Digital BW, The Print

Can anybody tell me in twenty words or less what the advantage 
is of scanning in 16-bit?

I heard one guy say that he can let his assistant scan images in 
16-bit, and have them just set the black and white point, and do 
nothing else. Then he comes in after them and really tweaks the 
file.

This scenario above makes sense I guess, but it sure doesn't 
apply to me. Past that, if you neg is properly exposed, and your 
scanner is good to begin with (Imacon), why would I ever want to 
do this?

When I've tested it in the past, and resampled from 16 to 8-bit, I 
see absolutely no change in the file. Am I missing something?

-Simpleton

Here's the quick and dirty:

8-bit gives you 256 levels to work with.  Each tweak you make throws away
levels, so you will end up with less than 256 levels.  If your printer
requires 256 levels, you may get posterization.

16-bit gives you thousands of levels.  When you tweak, levels get thrown
away, but when you convert to 8-bit for printing, you will be left with a
full 256 levels, avoiding posterization.

16 bit scanning isn't necessarily better image wise, it's just safer.

STEPHEN    JENNINGS
    P h o t o g r a p h e r
       Cambridge, MA
sgjennin@...

> Can anybody tell me in twenty words or less what the advantage
> is of scanning in 16-bit?
>

> Can anybody tell me in twenty words or less what the advantage
> is of scanning in 16-bit?

<snip>

> When I've tested it in the past, and resampled from 16 to 8-bit, I
> see absolutely no change in the file. Am I missing something?

Your Imacon scans at 16-bit regardless (probably 14-bit, but why quibble),
And it's software tones your file in 16-bit, regardless. The question then
becomes whether you want the file left in 16-bit for further editing (local
editing, sharpening, cloning, print separation curves, etc) or if you'd
prefer to be doing *those* moves in 8-bit. They scanner only works globally.
Staying in highbit lets you work locally on a highbit file and to maintain
highbit further downstream.

Whether it's worth the effort you'll have to test. My experience is that for
images with lots of texture and detail 8-bit works pretty well. Smooth
gradations, like a glow on seamless paper, can benefit from highbit.

What's the penalty for exceeding my word quota?

Todd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner 
<tflash@e...> wrote:
> What's the penalty for exceeding my word quota?
> Todd


I asked anybody on the ColorSync List once to explain to me the 
crux of ColorSync in 25 words or less. It threw them into a tizzy. 
Andrew Rodney got close though.

I actually think 2500 wouldn't cover it, in a way that's really 
understandable.

MT

>> What's the penalty for exceeding my word quota?
>> Todd
> 
> 
> I asked anybody on the ColorSync List once to explain to me the
> crux of ColorSync in 25 words or less. It threw them into a tizzy.


Pfff, the Colorsync list...Those guys ponder for eons whether there really
is a color god...oops typo, I mean they ponder whether there really is a
color gold ;-)

Todd

BTW, I realize even in my excess I may not have covered your real question.
When a file is overworked in 8-bit, the way it would typically show up is
posterization and/or banding in smooth tones, and in the case of grainy
images, increased coarseness of the grain.

Todd

> I asked anybody on the ColorSync List once to explain to me the
> crux of ColorSync in 25 words or less. It threw them into a tizzy.
> Andrew Rodney got close though.
> 
> I actually think 2500 wouldn't cover it, in a way that's really
> understandable.

> Here's the quick and dirty:
>
> 8-bit gives you 256 levels to work with.  Each tweak you make throws away
> levels, so you will end up with less than 256 levels.  If your printer
> requires 256 levels, you may get posterization.
>
> 16-bit gives you thousands of levels.  When you tweak, levels get thrown
> away,

Levels (values) do not get thrown away (in 16 bits), unless the move is
incredibly drastic.  They do get combined (N values in 16 bits become one
value in 8 bits) when converting from 8 bits to 16 bits, but whether you did
level changes or not, that still would happen.

