Help and Support > Feedback and Suggestions
scan size
citaltras:
JVJ: my point was not on sharpening (that is needed to get my results, otherwise the image would be blurry), but on color corrections.
Whatever the scanner was, or the corrections made on the first image,
the raw scan is much better and the same size,
or even smaller, since every correction make the resulting file a bit larger.
The page is from Kirby's Eternals #18.
JVJ (RIP):
--- Quote from: citaltras on August 30, 2010, 04:23:29 PM ---JVJ: my point was not on sharpening (that is needed to get my results, otherwise the image would be blurry), but on color corrections.
Whatever the scanner was, or the corrections made on the first image,
the raw scan is much better and the same size,
or even smaller, since every correction make the resulting file a bit larger.
The page is from Kirby's Eternals #18.
--- End quote ---
I did misunderstand your point, citaltras,
and certainly agree that whoever did the scan and correction on the first image was not really improving things. It would be interesting to see the raw scan, don't you think?
And I'm not sure why "the raw scan is much better and the same size." If you're looking at a jpeg, and the raw scan was .tif, then the latter would certainly not hold true. As for the former, "much better", observation, I've seen some pretty ugly raw scans in my day. Scanning is a skill and you gotta learn the basics and then keep practicing to keep them sharp (ha ha).
I guess I don't understand why you say that the image would necessarily be blurry if you don't use your scanner's sharpening setting. Below are four scans that I made of an X-Men comic using the following settings on my Epson 15000: no sharpening, minimum sharpening, medium sharpening and maximum sharpening - NOT PRESENTED IN THAT ORDER. All four scans were straightened and color corrected, then reduced to 900 pixels wide, Unsharp Mask at 70% in Photoshop and saved as a jpg at 60 quality. Can you put them in the proper order? Does it make a difference? I've NOT previewed these, so I'll be seeing them together for the first time here, too.
#1:
http://www.bpib.com/temp/cb-sharpen/sharpen-1.jpg#ii:
http://www.bpib.com/temp/cb-sharpen/sharpen-2.jpgsee next post for part two.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
Yoc:
Jim, your examples didn't show.
There is a maximum file size allowed for pictures posted via a reply.
"Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip
Maximum attachment size allowed: 1024 KB, per post: 4"
-Yoc
JVJ (RIP):
They're just links to images on my server, Yoc,
Is there a limit on LINK size?
Peace, Jim (|:{>
JVJ (RIP):
Here are the second set of four scans with varying degrees of sharpening.
#C:
http://www.bpib.com/temp/cb-sharpen/sharpen-3.jpg#IV:
http://www.bpib.com/temp/cb-sharpen/sharpen-3.jpgAgain, four scans with no, min, med, and max scan sharpening applied. Not in any order. Which is better? Does it matter?
(|:{>
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version