Re: filmscanners: Sharpening scanned images for printing

[SKID Photography <skid@bway.net>]

Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi Harvey,
>
> > > HI scan 35mm at 5080 and do not sharpen at all.  I also shoot
> > with Leica and
> > > Contax (Zeiss) glass, as well as develop my own film, so I can
> > control the
> > > quality of the development.
> >
> > Aren't 'sharp' images on film a different issue than sharp scans?
>
> Yes, but your scans won't look sharp if the image isn't sharp...unless you
> have a very low res scanner.

If, let's say one shoots with a Holga camera (plastic lens etc.), which takes 
admittedly odd images due to the
lack of lens, and film transport quality etc., but use very high speed, grainy 
film.  Then, you scan those
negs (B&W).  If your scan is soft ,the image will look bad (with fuzzy film 
grain etc.), if it is a sharp
scan, then the image will look as intended, and good.  IMO

So, I still maintain, that in *this* discussion, the sharpness of the original 
has no bearing on the need to
sharpen scans for printing.

Sharpening to correct for poor image capture craftsmanship is a trick using a 
Photoshop technique to save an
image, whereas sharpening a scan for offset (or whatever kind of reproduction) 
is a technique used to properly
express what is actually on the original film and to overcome an inherent flaw 
of scanning technology.

>
> > And aren't higher bit level scans sharper than lower bit
> > ones?....
>
> No.  In fact, they would be softer, since there are more tonal levels.
> Sharpness is really nothing but contrast, as in difference in tonal values.

Then why do (real) hi bit scans require less sharpening than low bit scans?


Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC