[adsouza]

Folks I could use all your help and advise. Pressed for time, I have a 60 year old 3X5" B&W photo. I initially scanned the original print at very high DPI thinking I could crop an individual out and make a decent 8X10 print but the result ended up in a fail. So my next thoughts is to get a macro shot using a macro lens and fill the frame by isolating the individual in the photo and bracketing 3 shots to get the DR hence allowing me to also PP and obtain a decent 8X10 or larger print.

So my question to you all is this the right approach or do you have any better solutions. Scanning and cropping resulted in a soft image. At face value the original does not look as soft as the scanned version. Please help, scanned version of photo included.

Thanks

Attached Images

 

[6BQ5]

A macro lens may result in a very sharp and detailed image of the texture of the paper. The paper just happens to have a photograph on it. I don't know if it will add significant detail to the resulting image you are trying to create.

You never know until you try though. Experiment!

[unkipunki]

If you have photoshop you could try a semi destructive approach to an over sharp macro. Take your shot. Sharpen for detail and adjust anything else you wish to do. Then resize to sufficient for 8x10 then convert to smart object. Apply Gaussian blur at say 7.4. Reduce that effect in the smart object to say 10, then adjust until paper texture is minimised. Then apply smart sharpening at approx radius 2 and level 300. Then reduce the opacity to a start point of about 30. Continue tweaking both blur and sharpening until image is paper texture free, but image clarity acceptable. No guarantees, but it could work out ok.

[stevebrot]

There is probably no need to bracket the exposure. The dynamic range of the paper is much less than your camera. I am not sure what might be accomplished with doing the task as a macro vs. a high quality scan.* I have done it both ways and consider both methods to be adequate and roughly equivalent.

As for your intent to crop an individual out and enlarge to 8x10, I would suggest that what you see on the original is what you will get on the enlargement. It may be possible to get a usable 4x6, but probably no larger.


Steve

* It is possible that the scan quality may be to blame for the softness. High dpi is not the same as high fidelity. Most scanners vastly overstate resolution in the published specifications. As a result, using a macro lens may provide better results, but I would not count on it.

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 10-21-2016 at 11:53 AM.

[adsouza]

A macro lens may result in a very sharp and detailed image of the texture of the paper. The paper just happens to have a photograph on it. I don't know if it will add significant detail to the resulting image you are trying to create.

You never know until you try though. Experiment!

Spot on I will give it a go!

[stevebrot]

As for your intent to crop an individual out and enlarge to 8x10, I would suggest that what you see on the original is what you will get on the enlargement. It may be possible to get a usable 4x6, but probably no larger.

To get an idea of what you might expect from a 1:1 macro with your K-01, lets do a little math:

• At 1:1, the frame will cover an area 23.7x15.7mm on the original print
• At 1:1, the K-01 will provide ~5200 dpi on the long axis which is more than adequate to support an 8x10 print. Cool!
• All detail or lack of detail will be magnified about 10x from the original. There is no way to invent detail or tonality that is not there. What appear soft on the original will be 10x less sharp on the enlargement.

The above being noted, there may be another option. A person skilled with working from vintage photographs may be able to produce an artist's rendering of a portion of your crop that would be quite nice. That is just something to think about if your macro attempt is disappointing.


Steve

[adsouza]

If you have photoshop you could try a semi destructive approach to an over sharp macro. Take your shot. Sharpen for detail and adjust anything else you wish to do. Then resize to sufficient for 8x10 then convert to smart object. Apply Gaussian blur at say 7.4. Reduce that effect in the smart object to say 10, then adjust until paper texture is minimised. Then apply smart sharpening at approx radius 2 and level 300. Then reduce the opacity to a start point of about 30. Continue tweaking both blur and sharpening until image is paper texture free, but image clarity acceptable. No guarantees, but it could work out ok.

WOW...I do have PS but am just getting started with it but I do get what you are saying but just don't know if I will have the luxury of time on my side. Thanks

---------- Post added 10-21-16 at 03:25 PM ----------

There is probably no need to bracket the exposure. The dynamic range of the paper is much less than your camera. I am not sure what might be accomplished with doing the task as a macro vs. a high quality scan.* I have done it both ways and consider both methods to be adequate and roughly equivalent.

As for your intent to crop an individual out and enlarge to 8x10, I would suggest that what you see on the original is what you will get on the enlargement. It may be possible to get a usable 4x6, but probably no larger.


Steve

* It is possible that the scan quality may be to blame for the softness. High dpi is not the same as high fidelity. Most scanners vastly overstate resolution in the published specifications. As a result, using a macro lens may provide better results, but I would not count on it.

Thanks Steve...given the time I have I will try what I can for now using my macro setup, but I get it...think my scanner was the issue. Will give my macro setup a go and see if this helps.

---------- Post added 10-21-16 at 03:30 PM ----------

To get an idea of what you might expect from a 1:1 macro with your K-01, lets do a little math:

• At 1:1, the frame will cover an area 23.7x15.7mm on the original print
• At 1:1, the K-01 will provide ~5200 dpi on the long axis which is more than adequate to support an 8x10 print. Cool!
• All detail or lack of detail will be magnified about 10x from the original. There is no way to invent detail or tonality that is not there. What appear soft on the original will be 10x less sharp on the enlargement.

The above being noted, there may be another option. A person skilled with working from vintage photographs may be able to produce an artist's rendering of a portion of your crop that would be quite nice. That is just something to think about if your macro attempt is disappointing.


Steve

Steve thanks for your input...it is greatly appreciated. As time is what I don't have...will just do it with my macro setup and see the results I do get. If it works great all will not be lost!

[Sagitta]

You may need to muck about with your scanner settings, you SHOULD get a much better scan than that.

Rather than shoot the whole thing then crop, can't you just scan the bit of the photo you want to keep?

You should be able to frame the section within the photo you want, set your DPI to 300 (or whatever) and your size to 8x10 (or whatever) and have at it.

A high dpi scan is going to do nothing for you if you want to make a print - your printer will take any overly dense photo and downsize it to fit its capabilities.

IE, say you scan a shot at 6,000dpi and go to print - your printer will just throw out 90% of the data, downsize it to 300 (or 150, or whatever) dpi and use that.

[Not a Number]

Scanners will have a maximum resolution and a native resolution. The native resolution is the physical resolution of the sensor unit. The maximum resolution may be greater than the native resolution but uses software methods (extrapolation and interpolation) so you don't really get any gain in detail. I suppose high-end scanners could do a pixel-shift technique to get more detail.