[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: Resolution and print quality



Ok, I understand now.

My response is to say that posterization is caused by a workflow problem, and
although certainly the gaussian blur is a solution, it's really a workaround,
either for a scanning or printer profiling problem.

I am not familiar with the Nikon LS-30 scanner.  We now have a Howtek (drum)
scanner, and have found that the 16 bit scans from it don't, for the most part,
need sharpening, and those from our old (inexpensive) flatbed Microtek needed it
only sometimes, but that too, was a 16 bit scanner.

And again, I find that photographers get seduced by sharpening producing a
grainier less photographic results in the process.  In fact, at the Photo Expo
last Fall, I found 90% of Epson's display prints objectionably over sharpened.

There is no accounting for taste though....Yours, or mine.  ;-)

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



"Maris V. Lidaka Sr." wrote:

> I have had occasions where posterization occurred in the sky.  Personally I
> selected the sky and applied a Gaussian blur and I don't really know what is
> meant by "smart blur", but that would be my reason.
>
> I also have never scanned a piece of film that didn't need sharpening for
> print or for the web, but maybe it's my scanner - I have the Nikon LS-30.
>
> You are more knowledgeable than I, but those are my reasons.
>
> Maris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "SKID Photography" <skid@bway.net>
> To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 9:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Resolution and print quality
>
> > Maris,
> > Why would one need to 'smart blur' a sky, and what reasons do you give for
> the
> > "you should certainly sharpen"?
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> >
> > "Maris V. Lidaka Sr." wrote:
> >
> > > You should certainly sharpen.  Whether you need to smart blur depends on
> the
> > > image, perhaps one with a large expanse sky or something similar.
> > >
> > > Maris
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "john gale" <john@smadness.com>
> > > To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 12:50 PM
> > > Subject: Resolution and print quality
> > >
> > > >
> > > [snipped]
> > > > But what about some more general things that I've heard people refer
> > > > to, but am not quite sure how they might help / hinder?  In other
> > > > words, what's the general process that people usually go through to
> > > > get from a scanned image to a printed image?  Say I get a 4000ppi
> > > > negative scan, and want to print a 5x7 from it.  This gives me
> > > > roughly 800ppi, so I should scale it down to 720ppi.  But what about
> > > > other things that might increase the quality of the print?  Should I
> > > > sharpen / blur the image?  Should I smart blur to get a more
> > > > continuous tone?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >            !john



-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.


[Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Scanner]     [Gimp]     [Gimp] Users

Powered by Linux