Re: Reflective scanning questions...
Re: Reflective scanning questions...
- Subject: Re: Reflective scanning questions...
- From: tom vanderlinden <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:34:43 -0400
good evening, Carl Stawicki - - -
I happen to use the Epson 1640XL for reflective work,
and am happy with it so far, but I'm not sure
that is would be the right choice in your case.
You wrote:
3. It's very important for us to scan great textures, like paper
textures,
cloth, collages, small objects, etc. The high-end flatbeds brag about
using
XY scanning, which is good because there's no sweet spot, but in my
experience (we have an EverSmart also), produces inferior textures. I
feel
this is because since it captures in two directions, the texture gets
"flattened out". A cheaper scanner that only scans one way produces
modeling
shadows across the texture, thus accentuating it nicely. Anyone agree,
disagree?
and later, Dan Johnston said:
I believe the issue is how many lights the scanner has. The 1640 has
only
one, which gives the nice soft modeling you mention - it would be great
for collages, I know it shows papyrus fibers up nicely. If a paper has
any
"tooth" this scanner will show it. A scanner with two lights (one on
either side of the active scan area) gives the flat results you don't
care
for.
I see large differences in texture response between the Epson
and an Agfa Horizon (the Horizon heightening the texture even more),
*but*
for your work
The originals we
scan are painted artwork and illustrations, and collages. Scanning
actual
photos is rare.
If texture is important to you, I don't think a flatbed scanner is the
right choice.
How do we detect texture? By the shadows, highlights etc. cast by the
surface
onto itself. How is that controlled? By controlling the lighting.
Scanners offer little to no control over lighting direction, softness,
etc.
This is where studio photographers can really shine.
(oops, sorry about the pun).
I have seen that two well profiled scanners
that usually produce similar COLOR results
suddenly don't when texture (even quite fine) in introduced.
I suppose it's kinda silly to be speaking of this at length,
it is basic that to control color appearance, we have to control
lighting.
(Also, a camera would likely be a lot better choice for the "small
objects"
you mentioned.)
- - -Tom Vanderlinden, 1 July 03
printing for preservation
a.w. sorry to be so slow to respond to your query,
I have been away from the list for a time.
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.