Re: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.

[Ken Durling <kdurling@earthlink.net>]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:05:24 -0400, you wrote:

>That is a case where you certainly can try it.  I would suggest trying both
>methods, and see which works better for you.  Some scanners do a fantastic
>job at giving you great scans at reduced DPI, and others are quite bad.
>Only through a test of your own, can you really know.
>
>> Seems like people are saying scan
>> at the highest res possible, save the raw file and work from that.
>
>For printing to inkjet, that is the correct workflow.  For web output, only
>you can really test that out...and decide.
>
>> But that would involve a lot of this information loss when resizing,
>> or is the information lost not essential?
>
>No matter what, either the scanner, or PS is going to "lose" data...it has
>to, since the scanner can (except a drum) ONLY scan at the native resolution
>of the scanner, and then the scanner will decimate the data down to what you
>requested...so there's loss either way, it's just which loss ends up looking
>better.


OK, that sounds reasonable!  For the most part I actually really like
the web results I'm getting so far, as long as the detail is not too
much in shadow.  I have one slide though, that I'm having a tough time
with.  It's of a dramatic (very wide tonal range) sunset scene over a
city, from high up.  There's lots of fine detail of the city in the
slide that I can see with a loupe on the light table, but it comes out
fuzzy in the scan.  Much fuzzier than say the pollen grains on a macro
shot of a flower stamen, which actually represent a smaller target.
Any idea what's going on here?  Is it just the scanner struggling with
shadowed areas?  


Ken