Howtek scan of one of my first 4x5 images

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Howtek:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50611199118_eae1e75d3c_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2k7kCem)


Original done with Epson V850:
https://live.staticflickr.com/889/40481389894_1027dd39a8_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/24FcGSb)

Differences to some extent can be due to post-processing. As a note, I did not refer to the V850 image when working on the Howtek san.

There is more detail in the sky in the Howtek scan that I eeked out. Haven't compared these yet.

[Alan Klein]

I'm glad it's coming along. Looks like a involved learning process. The V850 obviously had more contrast, too much, but that's probably processing as you said. It's hard to tell much beyond that. I think scans of a photo with closer objects that could then be enlarged 1:1 for comparison would provide a better look. what if you compared one of the nearest birch trees?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yeah, but that is a lot of work to crop out 100% scans. In a sense, you end up not seeing the forest for the trees. I tend to focus on the overall image. It is nice to zoom in sometimes, but the full image is where it is at. Ie, we shoot film, why be pixel peepers? LOL.

[Alan Klein]

I understand your point. But it's hard to see details in the photo you choose to make a comparison. The trees are too far away and the dirt and little rocks have no distinguishing features. Probably a portrait would be the best to see as the human eye knows when a face looks "wrong". Do you have one? If not, a closer picture showing a lot of detail would be more helpful.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

No portraits, :(

[Peter De Smidt]

Well, the drum scan looks better, with much better tonal range, and it looks sharper, too. With the Epson scan, it looks like you clipped both the blacks and the whites.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I did. What I may do is reprocess the Epson scan with the experience I now have since then. I agree with your comments Peter.