I've been shooting with my Nikon D70 (6.1 Mp) and love the entire process of digital photography. However, I'm limited to (approximately) 10x15 prints. I've been thinking of shooting portraits with my Hasselblad loaded with 120 film then getting the film scanned at a local photo processing lab. The reason for this is so that I could do digital post-processing to control the image before I print. Has anyone tried this? Would I be losing too much quality going from a negative to a scanned file? Would I be wasting my time? Your input would be much appreciated.
Robert

I've been thinking of shooting portraits with my Hasselblad loaded with 120 film then getting the film scanned at a local photo processing lab. The reason for this is so that I could do digital post-processing to control the image before I print. Has anyone tried this?

Robert, this is the way the publishing industry had been doing it for years, at least before digital capture file use became wide spread. Fact is, some mags still prefer film which is then scanned to get it into the digital system.

The key is a high quality scan, which probably means drum, and those ain't cheap. Plus the resulting files are quite large (might be cumbersome to work with on all but a high end computer).

If your plan is to do flatbed scans, I think you'd be better off sticking with the DSLR. Scanned film almost always involves time-consuming editing to clean up dust and dirt on the scanner.

You can make your photoshop file larger than the original 6mp to get bigger enlargements. Experiment with different ps enlarge methods to see which gives you the best results. Also check into plugin programs for expanding your file resolution...

I'm limited to (approximately) 10x15 prints.


How are you having your prints made? I have a 16x24 print hanging on my wall that looks great. That image was also taken with a 6.1mp DSLR. I didn't do anything special to it to resize it for printing. Just a little sharpening, a touch of saturation and I uploaded it to Mpix and ordered the print.

Like Steve said, unless you are going to spend the money to have quality scans made, I'd stick with what you're doing.

Steve---thanks for your detailed answer and logical approach to problem-solving. All makes perfect sense!

Michael--- thanks for confirming that a 16x20 print from a 6.1 mp camera is possible. I'll definitely try it out.

I've been getting 8x10 prints made at the local photo lab and the quality is acceptable. I'm buying an Epson R1800 to get control over the final and most important part of the digital workflow.

Thank you both for your wisdom.
Robert

If it will help, let me tell you that I was a dedicated medium format shooter. After seeing what pure digital could do, I recently boxed up all my MF equipment for good.

I still scan 35mm film but I haven't yet found a high quality, affordable scanner that will do 120 format film. Even if I did, the extra time and effort would probably not be worth it. Any quality advantage that you may have had with MF will be negated during the conversion.

Even if your photo lab makes enlargements from 120 film, you may find that they are using the same equipment that they do with 35mm and digital media. They simply scan your 120 film and print the digital file - all advantage is GONE! I only found one local pro lab that would print direct from larger format. But even they would have to make 4" x 5" duplicate negatives of my originals from which to make giant wall-covering prints. Again, all these scans and duplications only degrade your original image. Mostly, I printed off 120 work in my darkroom but I'm getting rid of that.

So, shoot digital to maintain control, efficiency, and quality.

I only found one local pro lab that would print direct from larger format. But even they would have to make 4" x 5" duplicate negatives of my originals from which to make giant wall-covering prints.

It's not unusual for labs to have to make internegs to create elargements past a certain size. It can be expensive and yes, has limitations.

I'm not saying you can't get really good results from scanning medium format film, it's just that I don't think it would be worth the trouble. To me, the exception would be older MF negs of subject matter that you can't shoot again.

Quote: "I'm not saying you can't get really good results from scanning medium format film, it's just that I don't think it would be worth the trouble."


That's exactly what I was initially concerned about... would it be worth the cost and effort. I got my answer. Thank you everyone.

Robert