[filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): question forArt
Hi Stan, I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood. You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing. Saving the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be detrimental since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size and other factors. They may even depend upon the printer type and driver software. I cannot give you absolutes in terms settings in using unsharp masking, because it depends upon many factors. Some include the type of image or subject matter and contract, color intensity, etc, the size the imagine is going to be reproduced to, and the scanning resolution used, the type of source material (the film base used) and indeed the type of scanner and if things like dICE is used or not. By trial and error, I have a sense of the settings depending on these factors, and how the image looks on the screen at differing magnifications. However, my principal point is this: All CCD based scanners tend to introduce softening which can in part be recaptured via unsharp masking. This softness is not a defect in focus or optics or the CCD, but is intentionally introduced to reduce the amount of noise and artifacting (Nyquist errors) that develop in the analogue to digital transfer which occurs in the scanning process. No image should be compared until optimum unsharp masking is accomplished because some manufacturers will uses some USM to make their scanners appear to have higher sharpness and resolution when actually introducing this higher focal accuracy may add unnecessary and even undesirable artifacts which cannot later be removed. Keeping the image unsharpened for storage does indeed allow you to adjust those measurements to the output method and size. Art Stan Schwartz wrote: A while back, Art mentioned sharpening a scanned transparency image before saving it--to restore some of the loss of sharpness inherent in the SS4000 scan. I am curious to know what degree of sharpening you use, in Photoshop terms re: %,radius and threshold, for this task. I've usually reserved sharpening as the last step before printing, leaving my archived image unsharpened. Stan Schwartz Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): question forArt
Art, There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to outputting. This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden days of digital's youth. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: forArt Hi Stan, I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood. You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing. Saving the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be detrimental since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size and other factors. They may even depend upon the printer type and driver software. I cannot give you absolutes in terms settings in using unsharp masking, because it depends upon many factors. Some include the type of image or subject matter and contract, color intensity, etc, the size the imagine is going to be reproduced to, and the scanning resolution used, the type of source material (the film base used) and indeed the type of scanner and if things like dICE is used or not. By trial and error, I have a sense of the settings depending on these factors, and how the image looks on the screen at differing magnifications. However, my principal point is this: All CCD based scanners tend to introduce softening which can in part be recaptured via unsharp masking. This softness is not a defect in focus or optics or the CCD, but is intentionally introduced to reduce the amount of noise and artifacting (Nyquist errors) that develop in the analogue to digital transfer which occurs in the scanning process. No image should be compared until optimum unsharp masking is accomplished because some manufacturers will uses some USM to make their scanners appear to have higher sharpness and resolution when actually introducing this higher focal accuracy may add unnecessary and even undesirable artifacts which cannot later be removed. Keeping the image unsharpened for storage does indeed allow you to adjust those measurements to the output method and size. Art Stan Schwartz wrote: A while back, Art mentioned sharpening a scanned transparency image before saving it--to restore some of the loss of sharpness inherent in the SS4000 scan. I am curious to know what degree of sharpening you use, in Photoshop terms re: %,radius and threshold, for this task. I've usually reserved sharpening as the last step before printing, leaving my archived image unsharpened. Stan Schwartz -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt
What you are saying makes sense, in terms of the progressive unsharp masking process, and indeed my own workflow sometimes includes this. One of the reasons I came to this was because I found occasional upsetting artifacts showing up once I had completed the manipulation and compositing work when I then did the large USM at the end. Suddenly, defects I should have corrected in masking, dust clean up, and other artifacts showed up where they were not noticeable when the image was still soft. This was particularly so with masking processes. By doing some early-USM the edges were more defined and allowed for better masking and cut and pasting, and even in cases of some types of clean up. I also suspect doing a progressive USM (even if it were done at the end) by in stages and steps, might allow for (ironically) softer sharpening which might look more natural, sort of like a fractal-like process where definition was generated by massaging the pixels into place. Art Laurie Solomon wrote: Art, There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to outputting. This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden days of digital's youth. