Sharpness of scanned picture

James D wrote:

When I scan a 35mm picture the scanned image has a soft/blurry look to it. Any one know why it is not as crisp as the original image and if/how I can make it sharper?
I’ve tried to sharpen, but it didn’t seem to resemble the original picture. Maybe I’m doing something wrong?

What kind of scanner are you using? My first thought is you are not scanning at the full resolution of the scanner.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

"James D" wrote in message

When I scan a 35mm picture the scanned image has a soft/blurry look to it. Any one know why it is not as crisp as the original image and if/how I can make it sharper?
I’ve tried to sharpen, but it didn’t seem to resemble the original

picture.

Maybe I’m doing something wrong?

Virtually all scans need a little sharpening. Even drum scanners. That is where the unsharp mask originated after all.

To get good scans use the following

1. Scan at least 300 dpi.
2. Set your picture to 100% size for viewing.
3. Use unsharp mask.
4. Now view at the "printable size" that is click on View and them Print Size.
5. Now judge the sharpness.

If it is still only so so. it may be that you would profit from some film profiles like come with LaserSoft drivers.

scanning is at least as much art as science otherwise scanner manuals would be more helpful.

You can also try http://www.ultrasharpen.com. I have been very pleased with the results from it.

John

Thanks John. I just downloaded the lite version and will give it a try.

"John Doe" wrote in message

You can also try http://www.ultrasharpen.com. I have been very pleased

with

the results from it.

John

Thanks Tobasco, I noticed a slight difference. Guess I’m looking for something that can’t happen (i.e. digital quality from a scanned photo) It does seem to clear it up a bit though. Thanks again. By the way, how many times can you use the unsharp feature before it is useless?

"Tabasco1" wrote in message

Virtually all scans need a little sharpening. Even drum scanners. That is where the unsharp mask originated after all.

To get good scans use the following

1. Scan at least 300 dpi.
2. Set your picture to 100% size for viewing.
3. Use unsharp mask.
4. Now view at the "printable size" that is click on View and them Print Size.
5. Now judge the sharpness.

If it is still only so so. it may be that you would profit from some film profiles like come with LaserSoft drivers.

scanning is at least as much art as science otherwise scanner manuals

would

be more helpful.

"James D" wrote in message

Thanks Tabasco, I noticed a slight difference. Guess I’m looking for something that can’t happen (i.e. digital quality from a scanned photo) It does seem to clear it up a bit though. Thanks again. By the way, how many times can you use the unsharp feature before it is useless?

Try and do a good enough job the first time that you don’t want to do it again. Be careful if you over do it you will start to get halos and other artifacts in your images.

Note: ultrasharpen is basically using the unsharp mask also. It just goes ahead and makes an extra attempt to protect areas that shouldn’t be sharpened.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com

Just one more question, why does Adobe call it "UNsharp" mask when it appears to sharpen the image like the sharpen filter?

"Tabasco1" wrote in message

Try and do a good enough job the first time that you don’t want to do it again. Be careful if you over do it you will start to get halos and other artifacts in your images.

Note: ultrasharpen is basically using the unsharp mask also. It just goes ahead and makes an extra attempt to protect areas that shouldn’t be sharpened.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:44:56 GMT, "James D"
wrote:

Just one more question, why does Adobe call it "UNsharp" mask when it appears to sharpen the image like the sharpen filter?

I wondered about that too when I first saw it. I figured they mean its intended use if for "unsharp" areas!? I know, reverse logic, but you know… artists… ;o)

Don.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:44:56 GMT, "James D"
wrote:

Just one more question, why does Adobe call it "UNsharp" mask when it appears to sharpen the image like the sharpen filter?

It’s from darkroom practice. Originally, to sharpen an image you would lay a second neg, slightly misregistered over the top of the original. Hence the mask bit. And because it "unsharpens" the image by making the edges fuzzy, it is an unsharp mask. Incidentally, never, ever, use sharpen to sharpen an image – you’ll destroy it. (Sharpen has one or two uses, but sharpening an image really isn’t one of them <g>).

USM works by putting a halo around the image – it puts a dark halo around the edges of darker objects and a light halo around lighter ones where the objects meet. So, as a starting point try either using LAB mode and the ,luminosity channel, or sharpening on separate channels. Separate channels is best as then you can avoid sharpening channels where there is a lot of noise.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 03:50:12 +0100, Hecate wrote:

It’s from darkroom practice. Originally, to sharpen an image you would lay a second neg, slightly misregistered over the top of the original. Hence the mask bit. And because it "unsharpens" the image by making the edges fuzzy, it is an unsharp mask.

Huh!? I did my share of darkroom work years ago – even "adventurous" stuff like solarizing – but I never heard of this technique. Neat!

So, you’d make a (presumably contact) duplicate of the negative and then layer the two, right?

I guess the same (optical?) principle applies to something I read here a while back i.e. when reducing an image in Photoshop it helps to apply a bit of Gaussian blur in order to limit loss of sharpness. I couldn’t quite see the difference but this technique stuck in my mind because I like lateral thinking and making an image fuzzy in order to sharpen it isn’t exactly intuitive.

Don.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:44:56 GMT, "James D"
wrote:

Just one more question, why does Adobe call it "UNsharp" mask when it appears to sharpen the image like the sharpen filter?

It’s from darkroom practice. Originally, to sharpen an image you would lay a second neg, slightly misregistered over the top of the original. Hence the mask bit. And because it "unsharpens" the image by making the edges fuzzy, it is an unsharp mask. Incidentally, never, ever, use sharpen to sharpen an image – you’ll destroy it. (Sharpen has one or two uses, but sharpening an image really isn’t one of them <g>).
USM works by putting a halo around the image – it puts a dark halo around the edges of darker objects and a light halo around lighter ones where the objects meet. So, as a starting point try either using LAB mode and the ,luminosity channel, or sharpening on separate channels. Separate channels is best as then you can avoid sharpening channels where there is a lot of noise.

A Photoshop User Magazine article had a neat technique a couple years ago to reduce artifacts from sharpening. The technique is to sharpen, then fade the sharpening on the lkuminosity channel, then apply Gaussian Blur, then fade the Gaussian Blur on the color channel. Works great and removes that "oversharpned" look in many cases.

In article <c6CEc.8074$>,
says…

Just one more question, why does Adobe call it "UNsharp" mask when it appears to sharpen the image like the sharpen filter?

"Tabasco1" wrote in message

Try and do a good enough job the first time that you don’t want to do it again. Be careful if you over do it you will start to get halos and other artifacts in your images.

Note: ultrasharpen is basically using the unsharp mask also. It just goes ahead and makes an extra attempt to protect areas that shouldn’t be sharpened.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com

By placing an out of focus mask on top of a negative large areas of low detail are lowered in contrast. Edges are still defined, however. A print is then made through the combination using a higher contrast paper. The net effect is that the transitions of fine detail are raised in contrast and thus appear sharper. The usm in Photoshop does the same thing that’s why it has a control for radius which is equivalent to the amount of blur in the film case.
I have a couple of discussions on using USM properly on my web site which you might find useful. Follow the tips link on the home page.

—
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:13:47 GMT, (Don) wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 03:50:12 +0100, Hecate wrote:

It’s from darkroom practice. Originally, to sharpen an image you would lay a second neg, slightly misregistered over the top of the original. Hence the mask bit. And because it "unsharpens" the image by making the edges fuzzy, it is an unsharp mask.

Huh!? I did my share of darkroom work years ago – even "adventurous" stuff like solarizing – but I never heard of this technique. Neat!

<g> You haven’t lived unless you’ve gone through the pain of USM-ing in the darkroom …

So, you’d make a (presumably contact) duplicate of the negative and then layer the two, right?

Give the man a coconut! 😉

I guess the same (optical?) principle applies to something I read here a while back i.e. when reducing an image in Photoshop it helps to apply a bit of Gaussian blur in order to limit loss of sharpness. I couldn’t quite see the difference but this technique stuck in my mind because I like lateral thinking and making an image fuzzy in order to sharpen it isn’t exactly intuitive.

Yes, sort of, but you really only want to do that in the Luminosity channel of LAB. Though you can use USM to sharpen the whole image of course, then go Edit?fade, select luminosity and leave it 100% for a full USM of the luminosity channel or drop the value if you want less.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Sharpening in LAB works well.

Has anyone tried all the sharpening add-ins, like nik etc? Any of these work better than USM?

Philip

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 06:46:18 -0600, "Jerry McG" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:44:56 GMT, "James D"
wrote:

Just one more question, why does Adobe call it "UNsharp" mask when it appears to sharpen the image like the sharpen filter?

It’s from darkroom practice. Originally, to sharpen an image you would lay a second neg, slightly misregistered over the top of the original. Hence the mask bit. And because it "unsharpens" the image by making the edges fuzzy, it is an unsharp mask. Incidentally, never, ever, use sharpen to sharpen an image – you’ll destroy it. (Sharpen has one or two uses, but sharpening an image really isn’t one of them <g>).
USM works by putting a halo around the image – it puts a dark halo around the edges of darker objects and a light halo around lighter ones where the objects meet. So, as a starting point try either using LAB mode and the ,luminosity channel, or sharpening on separate channels. Separate channels is best as then you can avoid sharpening channels where there is a lot of noise.

A Photoshop User Magazine article had a neat technique a couple years ago to reduce artifacts from sharpening. The technique is to sharpen, then fade the sharpening on the lkuminosity channel, then apply Gaussian Blur, then fade the Gaussian Blur on the color channel. Works great and removes that "oversharpned" look in many cases.

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 01:19:50 +0100, Hecate wrote:

It’s from darkroom practice. Originally, to sharpen an image you would lay a second neg, slightly misregistered over the top of the original. Hence the mask bit. And because it "unsharpens" the image by making the edges fuzzy, it is an unsharp mask.

Huh!? I did my share of darkroom work years ago – even "adventurous" stuff like solarizing – but I never heard of this technique. Neat!

<g> You haven’t lived unless you’ve gone through the pain of USM-ing in the darkroom …

And all this time I thought wrestling with LS-30 and Kodachromes was the pinnacle of masochism! ;o)

So, you’d make a (presumably contact) duplicate of the negative and then layer the two, right?

Give the man a coconut! 😉

Erm… Not to push my luck, but can I have a bit of rum with that? Oh yeah, and one of those little umbrellas, while we’re at it! ;o)

Don.

Philip Procter wrote:

Sharpening in LAB works well.

Has anyone tried all the sharpening add-ins, like nik etc? Any of these work better than USM?

Philip

On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 06:46:18 -0600, "Jerry McG" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:44:56 GMT, "James D"
wrote:

Just one more question, why does Adobe call it "UNsharp" mask when it appears to sharpen the image like the sharpen filter?

It’s from darkroom practice. Originally, to sharpen an image you would lay a second neg, slightly misregistered over the top of the original. Hence the mask bit. And because it "unsharpens" the image by making the edges fuzzy, it is an unsharp mask. Incidentally, never, ever, use sharpen to sharpen an image – you’ll destroy it. (Sharpen has one or two uses, but sharpening an image really isn’t one of them <g>).
USM works by putting a halo around the image – it puts a dark halo around the edges of darker objects and a light halo around lighter ones where the objects meet. So, as a starting point try either using LAB mode and the ,luminosity channel, or sharpening on separate channels. Separate channels is best as then you can avoid sharpening channels where there is a lot of noise.

A Photoshop User Magazine article had a neat technique a couple years ago to reduce artifacts from sharpening. The technique is to sharpen, then fade the sharpening on the lkuminosity channel, then apply Gaussian Blur, then fade the Gaussian Blur on the color channel. Works great and removes that "oversharpned" look in many cases.

I’ve been using a combination of (1st) Focus Magic and then an action that just runs USM on edge masked file. It works very well for me.

Clyde

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 03:53:02 GMT, Philip Procter
wrote:

Sharpening in LAB works well.

Has anyone tried all the sharpening add-ins, like nik etc? Any of these work better than USM?

Nope. Because they only sharpen one way. At a quick estimate there at least five different ways of running USM over an image (and I’m sure I’ll think of more later) and which you use depends on the image. Sharpening plug ins just do the same thing regardless.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Nope. Because they only sharpen one way. At a quick estimate there at least five different ways of running USM over an image (and I’m sure I’ll think of more later) and which you use depends on the image. Sharpening plug ins just do the same thing regardless.

Besides we all agree if you are getting this freaked out by the sharpness of your image it is likely not the filters fault.

The best way to get sharp images is to take sharp pictures in the first place.

steps to get sharp images

1. Use great lighting.
2. Use the lowest asa film you can.
3. Use a tripod. If you can’t use a fast shutter speed.
4. Rake the film to a good lab…. not the 1/2 hour quickie lab.
5. Now scan and use USM.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 06:39:34 GMT, "Tabasco1"
wrote:

Nope. Because they only sharpen one way. At a quick estimate there at least five different ways of running USM over an image (and I’m sure I’ll think of more later) and which you use depends on the image. Sharpening plug ins just do the same thing regardless.

Besides we all agree if you are getting this freaked out by the sharpness of your image it is likely not the filters fault.

The best way to get sharp images is to take sharp pictures in the first place.

steps to get sharp images

1. Use great lighting.
2. Use the lowest asa film you can.
3. Use a tripod. If you can’t use a fast shutter speed.
4. Rake the film to a good lab…. not the 1/2 hour quickie lab.
5. Now scan and use USM.

True. But I’ve never met a picture that didn’t benefit from some USM anyway. In Dan Margulis book on colour correction he draws attention to the fact that "USM" has been going on for at least 500 years and shows a picture by Carvaggio where he has outlined the hands of a figure using dark colour on one side and a light one on the other.

The thing is, you’re *never* going to take the perfect picture, even if you’re the perfect photographer because you’re never going to have the perfect lens or the perfect film/CCD. The whole point of the digital darkroom is to improve what you have.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

The thing is, you’re *never* going to take the perfect picture, even if you’re the perfect photographer because you’re never going to have the perfect lens or the perfect film/CCD. The whole point of the digital darkroom is to improve what you have.

Amen.

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com

On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 04:33:09 GMT, "Tabasco1"
wrote:

The thing is, you’re *never* going to take the perfect picture, even if you’re the perfect photographer because you’re never going to have the perfect lens or the perfect film/CCD. The whole point of the digital darkroom is to improve what you have.

Amen.

We’ll have to stop keeping agreeing like this – people will talk you know 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

We’ll have to stop keeping agreeing like this – people will talk you know 🙂

Wait, I know how to stop that.

TASTES GREAT! 🙂

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 05:18:24 GMT, "Tabasco1"
wrote:

We’ll have to stop keeping agreeing like this – people will talk you know 🙂

Wait, I know how to stop that.

TASTES GREAT! 🙂

hahahaha!

Thanks for my best laugh this week 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Wait, I know how to stop that.

TASTES GREAT! 🙂

hahahaha!

Thanks for my best laugh this week 😉

🙂

Charles
Torrance, California
http://www.tcpslashipdomains.com