Scanned Compared With Photographed - An Experiment

In another thread I said that scanned copies of photographs are generally better for editing and viewing details than photographed copies are.

At least, I think they are... here is an experimental comparison, using a faded cabinet photo from my collection.

These have been cropped, and somewhat sharpened. The same edit was done on all. Maybe others will not see the difference that I do... but we'll see.

Scanned:




Photographed:



And another photograph that turned out more at an angle:



The photographed ones were taken under incandescent light with no flash, and that does make a difference in the darkness of the photo. I didn't have a handy way to take under flourescent.

See the differences? I think the scanned one is clearer.

Fig

 

By the way, I do not know the identities of the actors in this photo. Does anybody know, or have ideas?

 

I agree that the scanned one is much sharper.

Sorry, I don't have a clue on the actors.

 

My opinion is that the scanned photo is sharper.
The second photographed one you show is close, but still not quite as sharp.

 

Sir John Falstaff and Doll Tearsheet. Or maybe not..

 

Could be, AF -- At least it's a place to start an investigation. Of course it could be many others. I was hoping that somebody might recognize the actors. Then it should be possible to narrow down the possibilities by determining in which plays they acted together.

 

My scanner sucks

Flash
Flash at angle

Incandescent - hand held

Scanner

 

Fig, the scanned version is clearest to see details but the photographed version - the one on the slight angle - is the most interesting, imho. I like them both. I wish sellers would include both in their auctions.

HA Dave, where did you find that! You old pi you!

 

Anti, I know what you mean, but the skewing that happens when photos of photos are taken at an angle does not appeal to me at all for identification purposes. I almost never buy photos on eBay that are taken like that.

 

Scanned has sharper detail, but perhaps the photo of the photo shows the shadowing/depth better? Dunno. Just my impression.

 

My only comment is I want her dress, and his boots. I wouldn't mind him along with the boots either, but he'd be a little long in the tooth by now and more up to playing Yorick than Falstaff.

 

Anyone notice his spurs?

 

He kind of looks like a Spanish Musketeer ?

 

Maybe he's Cyrano? That would fit except that he's too good-looking.

 

I don't think it's Cyrano, since there is no fake nose. But maybe will leave the possibility slightly open that it could be. Maybe he didn't want to pose while wearing the nose? Also, I don't know anything about staging of that play in the 19th century. Maybe they did not include the nose.

Yes, he is good-looking, isn't he?