> but when you convert to 8-bit for printing, you will be left with a
> full 256 levels, avoiding posterization.
>
> 16 bit scanning isn't necessarily better image wise, it's just safer.

I do all my tonal adjustments in the scanner software, so for me there is no
advantage to saving as 16 bits since the Piezo driver I am using doesn't do
anything with the extra bits.

> The question then
> becomes whether you want the file left in 16-bit for further
> editing (local
> editing, sharpening, cloning, print separation curves, etc) or if you'd
> prefer to be doing *those* moves in 8-bit.

Hi Todd,

The only operation that benefits from 16 bits is tonal adjustment.  All the
things you mention above don't benefit from higher bit depth, unless your
output takes 16 bit data.

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
> The only operation that benefits from 16 bits is tonal 
adjustment.  All the
> things you mention above don't benefit from higher bit depth, 
unless your
> output takes 16 bit data.


Can you explain exactly what you mean by tonal adjustments? 
Do you mean Levels and/or Curves adjustments only? Not to be 
a dork, but is it possible to describe this advantage in simple 
English; not like N gets converted to blah blah?

Could you describe a simple scan workflow example? And how 
doing levels/curves would be better in 16bit?

Like Wilford Brimley says, "If working in 16-bit is the right thing to 
do", then I'll do it. I promise. I just haven't heard the words yet that 
convince me.

-MarkTucker

Austin, my understanding is that sharpening is better done at high bit also.
Not sure exactly where I got this...

Bill

on 12/4/01 10:08 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

Hi Todd,

The only operation that benefits from 16 bits is tonal adjustment.  All the
things you mention above don't benefit from higher bit depth, unless your
output takes 16 bit data.

Regards,

Austin



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

on 12/4/01 10:08 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

>> The question then
>> becomes whether you want the file left in 16-bit for further
>> editing (local
>> editing, sharpening, cloning, print separation curves, etc) or if you'd
>> prefer to be doing *those* moves in 8-bit.
> 
> Hi Todd,
> 
> The only operation that benefits from 16 bits is tonal adjustment.  All the
> things you mention above don't benefit from higher bit depth, unless your
> output takes 16 bit data.

You're right (except for the Print separation curves, which I should have
stated as ink separation curves, because they do have a strong tonal
effect), just letting it be known those options are available. It's relevant
because some of Cones drivers, I think it's the Pro24 driver and all the new
6+ drivers, take the 16bits through the driver so to speak. So the fact that
many options are available in 16-bit mode means one would not have to
convert their file to 8-bits for printing (or let PS do it on the fly as it
does when printing to the Epson driver, or so I'm told).

So, I really doubt you'd ever see cloning differences or sharpening
differences, but as you say, if the output can take it it saves one from
needing to convert down.

Todd

The year would not be complete without another talk from the 16 bit-boys...
keep up the good threads gentlemen!! :-)


Carolyn

Hi Bill,

You may very well be right, since sharpening certainly can change tonal
values!

I do NOT sharpen, nor do I advocate it...but I do understand some people
believe they need it...and I am sure they really do (well, I guess I'm sure
they do for what they have, but I believe there is some problem in their
process that necessitates this...), but I'm not clear if it's their scanner,
camera, lense, film, developing or what...that necessitates the need for
sharpening.

Regards,

Austin

>
> Austin, my understanding is that sharpening is better done at
> high bit also.
> Not sure exactly where I got this...
>
> Bill
>
> on 12/4/01 10:08 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> Hi Todd,
>
> The only operation that benefits from 16 bits is tonal
> adjustment.  All the
> things you mention above don't benefit from higher bit depth, unless your
> output takes 16 bit data.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>

Hi Mark,

> > The only operation that benefits from 16 bits is tonal
> adjustment.  All the
> > things you mention above don't benefit from higher bit depth,
> unless your
> > output takes 16 bit data.
>
>
> Can you explain exactly what you mean by tonal adjustments?
> Do you mean Levels and/or Curves adjustments only?

