What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Where's the sharpness gone?

Thank you everyone for your responses. I've just scanned my first 'real' film (after all the tests) and with a tiny bit of post-processing (USM in Photoshop) I'm getting close to the results I was expecting.

Obviously nothing beats a darkroom/enlarger/paper setup, but given that for the most part these images will be viewed on a computer screen, the results are more than adequate...which now means I'm going to have to work on my composition !! (Well, at least before I show you guys what I'm capable of!!)

Ian
 
Hi Ian,
If I could add about 2 cents (US) worth -
All digital files need sharpening, whether they are coming out of a camera, or from scanned film. It is often disheartening to photographers to see their super sharp negatives look less than desirably sharp after scanning. This is normal (to an extent, of course). It is an accepted practice in today's digital world to sharpen your files THREE times during post processing. One directly out of the camera, or in your case, from the scanner (called Capture sharpening), which should be a mild global sharpening. A second, more robust sharpening (often using USM and a layer mask) called Creative sharpening, should be applied towards the end of your post processing, and a third, called Output sharpening, and based on the native DPI of the printer, should be applied to a flattened image right before you send it to the printer.

FYI - Unsharp mask is a term coined a few decades ago, long before PS. The process involved laying your b&w negative on a sheet of 4x5 or 8x10 b&w film, and exposing it to light in order to produce another "negative," which you realize would now be a "positive." Due to the thickness of sheet film, the copy neg would be slightly blury, hence the name "unsharp" mask.
The beauty here, and what I'm leading up to, was that when you would sandwich the unsharp mask with the original negative, and place them in your enlarger, your print would display a significant increase in sharpness.
Only the true diehard printers would actually use this process, because it took quite some work to produce the unsharp mask - considering you had to guess at the exposure & developing times, plus have a dark enough area in which to work with open film. Kodak use to make 8x10 sheets of film specifically for this process. Until recently, I had a box in my freezer, but finally discarded it in lieu of some frozen T-bone steaks!
 
This is very interesting - particularly with regard to the t-bone steaks (!!)

But I digress...it's been a LONG time since I last printed on real paper in a darkroom, but my addled mind still remembers the contrast and the sheer quality of my humble 6x6 negs from way back then. I think what I miss most is the dynamic range I 'remember' being able to achieve - sadly, this may just be wishful thinking, and the quality I yearn for is a false memory. Or is it?

I got pretty good quality results from my D300 - then I got much better results from my D700 - am I just imagining that a 6x6 neg will give me even better quality?

What I'm trying to say is, am I searching for something which may not actually exist?

Your comments reassure me with regard to repeated 'sharpening', as I'll try anything (Particularly as I have now bought and paid for the scanner!) once the neg is in digital format.

I imagine the original film-based USM simply increased the edge contrast...

As a keen amateur, with a love for b&w, I think it'll be an interesting to try colour transparencies in MF - I've heard that these scan a whole lot better than b&w negs - all I have to do first is stop looking at things in monochrome...!

Many thanks for your input

Ian
 
I shot and printed my own MF b&w for 30 years before converting to digital. My humble advice is to forget everything you have learned about conventional printing. Digital is a different world, and you can expect images of a caliber and quality that you never dreamt about with Dektol.
Personally, I find that color negs scan better than transparencies. There's a lot more detail, plus the inherent dynamic range of negative film such as Fuji Reala is wider than slide film. I believe, if you are going to scan film in the future, and print digitally, that you would be better off shooting color negative film rather than transparency film or b&w film. The color negative film will convert beautifully to b&w in ACR, LR, and PS. With the release of Kodak's new Ektar 100 in 120 rolls, I doubt you'll find a better film for detail and sharpness. And that said, I've always been a fan of Fuji Reala.

It would behoove you to do a Google of sharpening digital images. Read up on USM and other sharpening techniques, and especially using layer masks.
For the Capture sharpening, I simply use a global sharpening with the Sharpen tool in Flexcolor, ACR, or PS, with USM @ 100% strength, and 2 Radius, and 0 Threshold. For the Creative, or second sharpening, I create an edge mask, which then masks the image except for the edges (which is where you want the sharpening to occur). I copy the image, and apply the mask to the copy image, and add USM at full capacity (500%) with a Radius of 2-3 points, and 0 Threshold. And yes, it looks awful at this point, but then I dial back the opacity until I see the sharpness I desire. For the Output, I use USM again, but this time I really throw off the skew by adding 20% strength, and use a whopping 50 points of Radius, and again 0 Threshold. This large amount of Radius contributes a subtle, but visible "pop" to the print.
Always mask smooth areas from sharpening, such as open skies, smooth walls, etc. Sharpening will only add noise to these areas.
Michael
 
A heart felt thank you for the advice - it's refreshing not to be treated as a complete idiot, and I appreciate it.

The remarks and advice are all welcome, and it gives me the assurance that people have been this route before and I'm more than happy to learn by your mistakes (!!)

This posts have given me much food for thought and I think I'll try the colour neg before transparency, if only based on my previous (albeit 25 years ago) experience with the almost total lack of latitude with most transparency stock.

I can get Fuji colour neg and C41 chemicals fairly easily...I'll report back!

Many thanks again

Ian
 
michaelhcothran said:
I shot and printed my own MF b&w for 30 years before converting to digital. My humble advice is to forget everything you have learned about conventional printing. Digital is a different world, and you can expect images of a caliber and quality that you never dreamt about with Dektol.
Personally, I find that color negs scan better than transparencies. There's a lot more detail, plus the inherent dynamic range of negative film such as Fuji Reala is wider than slide film. I believe, if you are going to scan film in the future, and print digitally, that you would be better off shooting color negative film rather than transparency film or b&w film. The color negative film will convert beautifully to b&w in ACR, LR, and PS. With the release of Kodak's new Ektar 100 in 120 rolls, I doubt you'll find a better film for detail and sharpness. And that said, I've always been a fan of Fuji Reala.
Click to expand...

I second that feeling, I feel scanning negs is easier than slides. In my case that is Kodak Portra versus Kodak Ektachrome 100.

That said.. you should try slides at least once. On the light table a properly exposed E100 slide is simply stunning :)

Wilko
 
michaelhcothran said:
Personally, I find that color negs scan better than transparencies.

For the Capture sharpening, I simply use a global sharpening with the Sharpen tool in Flexcolor, ACR, or PS, with USM @ 100% strength, and 2 Radius, and 0 Threshold. For the Creative, or second sharpening, I create an edge mask, which then masks the image except for the edges (which is where you want the sharpening to occur). I copy the image, and apply the mask to the copy image, and add USM at full capacity (500%) with a Radius of 2-3 points, and 0 Threshold. And yes, it looks awful at this point, but then I dial back the opacity until I see the sharpness I desire. For the Output, I use USM again, but this time I really throw off the skew by adding 20% strength, and use a whopping 50 points of Radius, and again 0 Threshold. This large amount of Radius contributes a subtle, but visible "pop" to the print.
Always mask smooth areas from sharpening, such as open skies, smooth walls, etc. Sharpening will only add noise to these areas.
Michael
Click to expand...

Can it be reasonably assumed that these sharpening suggestions work with colour negs as well as b&w?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top