Print from 4x5 scanned tranny not sharp

[Ben Calwell]

Should a print made from a scanned 4x5 transparency be as sharp and detailed as the original?
I'm not sure what kind of scanner my local lab uses. I was initially pleased with the result, until I started looking at the print (an 11x14-inch) critically.
It's slightly soft and doesn't have the detail of the original. For instance, I can read the neon lettering on a sign (it's a night shot) on the original, but on the print it's bloomed out.
I was prepared to be wowed by the resulting print, but that's just not the case. I'm not fully educated on digital imaging, workflow and all that -- but I thought a print from a scanned large format transparency would be terrific. Not the case here.
Those of you who scan 4x5 and larger transparencies -- are you getting great, sharp, detailed prints?

[paulr]

There are a million variables.

Assuming the transparency is sharp and the scanning is done well and with good equipmnet (two important assumptions) then the sharpness of the resulting print is dependent on the digital workflow.

Sharpness is lost both in the scanning and in the printing stages, and possibly also in any resizing or other interpolations. This needs to be fixed with intelligent use of digital sharpening.

If everything is done well, you can get an 11x14 that rivals a contact print in sharpness. If not, you can end up with a soft print.

[Peter De Smidt]

Whatever scanner you use, you'll still have to apply some sharpening before printing. Depending on the scanner, you might have to apply quite a bit.

[paulr]

Are you doing the photoshop work and printing yourself? If so, the Real World Photoshop books (there's a different one for each edition of the program) will be your new best friend. Fantastic information on sharpening and every other aspect of conserving image quality.

[ljb0904]

Should a print made from a scanned 4x5 transparency be as sharp and detailed as the original?
Theoretically, no. Any time an image is passed through an optical system, it will degrade. That's physics. However, acutence can be made up for, eg via unsharp masking.


I'm not sure what kind of scanner my local lab uses.
Do you have a copy of the scan? Can you take a good look at the scan and see the sharpness you want? Be aware, that all digital files need to be sharpened before print. Again, making that increase in apparent acutence. It could be your lab's scanner operator doesn't know what they are doing.


It's slightly soft and doesn't have the detail of the original.
It could also be your lab's printer doesn't know what he's doing.


Those of you who scan 4x5 and larger transparencies -- are you getting great, sharp, detailed prints?
Yes, I currently scan with a Leaf 45 and get very good results. I've also gotten drum scans done for images larger than 16x20.

I would suggest that rather than let the lab handle the entire work flow, that you make them let you sit through it so you can complain when they do something silly. My local lab has an excellent printer, but their scanner operator clips the histogram on every piece of film I give them to scan (which is why I don't use them that much.)

[mikeber]

Whatever scanner you use, you'll still have to apply some sharpening before printing. Depending on the scanner, you might have to apply quite a bit.
Ditto.
I saw top of the line drum scans and they were initially soft. However, they contained much info and detail. Next step was to sharpen the images and the results could rival any darkroom print.
An interesting question to ask your lab is what resolution was used for scanning. The answer can provide you with a clue.

[Mike1234]

There's as huge difference between "DPI" resolution and "optical" resolution. Both are needed to "resolve" as much detail from your film as is possible.

[Lenny Eiger]

Those of you who scan 4x5 and larger transparencies -- are you getting great, sharp, detailed prints?

I do have very sharp, detailed prints. It has a lot to do with the scanner one uses. Consumer flatbeds start out blurry and are sharpened substantially in Photoshop. Drum's make sharp files - unless they are out of alignment and need servicing - and then need much less sharpening. (I use a radius of .2.) So, if your lab scanned it on an Epson flatbed, for example, you might very likely need to sharpen.


Lenny

[Ben Calwell]

If anyone is still paying attention to this thread, I just determined that the scan was done on an Imacon scanner. I just put the CD they gave me of the scan into my computer, and the image looks horribly unsharp.

[Lenny Eiger]

If anyone is still paying attention to this thread, I just determined that the scan was done on an Imacon scanner. I just put the CD they gave me of the scan into my computer, and the image looks horribly unsharp.

We could argue about the sharpness of the Imacon vs other scanners, however, the words "horribly unsharp" suggest something went wrong with the scan. Unless you are horribly exaggerating, it is likely either the scanner is out of alignment or the film went thru off-kilter, etc. An Imacon scan won'tt be as perfect as a drum scan, it is a CCD sensor, but it is not horrible by any stretch of the imagination...

Lenny

[PenGun]

I scan 4x5 on my Eppy 700 and print on my Eppy 3800, the prints are very sharp. With QTR and some learning my prints are approaching sumptuousness on occasion.

Now you need focus and stillness for sharpness but a sharp negative should print a "bite yer eye out" sharp print.

I printed optically for years from 35mm and 6x6 and I fought for sharpness there too, but it was much harder to achieve.

[sanking]

Lenny is right. If the scan was done on an Imacon and it is horribly unsharp something very bad has gone wrong, either a operator mistake or maybe the scanner is defective. In terms of sharpness some Imacon scanners, even though they work with the CCD sensor, give a lot more sharpness than most drum scanners so if your scan is not sharp, send it back.

Sandy King




We could argue about the sharpness of the Imacon vs other scanners, however, the words "horribly unsharp" suggest something went wrong with the scan. Unless you are horribly exaggerating, it is likely either the scanner is out of alignment or the film went thru off-kilter, etc. An Imacon scan won'tt be as perfect as a drum scan, it is a CCD sensor, but it is not horrible by any stretch of the imagination...

Lenny

[Ben Calwell]

I don't know -- maybe "horribly unsharp" is an overstatement. Maybe it's my monitor, but the image on the CD they gave me doesn't look as if it's in focus. The 11x14 print doesn't look like it came from a large format transparency, but maybe I was expecting too much.
Actually, the print looks better -- sharpness wise -- than the image on the CD. But then again, the print is nothing to write home about.
I wish I knew how to post the scanned image on here so that everyone could see it.
Maybe it all boils down to me needing new glasses.

[Preston]

I suggest you take your transparency, the print, the CD with the original scan and a copy of your processed digital file to the lab and have them look at them. You need to eliminate the cause of the apparent unsharpness, so starting from the scan would be first step, I think.

Dan Baumbach, who is also a member here, has done scans on an Imacon (I don't know which model) but having seen the prints of his 4x5's, they are wonderfully sharp. Maybe he'll chime in here and give you some ideas as to what to expect.

-Preston

[Matus Kalisky]

What about posting a small overview of the scanned image and then one or two 100% crops from the scan? I have experience with imacon scans. If the sharpening was turned all the way off (setting of -120) that the scan may look a bit soft at first, but with a decent (= not too much) amount of sharpening you must get a nice sharp scan - given that your transparency is sharp (under at least 8x loupe). If you tranny is sharp and the scan is not - well - have it rescanned ...

[kub]

Should a print made from a scanned 4x5 transparency be as sharp and detailed as the original?
I'm not sure what kind of scanner my local lab uses. I was initially pleased with the result, until I started looking at the print (an 11x14-inch) critically.
It's slightly soft and doesn't have the detail of the original. For instance, I can read the neon lettering on a sign (it's a night shot) on the original, but on the print it's bloomed out.
I was prepared to be wowed by the resulting print, but that's just not the case. I'm not fully educated on digital imaging, workflow and all that -- but I thought a print from a scanned large format transparency would be terrific. Not the case here.
Those of you who scan 4x5 and larger transparencies -- are you getting great, sharp, detailed prints?

From your description I take it nobody is actually doing digital processing. I know in my area pro labs don't do anything other than the plane scanning, scans are soft, the rest is left to the client. There are some good recipes for sharpening workflow on the net. I get best results when I do a bit of sharpening, down sampling and sharpening again. You need to try it yourself and come up with required steps.

You mentioned blooming of lights, that sounds like while scanning the system tried to compensate for highlights, and screwed up. I usually turn off that feature for tricky exposures, the system is not smart enough and brightens the neighboring area.

[PenGun]

With my Epson 700 focused as it is I never sharpen anything. I have it turned off in Vuescan and have not seen the need to sharpen in Photoshop where I spot and adjust tones to my pleasure.

I suspect scanners that routinely need sharpening may be out of focus but my experience is limited.

[Lenny Eiger]

With my Epson 700 focused as it is I never sharpen anything. I have it turned off in Vuescan and have not seen the need to sharpen in Photoshop where I spot and adjust tones to my pleasure.

I suspect scanners that routinely need sharpening may be out of focus but my experience is limited.

I know that you enjoy getting scans off the least expensive scanner, you've said as much. I appreciate the sentiment. I'd like a lighter camera with at least 300 megapixels that was dirt cheap. However, a lot of folks read this forum, and take the suggestions.

There is sharp, and there is sharp. An Epson scanner will need sharpening to get into range.


Lenny

[Ben Syverson]

There is sharp, and there is sharp. An Epson scanner will need sharpening to get into range.
100% agree. I use two applications of USM when scanning at 2400 DPI -- one at 3 pixels followed by one at 1.5. The combination helps to remove the mushy "haze" that the flatbed optics introduce.

I'm getting a drum scan of an 810 soon and will be interested to do a comparison.

[PenGun]

Not mine apparently. I spent many years trying for sharpness with 35mm cameras, I shot stock for a while, and medium format. I am not in the "sharpness trap" anymore but I do know sharp when I see it.

My negatives are sharp. I can take a picture. My scans, since I achieved focus, are very sharp. I only sharpen what looks unsharp and I have yet to do that.

My prints are very satisfying and I am pleased I spent my $s on my Chamonix and it's tool chain rather than a Canon 5D 2.


I love to fight. This is becoming boring though. One might consider that this instant dissing of flatbeds is simply protecting your business. It's starting to look like that to me and possibly some others.

[Ben Syverson]

I don't think it's "dissing" to say that flatbed scans often benefit from a little sharpening. Lenny obviously believes in the power of drum scanning, but I've never seen him be overly derogatory about flatbeds.

My philosophy is always "if it works, it works." If you're happy with the scans you get from the Epson, more power to ya. In my experience, a little bit of USM on Epson scans really opens up detail that was hiding. It's like a magic trick.

[Lenny Eiger]

I love to fight. This is becoming boring though. One might consider that this instant dissing of flatbeds is simply protecting your business. It's starting to look like that to me and possibly some others.

I don't like to fight at all. However, I have used this scanner, and most of the folks on this list would agree with me, that the Epson can do some very interesting things with creative sharpening, for large format images. If you don't agree, then its very likely that you have a different idea of what the collective is talking about when they say sharp.

This has nothing to do with protecting my tiny little business and I resent the implication. While I do have a business, I have been quite up front about it. When I am biased I will say so. It is simply too easy for me to take self-interest out of the deal when recommending things to others. I'm a photographer, just like everyone else. I am also not making very much money doing this, and thankfully I have another business that does software development. On occasion we take on large projects, but EigerStudios ain't Halliburton, it's a small one-two horse operation. It's simply not enough to make me want to lie to people to get them to use my services.

Further, lately have enjoyed some new viewpoints on some of the things I thought were the "right way". I'm experimenting with a suggestion that Sandy made on another topic. Just because you don't like my opinion on something doesn't give you the right to say my opinion is about being self-serving.

Lenny

[PenGun]

I don't think it's "dissing" to say that flatbed scans often benefit from a little sharpening. Lenny obviously believes in the power of drum scanning, but I've never seen him be overly derogatory about flatbeds.

My philosophy is always "if it works, it works." If you're happy with the scans you get from the Epson, more power to ya. In my experience, a little bit of USM on Epson scans really opens up detail that was hiding. It's like a magic trick.

I've owned photoshop since 'Big Electric Cat", an Adrian Belew reference. I know what sharpening can do. I know what an unsharp mask is. I don't use it unless I need to. So far I have not.

[PenGun]

I don't like to fight at all. However, I have used this scanner, and most of the folks on this list would agree with me, that the Epson can do some very interesting things with creative sharpening, for large format images. If you don't agree, then its very likely that you have a different idea of what the collective is talking about when they say sharp.

This has nothing to do with protecting my tiny little business and I resent the implication. While I do have a business, I have been quite up front about it. When I am biased I will say so. It is simply too easy for me to take self-interest out of the deal when recommending things to others. I'm a photographer, just like everyone else. I am also not making very much money doing this, and thankfully I have another business that does software development. On occasion we take on large projects, but EigerStudios ain't Halliburton, it's a small one-two horse operation. It's simply not enough to make me want to lie to people to get them to use my services.

Further, lately have enjoyed some new viewpoints on some of the things I thought were the "right way". I'm experimenting with a suggestion that Sandy made on another topic. Just because you don't like my opinion on something doesn't give you the right to say my opinion is about being self-serving.

Lenny

If anything favorable is said about cheap scanners you will show up pretty soon after to put them down. It's like gravity. That's what I find boring.

[Findingmyway4ever]

Hey Lenny,

Why don't you do a free scan for PenGun. This would be a good way of having both a V700 and one of your scans on screen and also in print so we can see how both look, on screen and on print. Heck, you could even do a print for him so he can see what state of the art printing looks like.

IMHO...this would be very beneficial for the board that is always pondering the el cheapo path of digitizing film vs. stepping up the money for scans from a person like you that knows how to do it or by buying a drum scanner themself.


You could even do a scan for the op so he can see what he can acheive and will then know if he even wants to be shooting film.


Cheers!

[Findingmyway4ever]

Whatever scanner you use, you'll still have to apply some sharpening before printing. Depending on the scanner, you might have to apply quite a bit.

Peter,

Would you say the film run through the digital processor is basically like taking a "raw" file from a digi cam into post-processing where it'll need to be sharpened up?

I'm curious how many abuse the post-process vs. those that only go into post-process to sharpen and do the very most basic things (i.e. there's the digital person that loves to "make" a photo from whoever's click of the shutter, but there's the photographer that loves to make a photo from what was intended and obviously sometimes not intended is ok too;)).

[Lenny Eiger]

Hey Lenny,

Why don't you do a free scan for PenGun.

I don't think he wants one, but I wouldn't be against this. I've done them for Cramer for a comparison he was working on, and Leigh Perry, a couple of others.

One has to be fair, and one has to be clear about criteria for success.

I always give first time clients a break anyway....

Lenny

[sanking]

My philosophy is always "if it works, it works." If you're happy with the scans you get from the Epson, more power to ya. In my experience, a little bit of USM on Epson scans really opens up detail that was hiding. It's like a magic trick.

Agreed both ways. If it works, so much the better. But, the analog to digital conversion, whether via a digital camera or via scanning, results in some loss of sharpness. This is a fact about which there is no dispute. The normal procedure is to apply just a bit of unsharp mask to recapture what was lost. This is called capture sharpening. If you don't apply capture sharpening you are throwing away a bit of the sharpness of your image file. But if the loss of sharpness does not matter to you, so be it.

Capture sharpening is necessary with all CCD type scanners if you want to get the most from the scan, even with top of the line scanners like the Eversmart and IQSmart scanners. I find it an important step in getting the most out of my scans.

Sandy King

[PenGun]

It's actually edge enhancement. I have nothing against it. I happily photoshop my pictures till I am satisfied but I don't find the little bit of edge enhancement needed for what I do. My flowers are sharp enough, my trees are fine, my bike is sharp with angles etc.

The prints at 8x10 are blowing my mind. They are beyond sharp.

It's possible as I print more 16x20 I will see the need to use some sharpening but so far I do not. I just pointed out that if you 'need' to sharpen all the time you may have focus issues. A real problem with the Epsons it seems.

[Findingmyway4ever]

I don't think he wants one, but I wouldn't be against this. I've done them for Cramer for a comparison he was working on, and Leigh Perry, a couple of others.

