Hot take: scanning at 2400 DPI is usually a waste of time

I spent 3 years scanning all my medium format negatives at 2400 DPI because everyone said that was the sweet spot. Then last month I scanned the same roll at 1200 DPI and honestly I can barely tell the difference on a normal screen or a 4x6 print. People act like you need massive resolution for home viewing but unless you're making a 16x20 print, 1200 DPI saves you hours of file processing and hard drive space. Same goes for 35mm film - 2400 DPI is overkill for Instagram or sharing online. Anybody else think the scanning high-res trend is mostly hype for casual shooters?

3 comments

3 Comments

zara_hunt28d ago

2400 DPI is great if you're scanning a postage stamp" - that's the truth. Solidarity.

grantthomas1mo ago

My brother in law runs a small photo lab and he told me the same thing. Most people bring in files that are way bigger than needed for standard prints. He showed me a 8x10 from a 1200 DPI scan of 35mm and I honestly thought it looked fine. I think the whole high res thing got pushed by scanner companies and then hobbyists just repeated it until it became gospel. For real though, 2400 DPI is great if you're scanning a postage stamp or cropping into a tiny detail, but for a full frame negative it's mostly just filling up your hard drive.

wesleypatel1mo ago

Gotta push back a little on the 1200 DPI for 35mm thing lol. For a standard 4x6 or even a 5x7, yeah 1200 is totally fine, but for an 8x10 you're actually only getting about 120 PPI in the print, which is noticeably soft if you look close. Real world lab tests show you need at least 2400 DPI on 35mm to get a sharp 8x10 without seeing the grain or pixel edges. 1200 DPI works great for bigger negatives like 120 medium format though cause you're not enlarging the scan as much.