Digital BW, The Print

I agree that it is essentially an aesthetic decision. However, if it 
is the case that the Kodak, Nikon, and Polaroid scanners in the 
4000dpi range are bit soft in their scanning output, then it would 
follow that most photographers would compensate for this by 
sharpening. I guess what I'm wondering is whether your experience 
with not having to sharpen scans is limited to format (medium or 
large) and scanner type. BTW I apologize for having forgotten to put 
my name at the end of the last post.

Chris Hargens


 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bill Morse <willym@b...> 
wrote:
> "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 several years out-of-date- when scanning at lower resolution, with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]