One has to be fair, and one has to be clear about criteria for success.

I always give first time clients a break anyway....

Lenny

That's a shame. I know there are a load of stubborn people out there, but we all need to have an open mind, even the best of the best out there. How would the geniuses of the world have ever discovered something we all have today without the help of others around them.

[Findingmyway4ever]

It's actually edge enhancement. I have nothing against it. I happily photoshop my pictures till I am satisfied but I don't find the little bit of edge enhancement needed for what I do. My flowers are sharp enough, my trees are fine, my bike is sharp with angles etc.

The prints at 8x10 are blowing my mind. They are beyond sharp.

It's possible as I print more 16x20 I will see the need to use some sharpening but so far I do not. I just pointed out that if you 'need' to sharpen all the time you may have focus issues. A real problem with the Epsons it seems.

Why don't you send down one of your best transparencies/prints so Lenny can send up a CD that you can put into photoshop and see if you see any differences even at 8X10.

It's not to say that you will feel the need to upgrade and that your work can never look good. It's to say that if you did see a substantial difference, you would be able to consider sending in your best work to a person that does excellent scans or even consider getting into a nice drum scanner. These days, you can practically get into a used Howtek if you find a local place selling one dirt cheap since it's a dead-weight for them.

[PenGun]

Why don't you send down one of your best transparencies/prints so Lenny can send up a CD that you can put into photoshop and see if you see any differences even at 8X10.


Why bother the snail?




It's not to say that you will feel the need to upgrade and that your work can never look good. It's to say that if you did see a substantial difference, you would be able to consider sending in your best work to a person that does excellent scans or even consider getting into a nice drum scanner. These days, you can practically get into a used Howtek if you find a local place selling one dirt cheap since it's a dead-weight for them.

I do what I do for myself. I have won juried art shows and sold my photographs when I was younger.

I am taking photographs as it is a form of expression I have some knowledge of. I do this for reasons that are hard to explain. I love printing and am happiest wasting paper in the search for perfection but that's not it. It gives me something to think about I guess.

The competitive nature of this forum is fine by me but there are no winners and losers in art. That's for sports and politics. If your work depends on a minute difference from some ideal I am probably not interested.

There are some amazing photographers here, really great artists. The inspiration I derive from their works depends not at all on an unsharp mask.

[Ben Syverson]

These days, you can practically get into a used Howtek if you find a local place selling one dirt cheap since it's a dead-weight for them.
Yeah, about that... Insane shipping costs, missing and scarce parts, cracked drums, outdated software, and manufacturers that have either gone under or long since fired their scanner divisions all make that nicer in theory than practice. I'm sure Lenny and others can attest -- there's a lot more to drum scanning than finding a cheap machine.

[Peter De Smidt]

In any case, there's something wrong with the original poster's system: either there was a poor scan, processing, or printing. Even with a consumer flatbed, one should be able to make a very good looking 8x10" print from a 4x5" negative, assuming a bit of care is used.

The drum scanner suggestions are similar to someone suggesting that if a traditional worker has a problem with her 8x10" prints not being sharp, where the 4x5" negatives have been confirmed to be sharp with a loupe, that instead of checking the alignment of her enlarger, and perhaps trying a glass carrier, that instead she give up enlarging altogether in favor of contact printing, since contact prints are higher quality than any print made by enlargement. Of course if the printer is satisfied with the quality obtained with an enlarger, that's fine, but she should know that higher quality is available, and she should be reminded of this at every opportunity, lest she forget the superiority of the methods used by the contact printing advocate. If at a later time she starts a different thread inquiring about the pluses and minuses of various enlarging lenses, well that's a great opportunity for the contact printing advocate to yet again expound at length about the superiority of his methods.

[kub]

It's actually edge enhancement. I have nothing against it. I happily photoshop my pictures till I am satisfied but I don't find the little bit of edge enhancement needed for what I do. My flowers are sharp enough, my trees are fine, my bike is sharp with angles etc.

The prints at 8x10 are blowing my mind. They are beyond sharp.

