Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Pieter, Your experience is quite different from Donal's. Frankly, I'm more surprised by his story than yours.(Should check back and see if he mentioned the lab). However, there are many factors that can affect apparent sharpness, not the least of which is scan resolution--1500x2250 pixels is only a 3Mb file--you're right about pixelation being a major factor. But even at high resolutions, sharpness in the original scan can be impacted by mechanical and optical characteristics of the scanner itself, not to mention flatness of the slide or negative. The problems of magnifying these tiny little 35mm images to produce a sharp print with an enlarger are greatly compounded when scanning. At high resolution, you also begin to experience problems with excessive scanner sensitivity to such things as dust, microscopic scratches, and, yes, even grain. Even under the best of conditions--200Mb scan of 4x5 original with a high-end drum scanner printed on a Durst Lambda, say at 16x20--the digital print doesn't have quite the detail of an Ilfochrome printed from the same original. However, it could actually appear to be sharper--many scanner operators routinely apply "unsharp masking" to the scanned image. IMHO, unless you have a serious need to manipulate your image, have a custom enlarger-produced print made by a competent printer (person, that is). You will be much happier with the results. - -Mike At 01:48 PM 6/6/1998 -0400, Pieter Bras, you wrote... >Donal Philby <donalphilby@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>Last Saturday I saw a print from a slide that absolutely knocked me >>out. It was shot on 35mm (Nikon) EPP (not noted for sharpness). It was >>16 x 20. There was detail on the print that you couldn't see on the >>slide with a good lupe. Looked like is was made from a 4x5. > <snip> <snip> >I had a 6 X 9 inch print made, on 8 X 10 paper, They scanned the >original at 250 dpi of output, that is the slide was digitized to 1500 X >2250 pixels. It was printed on Kodak professional color paper. > >The print looks nice enough at first view, but upon careful comparison >it cannot stand up to the slide. With a 20X triplet lens, I could >clearly see film grain on the slide. On the print, no grain was visible >at any magnification. There was, however, an overall loss of >definition. Eye details were less distinct and eyelashes were slightly >blurred. The white whiskers against the deep blue background were most >obviously afffected. They seemed thinner, lacking the substance of the >original. Examining them carefully on the print, I could see the rows >of imaged dots, and have satisfied myself that the loss of quality is >due to the pixelization. Each pixel area can be only a single color, so >in areas of high contrast, colors can bleed across the width of a pixel. > >As this photo has high sentimental value to me, I am going to try to get >the best possible print, without regard for $$$. I am having a >spare-no-expense Ilfochrome print made of the same slide, and should >have comparative results shortly. Stay tuned. > >-- >Pieter Bras pieter@world.std.com > >