A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Large Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 6th 06, 09:18 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints


Sounds ambitious, and maybe it is. I propose to show
you a 24 x 30" print, made from scans of LF film. Alas, I
can only show you a mere /scan/ of said print. It's the
best I can do with this medium.

I had some fun putting this together, maybe it'll be
food for thought or discussion without too much
ranting.

Try to keep the scaling in mind. Forthwith.


http://www.terrapinphoto.com/prscan/theprintlores.jpg
Low res scan of an 8x10" print made yesterday on LTR
size paper with an Epson R1800 at max quality. Minimal
cropping.

The image was captured on Portra, with a Shen Hao
4x5, using a Nikkor 90/f8. Real nice lens.

The film was scanned at 2500 dpi on a Microtek 2500.
Given that the print was only 8x10", I had to throw away
buckets of pixels. (There are enough pixels to print
8x10" @ 1170 dpi without resampling.)

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/prscan/loresprintscan.jpg
Scan of a section of the print. Its only purpose is to show
context/placement/positioning of the standard crop.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/prscan/hiresprintscan.jpg
300 dpi scan of 0.41" x 0.26" /on the same 8x10" print./

I figure that metal fence post in the lower-right corner is at
least a quarter mile (0.4 km) from the camera.

On a 100 dpi monitor, this is the view with a 3x loupe.
On a 72 dpi monitor, it's an 4x loupe.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/prscan/hiresfilmscan.jpg
Corresponding area of the /film scan/ at 2500 dpi.
Far better than the print, which isn't surprising. At
2x enlargement from the film, you can certainly
make a sharper print in the darkroom. The fence
post is very clear now.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/prscan/7kprintscan0.jpg
This is a crop from a scan of a 24"x30" print, made on
an Epson 7000, from the same film scan. (Got that?)
The print is a 6x enlargement from the film. Check out
the fence post. The print now shows most of the
detail and tonality that's in the scan.

Depending on your screen res, you're seeing this
print as if through a 4x or 3x loupe.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
  #2  
Old January 7th 06, 03:10 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints


"rafe b" rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote in message
...

Sounds ambitious, and maybe it is. I propose to show
you a 24 x 30" print, made from scans of LF film. Alas, I
can only show you a mere /scan/ of said print. It's the
best I can do with this medium.

I had some fun putting this together, maybe it'll be
food for thought or discussion without too much
ranting.

Try to keep the scaling in mind. Forthwith.


http://www.terrapinphoto.com/prscan/theprintlores.jpg
Low res scan of an 8x10" print made yesterday on LTR
size paper with an Epson R1800 at max quality. Minimal
cropping.

The image was captured on Portra, with a Shen Hao
4x5, using a Nikkor 90/f8. Real nice lens.

The film was scanned at 2500 dpi on a Microtek 2500.
Given that the print was only 8x10", I had to throw away
buckets of pixels. (There are enough pixels to print
8x10" @ 1170 dpi without resampling.)

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/prscan/loresprintscan.jpg
Scan of a section of the print. Its only purpose is to show
context/placement/positioning of the standard crop.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/prscan/hiresprintscan.jpg
300 dpi scan of 0.41" x 0.26" /on the same 8x10" print./

I figure that metal fence post in the lower-right corner is at
least a quarter mile (0.4 km) from the camera.

On a 100 dpi monitor, this is the view with a 3x loupe.
On a 72 dpi monitor, it's an 4x loupe.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/prscan/hiresfilmscan.jpg
Corresponding area of the /film scan/ at 2500 dpi.
Far better than the print, which isn't surprising. At
2x enlargement from the film, you can certainly
make a sharper print in the darkroom. The fence
post is very clear now.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/prscan/7kprintscan0.jpg
This is a crop from a scan of a 24"x30" print, made on
an Epson 7000, from the same film scan. (Got that?)
The print is a 6x enlargement from the film. Check out
the fence post. The print now shows most of the
detail and tonality that's in the scan.