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: forArt Hi Stan, I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood. You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing. Saving the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be detrimental since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size and other factors. They may even depend upon the printer type and driver software. I cannot give you absolutes in terms settings in using unsharp masking, because it depends upon many factors. Some include the type of image or subject matter and contract, color intensity, etc, the size the imagine is going to be reproduced to, and the scanning resolution used, the type of source material (the film base used) and indeed the type of scanner and if things like dICE is used or not. By trial and error, I have a sense of the settings depending on these factors, and how the image looks on the screen at differing magnifications. However, my principal point is this: All CCD based scanners tend to introduce softening which can in part be recaptured via unsharp masking. This softness is not a defect in focus or optics or the CCD, but is intentionally introduced to reduce the amount of noise and artifacting (Nyquist errors) that develop in the analogue to digital transfer which occurs in the scanning process. No image should be compared until optimum unsharp masking is accomplished because some manufacturers will uses some USM to make their scanners appear to have higher sharpness and resolution when actually introducing this higher focal accuracy may add unnecessary and even undesirable artifacts which cannot later be removed. Keeping the image unsharpened for storage does indeed allow you to adjust those measurements to the output method and size. Art Stan Schwartz wrote: A while back, Art mentioned sharpening a scanned transparency image before saving it--to restore some of the loss of sharpness inherent in the SS4000 scan. I am curious to know what degree of sharpening you use, in Photoshop terms re: %,radius and threshold, for this task. I've usually reserved sharpening as the last step before printing, leaving my archived image unsharpened. Stan Schwartz Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt
Are either of you allowing your scanner software to do the initial slight sharpening, or doing it post-scanning? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt What you are saying makes sense, in terms of the progressive unsharp masking process, and indeed my own workflow sometimes includes this. One of the reasons I came to this was because I found occasional upsetting artifacts showing up once I had completed the manipulation and compositing work when I then did the large USM at the end. Suddenly, defects I should have corrected in masking, dust clean up, and other artifacts showed up where they were not noticeable when the image was still soft. This was particularly so with masking processes. By doing some early-USM the edges were more defined and allowed for better masking and cut and pasting, and even in cases of some types of clean up. I also suspect doing a progressive USM (even if it were done at the end) by in stages and steps, might allow for (ironically) softer sharpening which might look more natural, sort of like a fractal-like process where definition was generated by massaging the pixels into place. Art Laurie Solomon wrote: Art, There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to outputting. This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden days of digital's youth. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: forArt Hi Stan, I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood. You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing. Saving the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be detrimental since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size and other factors. They may even depend upon the printer type and driver software. I cannot give you absolutes in terms settings in using unsharp masking, because it depends upon many factors. Some include the type of image or subject matter and contract, color intensity, etc, the size the imagine is going to be reproduced to, and the scanning resolution used, the type of source material (the film base used) and indeed the type of scanner and if things like dICE is used or not. By trial and error, I have a sense of the settings depending on these factors, and how the image looks on the screen at differing magnifications. However, my principal point is this: All CCD based scanners tend to introduce softening which can in part be recaptured via unsharp masking. This softness is not a defect in focus or optics or the CCD, but is intentionally introduced to reduce the amount of noise and artifacting (Nyquist errors) that develop in the analogue to digital transfer which occurs in the scanning process. No image should be compared until optimum unsharp masking is accomplished because some manufacturers will uses some USM to make their scanners appear to have higher sharpness and resolution when actually introducing this higher focal accuracy may add unnecessary and even undesirable artifacts which cannot later be removed. Keeping the image unsharpened for storage does indeed allow you to adjust those measurements to the output method and size. Art Stan Schwartz wrote: A while back, Art mentioned sharpening a scanned transparency image before saving it--to restore some of the loss of sharpness inherent in the SS4000 scan. I am curious to know what degree of sharpening you use, in Photoshop terms re: %,radius and threshold, for this task. I've usually reserved sharpening as the last step before printing, leaving my archived image unsharpened. Stan Schwartz Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt
