Help and Support > Feedback and Suggestions

scan size

<< < (7/11) > >>

JVJ (RIP):
Help me out here, Citaltras,
I posted four scans labeled
#1
#ii
#C
#IV

To cut to the chase and bypass my Monty Python ianity, let's call the #1, 2, 3, and 4.

Am I right in considering your post to be:

#1 = maximum
#2 = minimum
#3 = medium
and (assumption here on my part)
#4 (no entry) being no sharpening

just checking?

Another question: why WOULDN'T you apply a sharpening in Photoshop? One small rotation in PS to straighten the page and you have resampled your scan and interfered with the sharpening done on the scanner. Change the dimensions/resolution of the scan and you've totally eliminated the "Sharp" portion of the sharpening. ANY resampling negates a large part of the effect of the scanner sharpening and introduces blurriness from extrapolation of pixels.

You have FAR more control of sharpening in Photoshop, with nearly infinite gradations and, I'm nearly positive, a much more sophisticated algorithm than you'll find in any scanning software. I see scanner sharpening as a "lowest common denominator" approach to the problem. It's also "lossy" in that you're letting the scanner software "decide" which pixels it's actually going to capture.

Granted, it's faster and requires less thought and involvement with the scans, and, like I've said before, I'm examining the task in the abstract not as a part of day to day workflow.

The clarity of the final jpeg that is inherent in the initial scan is all that is really important, IMHO. I guess I don't see a great value in comparing the raw files since it's the POTENTIAL for a great final product that matters.

I was positive that NO ONE was going to agree with my approach to color correction, and your comments are not unanticipated. I'll counter with two questions:

1. Did the pulp writers find any added value to their prose because it was printed on cheap paper? I think "the text" is all they really cared about. Current fascination with the "artifacts" of pulps has absolutely nothing to do with their content and everything to do with modern perceptions and nostalgic colored glasses.

2. You READ comics?
   In all serious, though, there has been an inordinate amount of money spent on trying to create a digital technology that emulates black ink on white paper and your statement that "A yellow background, like that of the original paper is more comfortable and less harmful for the eyes." sounds like a rationalization that flies in the face of BILLIONS of research dollars. I'm sure it reflects your personal opinion, but for me to categorically accept it as a fact would require a bit more reference to the science.

At this point I give in because I know that I'm a minority of ONE on this. The yellow is still in the faces, it just isn't as obvious, as you point out. But, then, it isn't so obvious on the printed comics either.

 FWIW.

(|:{>

John C:
Two thoughts:

- I don't have any specific information, but it seems to me that the sharpening algorithm onboard the scanner IS probably of lower quality overall, but on the other hand, it may well be tuned to the quirks of the scanning hardware.  It'd be a waste of money, after all, to add software that didn't specifically redress the hardware flaws, and nobody hires programmers because we're so much fun.  (Actually, that's not entirely true, but that was a terrible place to work.)

[Sidenote, with the talk about rotating the scanned image, why are scanners still using those crawling motorized mechanisms?  Can't they just mount a good digital camera to the bottom to get instant and reliable scans?]

- I'm also in the "as-is is better" camp with scans.  Maybe I'm too much a post-modernist, but to me, the artifacts of the medium are just as important (or can be, at least) as the writing and art.  A fair amount of ideas in art, after all, come from overcoming the physical limitations.  As an example off the top of my head, would the Hulk have been green if Jack Kirby drew on a Wacom tablet or 1960s Marvel printed with modern technology?

But, then, I also own very old copies of many books that I can get in clean, modern paperback or (in many cases) download for free from Project Gutenberg.  Because on top of the aforementioned issues, I just like the physical products, probably much more than the art itself.

JVJ (RIP):
That's a great idea about the digital camera rather than a moving scan head, John,
but I think that the resolution would be limited. Getting a 6400 x 6400 ppi scan of an 1" x 1" original would require a 40 Megapixel array, but the notion would work perfectly for a 300 x 300 ppi 7" x 10" scan of a comic book page - an easy job for a 7 Mpixel camera.

You could be right about the scanner sharpening being tuned to the hardware, but I will also say that I doubt it. If you ask any graphics professional, they will tell you that scanner sharpening is ideal only for effects production and not for best quality work. i.e. if you are trying to get a specific "sharpened look" over a lot of scans and don't care to mess with the final scan.

To quote Richard Romano in "The Scanning Workshop" (and just about every other book/tutorial on scanning I've encountered) "It's generally a good idea, if you are ultimately going to be editing an image in an image editing application after scanning, to save all special effects, sharpening, and other such enhancements for that stage. As good as scanning software can be, it's still no substitute for the features and capabilities of a good image manipulation program."

Granted, that was back in 2001, but I'm pretty certain that the sharpening tools in Photoshop have outpaced the development of the "sharpen" button in CanonScan or EpsonScan or HP ScanPro. I could be wrong on this, but it's still what I think.

Your "Hulk" example was ill-chosen, as the character was originally gray and Kirby had little to do with the choice. Still, I understand and agree with your point that technology has its effect on creativity.

On the other hand, the price of a comic book is astronomically increased if there are NO defects and NO yellowing of the paper, so I think that most serious collectors (i.e. those with more dollars than sense) agree more with my values than with the "old is good" attitude that is being touted by most scanners.

I like the physical comics DESPITE their flaws. Primarily because I take in the full range of the medium with a glance and the whole page has its own impact upon the eye while the flow of the story asserts itself upon focus and examination. Literally, it's EASIER for me to assimilate the story in book form than it is on a computer screen. And I think that Kirby did a pretty decent job of "overcoming the physical limitations" of the medium and I GUARANTEE you that when I was reading FF #50 for the first time, after I bought in on the stands, I was NOT looking at the paper or the pulp pieces floating therein. I was, quite unconsciously I assure you, factoring them OUT of the experience and just looking at the art and the story and the words. To bring them to my attention in a scan is tantamount to assault and battery, IMHO.

Peace, JIm (|:{>

Yoc:
Hi guys,
I'm very much enjoying this topic.
I hope other scanners will join in on it.
While not known for my scans my own opinion mostly mirrors John's but I certainly can see the logic is Jim's points as well.

-Yoc

builderboy:
Yep, Yoc...I can see both sides of it.  I have done a little of my own artwork, though, and I am solidly with JVJ when he says that the artists who were creating the work were not in love with the medium.  By that I mean the inexpensive paper, the sometimes sloppy printhouse work, the difficulties in getting blacks to cover in overprint color areas.

They were in love with the final product, yes, but had you asked them if they wanted higher standards in printing, better quality paper, I can't imagine that they would have said anything but YES! YES! YES!  You see it today when publishers have sufficient market to go to a prestige format.

So, do I love a yellowed page of comic book? Yes, but not for the artifacts of age that were imposed on the final product because of industry condition.  Would I prefer to have the artists original art over the comic book page, with all its sharpness and no yellowing? Yessirree Bob.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page