Scans from "Traditional" contact sheet vs. negatives

Hi, I've been looking at scanning negatives lately, and a thought occurs: would scanning 35mm images from a traditional contact sheet give better and/or easier-yet-equivalent results than scanning the same image from the negative?

My thought process is:

- the contact print is basically a small high-resolution photo, so scanning it should yield good results at the same dpi as scanning a negative (assuming of course the contact sheet is exposed decently)

- with negatives, it seems to me the scanner has to do more "work" - eg, triggering and managing the backlight, ICE, etc - with a contact sheet, it's essentially scanning from a piece of paper, no backlight, etc required, and when it comes to technology I'm a big fan of the KISS philosophy (Keeping It Simple, Stupid, not wearing black and white makeup and dressing in tight pants - less complicated work means less chance of technological mistakes/compromises

- the added bonus with contact sheets of not having to deal with negative holders, which, although I've never used them, a lot of people seem to struggle with based on what I've read so far (positioning them properly, keeping the negatives flat in the scanner, etc).

I've done a fair bit of searching, and I haven't come across much information either pro or con for this approach, so I'd be interested to hear people's opinions either way.

Thanks!

"would scanning 35mm images from a traditional contact sheet give better and/or easier-yet-equivalent results than scanning the same image from the negative?"

NO

OK - could you please elaborate a bit - I'd like to learn how the concept falls short (not disputing your statement, I'd just like to understand more about it).

mabman said:

Hi, I've been looking at scanning negatives lately, and a thought occurs: would scanning 35mm images from a traditional contact sheet give better and/or easier-yet-equivalent results than scanning the same image from the negative?

Click to expand...

NO!

Don Bryant

No... You are limited by the resolution of the paper. Scanning it to size may look great, but as you enlarge it.... mush. Try testing, you'll get the idea.

A contact print is low res. as Bill points out. In addition reflective scans do not capature the breadth of tones as well as transmissive scans.

I see - thanks for the clarifications I especially wasn't aware of the subtleties of transmissive vs. reflective scanning, and the resolution of the paper itself didn't occur to me...

Thanks, I've learned something today

If nothing else, you're also dealing with a 2nd generation copy rather than the original. The general rule of thumb is you always loose something with each successive generation. Assuming everything else was equal, the scan from the original neg should be better.