viewing percentage?

[stradibarrius]

After scanning a negative into Photoshop, what is a reasonable percentage to view the image? This is to view the after scanning.
For example the atached image was taken with an RB67, 6X7 MF. Viewed at 66% the edges start to get soft at 100% the edges are soft but the image doesn't fall apart but is of course softer than at 66%.
Does this question make sense?

Maybe I should ask about digital viewing criteria of a scanned film negative???

 

[Katharine Thayer]

Um? You'll view the image at whatever percentage suits a particular task you're working at. If you're doing something global that affects the whole image, you'll probably want to view the image at a percentage that allows you to see the whole image at the same time. If you're taking out a small mark with the cloning tool, you'll want to view it at a percentage that allows you to see the individual pixels, probably more than 100%. The viewing percentage doesn't change the file; it just aids with seeing what you're doing.

I have no idea what information the attached image is supposed to convey.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

<assumption concept="preview4print">
monitor dependent, but I find that 50% gives me about right for close inspect of print (in my hand) and monitor (as close as I'd like to look at it before seeing pixels on screen). Of course for overview then it depends on size of print and monitor
</assumption>

and yes, I really *have* been doing too much XML viewing lately

well anyway ... it might also be nice to know at what DPI you scanned it (note: dpi not print dpi or some other dpi ... scanner dpi. If uncertain please give details of scanner)

 

[Bruce Watson]

After scanning a negative into Photoshop, what is a reasonable percentage to view the image? This is to view the after scanning.
For example the atached image was taken with an RB67, 6X7 MF. Viewed at 66% the edges start to get soft at 100% the edges are soft but the image doesn't fall apart but is of course softer than at 66%.
Does this question make sense?

Oy -- I'm getting your question now. You should use the viewing level you like, and use a viewing level appropriate for the task you are trying to perform.

Viewing on the monitor doesn't correlate at all well with viewing a print. There are two main reasons for this. First, a monitor is a light source while a print is a reflective source. Most people find that they see more shadow detail with the monitor and wonder why they don't see it on the print. This is at least part of the reason why.

Second, the pixel spacing is markedly different. If your monitor is an older 72 ppi model, and you are printing to an Epson printer at 360 ppi output resolution, you are looking at a 360/72 = 5x enlargement on your monitor. Just from the difference in pixel spacing. So looking at the monitor at 100% pixels is like looking at a print with a 5x loupe. The monitor *should* look soft and grainy in comparison.

What I'm saying is, you can't easily draw any conclusions about the quality of a scan by looking at the image on a monitor. At any % pixels in Photoshop. This is particularly true of shadow detail, graininess, and sharpness. The only way to accurately judge what you'll see in a print, is to make a print.

 

[stradibarrius]

Let me ask the question a different way...go go out a shoot several rolls of film. come home process and scan them into the computer. As you look through the images trying to decide the keepers and the throw aways, at what % do you view and expect the images to pass inspection.
Example, If I try to make a decision if an image is a keeper or not and I inspect it at 400% it is not realistic to expect it to hold up to that much scrutiny. At 50 % it looks great, at 100% it starts to get soft.

So I am asking what is most you can expect from a good exposure?

 

[pellicle]

If I try to make a decision if an image is a keeper or not and I inspect it at 400% it is not realistic to expect it to hold up to that much scrutiny. At 50 % it looks great, at 100% it starts to get soft.

So I am asking what is most you can expect from a good exposure?

again, I ask, scanning at what DPI ... if I scan at 1200dpi as my first pass on 4x5 (normal for me) I inspect at 'fit to screen' first and if I like it I zoom into 100%

now at 1200dpi it its sharp then it'll probably hold up well on a 2400 or more dpi scan later.

your information is still too laden with assumptions (like what dpi you scanned at) to make any useful comment ... even my best stuff looks 'soft' at 100% wen scanned at 4800dpi ...

 

[stradibarrius]

again, I ask, scanning at what DPI ... if I scan at 1200dpi as my first pass on 4x5 (normal for me) I inspect at 'fit to screen' first and if I like it I zoom into 100%

now at 1200dpi it its sharp then it'll probably hold up well on a 2400 or more dpi scan later.

your information is still too laden with assumptions (like what dpi you scanned at) to make any useful comment ... even my best stuff looks 'soft' at 100% wen scanned at 4800dpi ...

The way I currently have my V500 scanner set up is
Pro mode
2400dpi
and either B&W or color depending on what I'm scanning.
I think part of my problem is I don't understand the relationship between the scanning resolution and the viewing resolution???

