Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Update on Nikon 8000ED scanner
From: Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:54:32 -0400

At 09:22 AM 7/14/02 -0400, you wrote:

>For piezography I believe that larger files work better but still only in
>the magnitude of two times.
>
>Don donning the asbestos but wanting the correct information out there.
>
>Don


Here is the information from Jon Cone's site:

1 - Scan at the highest OPTICAL DPI and bit depth your scanner will allow. 
Hopefully your scanner will scan at a higher bit level than 8-bit.
2 - Do levels and curves for tonal changes at the higher bit depth. 
Photoshop has limited tools available in the higher bit depths, but 
fortunately levels and curves are covered. When converting to 8-bit 
greyscale, you will have a smooth histogram. Aggressive levels and curves 
adjustments in 8-bit can cause the "fingers of death" spiked histogram as a 
result of math round off errors.
3 - If you need to resize the image, do to cropping or to make an image 
smaller or larger, make sure to "Uncheck" the "Resample" check box in the 
Photoshop Image Size dialog box. Photoshop Bicubic interpolation softens 
the image and you lose edge detail. When you "Uncheck" the "Resample" check 
box, you will notice that height and width and DPI are now linked. As you 
change the height or width to the desired size, the DPI will increase or 
decrease depending on whether you are making the print size smaller or 
larger respectively.
4 - Let the DPI fall where it may. Weird DPI numbers - even fractional DPI 
numbers are OK. An image DPI of 573.4629 is no problem for the Piezography 
driver.
5 - So what is the optimal resolution? I can say that 72 DPI is way too 
few. We sort of drew a line in the sand and said that minimum is 240 DPI. I 
have pushed down a bit below this to get a larger print and the result was 
good. Could it have been better - yes probably. Jon maintains that 720 is 
best. Of course he has Larry and a Hell Drum scanner and can say to Larry - 
"Scan this image at the output size at 720 DPI", and the resultant file may 
be 200 megabytes. The Hell can go to 8,000 DPI optical and 12,000 DPI 
interpolated. Scanning interpolation can be as bad as Photoshop 
interpolation. It is a software guy's theory on how best to add data that 
is not really there. It is best to stay at the max optical DPI your scanner 
can scan. You should do your own experiments to see if your particular 
scanner / software adds objectionable noise patterns if you are pushing to 
the max interpolated scan DPI. Watch the shadow areas.
6 - Please note that there is a difference between scanned 720 DPI at the 
output size, and an DPI added artificially with a program like Genuine 
Fractals. If you have an 8x10 image at 300 DPI, there is no benefit from 
using Genuine Fractals to create an 8x10 at 720 DPI. This program works 
well, but the intended use is to try to boost the image to a good 16x20 
image from the original 8x10.
7 - The maximum amount of pixels you can scan will depend on the max 
resolution of the scanner and the size of the film. A 4x5 negative yields a 
much larger file than 35 mm. when both are scanned at the maximum. Once in 
Photoshop all you have are pixels (PPI). Pixels have no size until the 
moment of printing when you have defined how large the image will be at a 
specific DPI. That is why it is meaningless to talk about size with pixels, 
and you will often hear people refer to the actual file size. It is more 
meaningful to say you have a 100 Megabyte file versus a 30 Mb file than to 
say that you have an image that is 8x10. If they tell you they have a 8x10 
- - then you have to ask - "At what DPI?"
8 - Artificially setting the black point and white point in Photoshop will 
often stretch out and slightly posterize the midtones, and usually is 
reflected in a bad looking histogram. This is a leading trick in all the 
Photoshop books and is bad advise. It is better to properly scan the image 
and let the data fall naturally where it should. At the scanner you have 
better control - but it is still not a great idea to force the endpoints to 
something that is really not on the film. At http://www.piezography.com - 
Jon has a technique for selecting specific tonal ranges of an image - that 
can be used to good effect to darken the shadows, or conversely to select 
the blown out highlights so that you can add a very small amount of 
gaussian blur, and then add 2 or 3 percent grey. Excellent method to fix 
blown out highlights (ex. an area of clouds that are on the edge of the 
image that have blown out to paper white so that the edge of the image is 
lost.)


I follow this advice and get excellent results.

Tina


Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

images available from:
http://www.pdiphotos.com
http://www.mira.com
http://www.agpix.com
http://www.newscom.com




- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html