Digital BW, The Print

> Should I be seeing a crisp and sharp scanned image or is this 
> unrealistic ? Any ideas, suggestions ?


Frank,

I won't speak to the specifics of the Sprintscan, but here are some general 
considerations:

- judging sharpness on a monitor is a bad idea unless you are experienced 
enough to know what this translates to on a real print.

- sharpness should be judged at final print size (I'm sure you knew that), but 
your question is by what "standard" it should be judged: I would say that a 
good standard would be the sharpest possible darkroom print of the same 
image at the same size. Of course, darkroom prints can benefit from the real 
"unsharp mask" too, which can raise the bar quite a bit. Calling it a "standard" 
doesn't mean you have to match it - you may well exceed it as long as it still 
looks "photographic" and integral to the quality of the original film, optics etc. 
So, there is a fudge factor there, or a personal preference if you will. 

- the consensus "wisdom" on sharpnening during scanning is that you should 
do only enough to counteract the losses in sharpness caused by the CCD 
sensors (drum scans are another kettle of fish). Also, some scanners - like the 
Imacon - may have an advantage in their sharpenening engine over 
Photoshop. In the end, you want to think of two phases of sharpenening: at the 
scanner  and at print time (as you do now).

- you may want to troubleshoot the autofocus function by turning it off and 
comparing scans with different manual focus settings. This will eliminate the 
focus as a variable.

- as an afterthought... another "standard" could be a drum scan that doesn't 
have any sharpening applied during or after scanning. If nothing else, it's a 
worthy reality check against CCD scans!....


Antonis