Should I go Digital or scan my negs

[vlp]

I am a Portrait\Wedding Photographer with a large investment in Hasselblad equipment. I often make prints as large as 40 x 40. I am quite comfortable using medium format but love the many possibilities available working digitally. At this time I can't afford a medium format digital back. So I've been thinking along the lines of a Canon 1d. My question is would I retain the quality I want if I continued using my Hasselblads and invested in a high quality film scanner.

Thanks vinceproe@adelphia.net

[GabeSchaffer]

Film scanning is a slow and arduous process, where you are always fighting dust and scratches. I and most of my associates have found shooting all digital to be far less work, with no real loss in quality. I would say that the 1D has about the same resolution as a 6x6 negative. Potential clients are sometimes skeptical, but when they can't tell which 16x20s hanging on the studio wall are digital, they have no problem with it.

Keep in mind that shooting with a digital SLR is a very different experience from using a Blad. You have autofocus, zoom lenses, and a 3:2 aspect ratio. You can change your ISO for each frame, and choose what you want in B&W when you get home.

The one big downside to digital is that it's hard to find a lab with consistent quality.

[Eat, Sleep, Take Pictures]

Vince,
Dust and scraches on your slides and film can be stopped with a better handling work process. On customers film / slides, lots of luck stopping them. Get the plastic slide sheets and tell them ALWAYS to use them to protect their slides / film. Charge them extra to clean and fix the scraches.

The quaility of the print, starts with the quaility of the photo.

I shoot a Nikon D1x and a F100 for color slides with all Nikon glass. I out source the slides for a Leaf scan and print. I print digital in house up to 13 x 19. I have a local lab that prints my 20x30 and 30x40 and 40x60 prints. NO, my 40x60 prints of digital photos are not as good as a 4x5 or larger camera print. I do not seek work that needs 4x5 or larger camera fomats to capture a 40x60 print photo. My 30x40 outdoor photos when my local lab printes them are very equal to 4x5 prints. I give that 30x40 credit to the lab tech person.
My workflow has been getting better and less time comsuming since I went digital. MY in house prints take on a average </= 1 minute to move from the card to the hard drive, and approx 1 to 2 mins. to adjust and 2-3 mins. to print. I average 3-4 minutes total in down load and adjust time of 'each photo I print', depending on the size.

I use the "Rob and Dave" method of " get it right in the camera ". I 'chimp' in the camera. I have a 100% profiled and color balanced work flow in house. I out source the 20x30 + size prints in the orginal file and let the lab operator know what camera body and lens by serial number the digital photo came from. Every body and lens combination is not equal and the same.
I have found out that in my workflow that a color slide is approx. equal to a 32 mb file when I print 40x60. I know now that if I am going larger than a 30x40 print, that I may have to shoot a slide. A 40x60 will print nicely, but not as super great as the 30x40.
Usually and most often, my 17mb .tiff file will print out super great and be a easy to work with file in house and for the lab printer. It 30x40 prints equal to a slide 85% of the time. Since it reduces my work flow that is nice.
Will I ever give up my film / slide cameras? NO. Atleast not until I get a D2x that shoots a full frame.
When asked what camera was used to take the photo, I answer that I use a Nikon F5 body with internal tech. modifications.
So, Digital equals no dust, no scratches, no lost sildes ever again.
Good luck, and share with all of us here what you find out when or if you move into digital.

[vlp]

Thanks for the replies the information has been a help