Different scan quality. Which is better?

[kapybarus]

Hi, I used two different photolabs and one seems better in developong and other in scanning. What do you think?

Scan one has more dpi, resolution and MB. Is it overall better or just better for larger prints and internet ok?

Thank you




Scan two with lower dpi

 

[excalibur2]

Well basically the type of scanner determines the resolution\detail and all a higher scan does is packs in more pixel per sq cm which is needed for crops or large prints...but if you are going to squash a high scan down to 1000px for the net then a low Asda scan (no crops) can look just as good on the screen.
As Asda use the same scanner (Fuji frontier3000) to get the detail as labs...I'm happy with their low scan as I know what the m\c is set up for (in my opinion for prints) and I can correct in Photoshop (well can't in some cases of over sharpening).

 

[ChrisR]

You don't say what film size you're using as it can make a difference... but I'm assuming 35mm . First off, most scans even the basic 1200 pixels per inch of a "small scan" are enough for at least a 6*4 inch print (15*10 cm?), or for downsizing to the max 1024 pixel dimensions for use on here. However, I usually prefer to get my scans done to at least a "medium" resolution of around 2000 to 2400 pixels per inch. It seems to me that gives me a lot more flexibility with cropping and rotations to level pics. At 2000 ppi a scan of a 35mm frame will give you a 6 mpixel image, which is a decent size. Of course, they can then save that to a JPEG with varying quality, so for a given pixel count, the smaller the JPEG the higher the compression, and the harder it might be to work with the files later.

However, size isn't everything with scans. You should expect that they interpret your negative well, and give you a decent range of densities from white through to black. There should preferably be no or only small gaps at the ends of the histogram. The results should be sharp in in-focus areas, and show fine texture well. Only you can work out whether you are happy with the scans.

One thing you can do is inspect the EXIF and related metadata for the images. This should tell you for example if they both use the same type of scanner; as Brian says, the Fuji Frontier is perhaps the most common (and very capable, if used by skilled operators), but there are others. You can also see the pixel dimensions that they chose.

Of course, if you can afford the investment, a good choice for black and white would be to get your own scanner and scan your own. That way you can, for example, scan the "ordinary" shots at, say, 1200 ppi, and the ones you think look "special" at 2400 ppi or higher (although claimed resolutions above about 1800 ppi for most affordable scanners are not really what they appear; marketing speak and file bloat rather than extra info off your film). I use a dedicated Plustek 35mm scanner, but many people use an Epson V500 or related scanner, which can do medium format as well as 35mm. Models like the 4490 can be found cheaply second hand, I believe.

Good luck!