Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,229   Posts: 1,532,832   Online: 961
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    pmu
    pmu is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    home
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    91

    How do you know the "real" imagequality when using scanner?

    Ok, I have asked this somewhere else too, but I like to ask here also. To put this as simply as I can:

    How do you see the "real" image quality (sharpness, contrast, shadow detail etc.) on your films when using scanner? This question because scanner software does not give a "neutral" look = how the image appears on the screen depends so much on the scanner settings!! So is there a way to see the "neutral" image quality?? I have shooted only with Tmax100 (at ISO100 and ISO200), Tmax400 (at ISO200, ISO400, ISO800, ISO1600) and Tmax3200 (at ISO1600 and ISO3200) and have used only Tmax RS developer. I haven't bothered trying different films, developers, temperatures etc. since I can get the result I want with these films and chemicals that I use now - 90% of the images requires only levels and curves tools. So, how do I figure out if I am doing something "wrong" and could get that same results with other films and developers WITHOUT needing to use PS? Is there any idea trying other films and developers because those scannersoftware/setting still have so big role in how the image appears on those films too!?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    I just went through this same issues a few days ago and it appears that one has to examine his film using a microscope, then compare it to the scanned outcome. Yes, scanner firmware introduces changes to the image, no matter what people claim. Even RAW digital is firmware dependent.

    Bottom line, and some comfort to APUGers of MF to LF aspirations - the larger the negative, the better the outcome, and the less need for super-expensive scanners.

    My question was exemplified by this image made to proof an approach: http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/comp

    (Sorry for drifting to digitalisms. I do color for the day-job and am just not smart enough to make analog color prints.)

  3. #3
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    I don't think that you can judge the quality of film for non-digital purposes with a scanner - you are better off looking at it with a loupe. A scanner will tell you what the film looks like when scanned on that scanner. You could do some limited densitometry though (limited by the scanner's true dynamic range, not the one in the sales literature), if you have a step wedge for calibration and software that allows the equivalent of 'manual exposure'.

    Best,
    Helen

  4. #4
    bobfowler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    New Jersey, Land of the Living Dead
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,440
    Images
    19
    Sean should probably move this to the "Gray Area" sub forum...

    Depending on your scanner and software, you may be able to establish a "standard" reference setting for B&W materials. If you were to scan a test target (such as a step wedge), make all appropriate adjustments to get as complete a scale as possible, then save those settings, it should be possible to apply those settings as a baseline when scanning a new negative. Overall "exposure" will still have to be adjusted manually as different film bases have different characteristics.

    Sharpness is another matter all together. Scanners tend to act more like a condenser rather than a diffusion enlarger, so grain can be very apparent. Many scanners will default to using unsharp masking to make the scan crisp. With some cheaper scanners, that's about the ONLY way to get a sharp scan from a sharp negative!
    Bob Fowler
    fowler@verizon.net
    Some people are like Slinkies. They're really good for nothing, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

  5. #5
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,981
    "curves" and "levels"???

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    44
    not all ccd's are created equal. many have found epson scanners even the cheap one's to work well. even the room temperature can increase the noise of a ccd. you could scan a image three times and the noise may be present at different points in the image.

    http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_detect...rkcurrent.html
    Last edited by richardmellor; 06-30-2005 at 09:52 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Minnesota Tropics
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by richardmellor
    not all ccd's are created equal. many have found epson scanners even the cheap one's to work well. even the room temperature can increase the noise of a ccd. you could scan a image three times and the noise may be present at different points in the image.

    http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_detect...rkcurrent.html
    The more I learn of digital, the more I like analog.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    44
    to me the cool part of analog is when I capture a big fat negative.the quality
    is preserved in the negative. I have heard that you would need a ccd of 100 megapixels to equal a 120 negative and 500 megapixels to equal a 4x5 negative. as scanners get better and cheaper my
    analog image will only increase in quality. that captured in the digital of the day will forever be trapped in that quality.

    little does he know he is holding a 500 mega pixel camera.

    http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...LD:en%26sa%3DN
    Last edited by richardmellor; 06-30-2005 at 11:36 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #9
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    It is an interesting subject. I have found that some negatives that are nearly impossible to print in the darkroom will produce very good prints when scanned and printed on an inkjet. These are the very thin negatives. The analog prints from negatives that are easy to print are generally much better than the digital prints.

    In other words, IMO there is not a very good correlation between prints from the scanner-inkjet and those from enlarger-developed paper.

    When you have a film negative, you can print it with the best system you have. When you get a better printing system, you can reprint the negative.
    Gadget Gainer

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    44
    I have heard that pmk pyro developed negatives ,scan well .
    I will be trying this soon
    I have started to see that unsharp mask is not your friend.
    It seems to make grain nice and sharp.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin