Camera vs scanner

Same flower scanned with Epson 4900 photo scanner at 6400px per inch. Processed in CS5, viveza2, curves and levels. Ideally this should be compared with a single camera shot. I couldn't get the color to look the same but the difference in lighting and the flatness of the scanner picture is obvious.

I like the first image very much Gary. For my tastes and from a purely subjective standpoint, I'd probably darken it some and create more shadow but the different hues in the image do a fine job of creating depth as is.

I've recently gone through about eight books of flora photography and while there are images in all of them that I admire, Feinstein's are consistently my favorites. I've done a little research on the web regarding scannography and while there are again images that I like, I don't find anything that I like as well as Feinstein's. His lighting is undoubtedly part of what appeals to me but there's a lot more going on as well and I still don't think I understand it. The images have the flat lighting shown in your second image but they're also more underexposed and desaturated. The colors and the light are flat but flat in a way that I find very appealing.

You're second image here reminds me of Feinstein's light but I much prefer your first image.

I've really enjoyed looking at these and comparing them to each other and to Feinstein's work. Hope you'll do more of these. I'd love to see where you end up taking them.

Pat

I also prefer the color and overall look of the first. Good work.

Gary, I think you've done some yeoman work here, and I've spent the past five minutes looking at and thinking about it.
I like the glow in the first image as well as the detail. The glow is inconsistent if I study it but I find it more appealing.
Yes, the second flower is flatter/more solid looking in appearance, and I have to wonder what would happen if additional lighting sources were used.
I've found another article on using a flatbed scanner.,

Cheers,

Carol

Quite interesting comparison. I like the first one very much.

You did a great job with this.

Congrats

D&L

First and foremost thank-you for posting this comparison. With all the discussion lately, it is great to have a direct comparison to look at. My feelings are that it all depends on the look you are trying to get. With the scan you get an even light, which will flatten the image, but you also get a really nice fall off of light intensity which is pretty cool.
I like both images as presented. I think a lot can be done including some interesting blending of both into a single image. I don't have a scanner so it will have to be others to take this forward. Perhaps you'll lead us down some new paths?

I prefer the photo (the first one) to the second Gary. Having the stem in the shot helps me, and I like the lighting more in that one.

Cool experiment.

Nathan

Cool. I also like the first one better. Especially the almost 3d effect of roundness.

Thanks everyone for your comments. Yes, this has been an interesting experiment. Like you, I also prefer the camera image for its 3D effect, roundness and glow but the scanner image is different. Having captured the image using both process, I can categorically say that I much prefer using the camera than the scanner. With the scanner, it is much more mechanical - just putting the image on the scanner and press the button. There is limitation on the point of view and one cannot preview the image before the scan. One has more control with the camera - changing point of view, lighting and most importantly controlling the depth of field which cannot be done with the scanner. Pat recently mentioned that controlling the depth of field is perhaps unique to photography in the field of visual art and I tend to agree with him.

Having said that about photography, one has to be pragmatic. As Bob has mentioned it is about what effects you would like to achieved. If it is flat lighting and solid image, then scannography is the way to achieve it. This is just my first attempt at scanning and tweaking the process with additional lighting as suggested by Carol may by the a further way to modify the image. I have use the scanner attached to my new iMac which only use the image capture software that is bundled with Mac OS. On the window platform, the Epson software allows for ambient light correction, dust removal, sharpening etc and I have not tried these. Also I have made several scans and the color rendition is inconsistent from scan to scan - I do not know how to control this with the scanner. I am sure there are many 'tricks' in scannography which I am not aware of and is a whole new field to explore.

Bob - your suggestion of blending the camera and scanner image is a very interesting one and may indeed start a new hybrid genre. However it is technically very challenging to get the exact same POV with the camera and scan image to allow blending.

Crazy good lighting and killer details, Gary . Thanks for the education through the detailed notes.

Gary: I like the depth of the first much more. The second kind of suffers by comparison but if it had been posted alone I think I would have applauded it as well. Really nice stacking job. I'm still waiting to pull the trigger on CS5 and am looking forward to trying the technique and catching up with you guys. >=))>

Gary I am so glad to see you experimenting. Pat is an inspiration and so are you.

Exciting ideas. Thanks to you for posting these images and to Pat for his research as well. I like the glow, clarity and sharpness of the first image. The second image is flat in color but has more dimension to my perception of it; I am not sure at all if that's due to monocular vision. Intriguing!

Hi Gary The comparisons are very informative. In this case, i'll take the camera version. the stack works really well here, giving great color and detail
Albert Darmo. Canada

I too like the first one better. Love the vibrant color and lighting. Wonderfully suspended in that black bg.