What's new
CI Photocommunity

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Where's the sharpness gone?

sportback

sportback

Well-Known Member
Firstly hello everyone - my first post even though I've been reading here for a while.

Backgound: Keen amateur for years, bought a couple of Hasselblads in the late 70's and always developed my own films, 35mm and 6x6. Since the late 90's everything has been in a box due to various work/family considerations.

Fast forward to last year when I finally got myself a digital reflex (D700) - great machine but I've always been a medium format kinda person so a few weeks ago I dug out the 'blads and decided to get back into the sadle. After cleaning everything and replacing the light-traps on my A12's I was ready to go. Shot a couple of test rolls to check out the shutters, backs and development technique and I've got a problem.

Based on personal experiences and reviews I got myself an Epson V700. The trouble is, whilst I can see my negs are as sharp as they've always been, I simply can't get that 'punch' in the scanned images.

I've tried everything (I think) I've scanned at hi and low resolution, with and without sharpening, with and without high contrast curves etc. even to the point of putting the negs in upside down in the scanner (Gotta test everything)

Is there anyone out there who's experienced similar problems? My negs were shot at small apertures (11,16,22) on T-Max 100 to minimise the grain, and from what I can (with a hand magnifier) see they're razor sharp - I just don't get this in the scans - it's almost as if there's a mask infront.

The prints I used to make when I had a conventional darkroom (all those years ago) were superb (not the subject matter, the quality) - at the moment I get better results from the Nikon...

Can anyone help please?

Ian
 
polypal

polypal

Well-Known Member
Hello Ian,

Welcome here at hasselbladinfo forum!

There are a number of reasons that may be the cause you are not getting what you are looking for.
First of all scanning negatives is not the most optimum method to convert film to digital.
Trannies are easier to scan.
Although the Epson V 700 is quite a decent scanner it is not able to convert all what is in the negatives, or trannies for that matter, into digital files.

Why not take a test film to a professional scanner and let him scan a few frames.
That may help you find out what is the cause.
A friendly scanner may even take some time and look at your files and comment on what is there.

Finally shoot some trannies and scan those with the Epson.
That may well be a step in the right direction.


Paul
 
sportback

sportback

Well-Known Member
Thanks polypal - however two small problems come to mind...one is that I live in rural France and we simply don't have the 'facilities' nearby (But I do know where to get really good cheese!) The second is that my prime reason for undusting the Hasselblad was for my love of B&W...

But thanks for your suggestions - appreciate it :)

Ian
 
polypal

polypal

Well-Known Member
In case the Bureau de Poste is too far from your castle I am sure in rural France your "facteur" will gladly collect a parcel destined for an obscure lab where men with strange machines perform wonderful jobs with images.

You will miss personal contact although telephone and email are quite reliable substitutes these days.

A different way of scanning with a higher grade scanner may help you put the finger on the sore spot.

Keep in mind for certain applications film and a conventional darkroom with high grade paper to print are still the way to go.
It is like Cola: Coca Cola is still the reference to judge the others.


Good wine and some cheese can be the ingredients for long nightly conversations about photography and other matters that occupy a mans mind.
 
sportback

sportback

Well-Known Member
Coca Cola? What's that? We have red wine on intravenous drip....

You're right, of course, I'll have to try to find a lab that scans film.

Shame that my little V700 doesn't seem to be up to the job (Heaven knows what it'll do to a 35mm neg???)

I'll keep you posted

Ian
 
sportback

sportback

Well-Known Member
I've just read a review where the guy talks about using an 'unsharp mask', either when scanning or in post treatment with Photoshop...anyone here know A: what this is, and B: how to find/apply it?

Merci in advance...
 
jotloob

jotloob

Well-Known Member
sportback said:
Please, Log in or Register to view quote content!
Click to expand...

Ian

USM in PHOTOSHOP means unsharp masking .
You could also say SHARPENING .
Sharpening is basically done by increasing the contrast .

I use SILVER FAST Ai as scanner software , and there you can set a basic sharpening which in turn then is applied to all scans .

I think , that is what he means with an "unsharp mask" .

I found , that scans of one and the same negative but scanned on different scanners , also require different sharpening values .

I use an ARTIXSCAN F1 with the setting AUTO SHARPNESS (but the values are unknown to me) and my B/W scans need a final sharpening in PS of just 100-105% at 1-1.3 pixel .

I would like to offer you to do a scan of one of your negatives on my scanner , just as a test .
But I will be away on holiday for three weeks in May , and that would then not help you at all .
I know a professional LAB here in Germany . They scan on IMACON 848 and already made about 50 scans for me .
Very professional .
PM me , if you want the address .

Regards Jürgen
 
sportback

sportback

Well-Known Member
Thank you Jürgen - appreciate the response.

I've been playing with Photoshop to see if I can 'recover' the sharpness, and the auto-sharpness 'filter' seems to do it's job pretty well. Here are a before and after example from a tiny (10%) crop of a 6x6 negative.

Original scan - no sharpening during scan.

Originalscan.jpg


Same scan but with autosharpening in PS.

AutoUSMPS300.jpg


This result has calmed me down considerably...sadly the weather is not good today - but as soon as it is, I'll try some more.

Many thanks

Ian
 
polypal

polypal

Well-Known Member
Hello Ian,

These images show that different settings in the software will improve the results dramatically.
The Epson is a good scanner that will do quite well for most applications.

I am glad part of the problem is solved thanks to Jürgen.



Paul
 
T

TJV

Well-Known Member
I have a V700 and Nikon 8000ED (plus an old 35mm only Canoscan 4000US.)
There are two problems with the V700 and 8000ED that will knock you back if you are not careful. One is the standard holders are useless and requre very careful attention to make sure the negs / trannies are flat. If they aren't you'll be disappointed with soft results. The other, on the V700, is you need to do a few tests with the holders and make sure the hight adjustments are set to the optimum for YOUR scanner. Most people report that they should be set to the + position. I find the V700 very good for proofing and moderate size prints with careful sharpening.
 
polypal

polypal

Well-Known Member
Those who like to read more about scanners and scanning are invited to use this link.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


It is from a specialist who knows what scanning and scanners are all about.
Despite the fact that they have a commercial interest I post this link because it contains valuable information.
 
sportback

sportback

Well-Known Member
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
 
M

michaelhcothran

Well-Known Member
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!
 
sportback

sportback

Well-Known Member
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
 
M

michaelhcothran

Well-Known Member
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
 
sportback

sportback

Well-Known Member
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top