Type of Prints used for Web Site.

[thefizz]

Hi all, I will be creating a web site soon but have a question regarding the scanning of B&W prints.

Which type of print (matt, glossy etc) will show up best on a web site.
I mainly use Matt papers and do not have any glossy at present so I can't scan each type and compare. I just thought a Matt scan would be a little dull or flat compared to the glossy.

What do you use?

Peter

 

[127]

I usually just print for the print, and scan as an afterthought.

However on the odd occasion I've had prints which were slightly flat, I've found them considerably easier to scan. If I were printing to scan, I'd print a grade lower, and push the contrast back up post-scan.

I doubt that the matt/glossy distinction would survive the scan in any usefull way. I'd probably go for matt to reduce the posibility of flaring diring the scan, but I doubt it would matter.

Ian

 

[rogueish]

I have found that pearl surface (Ilford) sometimes doesn't scan right on my HP 4760. I find the texture sometimes shows up as white specks everywhere. As if the print was covered in dust or snow. I personally have seen no difference between matt or gloss on my scanner.

 

[Ed Sukach]

My main problem with scanning prints - the majority of my work is in color - is color balance. I'll scan, and for a number of reasons; integrity, and conforming to the idea of, "The least PS-type tweaking possible" - my images will result in many telling me my prints are "too green". I can assure you, I take great care in color balance with the originals - and the balance looks OK on my screen. Each roll of film (or at least one roll in every "session") will have one frame with an image of a gray card, and I analyze a LOT in printing.

It has been suggested that I equip this machine with a Screen Calibrator" to conform to some "standard of color" ... I won't -- costs too much, I'll be involved in an area that really holds no interest for me (read: d*****l), and it would not do much good unless everyone else out there calibrates their screens the same way.
The hue and cry subsided somewhat with my last submission - because I deliberately tweaked to get the image to appear too magenta here (called `Kentucky Windage').

Black and White..? No matter what I do, those scans are invariably of lower quality than the originals; definition is less, tonal scale is less, contrast never seems to be "right" ... I only hope that those viewing them can mentally compensate for the difference in what they see on the screen as compared to the originals.

Possibly, an additional requirement for critiquing should be the posting of a number of images from the would-be critic. That might give them some idea of the "differences".

 

[Nicole]

I usually scan the neg and not the print.
My local pro lab tell me, you get much better scans from glossy prints than matt.

 

[sparx]

I also prefer to scan the negative instead of the print. I then use PS to get a representation of the original. I find print scanning can often generate too much noise or moire.

 

[thefizz]

Thanks everyone for your help.

Peter

 

[eric]

it would not do much good unless everyone else out there calibrates their screens the same way.

Welcome to the internet and Monitor viewing of color prints!!!

We know that's a problem but for my Aunt Gertrude (I don't really have one), they don't know crap. People write HTML code on 1600x1200 and realize that some people can't see their pix or font size. Some people swear it looks great on their $1000.00 flat screen monitor but most people's monitors are not calibrated.

Nothing like the real thing huh? Or B&W and even that is not great. I noticed that my screen at work renders stuff much darker (no matter how I adjust it). Or it could just be the ambient lighting in here. Who knows.

But viewing on the web is ONE TO MANY relationship where making a print is MANY TO ONE relationship. You can't please all the people all the time in your web scans.