Digital BW, The Print

AnnMarie Tornabene wrote:
> 
> 
> Well, this is what I gathered from running the test. I scanned in at
> 4800 dpi, then scanned the same negative at 12,800 dpi and as I
> suspected, got a better result from the latter. There is a huge
> amount of pixelation, especially in the skin tone, and some quick
> jumps between tones when I scanned in at 4800. Then I tried scanning
> at 3200 because sometimes there is a key resolution to use that works
> and anything above it gives similar results. Well, it did look
> slightly better than the 4800 dpi scan, but still not as nice as the
> 12,800.

Wait; did you convert to 300dpi after scanning at the various
resolutions?  How are you comparing the various scans?

Since the scanner is limited to 4800 dpi resolution at best,
the 12,800 dpi scan isn't showing you anything that isn't in
the 4800 dpi scan - those additional pixels in the 12,800 dpi
scan are the result of interpolation.

I'm not saying that the 12,800 dpi scan doesn't look better,
I'm just curious how you're comparing them.

In your first note, you said that you scan at high res, then
resize to 300 dpi no matter what, so I'm curious if that's
how you did the above tests.

Cheers,
Dana


> What's that old saying? If it ain't broke, don't fix it? But I do
> appreciate the advice as always. Thank you! :D
> 
> AnnMarie
> 
> AnnMarie Tornabene
> www.annmarietornabene.net
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>