Pellicle, thanks for such a good response. This type of answer helps understand what I don't understand...LOL! Now I know enough to ask a few more questions. I hope this thread is helping other people as well???
personally I learnt heaps by following older threads in the past (back when there was usenet) so hopefully the present generation isn't too spoonfed.
One thing however is that stuff changes, back in 2000 noone (well almost noone) was thinking of colour management and only a few really grasped the technology. Computing was new and older photographers were cautious to even consider digital.
there has been a quiet revolution (although perhaps it wasn't quiet now that I think about that).
1. Would I scan at different resolutions based on the size of print I was planning to make?
you might ... though it depends on some things. Firstly let me say that i regard the film as almost exactly the same as optical storage and my scanner as the drive which access it. I use 4x5 sheet, and as you can imagine high res scans mean large files a Gig per image is compact. I don't want to spend the money on such a large storage system (yes I *know* they're getting cheaper) and then have to enter into the process of managing that digital resource (migration, backup, verification ...)
secondly I don't manage large numbers of images in film (under a thousand) so I find it easier to manage that resource in that manner rather than digitising
Next I can honestly say that since I started scanning in 1997 or so I have learned quite a bit. Specifically I get much better scans now from the same sheet of film which I scanned back in 1997, and its not all attributable to better gear!
so ...
For example if I were going to print at 8x10 vs. 16x20? When I first asked the question I thought there would be settings that fit all of my needs.
perhaps ... considering all the above points will you never get better at it and do you want to commit the storage?
its a rubbery number but to name one, to print 16x20 (assuming inches) you'll need 4800 x 6000 pixels from your scan. Assuming a monochrome file that's about 460.8 bytes or the better part of a CD (and don't archive *there*). Once you have that you can of course print smaller by scaling the image and I would argue print larger by accepting that because viewing distance will be greater that you can get away with 180dpi in the print (interpolate up with an algorithm like bicubic or allow the printer driver to scale it)
I do this on some images which I have had professionally scanned am very satisfied with and don't then pull my tranny out risking any further wear and tear on it (although well handled that's quite a small risk).
Many time when I look at the negative on the table and it looks very sharp my scan is not as sharp so obviously my scanning technique is lacking.
could be, or it could be your focus ... check it. (I'll put this into a blog later, but for now...)
*Get a small stack of glass microscope slides from either a good toy store or a chemist or a scientific supplier. Say 4 of them
* write on one side at the far end with a permanent marker pen numbers starting with 1 and going through to 4
* put them face down on the glass in a stack which is offset so that one ends sticks out past the slide below it ... like this
___------1
__------2
_------3
------4
where _ is the scanner glass and ----- is the glass slide
the numbers will now be clearly visible from below (where the scan head is).
* scan this using *exactly the settings you use* and then examine the numbers
you will be able to see which one is sharper and so because you know the thickness you will be able to decide where the sharpest point is.
do not assume that the glass is 100% perfectly parallel with the path of the scan head, such precsion alignment is what you'd expect in a Heidleberg system not an Epson (although I understand that Epson make the parts and Heidleberg simply assemble and tune them better than Epson does ... that's why they cost $50,000)
from there you can consider adjusting the height of your film if its not at the optimal place
you're welcome