Quick Nikon LS8000/9000 question?

[John Wiegerink]

When you scan 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 negatives, do you scan at 4000dpi? I find it very slow and almost overkill. Just wondering what everyone else does or feels on using max dpi.

 

[Saganich]

I think there will be two schools of thought: 1) always scan at max so you don't have to bother redoing complex post work incase the national gallery wants a copy. 2) scan everything at a print size most likely to fit with the reality of what your actually going to do with the image. In my case that's 11x14.

 

[Steven Lee]

@John Wiegerink Yes. I made the mistake of scanning at reasonable resolutions in the past only to see my definition of "reasonable" change over the years as the size and pixel density of monitors continued to increase. I already know that my next monitor will have a 250dpi panel of approx 6,000x3,000 pixels. My scans from 2005-2007 when I opted NOT use the full resolution of my then-brand-new Coolscan 5000, now look like a bad decision. I made the similar mistake when I felt that full 36MP RAW files from my then-new DLSR was too much, and used a smaller RAW setting for a few years. Now I wish I had bigger versions of those photos. So... I can't comment on the sentimental value of the images you're scanning, that's your call. But strictly from the technology point of view, there is no such thing as too much resolution IMO. Even when the image doesn't have much fine detail, you get massively better looking (finer) grain at 4000dpi and higher.

I do not believe that print sizes matter at all. Even today paper is not the most expressive medium to enjoy photographs, and in the future we'll continue to get more electronic display form factors: not just tablets, laptops and phones but flexible or/and mountable "electronic paper" types of panels and various forms of wearable screens that collectively will eliminate the need for paper (nearly?) completely.

[EDIT] I also believe that pixel peeping will continue to be normalized via electronic zooming. There's nothing wrong with a viewer wanting to zoom in to be able to read the name of a restaurant in the background, or to see the make/brand of a watch the subject is wearing, etc. Static dimensions are a relic of the past. In other words, and this should be quite obvious by now, I believe strongly that electronic forms of reproduction are strictly superior already and will continue to gain dominance over their analog counterparts, while the analog forms of capture aren't going away any time soon. I would love to be able to scan everything at 5000ppi, even medium and large format.

 

[250swb]

I'd scan everything quickly at a medium resolution to start with as a digital contact sheet. Edit and scan the 'master copy' of any chosen image at full resolution and process and resize from that. If full resolution seems like overkill at any time go back to the image editing/culling process and what makes you think it's not worth the time and listen to your inner critic.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I scan everything at 4000. I often make large prints, and if you make a lower res scan then later need a larger print, you have to not only rescan but redo all the editing you had to do to the file. Too much work, much easier to scan at the highest resolution at the beginning and do the work once.

 

[sojournermike]

I agree with Chris on this. Always max resolution for scanning. It just saves work later. Plus even small prints look better with more rather than adequate resolution.

250swb has a point too, about being your own critic. I’d tend to view it slightly differently though - if I’ve invested time, effort and storage in something not worth printing, what can I learn for next time. Applies to digital capture too of course.

I’m not in agreement with Steven with respect to the obsolescence of paper. Paper and digital reproduction serve very different purposes and comparing ‘quality’ isn’t the point. The quality of paper reproduction lies in the object and its, relative, permanence. Yes you can pass an iPad around, but it’s a slideshow, not an object. I can put my 32 inch monitor on the wall, but it’s still a slideshow. It can look amazing, but it’s not an object in itself. I’m not knocking digital reproduction, it’s really become quite amazing, but it is a different thing that does not replace paper and similar. The NFT debacle should teach us that.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I scan at 4000 dpi, as I'd prefer reduce the workload overall, accepting a longer process at the initial stage.

