Digital BW, The Print

Loris

I posted some examples on the photo-I forum which speak for themselves.  I
do not over sharpen, I sharpen properly and appropriately.  The Epson
produces excellent results, far in excess of what one would expect to be
associated with a £330 scanner.  You cannot make up pixels, they either
exist or they don¹t.   The only way to make up pixels is to resample the
image.  As I have shown in the example url I posted in this thread, an image
that looked like there was detail missing did in fact have the detail.

As for agreeing about the 1680 and 3200 being second rate to film scanners,
I am prepared to put that to the test.  I can produce two prints of the same
image, both at 12X12, one scanned with the 3200 and one with an Imacon
Flextight Photo.  I absolutely guarantee that if I do not tell anyone which
is which, 99% of the general viewing public wouldn¹t have the faintest idea,
nor would they care.  They would look at either image and appreciate it for
what it is ­ a depiction of a scene or event captured on film and printed.

This retentive nature about ultimate sharpness is really just too much.  Who
cares, certainly not anyone except those who scan an image at 4000ppi, blow
it up to 100% and then start looking at edge definition, colour fringing and
Œultimate sharpness¹  For pete¹s sake, it won¹t even show on a 22X22, let
alone a 12X12 ort 10X8!

The only exception I would make to this is large prints and fine art prints
for sale or exhibition, where someone may well look at the fine detail.  As
I do neither I am happy with the 3200, as most people would be if they work
at it and get the most from it.

Simon  

On 17/3/03 10:13 pm, "Loris Medici" <lorism@...> wrote:

> 
> Simon, respectfully: *over sharpening* - as one usually do with Epson flatbeds
> - is not "bringing the detail which is there"... this is simply "making up
> pixels". I totally agree with Julian on his last statement adding "for 35mm
> film" on the end.
> 
> Regards,
> Loris.
> 
> ---- Orijinal Mesaj #1 ----
> Kimden: julianthomas@...
> Kime: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Bilgi: 
> Konu: Re: [Digital BW] RE: Is this noise or what (was: Epson3200 - Test
> results)
> Tarih: 3/17/2003 7:14:09 PM
> 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



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