Depending on your screen res, you're seeing this
print as if through a 4x or 3x loupe.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

An interesting test, I would say your print has just about all the detail of
the scan. I would also image that the print looks pretty sharp. The only
thing in the cropped area that has much detail is the fence post, it would
be nice to see this same kind of thing done with a photo that has lots of
detail in it. I would think that closer in the sand grains would be
resolved, this would be an interesting area to view.

It would also be interesting if one of the people who claims that optical
prints will have more detail then form scanning could do the same thing you
have, make an optical print and then scan the print.

Scott


  #3  
Old January 7th 06, 03:53 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:10:24 GMT, "Scott W"
wrote:


An interesting test, I would say your print has just about all the detail of
the scan. I would also image that the print looks pretty sharp. The only
thing in the cropped area that has much detail is the fence post, it would
be nice to see this same kind of thing done with a photo that has lots of
detail in it. I would think that closer in the sand grains would be
resolved, this would be an interesting area to view.


Good point, the "reference crop" could be more exciting.

To be honest, that damned fence post is what led me into
that exercise in the first place. I was looking over the print
with an 8x loupe, and was quite amazed to see it, on a
letter-sized print.

It would also be interesting if one of the people who claims that optical
prints will have more detail then form scanning could do the same thing you
have, make an optical print and then scan the print.


That might be interesting, I don't get to see many optical
prints these days.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
  #4  
Old January 7th 06, 05:16 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints


"rafe b"
It would also be interesting if one of the people who claims that optical
prints will have more detail then form scanning could do the same thing
you
have, make an optical print and then scan the print.


That might be interesting, I don't get to see many optical
prints these days.


Send me the neg Rafe, and I'll do the test for us.

john c


  #5  
Old January 7th 06, 05:42 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 04:16:09 GMT, "babelfish"
wrote:


"rafe b"
It would also be interesting if one of the people who claims that optical
prints will have more detail then form scanning could do the same thing
you
have, make an optical print and then scan the print.


That might be interesting, I don't get to see many optical
prints these days.


Send me the neg Rafe, and I'll do the test for us.

john c



Great. I'll send it tomorrow or Monday. I might even
have you scan while you've got it.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
  #6  
Old January 10th 06, 05:50 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:10:24 GMT, "Scott W"
wrote:

It would also be interesting if one of the people who claims that optical
prints will have more detail then form scanning could do the same thing you
have, make an optical print and then scan the print.



No takers. I could have guessed.

The negative is on its way to John C. We'll see what he comes
up with.

Given the common argument that "the print is what matters," I'd
have expected more interest.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
  #7  
Old January 10th 06, 02:03 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:10:24 GMT, "Scott W"
wrote:

It would also be interesting if one of the people who claims that optical
prints will have more detail then form scanning could do the same thing you
have, make an optical print and then scan the print.


So "BOTH" prints are scanned from the relative output?


No takers. I could have guessed.


First maybe it was missed (Like in my case) When
reading the LF group I tend to look for people asking questions
about how to do such and such versus people looking to prove a point.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com
  #8  
Old January 10th 06, 02:50 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:03:05 -0500, G- Blank
wrote:

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:10:24 GMT, "Scott W"
wrote:

It would also be interesting if one of the people who claims that optical
prints will have more detail then form scanning could do the same thing you
have, make an optical print and then scan the print.


So "BOTH" prints are scanned from the relative output?


What is "relative output"?

Really, the only thing "novel" about my post was that I
presented scans of prints, rather than (or in addition to)
a raw film scan. All the images (but one) are scans of
prints; either that smalll Letter-sized print from the Epson
R1800, or a 24x30" print from an Epson 7000.

No takers. I could have guessed.


First maybe it was missed (Like in my case) When
reading the LF group I tend to look for people asking questions
about how to do such and such versus people looking to prove a point.



