Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/12/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The second image is the third I put up. One problem is than my scanner does not scan the full-frame negative, it seems. Don't know how to correct that. It cut off the side of the picture on the right. So then I put up on the Gallery several scans and readjusted the scan each time I saw the result, then uploaded again. The original print is far better than either the scanned printout or the tonalities seen on the screen. I tried doing some of the things suggested by others on this thread, but as of yet cannot make a printout with the life and brightness of the original print. There is a real learning curve here. Jesse Nathan Wajsman wrote: > > Hi Jesse, > > At least as viewed here on my Powerbook screen, the second image > (i.e. the one scanned from the negative) is far superior to the > original one, in terms of tonality, sharpness, and all other relevant > attributes. > > Nathan > > On 24-dec-2006, at 23:03, Jesse Hellman wrote: > >> After living with my Epson 4490 about six months I finally got up >> the courage to try scanning a negative. I took one that I had >> printed straight and then scanned. So, it took nearly an hour to >> figure out why the "film" option was not available. Then I scanned >> the Tri-X negative at 2400 dpi in 48 bit color and cropped it in >> PhotoShop Elements to the original print dimensions, adjusted >> contrast and brightness and finally sharpened it a bit with the >> Unsharp Mask. >> >> I put it up next to the original scan. <http://gallery.leica- >> users.org/v/Jesse+Hellman/Spoleto+2006/> I see that what I see on >> my monitor is not what you see on the LUG Gallery nor what came out >> of my Epson R800 printer (which, surprisingly enough, was not all >> that bad). >> >> I see this is a new world. The LUG is giving me the courage to >> expand my horizons. >> >> Merry Christmas! >> >> Jesse