Print from 4x5 scanned tranny not sharp

[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.