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