Re: [Leica] [leica] digital printing - scan negs or prints?

["Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>]

From: <FSilberman@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 18:47
Subject: [Leica] [leica] digital printing - scan negs or prints?


> My experience with B&W is that it is far simpler to
> work from a print than it is to scan a b&w neg. the file
> is smaller & the quality is better.

This latter statement is internally inconsistent, all else being equal.  The
better the quality of a digital image (such as a scan), the larger the file that
contains it will be.  There is no way around this.

A scan of a print can never exceed the quality of a scan of the negative that
produced the print.  In fact, it can never even equal the quality of the
negative scan.  The only way for this to happen is if the scan of the print is
if other variables are introduced; for example, a bad scan of a negative can be
worse than a good scan of a print, but a perfect scan of a negative is always
superior to a perfect scan of a print.

> Drum scans offer the best dynamic range out there, but
> flatbeds are fast approaching on their heels.

Flatbeds working with reflected light only and _prints_ will never catch up with
scans of transparencies or negatives using transmitted light.  The dynamic range
of the latter far exceeds that of the former.

> Most medium print highend printers scan transaprencies
> on flatbed scanners today.

As long as the scan uses transmitted light (not reflected light) and the
resolution is high enough, this can produce excellent results.

> But from what I've been told from my separator is that
> if you have a nice print & it is about the size it will
> be printed from they will make a nice drum scan from it.

What your separator is probably saying is that he knows how to scan prints a lot
better than he knows how to scan transparencies.

> They aslo noted it was easier for them to get the
> scan right the first time with little tweeking.

I thought so.  See above.

> It seems the narrower dynamic range is an advantage in
> this respect.

It makes it easier to scan, because a narrow dynamic range doesn't require as
much skill to scan correctly.  And if you are scanning just for the purpose of
printing again as a halftone (which is even worse in quality than a photographic
print), you don't really need the superior image quality of a transparency scan.

> This is why I'm experimenting with color prints on my flatbed
> now. The narrower range makes it easier for the falt bed to
> capture the info ...

There is less info to capture.  It's easier because the image quality is
inferior to that of a transparency.  If this is acceptable to you, then no
problem.  If you want better image quality, however, you _must_ scan film
directly.  If you display scanned prints on a monitor or with a projector, for
example, the lower quality of the print scans as compared to transparency scans
can be very obvious indeed.

  -- Anthony