From: Joe Tait (jtait@texas.net)
Date: 12/01/02-11:28:45 PM Z
> My question is this. What are the pros and cons of of the two
> following scenarios: 1) scanning at 100% of the 4 X 6.5" negative
> size at the maximum optical resolution of 2450 dpi, re-sizing later
> in PhotoShop, or 2) scanning at the desired printing size of 13X19"
> 300dpi?
As Philip mentioned in his excellent post, since the 2450 is just throwing away
data during scanning, you are better off going with an optical scan & resampling
post-scan, probably....it mostly comes down to which interpolation is better,
Silverfast or PS. They are probably a draw.
As Philip also mentioned, Vuescan is a viable option; would allow you to do a
RAW scan, import into PS, edit in 16bit, resample, unsharp mask and output. That
is the workflow I have been using for a lot of my scanning and I think it is a
good one. Having a RAW scan would allow you to repurpose that master scan for
whatever applicaiton you might need, and as you get better at PS/digital (which
everyone can) you can fine-tune that shot without re-scannning.
> If so I can't find anything about that in the manual. However, since
> I am scanning negatives, would there be any advantage to extending
> the dynamic range?
Depends. The 2450 is an excellent value for the money, but it won't capture the
dynamic range of most film/scenes/densities, so in that sense multi-pass
scanning could be worth it.
Any scanner can do multi-pass scanning with the right software (Vuescan can in
all supported models I believe), what matters is if there is any point in doing
so. All multi-passing is doing is scanning one pass, the head returns to the
home position, comes back & does another scan, then the software averages the
results (from separate exposures). You can do the same thing is Photoshop in a
number of ways. Doing multi-pass assumes that the scanner is accurate enough to
do two (or more) full passes and not shift registration when pairing up those
multiple scans. Highly doubtful with the 2450, and a lot of scanners for that
matter. The result can range from being subtle (a little too soft) to
unacceptable ridiculous.
A better technique is multi-sampling, which the 2450 and a lot of scanners do
not do. Multi-sampling samples the same area multiple times with different
exposures before moving onto other areas, and the software/hardware builds a
more accurate sampling of the scanned area. There is no registration problems,
and typically less noise and better shadow detail. Both these techniques results
in really long scan times.
> I have to say that the quality I am getting from the Epson 2450 with
> the 5x7 negatives is really very good. Mark Nelson did a scan earlier
> this year for me from a 5X7 B&W negative using his Imacon Flextight
> scanner, at about 1600 dpi. I scanned the same negative with the
> Epson 2450 at the same resolution and frankly if there is any
> difference in image quality between the 13X19" comparison prints I
> made from the two scans it is not visible to my eyes. Mind you I am
> not saying that the 2450 is as good as an Flextight but for this
> particular application it appears to be.
The Flextight should get better scanning results by far, but you bring up an
invaluable point, comparing the final print....
You can get, excellent, excellent printed results from "prosumer" scanning
hardware, which is what most people scan for. I don't wan't to stare at my
beautiful scans I want to see a final print mounted for all to see!
-Joe
(I realize that some scan for archivability, but you are just going to be
tempted by the endless moving-target of what hardware produces the best scans.
Why bother? I say buy quality hardware, make prints and be happy.)
====== End Forwarded Message ======
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 01/31/03-09:31:25 AM Z CST