Hi Frank, The details you mention are in the scanned image. Without even knowing what to look for, just by "opening up" the tonal range a bit, mostly the shadows, pretty much all your complaints with the scan disappeared. I've found that a lot of fine detail gets lost when reducing the size of a photo to fit on the screen to some degree depending on the resolution you've chosen. As for sharpness, everything loses some sharpness when scanned. I've been talking to a fellow list member off list to get some ideas about making better scans. I'll say this, though, your work, and much of what's posted here (my work included) could often benefit from a better web presentation. Hitting "auto" is, literally, a hit or miss proposition.
Of course, there's another part to the equation, and that's calibrating your monitor. Try the gamma adjustment in Photoshop (I think V 6.0 has it), and try to work in a room with low light, or at least a light that's consistent every time you work. Shel > [Original Message] > From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am somewhat frustrated that I can't seem to get my scans to look > like the print. I'm hoping that once I learn to use PS a bit better > (waiting for the imminent arrival of a learning tool <g>), I can do a > better job of it. For instance, the print is noticeably sharper. The > buckle of the harness is much clearer on the print, and there's a > black mesh on the side of the fellow's knapsack that's clearly visible > in the print, but invisible on the scan. > > As for the tonality, well, I just hit "auto", and hope for the best.