I have never let the scanner software do any sharpening or resampling if I can avoid it; and as I am learning this seems to be in line with current thought. The reasoning for not doing this and leaving it for post scan editing programs are two fold, although there are other reasons as well. First, the available means for both resampling and sharpening are typically better and more sophisticated in the post scan third party software than in the scanning software. Secondly, one has more control over resampling and sharpening as to degree and type of resampling (and more specifically sharpening). You can regulate the type, method, and degree of sharpening (and even resampling) by using post scan applications more than if one uses the scanner software. Photoshop, for example, offers from 3-4 methods of resampling with others methods available via plugin applications such as Genuine Fractals and others; whereas scanner software typically offers only one method. Scanner software typically permits only one method of sharpening that the user has no control of ver the location and degree of sharpening that will be applied, while Photoshop has only one method of sharpening (the unsharp mask); but it allows the user to set the radius and amount of sharpening that is to be applied as well as the tolerance level where it will kick in - not to mention that you can define the areas of the image that will be sharpened so as to do localized sharpening. There are other programs and plugins out there which give even more flexibility in defining the sharpening method, degree, and type of sharpening that will be done - Pixel Genius's Photokit Sharpener is one such application. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: questionforArt Are either of you allowing your scanner software to do the initial slight sharpening, or doing it post-scanning? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Sharpening after scanning (SS4000): questionforArt What you are saying makes sense, in terms of the progressive unsharp masking process, and indeed my own workflow sometimes includes this. One of the reasons I came to this was because I found occasional upsetting artifacts showing up once I had completed the manipulation and compositing work when I then did the large USM at the end. Suddenly, defects I should have corrected in masking, dust clean up, and other artifacts showed up where they were not noticeable when the image was still soft. This was particularly so with masking processes. By doing some early-USM the edges were more defined and allowed for better masking and cut and pasting, and even in cases of some types of clean up. I also suspect doing a progressive USM (even if it were done at the end) by in stages and steps, might allow for (ironically) softer sharpening which might look more natural, sort of like a fractal-like process where definition was generated by massaging the pixels into place. Art Laurie Solomon wrote: Art, There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the end of the editing stage with focus on local sharpening, and final sharpening of the overall image prior to outputting. This does represent a sea change from the all-at-once prior to printing advice that use to be in fashion in the golden days of digital's youth. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: forArt Hi Stan, I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood. You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing. Saving the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be detrimental since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size and other factors. They may even depend upon the printer type and driver software. I cannot give you absolutes in terms settings in using unsharp masking, because it depends upon many factors. Some include the type of image or subject matter and contract, color intensity, etc, the size the imagine is going to be reproduced to, and the scanning resolution used, the type of source material (the film base used) and indeed the type of scanner and if things like dICE is used or not. By trial and error, I have a sense of the settings depending on these factors, and how the image looks on the screen at differing magnifications. However, my principal point is this: All CCD based scanners tend to introduce softening which can in part be recaptured via unsharp masking. This softness is not a defect in focus or optics or the CCD, but is intentionally introduced to reduce the amount of noise and artifacting (Nyquist errors) that
[filmscanners] another Sharpening question
Hello, I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life much easier!) Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing the various images. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life much easier!) Ed Verkaik -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
From: Ed Verkaik I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life much easier!) No. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing the various images. Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply to such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no natural edges that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try to come up with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the experience of others can lead me to a solution. Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
From: Ed Verkaik Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply to such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no natural edges that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try to come up with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the experience of others can lead me to a solution. Actually, I should make one further point, which is that Unsharp Mask can also be used as a localized contrast enhancement, by setting its diameter to something near its maximum value, rather than to the usual very small value. This is particularly useful when you want to enhance local contrast (perhaps even in clouds), but you have too much overall dynamic range to use a more conventional Levels or Curves approach. If all you have is clouds, though, Levels or Curves should work fine. But that use of Unsharp Mask isn't really sharpening. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