Image type: 24 bit color, for both B&W & Color
Doc size: I never adjust this
Target size: I never adjust this
and all of the correction options like USM, ICE etc I un-check all of those.
Does this information help de-cipher my question?

 

[ctscanner]

Just a passing thought, but, are you applying any sharpening to these images before making an assessment. I have always had the belief that any scanned image is inherently somewhat 'soft' due to the nature of the process; 'jaggies' and all that, and to be assessed properly should be sharpened. In my workflow that would happen in photoshop, and usually be applied at a percentage below 100.

As far as viewing the scanned image, I always inspect it in the 'My Pictures' folder, which I think would be what 'Pellicle' refers as 'fit to screen' and at that point it is not sharpened.

 

[stradibarrius]

Here is a shot cropped to 50% in CS3 It is 35mm Kodak 125PX processed in D76. It has had a bit of sharpening and dust removal and slight curve adjustment. I was scanned into CS3 with my V500 and the above settings.

Please C&C and maybe I will learn what is reasonable to expect.

 

[jeffreyg]

I use 120 and 4x5 films and inspect the negatives with a Schneider 6x6 magnifier on a light box. If they are sharp they scan sharp (Epson 4870 with Silverfast Ai software). I scan at 1200 or 2400 scanner dpi. If I do any digital sharpening it is after enlarging to the size of the print. Looking at an image on a monitor and as a print are different.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Just a passing thought,
As far as viewing the scanned image, I always inspect it in the 'My Pictures' folder, which I think would be what 'Pellicle' refers as 'fit to screen' and at that point it is not sharpened.

perhaps ... but I'm referring to the Photoshop command to view it full screened

in case that's different

 

[pellicle]

Hi

The way I currently have my V500 scanner set up is
Pro mode
2400dpi
and either B&W or color depending on what I'm scanning.
I think part of my problem is I don't understand the relationship between the scanning resolution and the viewing resolution???

undoubtedly not understanding what you're doing is a contributing factor. The software makes it easy to get results "without a clue"

however to move past that you then need to invest time and understanding.

Image type: 24 bit color, for both B&W & Color
Doc size: I never adjust this
Target size: I never adjust this
and all of the correction options like USM, ICE etc I un-check all of those.
Does this information help de-cipher my question?

it does, a lot ... here's my thoughts on that.

2400dpi is quite high, when you think about a print needing 300 Dots Per Inch or 300 pixels of your image will represent an inch you are dealing with a x8 enlargement of your negative. That's not trivial and really places all of your work and photographic system under a magnifying glass.

Is the optical system of the Epson in this ball park ... I would say barely. Have you bought a high quality x10 loupe (not a $10 cheapie)? If you do examine your negs with that carefully on a light box and see if it is similar to what you get on the scans.

Before I say more, remember to consider what your print size is going to be, are you printing to 8x10 inch or are you printing to what? Knowing print size will also key you in on viewing distance. Are people really going to put their nose up to a 1.2 meter high print? For instance I have this image (taken with 4x5 on RDP-III chrome) printed to 1.2 meters hanging in the stair case of my house.

Dead Link Removed


after they find that its not "just a print I bought" everyone remarks that its very sharp. However if I send you the file and you looked at 100% pixels on your screen you might find it lacks a little bit (based on what you're saying above)

My point is that the more you zoom in to something the more it will eventually reach the limits of

• technique
• lens
• film
• scanner

which in my opinion is about the right order too

Scanning with the Epson at 2400dpi requires some effort (its no longer turn key as it would be at 600dpi). You will need to tread down the path of testing for focus and then grappling with the native limits of the system. Please see my articles here and here. I actually also purchased the BetterScanning holder and find that its quite helpful ... I use the 120 film holder as I use 6x12 size which there is no Epson holder for.

The scans at 2400dpi in my opinion quite on the edge of the epsons ability to resolve, and for instance are quite similar to scans taken 1200dpi and then scaling up in software ... so yes its that close.

I have found though with some of my lenses that there just is not the difference between a bit of film scanned on a Nikon 9000 and on the Epson 4990 (seriously). This is because the lenses of MF and LF (with some exceptions) seldom get to more than 50 line pairs / mm in ability to resolve. This is not an issue however in real life because you are not needing the same enlargement as with smaller formats. Try reading this article to grasp that point.

So, assuming your scanning at that resolution I suggest like I said above that looking at 50% will show you what detail you'll see on the print and if its for WWW then you'll only need 150 dpi anyway

Try doing some reading on sharpening and methods for drawing out more from your neg ... remember ... digital cameras have a "blur" filter above the sensor to remove 'alias' effects ... you can do quite a lot to intelligently sharpen the images from your epson to make them viewable.

Lastly, to illustrate how enlargement is essential to grasp in this equation, the image below is from a pinhole camera, its on 120 film at 6x12 and looks quite sharp contact printed on a postcard, I assure you scans even at 1200 dpi look quite soft

 

[stradibarrius]

Pellicle, thanks for such a good response. This type of answer helps understand what I don't understand...LOL! Now I know enough to ask a few more questions. I hope this thread is helping other people as well???
1. Would I scan at different resolutions based on the size of print I was planning to make? For example if I were going to print at 8x10 vs. 16x20? When I first asked the question I thought there would be settings that fit all of my needs. Sort set them and forget them. but if I understand what you are saying the scanning resolution is really based on the size of the print???? Would I use the same resolution for all 8x10 prints for example?
I do have a light table and an 8x loupe of fair quality $10... Many time when I look at the negative on the table and it looks very sharp my scan is not as sharp so obviously my scanning technique is lacking.

Before I ask any other questions I am going to read the above articles. One other thing my printer is an Epson 38000 pro.

Thank you for your help!

 

[stradibarrius]

I read the above mentioned articles and now I have more specific questions.
When I shot B&W I of course use "B&W film negative" as the choice in my "orignal, film type" on the V500 scanner. I also set the size of my MF film to 6x7 to match my RB67 negative. in the "destination section" of the scanner does the "image type make any difference, 48 -24 bit color, 16 bit grayscale etc.?? The B&W selection is "grayed out" so I can't select that.
Of course the "resolution dpi" is important and is the option chnaged based on the size if the print planned/
What if I am just trying to get the negative into the computer and may print it in different sizes. Will I have to scan it multiple times each n"resolution" being targeted for a specific size print?

 

[ctscanner]

Stradibarrious,

Well, in for a dime, in for a dollar - but here goes.

First of all, I am strictly an amateur who scans for his own enjoyment right now, but with an eventual goal of printing selected images. Most of what I know about scanning, I have picked up from reading and what I have been exposed to on the Web.

So on that basis, here are some thoughts I'll share with you:

1. Spend some time doing basic reading about the subject, and here's a site you might try: www.scantips.com. That's what I started with.
2. Don't assume you are always going to print at 300dpi, it might be at 360, or even 240. The optimal setting depends on the printer.
3. Don't assume that everything you scan will be printed, you might find you would like to share your work on-line, in this forum for instance. That's a different scenario.
4. I have alway's ascribed to wanting ALL the resolution my scanners would provide, so in my case with my Nikon Coolscan VED, it always set at 4000ppi.
Why? If you need more resolution, and it's not there you are going to have to rescan, and if you have too much, well it's fairly simple to resize.
5. My first response was a little unclear regarding how I viewed the image, do let me clarify. After completing the scan, which is saved to a designated file in 'My Pictures', I go into the file and open up the scan. At this point I am looking at the general scan quality only to determine if it's going to be a keeper.
6. If I decide to do further work with the image I bring it into (in my case) Photoshop Elements, and that point I will pretty much always work with largest percentage that will give me a full screen, which for Landscape format is usually 100%, and usually in the neighborhood of 50% for Portrait,
7. Other than the above, I don't usually give much thought to the viewing percentage, other than on occasion going above 100% when I am having difficulty with spotting and cleaning.

Best,
George

 

[stradibarrius]

Hey George, thanks for the link and my thinking is simlar to yours. If I'm going to scan shoot for the fence so I have all that I can get out of the shot. If I don't need that much resolution it is easy to resize.

My term "viewing percentage" is the same as the 100% & 50 % you mention.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

just one question

Stradibarrious,
o.
4. I have alway's ascribed to wanting ALL the resolution my scanners would provide, so in my case with my Nikon Coolscan VED, it always set at 4000ppi.
...that point I will pretty much always work with largest percentage that will give me a full screen, which for Landscape format is usually 100%, and usually in the neighborhood of 50% for Portrait,

unless you have some super screen I've never seen, 1600 pixels wide is the largest screen I've ever used. A scan of 35mm at 4000dpi produces 5600 or so pixels across the 36mm wide frame. So how do you get it on your screen at 100% or even 50% to work full screen?

