Scanning Questions & Monitor calibration

[cyrus]

So I mentioned before that I received an Epson v700 and have started to scan some negs, and will purchase a printer in little while to put out enlarged digital negatives of my collection of "damaged" negs - a very reluctant compromise on my part since I hate computers. I am still getting the hang of scanning negs and have posted my first three scans ever - example:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...&postcount=776
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=79734

I didn't futz with any settings & I can see the "errors" of this scan - hotspots etc. but I didn't notice the blue-ish tint and lack of contrast until I used a different computer monitor. I guess that means I have to purchase a calibration thingy too - $400! (yikes!) - and hope that everyone else who views my stuff online has calibtrated their monitors too.

But there are more fundamental questions involved: I assume the goal is to ensure that the scanned file looks like what an enlarged print would look like if/when you print the negative the traditional way using an enlarger etc. Is that right? When people post photos on their websites (especially for print sales) do they make an effort to ensure that the two match? CAN a scanned negative really look like an actual print or is it assumed to be an approximation? SHould you include a disclaimer to that effect? If you scan a negative rather than a print, how do you replicate effects like toning and diffusing that would be seen on a print? Do PS filters really come out the same? Is that a reason to scan the print instead of the negative?

[rdenney]

I calibrate my monitors using an EyeOne2 sensor, now sold by XRite. Thus, my monitor displays fairly neutrally. That really is the first basic requirement, and without that you'll be chasing your tail.

When I scan an image and bring it into Photoshop, I adjust it to achieve my visualization, or to express my interpretation, on the calibrated monitor. I also apply sharpening to correct for the scanning process. This is what I call the correction stage. I store the file using a wide color space to preserve range.

That becomes my baseline file. When I want to print it, I view it using the output profile, which uses my printer profile as provided by Epson. That will change the representation to emulate looking at a print. I then adjust the image for that output device, including making test strips, saving it in a new file for printer output. When I decide I need a print of a certain size, I scale the image appropriately and sharpen it for that pixel density, if needed. The adjustments for the printer I call the targeting stage. If I need a different color space, I convert it at this time.

If I then need a file for, say, web display, I go back to the first baseline file, and make a new file targeted for the web, with its own color correction, scaling, and sharpening.

All artistic interpretation is part of the initial correction stage. If I want to reinterpret the image, I go back to that point, and retarget from the new baseline.

Separating correction and targeting concepts sure helped me minimize doing things over again.

Rick "who hates letting himself be outsmarted by a computer" Denney

[cyrus]

Thanks Rick
But how do you manage the difference between an "analogue" print and a digital scan? I dont plan on printing digitally. Do i scan the neg an tweak it to make it look like an approximation of what an analogue print would look like? If im selling analogue prints then i assume whats shown on my site - which is the result of a digital scan of either a negative or a smaller than usual positive print - should look like the final print that is delivered to the buyer. So how do you make sure whats shown on their computer screen looks like what they receive in the mail.?

[Ben Hopson]

Thanks Rick
Do i scan the neg an tweak it to make it look like an approximation of what an analogue print would look like?

Scanning your negative or print and coming as close to your analogue print as possible is about as much as can be done. There is no guarantee that what someone else sees on their monitor will match what you see on your own monitor or that either will completely match the look of the actual print.

Like Rick suggested, work calibrated at your end. You will then be doing what you can to as accurately as possible represent your print to someone else with a calibrated display. Keep in mind however, that not everyone, most likely very few who will view your work online has a calibrated system.

I have not seen disclaimers posted on sites with prints offered for sale. I don't know if it is necessary or not. Couldn't hurt.

There are many ways to digitally tone images and render other effects in Photoshop. It will still be a digital rendering and not a 100% representation of the analog print. If you are able to scan the actual print, try it both ways and see what works best for you.

Ben

[Nathan Potter]

Disclaimer time. You need to convey to the buyer that a digital image as it appears on your web site cannot appear exactly as your analogue final print will appear. The different mediums use vastly different technologies. You certainly can struggle to approximate the nuances of your analogue print using the plethora of controls in PS but you may not be entirely satisfied with the match. The variables in digital manipulation are almost infinite so you're in for a lot of work.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[cyrus]

Thanks guys, I'll consider carefully your input

Thus far, having fooled around a bit with the scanner, I see a benefit in experimenting with the negative to see how different contrast settings and crops etc would look before I print the "real thing" the old fashioned way. Saves time and paper. That has somewhat tempered my violent dislike of computers in the darkroom, along with the fact that I would otherwise not be able to ever use some of the "damaged" negs I have collected over the years which I hope to scan and make digital negs for contact printing. But after a hard day in the office, I simply do NOT look forward to coming to my studio and sitting behind a computer again.

[rdenney]

Thanks guys, I'll consider carefully your input

Thus far, having fooled around a bit with the scanner, I see a benefit in experimenting with the negative to see how different contrast settings and crops etc would look before I print the "real thing" the old fashioned way. Saves time and paper. That has somewhat tempered my violent dislike of computers in the darkroom, along with the fact that I would otherwise not be able to ever use some of the "damaged" negs I have collected over the years which I hope to scan and make digital negs for contact printing. But after a hard day in the office, I simply do NOT look forward to coming to my studio and sitting behind a computer again.

This might actually be an argument for using an Apple computer, if you do technical work on a PC at work. The experience of it might be different enough (not necessarily better or worse--I'm not getting into that argument again) to make it seem different than work.

To answer your prior question, yes, I make the image on the screen look the way I would want a print to look. That is not the same thing as making the adjustments necessary to make a print look like what I see on the screen. The first is correction, the second it targeting. Correcting overcomes the effects of the scanner and implements my visualization. Targeting makes that corrected image look the same on the medium being targeted. There are imprecisions at every step, but that has always been true at some level, particularly if you are accustomed to hand-dodging and burning in.

But be careful. You may find that the corrections you can make in Photoshop exceed what is possible in the darkroom, and you may end up with refined or revised visualizations that you are then unable to execute in the darkroom. That has certainly been the case for me. Time is limited for me, too, and darkroom time was so inefficient that it became completely unusable for me in the context of my life.

Rick "who never had the darkroom time necessary to progress beyond mere competence" Denney

[cyrus]

I can certainly see the temptation of just scanning...but I don't do this professionally so I have no time restraints on remaining in the darkroom, which has evolved into my living room too.

[photobymike]

Cyrus i feel ya ... i have had experience in a color lab, and my B&W printing for years...ect... it took me a full year of practice before i was any good at scanning and printing. It is very very important that your monitor be "tuned" This will give you consistency when you scan. I have a V750 epson, which came with a scanner calibration software and target. That helped a lot... then i had to get to know my printer and paper which after tuning my monitor and scanner would print slightly magenta. So i had to compensate for that. Practice practice and more but only after you calibrate monitor and scanner. Find a target to scan and find gray...... You will need to find a monitor that will give constant color change that has print matching... they can cost a whole lot of green stuff.... I use a power mac and a 23" Cinema display 1920x1600 DVI. Use a DVI color card ect....

oh jeeez

You probably need some hands on with someone who knows how to do all this stuff to teach ya... It has a pretty steep learning curve. There is a lot to scanning and printing that cannot be put in the box i am typing in... good luck

http://www.mikepic.com

[cyrus]

Thank you Mike
You know what doesn't have a "steep learning curve"?
Taking this stuff outside, stomping on it, pouring gasoline over it, lighting it on fire, letting it burn to ash, burying the ashes, covering it with rocks, then salting the earth so nothing ever grows there again.

And I shall speak of this no more.