Scanning Comparison - Pt. 1

There have been several posts and questions about the differing results of scanning (prints, flatbeds, dedicated, etc.).

Here are some samples for direct comparison.

The first image, the three-up composite, has from top to bottom, a direct negative scanned image at 1200dpi, the second image is a glassless scan at 300dpi Continuous tone print on KODAK Digital Royal Paper, and the third is the same 4"x6" print scanned at 300dpi on conventional desktop flatbed. None are color corrected other than the direct negative scan has been appropriately converted to the 'standard' for this film. The film is FUJI 400 X-Superia. Partly cloudy. 160th at f/11.

The 1200dpi scan of the of the negative and the 300dpi scans of the print produce images almost identical in size. They come in at around 1800x1200 pixels. The negative is a little different sized as when you print with a lab printer they 'enlarge' just slightly and crop the photo to make sure there's no border that gets printed.

300dpi generally exceeds the resolution of Continuous tone paper by a 10-20% margin so it captures all the available detail.

The three full size crops should be obvious as to which is which with the 3-up as a reference. Please note that the negative has a scratch which the resolution of the print doesn't resolve. Also the dynamic range in the Lab 'muddies' much detail in the boarded up windows and doors.

No sharpening has been applied to the negative, the parameter on the printer (a KODAK model) for sharpening is minimized, though I've never been convinced it is ever 'OFF'. I'll reprint this on Fuji Paper (when it gets delivered) if anyone wants to see the difference, though I can tell you other than tone, it will look very similar. You can see though, that the negative is much clearer and cleaner.

The biggest difference here is that without correction the flatbed desktop scanner shifts the whole photos color. The KODAK paper is 'warmer' than I usually like without a lot of correction, but it does display the 'difference' that is inherent, even with calibration with RA type paper.

I'll do some more of these including B/W and the summer progresses. Prints from slides also are an interesting difference as chrome has a wider color gamut than paper can easily reproduce.
B/W film of course has a much wider range than any paper can truly resolve. More on that later!!

Thanks drg. I was very frustated last night trying yo figure this out. Good timing on your part

Thanks for the comparison, drg. I'm a little surprised that the prints didn't hold up better against the negative, considering the relatively low resolution of the neg scan. When looking directly at the print, can you read the names? Is it the scan that lost detail in the text or was it not there on the print in the first place?

Paul

The print suffered both from scanning and loss of resolution. I feel more from the printing. This flavor of paper doesn't seem to scan as well. The KODAK Pro Paper, even with a non-gloss finish seems to be the best from KODAK.

Remember, there's no, or as little as possible, post processing to the scanned print! Our scanners and associated software 'fix' a lot of stuff. Baseline scans with a high end drum scanner from 10+ years ago look terrible until they are 'adjusted'. I've rescanned a lot of material and it was far easier than originally.

I am going to post more of these with different films and papers as I dig out the 'good' examples or just go generate some new ones!

The papers are also highly susceptible to handling, finish, etc.

These color papers don't have as high a resolution as we often think. Much of that has to do with the nature of the printer and that they are made to generate 'pretty' pictures.