As a general rule you will get the best quality scanning the negative
not a print.

Scott

       The answer for this one really depends on too many factors for an
accurate, short answer.

       Each successive generation you work from on a particular image,
regardless of source, is going to reduce the detail. The negative will be
best, the initial print less so, a scan from that print further down, and a
print made from that scan will contain even less detail, contrast, range,
and so on.

       The images from most high-end digital cameras, meanwhile, go through
a certain level of post-capture processing while in the camera - noise
reduction, contrast and saturation levels, color balancing, and sharpening.
This is one of the reasons people like the clarity of a good digital image.

       A good 35mm negative, all other things being equal, will beat any
current generation digital image. Larger dynamic range and finer
resolution. But you'll lose some of this, as noted above, as you print it.
How much and in what way depends on a hundred different things.

       And, once you scan it, you can also perform a lot of the same digital
tricks the camera does automatically. This takes more time and effort,
naturally, but you also have the ability to tailor it directly towards the
image and what you intend to do with it, as opposed to the camera's
automatic functions.

       Have you kept up with all the pluses and minuses? I hope so, because
I'm lost myself. Basically, any three people performing a direct test are
likely to come up with three different answers.

       In my own experience, a decent B&W neg simply blows away anything you
can do with digital. Getting that to paper, for me (I'm a novice in the
darkroom, just went in other directions), loses a lot of that. A good
darkroom tech would beat my efforts handily.

       I've also scanned my negs, directly from film (no print middleman).
This reduces them, on my system, to 24-bit greyscale, way below the dynamic
range of the negative. However, when printing these, I often *reduce* the
range because I want the contrast sharper. And I've produced B&W prints
directly from negatives (classic darkroom), digital prints from scans of
B&W negatives, digital prints from digital camera images, and even digital
B&W prints from color negative scans. In very few of the cases was I too
concerned with what I might have lost - the end result was tailored to what
I wanted to show.

       Your results, however, may vary greatly. I shoot with the thought
that I have a limited exposure range to work with (I often shoot high-
contrast color slide film), and my images aren't often intended to capture
a high dynamic range, or fine shadow detail. If that's what you're after,
you may find digital really sucks compared to good B&W film prints.

       Confusing enough? I can try harder if you like ;-)

    - Al.

As a rule scanning the original negative is the best way to get the best
digital file, if you scan using a flatbed from a print you will have more
dust and imperfections to spot out of the digital file. This is because
small imperfections exist in all paper images, they are very small so
the eye doesn't see them but scanning brings them out. Also
because a negative typically is placed in a holder above the glass
their are less issues like moire to contend with as you may find with
glossy RC images.

That stated to give an alternate, two years ago I had a large 24 x 30
RC print made at my Pro Lab, at the time they could not use the drum
scanner to scan the 8x10 negative. Instead they scanned the 8x10 contact
print with a LF digital camera mounted on a copy stand- something like a
40-60k system......at the time I would have liked an optical fiber based
print but this was most cost effective for the application, the results
are good....but certainly not a silver based image.