Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Message

Re: [Digital BW] Re: scan vs. printer resolution (WAS: combing cure)

2002-03-22 by Bill Morse

Mike, I'm not sure I'm following you.  Are you scanning the negative @364
DPI or is the 20x20 print @ 364 DPI?

If 20x20, then the actual scanner resolution is 3081 DPI - (20x364)/2.36 -
not exactly optimal if what you are trying for is scanner optical
resolution- although, come to think of it, maybe that's why you're seeing
less grain? [g]

There must be something really simple I'm not getting...

Bill



on 3/21/02 7:59 PM, Michael Kravit wrote:

Austin is 100% right. Run these tests and you will see the results clearly.

One other thing that I have found is regarding grain. I find that by
scanning at the lowest possible optical resolution of the scanner will
reduce prominence of grain. That is on my Howtek D4000 if I scan at 4000 dpi
at 1:1 the negative grain is very clearly evident.

If I choose a lesser opticacal scanner resolution (Howtek provides a chart
of the native optical resolutions) the PMT does not scan the grain and my
images exhibit less grain in the final print. For example a 6x6 negative
scanned at 364dpi (A Howtek D4000 Native Optocal Resolution) at a final
print size of 20"x20".

Mike


Austin Franklin Wrote:
> The best image out you are going to get is to scan at the optical
resolution
> of your scanner, and size the print (not interpolating) and let the PPI
fall
> where it may, providing it's above a certain point.  I've done dozens to
> probably near hundreds of comparison tests, and the overwhelming
conclusion
> is that this gives the best image.  Also, everyone I've suggested this
> methodology to, has said the same thing.
>
> The reasoning is pretty obvious.  Decimating the image information means
> that you are changing the image data that the halftone algorithm is basing
> its decisions on, and that will degrade your output tonality and
sharpness.
> Now, this isn't true with EVERY image on earth, but as a general rule of
> thumb, for me, it has held true.
>
> It is a very easy test you can do for your self.  Scan an image, resize to
> your output size in PS NOT allowing decimation to take place, and let the
> PPI fall where they may to 240PPI.  Print the image.  Take the same image
> and check the little box in re-size to allow decimation, and then change
the
> PPI to 240.  Print it out.  See for your self ;-)



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Attachments

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.