It's possible as I print more 16x20 I will see the need to use some sharpening but so far I do not. I just pointed out that if you 'need' to sharpen all the time you may have focus issues. A real problem with the Epsons it seems.


8x10 prints???

No wonder you are happy with your technique. Print larger sizes and you will see how soft your pictures are.

BTW, I wasn't flaming flatbeds, I think all scans and as someone else said digitally processed pics need some work to bring out the native sharpness unless they already been sharpened in camera.

[Findingmyway4ever]

[QUOTE=PenGun;524751]Why bother the snail?

So you can see what a "different" scan looks like both on your screen and on print. Just because he/she/it or anything else does the scan for you doesn't take away from your art especially when all they are doing is using mathematics to get the most out of a device that functions on scales/numbers/graphs/etc. and a little with the eyes, but primary as a robot unless you like to alter your work in the scan vs. in Photoshop/lightroom/etc.


I do what I do for myself. I have won juried art shows and sold my photographs when I was younger.


Right.


I am taking photographs as it is a form of expression I have some knowledge of. I do this for reasons that are hard to explain.


This is what we all do it for. It's called freedom, imagination, creativity, passion, fill in whatever adjective.



I love printing and am happiest wasting paper in the search for perfection but that's not it. It gives me something to think about I guess.


Then why are you wasting your time shooting with such small sheet film and not doing wet work or at the bare minimum 8X10/7X11/11X14/etc. contact prints?


The competitive nature of this forum is fine by me but there are no winners and losers in art. That's for sports and politics. If your work depends on a minute difference from some ideal I am probably not interested.


You are gravely mistaken if you think art isn't arguably THE most politically dominant force in history. By the way, if there are no winners or losers, why boast about your awards when you were younger?



There are some amazing photographers here, really great artists. The inspiration I derive from their works depends not at all on an unsharp mask.



I think you are missing the point here. If you really are an artist and you can waste away the last living tree on this planet for your ink, then you can learn about other tools out there that may or may not be well suited for what you do. Maybe you get a scan from Lenny and you do not like it, but you continue on and you send the same piece of film to other reputeable labs to see just what you can learn about the devices out there made to digitize your film. Worst case scenario is you feel the scanner you have is superior for what YOU prefer and the best case scenario is you discover that you are no longer wasting paper because the digitizer you found is producing far better work to your own eyes than the tool you have been working with.

Again, this isn't about better/worse, right/wrong, big/small...it's about giving yourself more resources so you can utilize them however you can or cannot for your own final expression.

[Peter De Smidt]

Condescension is alive and well, I see.

Sure, checking out options and various tools can be a good idea, but sometimes the best way to make progress is to stop worrying so much about the tools and make art.

"Then why are you wasting your time shooting with such small sheet film and not doing wet work or at the bare minimum 8X10/7X11/11X14/etc. contact prints?"

is not consistent with:

"Again, this isn't about better/worse, right/wrong, big/small"

Your way isn't the only way to make good photographic art.

[Lenny Eiger]

Condescension is alive and well, I see.

Apparently, rudeness and name-calling as well, tho' I'm not referring to you. Pretty juvenile.

Lenny

[Peter De Smidt]

Hi Lenny,

I see the comment you mean. I agree. It was out-of-line.

[PenGun]

[QUOTE=PenGun;524751]Why bother the snail?

So you can see what a "different" scan looks like both on your screen and on print. Just because he/she/it or anything else does the scan for you doesn't take away from your art especially when all they are doing is using mathematics to get the most out of a device that functions on scales/numbers/graphs/etc. and a little with the eyes, but primary as a robot unless you like to alter your work in the scan vs. in Photoshop/lightroom/etc.


I do what I do for myself. I have won juried art shows and sold my photographs when I was younger.


Right.


I am taking photographs as it is a form of expression I have some knowledge of. I do this for reasons that are hard to explain.


This is what we all do it for. It's called freedom, imagination, creativity, passion, fill in whatever adjective.



