35mm negative & slide scans - as good as *ist DS images?

After some going thru my first hundred or so images on the new *ist DS,
my first impressions are that the results are as good if not better than
scanned negatives and slides from my older Nikon LS2000 film scanner,
especially the darker images.

Is this because the negative scan can show much more detail(ie. noise)
than most digital shots? That is one thing I notice with the film scans
is the "noise", especially in darker images. But I did recently scan
(from neg) a bright outdoor shot of my kids that is one of the sharpest
images I've seen on my PC, I printed an 8x11.5 of it on my new R300
printer and it is, as far as I can see, every bit as sharp and detailed
of a lab print I had done of the same shot. But I also printed a 4x6
from a scanned (neg) indoor shot, and the result is noticeably grainier
when comparing it to the lab print of the same pic.

So I'm wondering, for home printing am I generally going to get better
results from the *ist digitals, or will the 35mm scans be up to the task
as well? Perhaps I just need to learn more about PSP or Photoshop?

Thoughts or experiences anyone?

GS wrote in news:ma%Wd.11993$KI2.11097@clgrps12:

After some going thru my first hundred or so images on the new *ist DS,
my first impressions are that the results are as good if not better than
scanned negatives and slides from my older Nikon LS2000 film scanner,
especially the darker images.

Is this because the negative scan can show much more detail(ie. noise)
than most digital shots? That is one thing I notice with the film scans
is the "noise", especially in darker images. But I did recently scan
(from neg) a bright outdoor shot of my kids that is one of the sharpest
images I've seen on my PC, I printed an 8x11.5 of it on my new R300
printer and it is, as far as I can see, every bit as sharp and detailed
of a lab print I had done of the same shot. But I also printed a 4x6
from a scanned (neg) indoor shot, and the result is noticeably grainier
when comparing it to the lab print of the same pic.

So I'm wondering, for home printing am I generally going to get better
results from the *ist digitals, or will the 35mm scans be up to the task
as well? Perhaps I just need to learn more about PSP or Photoshop?

Thoughts or experiences anyone?

To get better images from 35 mm film you need to use the best films.
You also need to expose the picture optimal. You also need to make
a very good scan. It is hard work.

So - normally your *istD is "better" than 35 mm film. At least it is
much less work getting there.

Now - all do not agree. "Better" is a subjective property. Film can
get some more resolution (properly done) and some like the random
film graininess better than the regular pixelation you get from
digital.


/Roland