Pretty much, yes.

> Not to be
> a dork, but is it possible to describe this advantage in simple
> English; not like N gets converted to blah blah?

Well, um, I may not be the best person to explain this in simple English.
It does require SOME technical background to understand what the actual
"issue" is...

> Could you describe a simple scan workflow example? And how
> doing levels/curves would be better in 16bit?

What happens when you make tonal adjustments with 8 bits is you loose tonal
values.  For 8 bit data, you have 256 possible tonal values, 0 to 255.  When
you make a tonal adjustment, you are changing/shifting the current values to
new values.  Any time you do this, you are going to get values that were
once different, now to be the same, therefore decreasing the number of
different values.

Say you have four values for tones, 0, 1, 2 and 3.  You want to "make a
move" and you move 0 to 1, 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and then what do you do with
3...it stays 3...so now you decreased the number of tones from 4 to 3.

The solution is, you need to make tonal adjustments in a larger bit space
than the actual image data you want, so you don't "overlap" values.  The
ACTUAL image data in a 16 bit file typically doesn't occupy all of the 16
bits, there are MANY of the 65k values that are unused.  It is because of
the unused values that you don't lose any values.  The data has "room" to
move without stepping on other datas toes.

Yes, this gets pretty technical, and when I get the time I have wanted to do
a write-up that explains this very clearly with pictures, circles and
arrows...but I haven't had the time to do it yet...

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> What happens when you make tonal adjustments with 8 bits is 
you loose tonal
> values. 


Would these tones "moving around" and getting shifted be 
responsible for a histogram that had holes in it? (Not that I've 
ever had one, but a friend of a friend told me that *they* had 
some missing areas in *their* histograms...

If this is the case, then you certainly have my full-on attention.

Mark

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > What happens when you make tonal adjustments with 8 bits is
> you loose tonal
> > values.
>
>
> Would these tones "moving around" and getting shifted be
> responsible for a histogram that had holes in it?

Hi Mark,

Yes, you are absolutely correct.  Because you have "holes" (missing
codes/values) in the histogram, doesn't mean you are going to get
posterization, but I guarantee you, if you have posterization (due to image
"problems", not ink/printer problem) you WILL see holes in the histogram.

> If this is the case, then you certainly have my full-on attention.

OK ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Exactly right.  You've lost some of the 256 levels, and the blank spots in
the histogram indicate possible posterization.

STEPHEN    JENNINGS
    P h o t o g r a p h e r
       Cambridge, MA
sgjennin@...

>> What happens when you make tonal adjustments with 8 bits is
> >you loose tonal values.
> 
> 
> Would these tones "moving around" and getting shifted be
> responsible for a histogram that had holes in it? (Not that I've
> ever had one, but a friend of a friend told me that *they* had
> some missing areas in *their* histograms...
>

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

on 12/5/01 9:46 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:

Hi Bill,

You may very well be right, since sharpening certainly can change tonal
values!

I do NOT sharpen, nor do I advocate it...but I do understand some people
believe they need it...and I am sure they really do (well, I guess I'm sure
they do for what they have, but I believe there is some problem in their
process that necessitates this...), but I'm not clear if it's their scanner,
camera, lense, film, developing or what...that necessitates the need for
sharpening.