We talked a few months ago about a "print exchange,"
but it never happened. I figured this was another way
to go about it, albeit on a very small scale.

All it involves is getting the print onto a scanner, which
can be a bit of a challenge, if it's a big print.

However: in both analog and digital, one can *enlarge*
as if making a big print, and yet print a small area of
that enlargement. I suspect that's what John C. will be
doing with my negative when he gets it.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
  #9  
Old January 10th 06, 05:11 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:03:05 -0500, G- Blank
wrote:

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:10:24 GMT, "Scott W"
wrote:

It would also be interesting if one of the people who claims that optical
prints will have more detail then form scanning could do the same thing
you
have, make an optical print and then scan the print.


So "BOTH" prints are scanned from the relative output?


What is "relative output"?


From an enlarger it = Optical prints
From a Digital file it= An Inkjet or a Lightjet/Lambda.


Really, the only thing "novel" about my post was that I
presented scans of prints, rather than (or in addition to)
a raw film scan. All the images (but one) are scans of
prints; either that smalll Letter-sized print from the Epson
R1800, or a 24x30" print from an Epson 7000.

No takers. I could have guessed.


First maybe it was missed (Like in my case) When
reading the LF group I tend to look for people asking questions
about how to do such and such versus people looking to prove a point.



We talked a few months ago about a "print exchange,"
but it never happened. I figured this was another way
to go about it, albeit on a very small scale.

All it involves is getting the print onto a scanner, which
can be a bit of a challenge, if it's a big print.

However: in both analog and digital, one can *enlarge*
as if making a big print, and yet print a small area of
that enlargement. I suspect that's what John C. will be
doing with my negative when he gets it.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


There are several issues I have with the two processes
being compared.

The scanning process always represents limiting the originals
tonal values if one is scanning a negative to the definition of the
scanner and its software . Therefore subsequent scans from the outputted
print should be within the scanners ability to "Re-represent"the values
obtained from the initial scan.

The optical print may however hold more initial values than the scanner
to paper can represent. Therefore to get an appealing scan from the
Optical print one is required to clip these tones within an editing
program. And since within photographic sensitometry its been shown that
the perception of sharpness is related to tonal representation- Well it
just makes me question the looking at and deciding based on computer
files posted on the web. Its still a worthy experiment.








--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com
  #10  
Old January 10th 06, 06:09 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints


"G- Blank" wrote in message
...

The scanning process always represents limiting the originals
tonal values if one is scanning a negative to the definition of the
scanner and its software . Therefore subsequent scans from the outputted
print should be within the scanners ability to "Re-represent"the values
obtained from the initial scan.

The optical print may however hold more initial values than the scanner
to paper can represent. Therefore to get an appealing scan from the
Optical print one is required to clip these tones within an editing
program. And since within photographic sensitometry its been shown that
the perception of sharpness is related to tonal representation- Well it
just makes me question the looking at and deciding based on computer
files posted on the web. Its still a worthy experiment.



If we accept that scanners can capture the tonality
of film, then they should have no problem with prints,
which have much lower dynamic range and Dmax.

IIRC, chromes have a DR in the high-3 range, C41 negs
in the high-2 range, and the best inkjet prints in the low-
to mid-2 range. I'd expect optical prints to be in the
mid- to high-2's range.

As usual, given the limitations of the medium, I don't draw
conclusions about tonality, only about sharpness and detail.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two ways of looking at how large to print Scott W Digital Photography 12 April 10th 05 06:36 PM
Two ways of looking at how large to print Scott W Digital Photography 0 April 9th 05 12:30 AM
Negative -> Print Traditional; Positive -> Print Digital Geshu Iam Medium Format Photography Equipment 109 October 31st 04 04:57 PM
Scanning in film camera photo lab prints? What's In A Name? Digital Photography 18 October 22nd 04 07:10 PM
Print Dryers for Flattening Prints Dan Quinn In The Darkroom 0 January 29th 04 01:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.