Let's talk something new! I would like to know your preferences in scanning and working images for web publications. Why so many differences in results: it depends on scaner? on imaging software? on set up of the scanner? on what kind of picture - slide or negatives - one scans? Tell me your opinion and see differences between these two images i post: the first is an image of a beautifull australian site, the second is an italian one made by me. Do you note some difference in quality? I use a CanonScan and Photoshop. Bye, Stefano
Well, it all starts with the beginning, which means your camera, film, and lens(es). You can never get better than the original. Here is a picture taken with a 35mm point-and-shoot on 400 speed print film, scanned and then edited slightly in photoshop. Now, here is a picture taken on a Nikon N50 with a Nikor 75-240 zoom lense, manually set aperature and shutter speed, with 200 speed print film. (this was published on Trains.com, btw). And here is a poor scan (since I do not have a true slide scanner, just an adapter for a flatbed) of a 35mm slide shot on prefessional Fuji Astia 100 with a telephoto lens. You can see the difference in quality from the start. The general rule is you can't get any better than 72 dpi for online viewing, and once you get up over 100 dpi, there is really no effect on the quality of the scan. Most people I know scan at the highest possible resolution (so then they can print hardcopies) then reduce to 72 dpi for posting to the web to save bandwidth. Hope this helps you out.
Hey, Photorail, you've also gotta think about sun location, and how bright it is, I do best with a slightly overcast day, agianst a very bright day, here is a bright day photo: and Here is a Overcast Photo: Notice the difference? Hunter
Dunno about anyone else, but I think all three of Corey Lynch's photos look superb from a scan/image quality point of view. I readily admit to being an inexpert amateur but in the end its what you can see with your own eye; I can't really discern any difference in quality between the three images; however I'm sure Corey can because he knows the images intimately and he knows what processes he went through to get these results. I think it is true that providing you start with the best possible quality image in the first place you have the best chance from then on forward of achieving good results through whatever process or medium you choose for the dissemination of the image. Ben
Ok! Let's change the focus of this discussion: i gave the original quality of the image as a known fact....the matter is about dpi, scanning method and little tricks while working with software...i tried many combinations of dpi/dimension/size of jpegs or bmp...also i tried some options of Photoshop..but still i haven't the same quality i see in some images on the web. Maybe they come from PhotoCD? Stefano.
Hi, The way I used to scan my photo's before I got a digital was to scan them into Paintshop pro7 at 300 dpi, save it as a bitmap first then resize keeping aspect ratio of and resize all layers. This keeps the original quality of the scan. Next after I have resized is to save the new photo as a jpeg. Also I use the enhance photo and automatic color balance, followed by sharpen image. Then save it again. Here is a scanned in photo.
Hello Stefano, I don't think there is any definitive answer to your question. Assuming that your original image is correctly focused and exposed, acceptable transfer to a digital image, is to a great extent, pure luck. I have had many photos(both prints and slides)that I was really pleased with when viewed in their original format. However, I could never get them to appear as good when viewed on a computer screen. Slide scanners and flatbed scanners (at least the ones that I can afford) do a reasonable job but appear to be unable to handle large changes in contrast (highlights/shadows). In my opinion the best scans are produced from prints/slides that are fairly even in contrast. This type of shot is usually obtained in bright but overcast conditions which is what Hunter says in his posting. There will always be exceptions to the rule (as proven by your Australian photo)but the occasions where the lighting provided by direct sunlight gives even contrast are few and far between. Like you I use a CanoScan (FS2710)and Photoshop. I find that my CanoScan always produces a dark image and requires the highlights, midtones and shadows increasing. For some reason it is also necessary to sharpen the image for computer viewing although this is not required if printing to paper Apart from the above I have never found any of the other manipulation tools available in Photoshop much help in these circumstances. I apologise for the photo gallery but I have posted the digital versions of some of my slides to try and illustrate what I am saying. The ones that I am most happy with were all taken in bright but overcast conditions. You will also notice that I have a liking for medium telephoto shots which also tend to reduce contrast. Best wishes, John. [ 24 August 2001: Message edited by: John Whitby ]</p>
