Scanning and Digital Presnetation of Pt/Pd Prints

[DPVisions]

I am becoming very frustrated in trying to achieve decent results of scanning or even photographing prints for digital display. I have tried scanning using an Epson v700 with SilverFast AI and get absolute horribule results.

The resulting image no matter what I try ends looking very noisy/grainy and seems to be picking up so much detail from the paper fibers while the print in hand looks smooth and clean.

Any suggestions on proper technique to get realistic results of Pt/Pd prints on the web.

Cheers,
David

 

[pschwart]

I am becoming very frustrated in trying to achieve decent results of scanning or even photographing prints for digital display. I have tried scanning using an Epson v700 with SilverFast AI and get absolute horribule results.

The resulting image no matter what I try ends looking very noisy/grainy and seems to be picking up so much detail from the paper fibers while the print in hand looks smooth and clean.

Any suggestions on proper technique to get realistic results of Pt/Pd prints on the web.

Cheers,
David

turn off all automatic adjustments during scanning, especially sharpening
do careful postprocessing in Photoshop

 

[mesh]

I'd second the above suggestion, but would also add that's it's probably easier using Epson Scan. Silverfast likes to apply it's 'proprietary corrections' that are great for negs but little use in your situation.

I would do a scan with minimal adjustments - only setting a white and black point, and perhaps some global colour if required (with a bit of desaturation probably). Definitely no 'auto anything' or sharpening. You will find it easier to apply USM in PS I think because you'll be needing to play with your threshold and radius a bit (because of fibre textures you mention). I would guess a larger threshold and radius... depends on pixel size obviously but perhaps try amount: 60, radius: 0.5, threshold 5... just a random guess...

Stunning pics BTW! Wish I could see the prints.

 

[mesh]

I should clarify - my standard USM for screen would be around amount:40, radius 0.4, threshold 0. This essentially sharpens the edges to give a little 'punch'. You really just need to be adding a bit more in amount and threshold I think. I just tested a fibre print on my V700 and that seemed to work OK. Your images have little 'edge definition' by their nature... you may even be better trying to sharpen selectively. ie. create a new layer for you sharpen and then use a layer mask to paint in and out the effect.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have similar issues scanning FB silver prints, regardless of what you do you can't achieve the same high quality as scanning a Glossy RC print.

For me there's two options either make RC prints for scanning or make neg scans, either way they'd need tweaking to match the prints whether Silver, or Plat/Palladium etc.

Ian

 

[Loris Medici]

A digital camera reproduction using a print viewing station with a quality lamp and diffuser will do the job in 99% of the cases (including web reproductions) - at least in my experience...

Regards,
Loris.

P.S. There isn't any way to get rid of those scanning artifacts that occur with some paper / scanner combinations...

 

[Joe Lipka]

I tried to scan pt/pd prints for a while, but gave up. The scanners were too good and would pick up the paper texture as you have found out. If this is for a web presentation, you could scan at a very low resolution.

I wound up scanning the negatives and then found a nice tone to impersonate a pt/pd print.

That's all I have to offer.

 

[DPVisions]

Thanks for all the replies and suggestions. This should not be too difficult to accomplish.

The main attempt is to create an accurate reproduction of the print to post on my website. I could use the digital image used to create the digital negative but feel this is somewhat dishonest and does not truely represent the quality of the print.

Time to step away from the sink and try out these suggestions.

Cheers,
David

 

[Marco B]

Scanning on no more than 75-100 ppi should be enough for most "screen display" purposes.

In my experience, scanning any print at more than about 400 ppi is useless, as you won't be adding much more detail from the print, but merely compound any issues with dust etc.

Scan resolutions above that are for negatives...

 

[PVia]

David,

I've found that making a digital photograph of the print looks the best. There will always be tradeoffs, and I agree with you that scanning a neg is not a fair representation of the print itself.

I've gone through the same agony that you are going through and now photograph almost all of my prints, whether gelatin silver or other processes.

 

[pschwart]

The main attempt is to create an accurate reproduction of the print to post on my website.

The reality is that many (most?) alt process prints can't be "accurately" represented by a screen image, especially when the paper texture and finish are significant components of the image.

 

[donbga]

T
I could use the digital image used to create the digital negative but feel this is somewhat dishonest and does not truely represent the quality of the print.

It's not dishonest, you are creating a facsimile of the print for online viewing.

Quit worrying about being a purist and just get the job done. Worrying about perfection is a loosing game.

Joe Lipka's methodology is a tried and true way to simulate the actual print; Dan Burkholder uses this method and I'll bet he doesn't loose a wink of sleep over it.

And as Loris mentioned taking a digital photo of the real print is also a good alternative.

Don Bryant

 

[sanking]

It's not dishonest, you are creating a facsimile of the print for online viewing.

Quit worrying about being a purist and just get the job done. Worrying about perfection is a loosing game.

Joe Lipka's methodology is a tried and true way to simulate the actual print; Dan Burkholder uses this method and I'll bet he doesn't loose a wink of sleep over it.

And as Loris mentioned taking a digital photo of the real print is also a good alternative.

Don Bryant

I don't worry about this too much. A digital simulation is perfectly OK and if that bothers you the easiest thing to do is take a copy of the print with a digital camera and then scale it for your purpose. This is my preferred method because in my carbon transfer work I use many tones and it is often easier to just make a digital shot of the print than match the color in Photoshop.

Sandy King

 

[Kerik]

If you don't want to use the original digital image, try scanning the print at a much higher resolution than you need, then downsize it to presentation size in photoshop. This will help minimize the paper texture.

 

[DPVisions]

I believe that I am making progress with all the helpful tips with the scanning. I tried some of the suggestions given on these two images and the results are much better.

Next to try using the camera to photograph the prints and see what I like better. The camera seems to be a more time consuming approach but will give it a try.