NedL
Hi Everyone,
So I just arrived from (there was a url link here which no longer exists).
My scans of my prints suck. When I hold the print in my hands and look at the digital version of it on the screen, it is always disappointing.
First, there is a sense of depth in my prints that is just AWOL in the scans. Maybe it is because the emulsion actually has depth, or maybe it is because of the textured surface, I don't know, but the scanned images seem lifeless and dull compared to the real thing.
Second, I know opinions on APUG vary, but I really like the way my prints look on pearl surface. It gives that "depth" but there's also something subtle about moving the print in the light. The blacks have a kind of shimmer in them that I really like. Since I can see this my eyes, it seems like it should be possible convey... ?
Finally, a lot of my scans look like my prints have golf ball grain, even when the real grain is fine or hard to see at all. It is an artifact of the textured surface. The image I most recently posted in the APUG gallery is like this... the one called (there was a url link here which no longer exists). The grain in the actual print looks lovely and fine and is a big reason why the print looks nice. The scan destroys the delicate looking grain and emphasizes the pearl surface of the print.
I did spend time reading at DPUG and I'm not the only one who's noticed this... a lot of people there ( who are also here ) mentioned that they don't try to scan textured papers for these reasons. So that's very useful information.
I'm interested in trying to set up a simple copy stand to see if I can make something that looks more like the real print. I don't own a DSLR, but I have a couple point and shoots and good Fuji mirrorless camera...maybe I'm not supposed to mention the name but it will probably focus close enough to make a nice copy. I don't post very many images on the web so it doesn't have to be convenient or fast.
So.... I want to set up a stand parallel to the copy camera and lighting at 45 degrees from ether side, right? I've tried things like this before and uneven lighting was a problem..... do I need some kind of diffusor? What kind of light would be best? Or is it necessary to purchase strobes? Something simple would be good. Any advice? The only purpose is to make a web image that looks more like my prints.
The other option is just to live with the fact my scans don't represent my prints very well. That's okay too.
So I just arrived from (there was a url link here which no longer exists).
My scans of my prints suck. When I hold the print in my hands and look at the digital version of it on the screen, it is always disappointing.
First, there is a sense of depth in my prints that is just AWOL in the scans. Maybe it is because the emulsion actually has depth, or maybe it is because of the textured surface, I don't know, but the scanned images seem lifeless and dull compared to the real thing.
Second, I know opinions on APUG vary, but I really like the way my prints look on pearl surface. It gives that "depth" but there's also something subtle about moving the print in the light. The blacks have a kind of shimmer in them that I really like. Since I can see this my eyes, it seems like it should be possible convey... ?
Finally, a lot of my scans look like my prints have golf ball grain, even when the real grain is fine or hard to see at all. It is an artifact of the textured surface. The image I most recently posted in the APUG gallery is like this... the one called (there was a url link here which no longer exists). The grain in the actual print looks lovely and fine and is a big reason why the print looks nice. The scan destroys the delicate looking grain and emphasizes the pearl surface of the print.
I did spend time reading at DPUG and I'm not the only one who's noticed this... a lot of people there ( who are also here ) mentioned that they don't try to scan textured papers for these reasons. So that's very useful information.
I'm interested in trying to set up a simple copy stand to see if I can make something that looks more like the real print. I don't own a DSLR, but I have a couple point and shoots and good Fuji mirrorless camera...maybe I'm not supposed to mention the name but it will probably focus close enough to make a nice copy. I don't post very many images on the web so it doesn't have to be convenient or fast.
So.... I want to set up a stand parallel to the copy camera and lighting at 45 degrees from ether side, right? I've tried things like this before and uneven lighting was a problem..... do I need some kind of diffusor? What kind of light would be best? Or is it necessary to purchase strobes? Something simple would be good. Any advice? The only purpose is to make a web image that looks more like my prints.
The other option is just to live with the fact my scans don't represent my prints very well. That's okay too.
