[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Re sharpening: What if the image is being prepared for a website? Of the three steps--resampling to get the right size and 72 dpi, converting to JPEG format and sharpening--what is the ideal order? Should sharpening still be the very last step? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening No, I don't. You never know when you'll need an image _without_ sharpening (remember, sharpening degrades image quality). I don't like to sharpen images even before I get them into Photoshop. I prefer that the raw image be free of sharpening, so that I get as much quality as possible in that raw image. 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
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Stan writes: > What if the image is being prepared for a > website? The procedure is the same, but the final size for the image is of course quite small compared to the original scan. I do set the JPEG compression a lot higher for Web use than for print use, as download time is important for Web images, and quality is much less of an issue. > Of the three steps--resampling to get the > right size and 72 dpi, converting to JPEG > format and sharpening--what is the ideal order? Saving as JPEG should always be the last step. (However, my images are archived primarily as low-compression JPEGS; this isn't a problem as the vast majority of my final uses involve downsampling the image, anyway.) Conversion to 72 dpi doesn't do anything, so you can skip that. Normally I open an archived image and downsample/unsharp in steps until I reach my final size, then save that. For the Web, I crank up the compression to make the file smaller (usually no more than 6 of 10 in Photoshop 5.x for large images, where quality is presumably more important than download volume, and often 3 for small images, where the inverse is often true). > Should sharpening still be the very last step? Always. Sharpening degrades the image, so you don't want to do it until you're done with everything else. And I never sharpen scanned images for archiving; if they need sharpening, I'll do that each time I open them back up for other uses. You never know when a specific use might require the image without sharpening (an image without sharpening is cleaner). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
BTW, about Web exhibition: what would be preferred policy of image offering for the public ? I mean small GIFs as thumbnails linked to JPEGs of certain resolution of JPEG only approach ? I jus approached the step of building web gallery as part of my soon-to-be web site, so would appreciate any hints ... Also, what would be suitable JPEG resolution to be allowed for image download from web site achieving two goals: good on-screen image quality, optimal size and resolution for fast download and not suitable value usage (to prevent unauthorized download for commercial usage or quality printing). I thought about something like VGA size (640x480) or probably SVGA (800x600), what about resolution ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of S Schwartz Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 3:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening Re sharpening: What if the image is being prepared for a website? Of the three steps--resampling to get the right size and 72 dpi, converting to JPEG format and sharpening--what is the ideal order? Should sharpening still be the very last step? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening No, I don't. You never know when you'll need an image _without_ sharpening (remember, sharpening degrades image quality). I don't like to sharpen images even before I get them into Photoshop. I prefer that the raw image be free of sharpening, so that I get as much quality as possible in that raw image. 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 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Alex writes: > what would be preferred policy of image > offering for the public ? I mean small GIFs > as thumbnails linked to JPEGs of certain > resolution of JPEG only approach ? It depends on your intended audience and the type of connections and machines you anticipate that they will have. Designing for unsophisticated Web surfers with slow connections and small monitors is different from designing for seasoned surfers with broadband connections and huge monitors. As a general rule, keep in mind that most people have 800x600 screens in 24-bit color, with dial-up connections of 40 Kbps or so. Thumbnails are fine, if they are very small (read: highly compressed) and not too numerous on a single page. I used to use them, but as the number of images increased, it started taking a long time just to download the thumbnails, so I dropped them--but much depends on your site design. As for full-sized images, something under 800x600 is probably best. You need not design for 640x480 monitors--hardly anyone still uses those. And "Web-safe" colors or GIFs are a waste of time today--full-color 24-bit JPEGs are fine (and preferable for photos in any case), and they download faster. > Also, what would be suitable JPEG resolution > to be allowed for image download from web > site achieving two goals: good on-screen image > quality, optimal size and resolution for fast > download and not suitable value usage ... Probably between 640x480 and 780x580 or so. Most monitors are set to 800x600 today; quite a few are set to 1024x768 as well. 700x500 is a nice size that still doesn't allow much in the way of printing on paper (although it can be stolen for other Web use). Using a lot of compression degrades images enough to make them difficult to print, too, although it also influences display quality--high compression speeds downloads, too. > I thought about something like VGA size (640x480) > or probably SVGA (800x600), what about resolution ? Yes, those work. If by "resolution" you mean DPI, you can forget about that--DPI is meaningless for Web display. If you really do wish to set a DPI, though, set it to 2700 or 4000; if anyone downloads the image as-is and tries to print it in a word-processing program (a common way of using stolen images), the high DPI will cause it to reproduce at a very tiny size, and many people stealing images in this way will not be able to figure out how to fix that, thereby preventing them from using the stolen image. