jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>I agree, I was shocked at the difference between my scans and the
>originals. I never owned a projector and so my only expereince was looking
>at the scans. I assumed that film was ok but not that sharp. then I got a
>light table and a loupe...
>
>by the time I have scanned my slides even with the minolta scan elite 5400
>they are not even close to what I see on the light table with a 10x loupe,
>there is less dynamic range with less shadow detail, its less alive, there
>are bags of general detail but its all soft it does not have the sharpness
>of the slide. The greens are no where near as saturated.
>
>
Two separate issues here.
First, I know it doesn't sound right to have to process an image after
it is scanned by a good scanner. It seems wrong somehow, coming from a
film ethos. Nonetheless, ALL digitally captured images need electronic
processing to make the information they capture look sharp to our eyes.
The data is all there, but not in the form that human eyes can use.
Those famous drum scans at amazing dpis that some folks rave about? They
may think the purity and wonderfulness of these esoteric gadgets make
stunningly sharp images naturally. The truth is that the drum scanners
all do considerable sharpening internally before they pass the image on.
I've made many nicely sharp images with a 2700 dpi scanner. The switch
to 4000 dpi certainly can bring out a bit more detail, but isn't
inherently sharper. The Minolta 5400 is capable of very sharp results,
when use properly, including sharpening. Research into visual appearance
of images long before digital found that perceived sharpness is a
mathematically undefined combination of detail and local contrast. The
film lenses you have always used are designed to cater to these
characteristics of human vision, as are the films, developers and
papers. It's actually not all that hard to make lenses with considerably
higher resolving power than most camera lenses, but they then have low
contrast and we see the images as unsharp, rather like an unsharpened
scan.. What could only be done before in a one size fits all way can now
be customized for different images. For some of us, that's an exciting
new ability.
It may be that your scanner software is capable of sharpening the scans,
if that is ok. Post processing software may well be more capable and
flexible, however. My personal experience is that what scanned film
often needs most for modest sized prints and for screen display is local
contrast enhancement, LCE. Although the image data shows the change in
color and brightness at sharp edges, it is too gradual to "look" sharp
to our eyes. What LCE does is increase contrast at these boundaries.
Research into visual appearance of images long before digital found that
perceived sharpness is a mathematically undefined combination of detail
and local contrast. The film lenses you have always used are designed to
cater to these characteristics of human vision, as are the films,
developers and papers. It's actually not all that hard to make lenses
with considerably higher resolving power than most camera lenses, but
they then have low contrast and we see the images as unsharp. What could
only be done before in a one size fits all way can now be customized for
different images. For some of us, that's an exciting now ability.
It improves the vast majority of images, although not all. For a
majority, it is like having a veil lifted from over the image, revealing
sharpness and detail that were hidden. Even doing a modest, standard
amount to all images will help. However, the optimal amount varies by
image. With a series of similar subject shots, the settings for one will
likely work well for all.
What I do personally is use a PS action that creates a duplicate layer
and applies a fair amount of LCE, about right or a little high based on
experimentation for most of my images. I can then adjust the opacity of
the layer to get the level I want with a slider, rather than trying
different levels one by one. Some few very flat images even benefit from
a, usually partial, second dose.
When highly cropped or printed large, regular sharpening can bring out
detail that otherwise wouldn't show. Sharpening is also useful when
downsizing for web display.
If you don't want to spend lots of time learning all the ins and outs of
unsharp mask for these tasks, there are reasonably priced tools for the
job that work at higher levels.
Second, color can be really tricky. Each hardware device in the chain is
imperfect, scanner, monitor, printer, ink and paper. Film is also
imperfect in color rendition, so there is also a decision, primarily for
slides, whether one wants color as true to the subject as possible or as
true to the film rendition as possible. The former requires film
profiling too. People who are really serious about color accuracy buy
hardware/software color management systems and profile their devices and
film. They also sometimes end up buying better monitors. Whether the
5400 will produce good color, however defined, without adjustments
depends largely on the color characteristics of the viewing system,
whether monitor or printer, ink and paper system, luck of the draw.
Modest and inexpensive efforts to color tune a system for the results
that one wants can do a pretty good job, but you can't realistically
expect to just plug a scanner in and get good color output without some
effort and/or expense.
(More helpful, Chris?)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|