I love printing and am happiest wasting paper in the search for perfection but that's not it. It gives me something to think about I guess.


Then why are you wasting your time shooting with such small sheet film and not doing wet work or at the bare minimum 8X10/7X11/11X14/etc. contact prints?


The competitive nature of this forum is fine by me but there are no winners and losers in art. That's for sports and politics. If your work depends on a minute difference from some ideal I am probably not interested.


You are gravely mistaken if you think art isn't arguably THE most politically dominant force in history. By the way, if there are no winners or losers, why boast about your awards when you were younger?



There are some amazing photographers here, really great artists. The inspiration I derive from their works depends not at all on an unsharp mask.



I think you are missing the point here. If you really are an artist and you can waste away the last living tree on this planet for your ink, then you can learn about other tools out there that may or may not be well suited for what you do. Maybe you get a scan from Lenny and you do not like it, but you continue on and you send the same piece of film to other reputeable labs to see just what you can learn about the devices out there made to digitize your film. Worst case scenario is you feel the scanner you have is superior for what YOU prefer and the best case scenario is you discover that you are no longer wasting paper because the digitizer you found is producing far better work to your own eyes than the tool you have been working with.

Again, this isn't about better/worse, right/wrong, big/small...it's about giving yourself more resources so you can utilize them however you can or cannot for your own final expression.

Nice ... bold type and all.

I think you have a lot to learn. I especially liked:

"You are gravely mistaken if you think art isn't arguably THE most politically dominant force in history. By the way, if there are no winners or losers, why boast about your awards when you were younger?"

[Ben Syverson]

Sheesh, let's all count to 10

[Peter De Smidt]

Better make that 15, just to be safe. :)

[Lenny Eiger]

Better make that 15, just to be safe. :)

Oh yeah, hey I say it should be 16!! What kind of ___ are you guys that you can't see that this is the only way, the truth!!! Boy, some people...

:-) :-)



Lenny

[Ben Syverson]

Haha! I'm sure that somewhere on the internet, a few people have found themselves deep in a vitriolic debate about the best number to count to when angry. At some point, I bet the guy who suggested counting to 20 was compared to Hitler, it's virtually guaranteed! :)

[Peter De Smidt]

Haha! I'm sure that somewhere on the internet, a few people have found themselves deep in a vitriolic debate about the best number to count to when angry. At some point, I bet the guy who suggested counting to 20 was compared to Hitler, it's virtually guaranteed! :)

Nice one!

[Kirk Keyes]

All right then, that's it - Godwin's Law. Let's move along and get back to other stuff and we can close this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[sanking]

All right then, that's it - Godwin's Law. Let's move along and get back to other stuff and we can close this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Kirk,

You made my day. I had never heard of Godwin's Law, but it sure appears to be a good one.

In this thread, though, no one has actually been compared to Hitler so I guess it still has some life, as it were.

Sandy

[PenGun]

Yes it's the old standard. The Venture Brothers, now in it's fourth year, dives into the cloning of Hitler with the usual twisted results. Adult Swim eh'.

Mr forever if you really care I will let you have one of my pitiful blurry cheap scans. You can then destroy me publicly, I do enjoy that kind of thing. They are 340M so it's a bit of a download. In my conceit I scan at 3200 spi although we all know that's a waste of pixels.

[sanking]

Yes it's the old standard. The Venture Brothers, now in it's fourth year, dives into the cloning of Hitler with the usual twisted results. Adult Swim eh'.

Mr forever if you really care I will let you have one of my pitiful blurry cheap scans. You can then destroy me publicly, I do enjoy that kind of thing. They are 340M so it's a bit of a download. In my conceit I scan at 3200 spi although we all know that's a waste of pixels.

[Findingmyway4ever]

Condescension is alive and well, I see.

It's ok. Neither the OP nor you understood the only point I attempted to make=stay progressive regardless of how set into your own artistic ways you may be and that none of us would be in any discussion if we weren't progressive since we would not have the internet, would not care for a camera forum, and would only be living in our own world of making "good" art.[/B].

