Scanning papers or negatives?

[wogster]

If that is the case you are doing something very wrong.

It depends on how good a scan you want, if your okay with a basic quick scan that's one thing, the secret in scanning though is to make as many of the adjustments possible at the point of scanning, rather then hacking away at it with Photoshop. That can mean needing to scan, adjust, scan, adjust over and over until your happy with the result. Kinda like making a wet print in a way....

 

[JBrunner]

These days it is usually nearly impossible for me to adjust a neg scan to resemble my finished print. It would take as much time on the damn computer as it does to make the print in the first place, and I'm just not that interested. I'm also not interested in scanned negatives except in an academic way. There are so many ways to interpret a negative when printing (infinite ways, actually) that for me looking at one is like smelling cooking.

 

[VincentM]

quite interesting, I would not have guessed that so many used to scan their prints... well it makes sense though. What for scanner would you get for scanning a 30x40cm print??

 

[Craig Swensson]

Well i have been thinking about this same subject for some time. It seems to me that once you join into a forum you start loking around the gallery, then the next stage is to upload your own photos, so then you think, ah i need a scanner and i need a good one because my photos may look crap, so do i get a neg scanner or flatbed etc,etc,but wait a minute this is APUG and many of the gallery photos are neg scanned!
Then there is the realisation that even with all the pissing about with adjustments your print is never going to look quite how you want it to be represented.
I really would rather spend the time and money on film and if need to scan then just use the 99.99 all in one to scan prints.