Scanning Prints vs Negatives

Forums

3 replies [Last post]

Submitted By: Bob Walker

Location: California

Joined: Jul 10 2005

Posts:

Scanning Prints vs Negatives

Posted: December 10, 2005 - 12:57pm

We have an Epson RX620 All-in-One that is used mainly for small prints and copies. As I have begun to scan in some 35mm prints, I got to wondering if it is better to scan from the print or the negative, since often, we have both on hand. I've read some negative (no pun intended) comments about scanning negatives and was wondering if anyone had any input on the subject.

Thanks,
Bob

Submitted By: lightontheland

Location: Crossville, TN

Joined: Jun 2 2005

Posts:

Re: Scanning Prints vs Negatives

Posted: December 10, 2005 - 2:00pm

Bob,

You'll get much higher quality prints from a scan of the negative than from a scanned print. It's always better to scan the original document than a copy of the original, and essentially a print is a copy of the original negative....

Submitted By: Bob Walker

Location: California

Joined: Jul 10 2005

Posts:

Re: Scanning Prints vs Negatives

Posted: December 10, 2005 - 2:45pm

Thanks, Bill. I guess I didn't think of it that way - it makes perfect sense.

Bob

Submitted By: gsrunyan

Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Joined: Dec 14 2005

Posts:

Re: Scanning Prints vs Negatives

Posted: December 28, 2005 - 7:27am

Any print made from a negative does not contain all the information in the negative. The classic example is a strongly backlit photo of a couple: standard machines will average the scene, producing two shadows rather than an image of two people [this actually happened to me!!] Scanning the print means you will never find the couple in the photo-only their shadows. Their image, however, is in the negative.

I have two scanners: 1) a 4-in-1 for scanning text and documents and 2) a film scanner for scanning slides and negatives.

Glenn