[Findingmyway4ever]

[QUOTE=Findingmyway4ever;524829]

Nice ... bold type and all.

I think you have a lot to learn. I especially liked:

"You are gravely mistaken if you think art isn't arguably THE most politically dominant force in history. By the way, if there are no winners or losers, why boast about your awards when you were younger?"

We all have a lot to learn, and hopefully I am still learning by the second.

If you do not agree that art=humanity=politics and everything else, then that's ok. Speaking of Hitler mentioned in this thread, why do you think perhaps the most vivid and biggest statement in WWII was when he burned all those books...I mean ART?

I'm not sure what I need to learn about the awards you won and saying there are no winners and losers. Were you actually saying that in these "competitions", you were not a winner?

Lets leave things like this...YOU will find your answers to YOUR expression with art. Whether or not you want to utilize even this forum as a resource is your choice. By seeking the many options available to you does not mean that you have to stop doing what you are doing with your workflow. It only means that you have alternatives to look into and see how/if/what they can do for you and your own art. If you send your scan into a reputeable printer and the print looks terrible for you and you cannot see ever wanting to use such a device to make your own expression, then you can choose another reputeable printer until you have finally given up and admire your own work the way it is and do not need a similar machine as the others are using. Likewise, if you do not see any differences OR you do not see anything beneficial for your own use in one of Lenny's or many other reputeable scanners out there, then again, you will know that you have the tool that is good for you. And lastly, if you did do the above and concluded what you did, it is not to say forget what can and will come in the future=more progress and more potential of expressing yourself with both your own tools and other devices that will show up or things learned by the people operating different tools, photoshop improvements, list goes on and on....

[PenGun]

[QUOTE=PenGun;525013]

We all have a lot to learn, and hopefully I am still learning by the second.

If you do not agree that art=humanity=politics and everything else, then that's ok. Speaking of Hitler mentioned in this thread, why do you think perhaps the most vivid and biggest statement in WWII was when he burned all those books...I mean ART?

I'm not sure what I need to learn about the awards you won and saying there are no winners and losers. Were you actually saying that in these "competitions", you were not a winner?

Lets leave things like this...YOU will find your answers to YOUR expression with art. Whether or not you want to utilize even this forum as a resource is your choice. By seeking the many options available to you does not mean that you have to stop doing what you are doing with your workflow. It only means that you have alternatives to look into and see how/if/what they can do for you and your own art. If you send your scan into a reputeable printer and the print looks terrible for you and you cannot see ever wanting to use such a device to make your own expression, then you can choose another reputeable printer until you have finally given up and admire your own work the way it is and do not need a similar machine as the others are using. Likewise, if you do not see any differences OR you do not see anything beneficial for your own use in one of Lenny's or many other reputeable scanners out there, then again, you will know that you have the tool that is good for you. And lastly, if you did do the above and concluded what you did, it is not to say forget what can and will come in the future=more progress and more potential of expressing yourself with both your own tools and other devices that will show up or things learned by the people operating different tools, photoshop improvements, list goes on and on....

You are a a strange one so I'll go a little further. First a couple of questions.

What does your name mean? I see little independence.

Do you have large format equipment? Camera, scanner, enlarger, printer what have you?

Have you read the extensive threads on this board concerning this subject?

[PenGun]

Nothing ... oh well. I would leave you alone but you shouted at me. Funny, no one does that to me in person.

Back in the early 90s when i first took up photography I discovered that all the local labs and even the ones in Vancouver could not soup my Fuji 50 as well as I could.

Since then I have done everything myself. My art may be bad but it is completely my fault. I will not shoot E6 till I have a developing line. My B&W is fun and I have pretty good control of the negatives.

I need no validation I do what I do because it is fun.

The only reason I brought up my art show crap was to inform you I do have some idea of what a print is. The reason I contributed is because there is no doubt you should be able to get a sharp scan and print. I pointed out that focus is sometimes a problem and later said I did not sharpen automatically. This brought the drum scan nazis ... heh ... out from the woodwork as always and then you got upset.

Hi ho.