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Thanks Anthony, appreciate your help. I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024, but as I infer from your explanations this cannot be considered as common practice, so the target is under 800x600. However, in terms of colors my graphics card/monitor combo works with 32 bit color definitions. Now, if I indeed need 24 bit color, how to tell Photoshop to convert it from 32 down to 24 ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 11:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Alex writes: > what would be preferred policy of image > offering for the public ? I mean small GIFs > as thumbnails linked to JPEGs of certain > resolution of JPEG only approach ? It depends on your intended audience and the type of connections and machines you anticipate that they will have. Designing for unsophisticated Web surfers with slow connections and small monitors is different from designing for seasoned surfers with broadband connections and huge monitors. As a general rule, keep in mind that most people have 800x600 screens in 24-bit color, with dial-up connections of 40 Kbps or so. Thumbnails are fine, if they are very small (read: highly compressed) and not too numerous on a single page. I used to use them, but as the number of images increased, it started taking a long time just to download the thumbnails, so I dropped them--but much depends on your site design. As for full-sized images, something under 800x600 is probably best. You need not design for 640x480 monitors--hardly anyone still uses those. And "Web-safe" colors or GIFs are a waste of time today--full-color 24-bit JPEGs are fine (and preferable for photos in any case), and they download faster. > Also, what would be suitable JPEG resolution > to be allowed for image download from web > site achieving two goals: good on-screen image > quality, optimal size and resolution for fast > download and not suitable value usage ... Probably between 640x480 and 780x580 or so. Most monitors are set to 800x600 today; quite a few are set to 1024x768 as well. 700x500 is a nice size that still doesn't allow much in the way of printing on paper (although it can be stolen for other Web use). Using a lot of compression degrades images enough to make them difficult to print, too, although it also influences display quality--high compression speeds downloads, too. > I thought about something like VGA size (640x480) > or probably SVGA (800x600), what about resolution ? Yes, those work. If by "resolution" you mean DPI, you can forget about that--DPI is meaningless for Web display. If you really do wish to set a DPI, though, set it to 2700 or 4000; if anyone downloads the image as-is and tries to print it in a word-processing program (a common way of using stolen images), the high DPI will cause it to reproduce at a very tiny size, and many people stealing images in this way will not be able to figure out how to fix that, thereby preventing them from using the stolen image. 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
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Following your discussion which I find quite interesting I would like to ask something in regard of Nikon's GEM usage for archival stuff. Of course, this is primarily for Nikon scanner users who use GEM routinely. First of all, I found applying GEM at the maximum setting (4) to be most efficient smoothing the patterns significantly (which is most useful for portraiture or general images where large portion of the fame is taken by flat patter (as sky or something like that). Of course, there is certain impact on sharpness, so some amount of sharpening is necessary to bring back the original sharpness (not to speak to sharpen the image further). The question is whether you do apply GEM for archival stuff and if yes, do you perform some light sharpening on the image afterwards to recover the original sharpness ? If yes, what did you find the most appropriate settings of PS unsharp mask to be for that ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Stan writes: > What if the image is being prepared for a > website? The procedure is the same, but the final size for the image is of course quite small compared to the original scan. I do set the JPEG compression a lot higher for Web use than for print use, as download time is important for Web images, and quality is much less of an issue. > Of the three steps--resampling to get the > right size and 72 dpi, converting to JPEG > format and sharpening--what is the ideal order? Saving as JPEG should always be the last step. (However, my images are archived primarily as low-compression JPEGS; this isn't a problem as the vast majority of my final uses involve downsampling the image, anyway.) Conversion to 72 dpi doesn't do anything, so you can skip that. Normally I open an archived image and downsample/unsharp in steps until I reach my final size, then save that. For the Web, I crank up the compression to make the file smaller (usually no more than 6 of 10 in Photoshop 5.x for large images, where quality is presumably more important than download volume, and often 3 for small images, where the inverse is often true). > Should sharpening still be the very last step? Always. Sharpening degrades the image, so you don't want to do it until you're done with everything else. And I never sharpen scanned images for archiving; if they need sharpening, I'll do that each time I open them back up for other uses. You never know when a specific use might require the image without sharpening (an image without sharpening is cleaner). 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
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
>I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024,... The display resolution of 1280 x 1024 has an aspect ratio of 5:4 instead of 4:3 like most of the others. Photos displayed in this resolution will look squeezed. You better use the resolution 1280 x 960 (or 1600 x 1200). With kind regards, Henk de Jong The Netherlands http://burma.wolweb.nl http://annapurna.wolweb.nl Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
You're certainly correct Henk, thanks for pointing out to this fact. Frankly, so far I didn't notice any visible artifacts caused by that which is the reason I wasn't aware about the problem. Strange. I tried 1600x1200, both monitor and graphics card handle this resolution well, but the text is too small for my eyes (I'm glasses wearer) though still discernable. I'll try the former one (1280x960) instead. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Henk de Jong Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening >I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024,... The display resolution of 1280 x 1024 has an aspect ratio of 5:4 instead of 4:3 like most of the others. Photos displayed in this resolution will look squeezed. You better use the resolution 1280 x 960 (or 1600 x 1200). With kind regards, Henk de Jong The Netherlands http://burma.wolweb.nl http://annapurna.wolweb.nl 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