 

[ctscanner]

Pellicle, Stradibarrius,

Whoops! Mistake on my part; essentially when i said 'I will always work with the largest percentage that will give me a full screen", that is what I meant, however, it would not be 100 percent, more like 12.5 to 16.7 for my Landscape images. And, probably in the case of a Portrait format scan, should have said the largest image I can obtain. Sorry about the confusion, bad case of throwing numbers around without checking.

My monitor is set for 1024x768, so obviously as pointed out would not accommodate an image with an 5600ppi long dimension.

The rest of what I said is still valid.

Cheers,
George

 

[pellicle]

Pellicle, Stradibarrius,

Whoops! Mistake on my part;

Cheers,
George

no problems ... its just when dealing with people on the verge of comprehension they can get thrown by stuff ... assuming he's like me and when trying to learn something reads carefully and makes coorelations.

no offence intended

 

[pellicle]

Pellicle, thanks for such a good response. This type of answer helps understand what I don't understand...LOL! Now I know enough to ask a few more questions. I hope this thread is helping other people as well???

personally I learnt heaps by following older threads in the past (back when there was usenet) so hopefully the present generation isn't too spoonfed.

One thing however is that stuff changes, back in 2000 noone (well almost noone) was thinking of colour management and only a few really grasped the technology. Computing was new and older photographers were cautious to even consider digital.

there has been a quiet revolution (although perhaps it wasn't quiet now that I think about that).

1. Would I scan at different resolutions based on the size of print I was planning to make?

you might ... though it depends on some things. Firstly let me say that i regard the film as almost exactly the same as optical storage and my scanner as the drive which access it. I use 4x5 sheet, and as you can imagine high res scans mean large files a Gig per image is compact. I don't want to spend the money on such a large storage system (yes I *know* they're getting cheaper) and then have to enter into the process of managing that digital resource (migration, backup, verification ...)

secondly I don't manage large numbers of images in film (under a thousand) so I find it easier to manage that resource in that manner rather than digitising

Next I can honestly say that since I started scanning in 1997 or so I have learned quite a bit. Specifically I get much better scans now from the same sheet of film which I scanned back in 1997, and its not all attributable to better gear!

so ...

For example if I were going to print at 8x10 vs. 16x20? When I first asked the question I thought there would be settings that fit all of my needs.

perhaps ... considering all the above points will you never get better at it and do you want to commit the storage?

its a rubbery number but to name one, to print 16x20 (assuming inches) you'll need 4800 x 6000 pixels from your scan. Assuming a monochrome file that's about 460.8 bytes or the better part of a CD (and don't archive *there*). Once you have that you can of course print smaller by scaling the image and I would argue print larger by accepting that because viewing distance will be greater that you can get away with 180dpi in the print (interpolate up with an algorithm like bicubic or allow the printer driver to scale it)

I do this on some images which I have had professionally scanned am very satisfied with and don't then pull my tranny out risking any further wear and tear on it (although well handled that's quite a small risk).

Many time when I look at the negative on the table and it looks very sharp my scan is not as sharp so obviously my scanning technique is lacking.

could be, or it could be your focus ... check it. (I'll put this into a blog later, but for now...)

*Get a small stack of glass microscope slides from either a good toy store or a chemist or a scientific supplier. Say 4 of them

* write on one side at the far end with a permanent marker pen numbers starting with 1 and going through to 4

* put them face down on the glass in a stack which is offset so that one ends sticks out past the slide below it ... like this

___------1
__------2
_------3
------4

where _ is the scanner glass and ----- is the glass slide

the numbers will now be clearly visible from below (where the scan head is).

* scan this using *exactly the settings you use* and then examine the numbers

you will be able to see which one is sharper and so because you know the thickness you will be able to decide where the sharpest point is.

do not assume that the glass is 100% perfectly parallel with the path of the scan head, such precsion alignment is what you'd expect in a Heidleberg system not an Epson (although I understand that Epson make the parts and Heidleberg simply assemble and tune them better than Epson does ... that's why they cost $50,000)

from there you can consider adjusting the height of your film if its not at the optimal place

Thank you for your help!

you're welcome

 

[Curt]

In reading through the thread sharpening came up, is it recommended that sharpening be done in PS and not at the scanning level? Sharpen last? What about dust and grain levels at initial scanning?

Thanks for the valuable information from the contributors.
Curt

 

[Loris Medici]

I do only a Threshold:0 Radius: 0.9px Amount:50-150% (depending on the image) input sharpening of my scans (after scanning, not in the scanning program!) and I never sharpen again the master file. I sharpen a duplicate output copy, after resampling (= resizing) using high pass sharpening, parameters depending on output size / media and (again) image...