Digital BW, The Print

Thanks for these Simon. I can't get good scans from silverfast and I use
Vuescan. Looks interesting - thanks again

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Lamb" <simon@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what? (was: Epson3200 - Test
results)


> 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.
>
>
>
>
> 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
page.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>