good results if the underlying image is good, but showing the underlying breakdown from things like higher ISO grain, etc. It's similar to the digital situaltion, for sure, except that digital ISO gives you better results at higher ISOs than film high ISOs ever could because of the physical characteristics of high ISO film.

I think in time we will have this option, in digital equivalent, at affordable prices. For now the more affordables are in APS-C sensors which are at about 15MP. The full size sensor DSLRs and the Hasselblads with digital backs are much more expensive, and out of my range. I did have two medium formats when I was still a filmie.(Did I make a new word?:lol

I did try resampling from 240 to 360 ppi and the results, on that particular image, were good. I did not use the sharpening option either. So, while I realize that there can be real problems if this method is used, I believe that it may offer some usefulness especially if I use it judiciously by limiting the increase to a small percentage, such as going from 240ppi up to 300ppi.

I wonder if Rene will comment on this thought?

this is weird. i scanned a b&w negative at 6400dpi on my scanner and then downsize it aloooottttt to about 3000 pixels on the long end. i then ordered a "true b&w print" from mpixpro in 6x9 size and the resulting print was soft. sure, my scanner isnt a coolscan (canon 8800f) but the image is CLEARLY sharp on the monitor, without any sharpening after scanning.

what im getting at it is, what type of print are you ordering, i think the "true b&w prints" from mpix might have been the issue, i will re order using theyre color process and change my colorspace to srgb, its still b&w. you might want to try the same thing.

Question:

Is not "downsizing" a re-sampling where the software removes pixels based upon the program? It seems that if I am correct that this might degrade the image.

while i see your point ive always found downsampling to either keep the IQ the same or make it better. and when you send an image to a print lab they downsize is to their printers capablitlities anyway.