Regards,

Austin




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

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
> 
> on 12/5/01 9:46 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> You may very well be right, since sharpening certainly can change 
tonal
> values!
> 
> I do NOT sharpen, nor do I advocate it...but I do understand some 
people
> believe they need it...and I am sure they really do (well, I guess 
I'm sure
> they do for what they have, but I believe there is some problem in 
their
> process that necessitates this...), but I'm not clear if it's their 
scanner,
> camera, lense, film, developing or what...that necessitates the 
need for

> sharpening.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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
> 
> on 12/5/01 9:46 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> You may very well be right, since sharpening certainly can change
tonal
> values!
> 
> I do NOT sharpen, nor do I advocate it...but I do understand some
people
> believe they need it...and I am sure they really do (well, I guess
I'm sure
> they do for what they have, but I believe there is some problem in
their
> process that necessitates this...), but I'm not clear if it's their
scanner,
> camera, lense, film, developing or what...that necessitates the
need for
> sharpening.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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

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
> > 
> > on 12/5/01 9:46 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Bill,
> > 
> > You may very well be right, since sharpening certainly can change
> tonal
> > values!
> > 
> > I do NOT sharpen, nor do I advocate it...but I do understand some
> people
> > believe they need it...and I am sure they really do (well, I guess
> I'm sure
> > they do for what they have, but I believe there is some problem in
> their
> > process that necessitates this...), but I'm not clear if it's 
their
> scanner,
> > camera, lense, film, developing or what...that necessitates the
> need for
> > sharpening.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Austin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, 
Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various

> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Austin I've combined two of your posts into one.

> But I DO see it all the time...most any time I try to do moves to 8 bit
> files, and then print them using Piezo, I end up with posterization.  If I
> need to do moves, I re-scan.

I'm tempted to pull an Austin and say, "then you must be doing something
wrong, or something is wrong with your system", but without knowing the
extent of the moves you are talking about, or the types of images, that
wouldn't be fair. ;-)

Dan's whole point was that there are a lot of people who watch their
histograms rather than their images and the proof is in the image not the
representation of the image. IOW, trust your eyes over the math or the
histogram.

Whether I agree with all Dan's conclusions or not (and if you had Maris send
you the color theory thread you know where I stand. BTW, the unmentionable
gets mentioned...), I whole heartedly agree with him that the only way to
really address the issue is to do it with images, and do it scientifically.
This way we learn more about where a process might break down rather than
debating whether it breaks down. As you say, it's a simple experiment you
can try for yourself. ;-)

One must take the same image, one 16-bit variant and one 8-bit, apply
identical moves to each, then compare. Then one must show the starting image
and the final of each image and explicitly describe the exact moves applied.
Finally whatever conclusion one draws from the experiment should be based
upon looking at the image itself, not the math or the histogram.

Anybody who can scan raw can conduct such tests and if anyone would like me
to explain how I will. I think I'll refrain from anymore conversations (at
least for the moment ;-) about what one should expect the results to be.
Let's do the work first and discuss what our results are. I've done this on
the color theory list already, along with Dan, so I wont bog this list down
with it. If you want the thread from the color theory list Maris gave the
link, or I could send you a text file Maris complied which covers a good bit
of it. My quick answer is it is certainly possible to break and image, but
it takes a lot more than one might think, and some images are more prone to
problems than others. Some images can take a LOT of abuse.

Sorry if all that sounds edgy, I don't mean to be insulting or
argumentative. It's me not you ;-).

I've just been around a lot of these conversations (as you well know ;-)),
but the only way to really advance the issue is to do it with real visual
examples, so we can really suss out what's going on.

 
> Yes, you are absolutely correct.  Because you have "holes" (missing
> codes/values) in the histogram, doesn't mean you are going to get
> posterization, but I guarantee you, if you have posterization (due to image
> "problems", not ink/printer problem) you WILL see holes in the histogram.

Not taking issue with the possibility of what you say, just the absoluteness
of it. My experience is suggesting otherwise, and I think a lot of us make
the assumption that some of these failures are due to insufficient bit
depth, when in fact it's something else. I know I did.

What I'm getting is rough "blocky" tonalities in 3/4 tone skies that I get
in both 8-bit mode and 16-bit mode.

I'm disappointed, cause when I first got them in 8-bit mode I thought "aha
tonal dropout, better do it in 16-bits" but it shows there too. It's
something that's in the scan and it gets revealed and exacerbated by my
tonal moves (darkening and adding contrast) but is not caused by tonal
dropouts. And it's evident on the monitor so it's not a printer/ink problem.