Ehi John! Your site about "last years of BR" is on my links page! Check it at : www.photorail.com ! About images: beautifull but - in my personal opinion - they still have that @@@!!!xxx difference against that australian one! And it's the same difference that is in my picture: did you notice those clean lines, the smoke effect coming out from the roof, the dust clearly visible????? Why my photo and even yours are not so clean??? Where is my mistake in scanning or editing??? This is the nervous question that made me mad!!!! Stefano
Hi Stefano, I fully agree with your comments but I am still not convinced that our discontent with our photos lies in the scanning process. All things being equal I still say that the lighting has by far the greatest effect on the camera's image. Just look at the beautiful pollution free sky in the Australian photo. That is something that is very hard to find in Europe. Having just visited the Australian photo site I am now aware of another major difference and that is the type of camera used. I notice that the photographer who took the excellent photo often uses a large format 6x7 camera. Do you ? I don't, all my photos were taken using the much smaller 35 mm format. If the photo was taken with a 6x7 camera then the image would not have been subjected to the same degree of magnification as a 35 mm slide resulting in increased sharpness. I have tried scanning at a very high resolution but as Corey says going above 100 dpi has little effect when viewed on a computer. You just end up with massive file sizes that are totally inappropriate for websites that contain many images. Assuming that the scanner is reasonable (which the CanoScan is) the quality of the scanned image is determined by the original slide or photo. Despite your quest for absolute perfection I still think that your photos are way above the standard of many on the internet and have added your site to the links page on my Swiss site. Here in England it is very hard to get information about Italian railways and your site has certainly filled a much needed gap. take care, John
Hello Stefano, While I can also only offer you some of my techniques, they too are not the final answer to the question. While I occasionally have a scan that comes out looking great by accident, I would say that most of my images are of the average to marginal quality level. John Witby's response is the most likely reason for the clarity of the image, especially if the images are from 6x7 transparencies or film. In checking the properties of the Australian photo, the image is an uncompressed 72dpi JPEG file. Like most of us, I shoot 35mm film and scan my images at a high resolution (2700dpi for slides, 300dpi for prints) and then reduce and compress the image to save web space. My final posted images are usually between 50k and 100k (by comparison, the Austrailian photo is 139k). A lot of times, it is the compression that will cause the deterioration of the image. Here is a sample photo from my website: The image was scanned using an Acer ScanWit 2720S (economy film scanner, about US$350) and finished using Photoshop. My finishing techniques include first adjusting the color histogram using the Levels tool. If the original is very shadowy, I will first use the Despeckle tool to reduce the grain (noise) in the shadowed areas. Otherwise, I will then use either one or a combination of the Sharpen or Unsharp Mask tools. I save the master in Photoshop format. For the web image, I then reduce the image to around 800x600 and once again use the filter options to regain the final image quality, and save in JPG format with the proper amount of compression to produce the file size I'm looking for (usually about level 4). I am always trying new and varied techniques, as I have found this to be the best method of learning. I recommend visiting www.scantips.com for more help with your scanning questions. I have yet to read the entire site, but they do have many suggestions that I have used.
Ok guys! I understand the message! If i'll use 6x6 slides or even prints, it's better for scanning images on web,right? Nice shot Steven, iwent to your site and i'll make a link to it from mine! I noticed that with prints the results were better than ever, but for magazines and costs i'll still use slides for any important occasion. Some notes: i use CanonScan and Photoshop: 1-scan image at 1111dpi and adjust light and shadows right there, 2-with photoshop i adjust again light and "contrast"(?it's right?), than i use to reduce to 794x529 dpi and finally save the image as jpg. If it's over 100/150k i reduce this with Image Ready to a reasonable weight for web than i resave. That's all! Bye,Stefano.
