Digital BW, The Print

"Typically need sharpening..."  See, this is what I was trying to get at in
my earlier post about Martin's photo of the chimney-  It's all an aesthetic,
and therefore inherently subjective, decision.

Sharpen because you like the effect, or it brings something out of the image
that otherwise gets lost (or "blurred"), or you want to heighten the
presense of the grain [g], or whatever.  But don't assume you need to
sharpen just because people who scanned magazine photos used to sharpen, or
because software has default sharpen on for newbies.  This is where this
sub-thread gets back to the point of the 16 bit scanning thread- you do it
if you think it improves some of your images, not because the numbers tell
you to.

Bill


on 12/5/01 8:37 PM, sunshine_1451 wrote:

Thanks, Bill, for the information. I'd be interested in hearing
whether others who work from 35mm scanned images (let's say scanned
at 3600dpi or above) make a practice of sharpening before printing.
What I'd be interested in learning is whether your experience and
that of Austin is specific to medium/large format and whether, say, a
drum scan of a 35mm negative does not typically need sharpening.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bill Morse <willym@b...>
wrote:
> Chris, I believe this comes from the pre-press world, and in
addition is
> several years out-of-date- when scanning at lower resolution, with
file size
> limited by available ram.
> 
> My experience with 7kx9k images output as LVT 4x5 negs shows little
or no
> need of sharpening if the scan is of a sharp glossy print or neg.
> 
> I'm happy to be corrected, however [g]...
> 
> Bill
> 
> on 12/5/01 12:30 PM, tzinzunzan2000 wrote:
> 
> 35mm negs with SS4000 at 4000. My statement about the softness of
> scans is not based so much on my own experience, however, as what
> I've read in books, the Web, etc.
> 
> Chris
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bill Morse <willym@b...>
> wrote:
> > Hi Chris-
> > 
> > What are you scanning with? At what resolution?
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
> > on 12/5/01 12:13 PM, tzinzunzan2000 wrote:
> > 
> > According to my understanding, scanned images are by their nature
> > somewhat soft and that some degree of sharpening is usually
required
> > and is done as a matter of course. Are you saying that at no point
> in
> > your process do you sharpen the image? Also, I acknowledge that
> > certain images, are just fine as soft.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bill Morse <willym@b...>
> > wrote:
> > > Austin, I don't normally sharpen either, I just scan at the
> highest
> > > resolution I can get, then wait while the file opens in PS [g].
> > Sharpening
> > > can, however, be an expressive tool- e.g.. Martin's image in the
> > photo
> > > exchange, where the background is left soft and somewhat grainy,
> > while the
> > > stone chimney is sharp, sharp, sharp.  Somehow the combination
> puts
> > you (or
> > > at least me) into the scene.
> > > 
> > > Otherwise sharpening is just trying to get lo-res to look like
an
> > 8x10
> > > contact print- why bother!
> > > 
> > > Bill



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