I need to take it up with one of the scanner lists. Just have to figure out
how to set up a damn website and make a little demonstration....

Todd

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]

> Dan's whole point was that there are a lot of people who watch their
> histograms rather than their images and the proof is in the image not the
> representation of the image. IOW, trust your eyes over the math or the
> histogram.

I can agree with that, that's why I specifically said that if you have
combing, you MAY get posterization, but if you get posterization you WILL
have combing (there were disclaimers in my initial statement that still
stand).

> > Yes, you are absolutely correct.  Because you have "holes" (missing
> > codes/values) in the histogram, doesn't mean you are going to get
> > posterization, but I guarantee you, if you have posterization
> (due to image
> > "problems", not ink/printer problem) you WILL see holes in the
> histogram.
>
> Not taking issue with the possibility of what you say, just the
> absoluteness
> of it. My experience is suggesting otherwise, and I think a lot of us make
> the assumption that some of these failures are due to insufficient bit
> depth, when in fact it's something else. I know I did.

That's why I added that there MAY be other problems, like with inks or
whatever...you are right, posterization can be caused by many things...but
my point was, if you ARE getting it because of insufficient number of codes
then your histogram will be combed.  Kind of like saying if you have two
quarters, then you have $0.50...

Hi,

I do NOT EVER sharpen any of my images at any point, not does my scanner
sharpen at all.  I do not have soft images either.

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tzinzunzan2000 [mailto:ldmr@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 12:14 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] 16-bit Scanning: Why?
>
>
> 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
> >
> > on 12/5/01 9:46 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > You may very well be right, since sharpening certainly can change
> tonal
> > values!
> >
> > I do NOT sharpen, nor do I advocate it...but I do understand some
> people
> > believe they need it...and I am sure they really do (well, I guess
> I'm sure
> > they do for what they have, but I believe there is some problem in
> their
> > process that necessitates this...), but I'm not clear if it's their
> scanner,
> > camera, lense, film, developing or what...that necessitates the
> need for
> > sharpening.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Hi Bill,

> 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.

I get that without sharpening...:

http://www.darkroom.com/Images/LABOWL02w.jpg

Regards,

Austin

Hi Austin, nice image-

In looking at the photo, I assume that the selective focus is from
depth-of-field?

Let me know if I am missing anything

Bill

on 12/5/01 4:58 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

Hi Bill,

> 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.

I get that without sharpening...:

http://www.darkroom.com/Images/LABOWL02w.jpg

Regards,

Austin



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

Hi Bill,

> Hi Austin, nice image-

Thank you.

> In looking at the photo, I assume that the selective focus is from
> depth-of-field?

Shot with a Hasselblad 110/2 AT f2.  Depth of field is 0.018 meters (.7") at
a distance of 1 meter...that's reasonably shallow.

> Let me know if I am missing anything

As far as what?  That's quite an open ended request, most of us are missing
something ;-)

Regards,

Austin

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]

"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]

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]

> 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.

I scan 35mm at 5080 and do not sharpen.  I shoot with Leica and Contax
(Zeiss) lenses, and find I do not have a need to sharpen.  I expose and also
develop my own film, specifically for low grain and high detail.

I would make a chemical darkroom print of a negative and compare it to your
scanned image first...before determining it's your scanning technique.  Most
people I know have found that their lense/development/exposure was lacking,
and when that improved, magically they didn't need sharpening any more ;-)

Regards,

Austin

My experience has been with a Polaroid 4500, a Scitex and a Howtek- with
35mm, MF and 4x5 negs, and prints.  None of them in my opinion needed
routine sharpening- sharpening almost always made the images worse, by
heightening grain and accentuating film defects (I mostly scan old negs and
prints.)

Bill

on 12/5/01 10:28 PM, sunshine_1451 wrote:

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]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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