Hi, Your numbers don't make any sense to me - but the math of these things is not my strength. A 3600ppi scan from one of my negs, on a 16-bit dedicated film scanner, works out to be about 33mb and has dimensions of more than 5600 x 3600. If I were to scan full frame, showing some borders, I'd be at about 35mb. Don't know how you're getting such a small scan.
You might do better by scanning the final prints, but the best alternative is to get a high quality, dedicated film scanner. Shel > [Original Message] > From: luben karavelov > > There's something I don't understand. You mention 3600ppi color scans > > yield a file of about 25mb for preview and web. That seems very small. > > You should have a file a lot closer to 100mb. Then you ask about scanning > > B&W negatives. Even those should be more than 25mb with a 16bit scan. So, > > lets first start with what it is you're scanning and what scanner you're > > using for your quality work. > > > > The Epson is a terrible scanner for 35mm negs, especially if you want ant > > decent quality. > > > > Shel > > > > Hello Shel, > > Sorry for the error I have made. It is not 16bit color but 16bit > grayscale. The final image is 4500x3000 pixels for a leica negative > (most of the time I am shooting on 35mm film). The math is > 4500x3000x2/1024/1024 = 25,7 Mb (2 bytes per pixel, Kb and Kb are 1024 > bytes or kbytes). I make the gray from the green channel of the sensor > (the red and infrared are somehow blurred, blue and green are OK but > green has a greater dyniamic). I am using vuescan software and adjust > the levels in cinepaint (some kind of GIMP supporting 16 and 32 bit > color space). > > Cencerning the scanner, may be this is the cause that I could not get a > decent quality of the scans. > > For my quality work I make silverprint copies in my wet darkroom. Maybe > scanning the copies could give me better scans, I have to try... > > Best regards > luben
