f/stopblues
photo loner
So, compare these two processes done on the same scanner.. Which yields a higher quality scan for web viewing?
Scan A at lower resolution, scanned to produce a certain size image (we'll say 600 pixels wide.)
or
Scan B, scanned high resolution but immediately resized to 600 pixels wide.
What sparked this question is the very nice looking scans that show a whole lot more "depth" than my crappy ones. Is it the scanner or the process, basically? I know my negs have the info on them. Wet prints really sing.
Here's what I'm talking about. How do they do this??
http://www.ball-saal.com/stefan/portfolio/portrait/001.jpg
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4884709
- our own Todd Hanz - http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=65699&ppuser=489
Thanks!
Scan A at lower resolution, scanned to produce a certain size image (we'll say 600 pixels wide.)
or
Scan B, scanned high resolution but immediately resized to 600 pixels wide.
What sparked this question is the very nice looking scans that show a whole lot more "depth" than my crappy ones. Is it the scanner or the process, basically? I know my negs have the info on them. Wet prints really sing.
Here's what I'm talking about. How do they do this??
http://www.ball-saal.com/stefan/portfolio/portrait/001.jpg
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4884709
- our own Todd Hanz - http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=65699&ppuser=489
Thanks!
dnk512
Well-known
Downsampling should give you better results. So, option B.
However, the samples you are looking at have lots of post-processing (in addition to a clear capture to start with). And, yes, a better scanner helps, too!
Perhaps you should drop a PM to Todd and ask him!
However, the samples you are looking at have lots of post-processing (in addition to a clear capture to start with). And, yes, a better scanner helps, too!
Perhaps you should drop a PM to Todd and ask him!
40oz
...
^ I agree. I've tried scanning at lower res just for organizing my negatives. The results are just a crappier scan. I'd suggest scanning at the highest resolution, and reduce size when necessary by multiples of 2 rather than just random sizes. In other words, go to 3/4 size, 1/2 size, whatever, not just "320x600" or whatever. I haven't done the math, but since I read that suggestion (don't recall where) it consistently gives me better results.
Last edited:
vicmortelmans
Well-known
Are you talking about filmscanning? Maybe the pictures which you refer to have been wet printed and scanned on a flatbedscanner? You say that your wet prints 'sing', so have you tried scanning the print and compared that to your filmscan?
I have a quite embarassing thread running about ADOX CHS100 film, for which my process is 'optimal' at ISO15. I'm getting to accept that optimizing the process for filmscanning is putting me on a side-track, so I'm starting to think about getting the priting darkroom set up again...
But to answer your question: I think the post-scan downsampling is better, but it won't give more depth, only may improve grain and sharpness.
Groeten,
Vic
I have a quite embarassing thread running about ADOX CHS100 film, for which my process is 'optimal' at ISO15. I'm getting to accept that optimizing the process for filmscanning is putting me on a side-track, so I'm starting to think about getting the priting darkroom set up again...
But to answer your question: I think the post-scan downsampling is better, but it won't give more depth, only may improve grain and sharpness.
Groeten,
Vic