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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
In article ,
"rafe b" wrote: 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. Have you ever used a reflection densitometer? As usual, given the limitations of the medium, I don't draw conclusions about tonality, only about sharpness and detail. Limitations of the media? More likely the limitations of operators-photographers, printing people and a host of other little issues related to how something can get fobar'd. You actually should be drawing conclusions with your eye balls and less with the math. Because eyes especially the ones that creates the stuff should be the deciding and not based on sets or formula. Math however like anything is somewhat subject to interpretation (Like in where the decimal point is supposed to go to say its good enough . rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com We can pretty much eliminate anything done with transparencies because only Cibachrome prints might be available, since I don't do them may as well forget them. -- "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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
"G- Blank" wrote in message ... In article , "rafe b" wrote: 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. Have you ever used a reflection densitometer? Nope. Does that matter? Are the numbers wrong? In any case, I cite these numbers only to make the point (which you did not refute) that a decent scanner ought to have little trouble getting the tonality off a print. I am prepared to believe that optical prints have a wider DR and higher Dmax than inkjet prints. But see no reason to think that that a good scanner will fail in either case (optical print or inkjet print.) When I spoke of "limitations of the media" I was refering only to this idea of comparing scans-of-prints over the web. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
In article ,
"rafe b" wrote: "G- Blank" wrote in message ... In article , "rafe b" wrote: 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. Have you ever used a reflection densitometer? Nope. Does that matter? Are the numbers wrong? The problem is the difference in terminology. In darkroom work we might say that a color optical print can represent 4-5 stops of scene information even when the negative can hold as many as perhaps seven or more. Personally I like seven because it means burning is not a huge problem depending on what is contained on the film. 3 stops can be too much if the there is a lot of dark and light and not much between them. In any case, I cite these numbers only to make the point (which you did not refute) that a decent scanner ought to have little trouble getting the tonality off a print. No reason to refute it. Try it with that new 4990 (How are you doing with that?) One thing those Perfection do- do well is scan flat media. I am prepared to believe that optical prints have a wider DR and higher Dmax than inkjet prints. But see no reason to think that that a good scanner will fail in either case (optical print or inkjet print.) When I spoke of "limitations of the media" I was refering only to this idea of comparing scans-of-prints over the web. Ok- gotcha. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com -- "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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:08:15 -0500, G- Blank
wrote: In article , "rafe b" wrote: "G- Blank" wrote in message ... In article , "rafe b" wrote: 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. Have you ever used a reflection densitometer? Nope. Does that matter? Are the numbers wrong? The problem is the difference in terminology. In darkroom work we might say that a color optical print can represent 4-5 stops of scene information even when the negative can hold as many as perhaps seven or more. I believe my terminology is fairly standard; it's expressed on a log scale. In round numbers, prints are around 2.0 -- meaning a dynamic range of 100:1, which translates to just under 7 stops (2^7). In any case, I cite these numbers only to make the point (which you did not refute) that a decent scanner ought to have little trouble getting the tonality off a print. No reason to refute it. Try it with that new 4990 (How are you doing with that?) One thing those Perfection do- do well is scan flat media. Getting some decent results now, but not with the Epson driver or with Silverfast, but with Vuescan, in raw mode, scanning negatives as chromes. It's hardly the sharpest scanner I've owned, but it will have to do, at least for the LF stuff. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote: I believe my terminology is fairly standard; it's expressed on a log scale. In round numbers, prints are around 2.0 -- meaning a dynamic range of 100:1, which translates to just under 7 stops (2^7). Ok didn't realize it was log scale you were stating yes- that makes perfect sense. Getting some decent results now, but not with the Epson driver or with Silverfast, but with Vuescan, in raw mode, scanning negatives as chromes. Eh? W-T-Heck why doesn't it work well if you scan them as negatives? Of course I don't know the 4990 but I have done Ok scanning negatives with the Epson driver importing to PS. Here's an example- http://www.gregblankphoto.com/GregsI...aries/pages/We stBranch.html It's hardly the sharpest scanner I've owned, but it will have to do, at least for the LF stuff. Yes well- "we" are well aware that flatbeds are big compromise and best option unless will to plop 9-10k down. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com -- "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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:55:43 -0500, G- Blank
