>I have used col neg (Superia and other Fuji mostly) in various >fluorescents and it copes wonderfully with no camera filtration.
While I have found this to be the case as well with normal subjects wherein the film was printed via traditional wet photographic methods rather than via scanning and outputting to monitor and/or inkjet. The poster did not say how the output was to be produced (e.g., on a monitor, inkjet, or something else). Since there are various types of fluorescent tubes that can generate a variety of color casts, I would suggest that one would probably need some information on what type of tube is being used in the microscope lamp and what sorts of luminescences it in combination with the subject generate that the film may see and register that would be out of gamut for digitalization, for monitor color spaces, or for printer color spaces to determine if it indeed can be digitally reporduced as it appears on the transparency or on the photographic prints from the negatives. But this is just mere speculation on my part at this point given that most of my familiarity with the products of photomicroscopy with traditional photography has involved only black and white films and radiographs that ppeople from the local University bring me to process, proof, and/or print via traditional wet dorakroom methods. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 9:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Difficult scan problem On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:30:13 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Tony, what if the "constant colour temp lightsource" is a fluorescent > discontinuous light source such as what he has said was the light source > for > the microscope; will what you suggest still hold? I have used col neg (Superia and other Fuji mostly) in various fluorescents and it copes wonderfully with no camera filtration. Unless the microscope lamp is very weird it should be possible to get good results. I haven't tried it of course, but I use the eyedroppers as described for colour correction with just about every colour neg I scan. Usually I use Vuescan White Balance as a starting point, save in 16bit, then do this in PS. PS Auto levels is frequently very wrong and I seldom use that. With crystals, mostly there is going to be a problem finding anything in the image which is a mid-ish-grey to use the midtone eyedropper on. But fixed exposure and illuminant remove the variables, so provided a decent set of corrections can be obtained and saved using an image which does contain a neutral grey, merely applying the saved levels adjustments should give a good result with all images from this setup. Close enough that all that may need doing would be limited to overall gamma, perhaps contrast, and maybe tweak the hue and saturation a little on some subjects. Oddly enough, over 30yrs ago I had a maths teacher whose hobby was photomicroscopy of crystals. He used (Agfa) colour neg and produced awesome 20x16's. It's worth persevering here I think. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body