 

[albireo]

@John Wiegerink Yes. I made the mistake of scanning at reasonable resolutions in the past only to see my definition of "reasonable" change over the years as the size and pixel density of monitors continued to increase. I already know that my next monitor will have a 250dpi panel of approx 6,000x3,000 pixels. My scans from 2005-2007 when I opted NOT use the full resolution of my then-brand-new Coolscan 5000, now look like a bad decision. I made the similar mistake when I felt that full 36MP RAW files from my then-new DLSR was too much, and used a smaller RAW setting for a few years. Now I wish I had bigger versions of those photos. So... I can't comment on the sentimental value of the images you're scanning, that's your call. But strictly from the technology point of view, there is no such thing as too much resolution IMO. Even when the image doesn't have much fine detail, you get massively better looking (finer) grain at 4000dpi and higher.

I do not believe that print sizes matter at all. Even today paper is not the most expressive medium to enjoy photographs, and in the future we'll continue to get more electronic display form factors: not just tablets, laptops and phones but flexible or/and mountable "electronic paper" types of panels and various forms of wearable screens that collectively will eliminate the need for paper (nearly?) completely.

[EDIT] I also believe that pixel peeping will continue to be normalized via electronic zooming. There's nothing wrong with a viewer wanting to zoom in to be able to read the name of a restaurant in the background, or to see the make/brand of a watch the subject is wearing, etc. Static dimensions are a relic of the past. In other words, and this should be quite obvious by now, I believe strongly that electronic forms of reproduction are strictly superior already and will continue to gain dominance over their analog counterparts, while the analog forms of capture aren't going away any time soon. I would love to be able to scan everything at 5000ppi, even medium and large format.

Love this comment and I agree with a lot of it, but I know a couple of hardcore analogue photography forums in my country where by posting this you'd give the resident zealots a brain aneurysm

There are people out there who can't quite fathom why you'd use analog equipment if the purpose was something else than darkroom printing. Truly bizarre IMO.

 

[albireo]

When you scan 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 negatives, do you scan at 4000dpi? I find it very slow and almost overkill. Just wondering what everyone else does or feels on using max dpi.

John, personally I always scan using my Coolscan's native resolution of 4000dpi.

What I'll often do however, when I scan black and white material, is I'll discard colour information prior to creating my 4000dpi raw file.
Essentially, I choose a channel in Vuescan and discard the other two.

I have not seen huge advantages in retaining all channels in the saved file and discarding later. Also, a a greyscale 4000dpi 6x9 file is much smaller and more manageable than a RGB one in my somewhat modest computer setup.

The above won't make acquisition faster, though.

 

[Steven Lee]

Love this comment and I agree with a lot of it, but I know a couple of hardcore analogue photography forums in my country where by posting this you'd give the resident zealots a brain aneurysm

There are people out there who can't quite fathom why you'd use analog equipment if the purpose was something else than darkroom printing. Truly bizarre IMO.

That is a common view, you are right. My point was that scanning at maximum resolution allows us to have all the options. It doesn't take anything away. And wet printing and inkjet printing are always there for those who need that.

 

[John Wiegerink]

John, personally I always scan using my Coolscan's native resolution of 4000dpi.

What I'll often do however, when I scan black and white material, is I'll discard colour information prior to creating my 4000dpi raw file.
Essentially, I choose a channel in Vuescan and discard the other two.

I have not seen huge advantages in retaining all channels in the saved file and discarding later. Also, a a greyscale 4000dpi 6x9 file is much smaller and more manageable than a RGB one in my somewhat modest computer setup.

The above won't make acquisition faster, though.

That makes sense to me and I'll have to try that. When I get back to my cottage where the Nikon 8000 is at I'll give it a go. I might just PM you then and ask a couple of questions on how you go about doing that. It would be nice getting my file size down on my B&W scans.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

That makes sense to me and I'll have to try that. When I get back to my cottage where the Nikon 8000 is at I'll give it a go. I might just PM you then and ask a couple of questions on how you go about doing that. It would be nice getting my file size down on my B&W scans.

I generally save my black & white scans as 16-bit linear black & white tiffs which cuts file size to a third unsurprisingly.

 

[Kerdonnt]

Thank you. Very interesting. I'm one of those who prefer traditional wet printing or inkjet printing.