wrote: In article , rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote: I believe my terminology is fairly standard; it's expressed on a log scale. In round numbers, prints are around 2.0 -- meaning a dynamic range of 100:1, which translates to just under 7 stops (2^7). Ok didn't realize it was log scale you were stating yes- that makes perfect sense. Getting some decent results now, but not with the Epson driver or with Silverfast, but with Vuescan, in raw mode, scanning negatives as chromes. Eh? W-T-Heck why doesn't it work well if you scan them as negatives? Of course I don't know the 4990 but I have done Ok scanning negatives with the Epson driver importing to PS. I dunno why the Epson driver is behaving this way. It could be a hardware issue with the scanner. What I noticed, with the Epson driver, is that when the file arrives in Photoshop, one or two of the channels (usually green) has a histogram that's bottomed out. This doesn't happen with Silverfast or with Vuescan, but Silverfast has its own problems. Here's an example- http://www.gregblankphoto.com/GregsImages/Gallery%20Tributaries/pages/WestBranch.html Nice. I like it. It's fun to compare real work. It would be even better if we could post large images without fear of piracy. This scan was done yesterday on the 4990, using VueScan. It's been downsampled to 1200x958. It looks quite stunning when printed on the R1800. If you send me your street addresss (privately) I'll send you a print, my compliments. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/backyard_trees_1_A.jpg This is one of eight images that lay latent since last spring, awaiting resolution of "the scanner problem." Here's a 1" x 1" square from the negative, scanned @ 2400 and downsampled 3:1. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/backyard_trees_1_A_snip.jpg rafe b |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote: On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:55:43 -0500, G- Blank wrote: In article , rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote: I believe my terminology is fairly standard; it's expressed on a log scale. In round numbers, prints are around 2.0 -- meaning a dynamic range of 100:1, which translates to just under 7 stops (2^7). Ok didn't realize it was log scale you were stating yes- that makes perfect sense. Getting some decent results now, but not with the Epson driver or with Silverfast, but with Vuescan, in raw mode, scanning negatives as chromes. Eh? W-T-Heck why doesn't it work well if you scan them as negatives? Of course I don't know the 4990 but I have done Ok scanning negatives with the Epson driver importing to PS. I dunno why the Epson driver is behaving this way. It could be a hardware issue with the scanner. What I noticed, with the Epson driver, is that when the file arrives in Photoshop, one or two of the channels (usually green) has a histogram that's bottomed out. This doesn't happen with Silverfast or with Vuescan, but Silverfast has its own problems. Here's an example- http://www.gregblankphoto.com/GregsI...s/pages/WestBr anch.html Nice. I like it. It's fun to compare real work. It would be even better if we could post large images without fear of piracy. This scan was done yesterday on the 4990, using VueScan. It's been downsampled to 1200x958. It looks quite stunning when printed on the R1800. If you send me your street addresss (privately) I'll send you a print, my compliments. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/backyard_trees_1_A.jpg Thats cool & I'll see what I can round up Send it here, don't have mail service to my physical address. Make sure you mark the package do not bend. http://www.gregblankphoto.com/Biography.html -- "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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
rafe b 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"? 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. Enlarge? Digital images don't "enlarge." Sorry. Never read your PS manual, I guess. Also, any time you scan you lose some detail, other than perhaps from a drum scan. Although I've seen Imacon scans that were pretty good. Simply and factually stated, the scan resolution determines the digital image size. One can upsample or downsample (which greatly degrades image quality because you either lose image detail or interpolate image detail), but one cannot enlarge that detail. The detail in a digital image is maximized at the scanned resolution and is all there is. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
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? 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. I miss most of rafe b's posts on purpose, since he's fixated on trying to prove digital points in a LF nsg yet often doesn't know what he's talking about... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote: The detail in a digital image is maximized at the scanned resolution and is all there is. True however what you are not giving to consideration; is that a given scan resolution can cover print sizes from y-x to x-y. So a variety of size prints can be made from a high resolution scan without any lose especially when one considers the relatively low resolution required to make a print. -- "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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 03:57 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 12:13 AM |