Digital BW, The Print

Julian

I don't really want to get into the sharpness, detail, contrast etc. debate
as it has probably been done here and on other forums before.  Let me
explain by what I mean when I say the detail is there with an example of a
couple of scans.  This URL points to a part of the photo-i forum where I
posted a soft scan and this was sharpened by Vincent to show that the detail
was indeed present:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.pl?s=3e7591d91447ffff;a
ct=ST;f=36;t=1;st=100

As you can see, the creases in the skin under the eye, the black detail
lines in the blue part of the eye, the freckles on the nose in the bottom
left side of the image and the red vein in the left side of the eye are all
apparently missing in the soft scan, but with sharpening the detail is
there.  This is not manufactured detail - you can't manufacture a vein in an
eye or a freckle on a nose.  I also have some shots of bushed and trees and
the detail is definitely there.  I worked on this some more to get the
colour right but I haven't uploaded that sample yet.

This soft effect is worse on 35mm.  With 6X6 scans the detail is there in
the untouched scanned image and the amount of sharpening required is
significantly less.  Here are two URLs, one of a Velvia slide and one of a
Portra neg.  Both are 6X6 and both had bags of details:

http://www.sclamb.com/scancomp/Church.jpg

http://www.sclamb.com/scancomp/Glen%20Portra.jpg

I have worked with the 3200 for a while now and am getting the best scans
using Silverfast Ai, with the scanner profile calibrated using an IT8
target.  I also find the Silverfast scans are visibly sharper than the Epson
Scan scans, even though all sharpening is switched off.  I have also had
great success with black and white & Portra scans using the HDR output
capability of Silverfast and doing all manipulation on the raw data in PS.

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was: Epson3200 - Test
results)


> exactly my point! I'd be interested in how you can say that 'the detail is
> there' if the scan appears very soft. I can give the appearance of
> sharpness - as i do - by USM tricks - but the details (I'm thinking here
of
> thin branches, trees etc - the usual difficult suspects) are missing. When
> people say the 1680/3200 are sharp, what they are really saying is 'sharp
> enough for them' - but as to some form of 'absolute' sharpness (I feel
> Austin about to dive in;-0 ) they are very second rate IMO compared to
film
> scanners.
>
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 5:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was: Epson3200 -
Test
> results)
>
>
> > Julian
> >
> > I must be losing the thread here.  What Polaroid and Minolta are you
> > comparing scans with?  If the Multi Pro and SS120 then you cannot
compare
> > flatbed to dedicated film scanner.  My 3200 scans appear very soft but
> look
> > great after sharpening in PS, and all the detail is there.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:53 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was: Epson3200 -
> Test
> > results)
> >
> >
> > > well mine is. and I've had it serviced twice. There really is no
> > comparison
> > > with scans I've done on both a Minolta and Polaroid film scanner of
the
> > same
> > > neg.
> > >
> > > Julian
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@...>
> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:26 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was: Epson3200 -
> > Test
> > > results)
> > >
> > >
> > > > Julian
> > > >
> > > > The 1680 cannot be producing softer scans than the 3200 and I am
> getting
> > > > excellent results with just PS sharpening.  I have definitely found
> > > > artifacts appearing when doing any sort of sharpening in the scan
> > > software,
> > > > especailly is smooth, even tones such as blue sky.  I have also
found
> > that
> > > > UltraSharpen Pro produces much better results than plain USM.
> > > >
> > > > Simon
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
> > > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:43 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was:
Epson3200 -
> > > Test
> > > > results)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > You are dead right - it is better to leave sharpening until PS,
BUT
> > the
> > > > > optics in the 1680 are so soft that I need both. BTW I only do
this
> in
> > > > BW -
> > > > > for colour I do all the sharpening (I use Ultra Sharpen Pro) in
PS.
> > One
> > > > test
> > > > > I do is to take a blank neg and use a sharp knife to make a score
> and
> >
> > > then
> > > > > experiment with various amounts of sharpening to get a fine line.
> > > Flatbed
> > > > > scanners IME just cannot get the sharpness of a film scanner.
People
> > > talk
> > > > > resolution numbers all the time but ignore the 'look' of scanners.
I
> > > note
> > > > > that this is happening with cameras i.e. the Kodak is 'better'
than
> > the
> > > > > canon because it has more megapixels, noone seems to be bothered
> about
> > > the
> > > > > image quality!
> > > > >
> > > > > Julian
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Alessandro Pardi" <alessandro.pardi@...>
> > > > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:14 PM
> > > > > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was:
> Epson3200 -
> > > > Test
> > > > > results)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Julian,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > do you get better results with a pre-sharpening at scan time? I
> > always
> > > > > read
> > > > > > that it's better to leave the sharpening to Photoshop.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alessandro
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Julian Thomas [mailto:julianthomas@...]
> > > > > > > Sent: domenica 16 marzo 2003 12:06
> > > > > > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was:
> > > Epson3200 -
> > > > > > > Test results)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  I cannot get satisfactory scans (sharp) without applying 3x3
> > > > > > > > pixel unsharp mask in the scanning application (Silverfast
Ai
> > 6).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Me too on a 1680. I need a 3x3 in the scanner software plus
the
> > > usual
> > > > > > > unsharp mask tricks in PS. Just as an example - I had some
> > > > > > > scans done on a
> > > > > > > minolta of 6x6 cm negs. On the 1680 I have to use the same
> > > > > > > amount of unsharp
> > > > > > > mask on a 600x600 pixel 75ppi jpeg as i did on the 4800ppi
> > > > > > > minolta tiff
> > > > > > > file. Colour is harder as the 3x3 gives me a halo effect. I've
> > > started
> > > > > > > shooting a BW landscape project (ok Nij stop laughing) and the
> > > lackof
> > > > > > > sharpness is pissing me off big time
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Julian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > >
> > > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
> to
> > > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
> same
> > p
> > > age.
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> > > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various
> > > resources on the homepage.