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Alex.. You can always increase the font size on your desktop 1600x1200 gives you a much larger area to play with... (increase font size by going to... Settings -> Advanced ->General). Cheers... SD - Original Message - From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:14 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening You're certainly correct Henk, thanks for pointing out to this fact. Frankly, so far I didn't notice any visible artifacts caused by that which is the reason I wasn't aware about the problem. Strange. I tried 1600x1200, both monitor and graphics card handle this resolution well, but the text is too small for my eyes (I'm glasses wearer) though still discernable. I'll try the former one (1280x960) instead. Regards, Alex Z --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Oh great, why this idea didn't come up in my mind earlier ?? :-) I'll surely try this out today evening. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shunith Dutt Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 2:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Alex.. You can always increase the font size on your desktop 1600x1200 gives you a much larger area to play with... (increase font size by going to... Settings -> Advanced ->General). Cheers... SD - Original Message - From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:14 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening You're certainly correct Henk, thanks for pointing out to this fact. Frankly, so far I didn't notice any visible artifacts caused by that which is the reason I wasn't aware about the problem. Strange. I tried 1600x1200, both monitor and graphics card handle this resolution well, but the text is too small for my eyes (I'm glasses wearer) though still discernable. I'll try the former one (1280x960) instead. Regards, Alex Z --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002 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
[filmscanners] Scanner profile builder
Has anybody have a chance to try Kodak's COLORFLOW ICC color profiles builder software to calibrate his scanners ? (especially would be interested in IV ED calibration experience). I found quite rave review of this thing from Bruce Fraser using it on LS-4000. According to him it would noticeably improve shadow rendering performance opening up considerably (Nikon's CMS is disabled of course). Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
Well, if the G450 works this way, I assume my G550 would do the same, right ? So does that mean that the image itself is 24 color in PS while the 32 are only relevant for monitor's appearance ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Shomler Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 4:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening >However, in terms of colors my graphics card/monitor combo works >with 32 bit color definitions. >Now, if I indeed need 24 bit color, how to tell Photoshop to convert >it from 32 down to 24 ? I think you may find that Photoshop is working with 24 bit color, and your graphics card is mapping each 24 bits into a 32 bit word for improved performance. That's how my Matrox G450 is set. So there should be nothing you need do in PS. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/ 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
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
>Well, if the G450 works this way, I assume my G550 would do the same, right >? >So does that mean that the image itself is 24 color in PS while the 32 are >only relevant for monitor's appearance ? > >Regards, >Alex Z I'd say it is only relevant for the display adapter's performance. As I understand it, 32 vs 24 doesn't affect the monitor's appearance, color-wise. Rather display adapter operations on pixel data can be performed much faster with each pixel stored as a 32-bit word instead of parsing 24-bit strings into 32-bit HW. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with this systems hardware area can better describe it. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening
BTW, recently some of our fellows pointed me to the Bruce Fraser's article on creativepro.com taking the approach of two-step sharpening. I assume some of more knowledgeable PS users here are more or less familiar with this technique so will probably be able to clarify something for me. Basically, I liked that way separating the sharpness for archival and outputting purposes allowing to preserve maximum of original sharpness though just enough touch of unsharp mask to bring back the sharpness lost in the process of scanning. What I missed is the last point of this process: using Selection menu to select the Edge Mask created in the duplicated image copy to apply it to the original image. I found impossible to do Load Selection into the original image window without making Save Selection (choosing All option) prior to that (in Edge Mask image window). The Save Selection step it missing in his instructions, perhaps because it might seem obvious to slightly more experienced PS user then me. I would appreciate if someone here could clarify this point for me. The link to the article is: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Alex writes: > I have my monitor usually set to 1280x1024, > but as I infer from your explanations this > cannot be considered as common practice, so > the target is under 800x600. Last time I looked at numbers, just under half of all Web surfers are using 800x600; about 4 out of 5 of the remaining surfers are using 1024x768. Only about one surfer in 50 is still set to 640x480. In fact, 1280x1024 and 1152x864 are both more common than 640x480. > However, in terms of colors my graphics > card/monitor combo works with 32 bit > color definitions. Now, if I indeed need 24 > bit color, how to tell Photoshop to convert it > from 32 down to 24 ? No need; 24-bit and 32-bit color are equivalent. 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
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
>I found impossible to do Load Selection into the original image window >without making Save Selection (choosing All option) prior to that (in Edge >Mask image window). Curious. I regularly use and have an action for this procedure. After creating the edge mask in the "filename copy" window, focus is returned to the image file window and I'll do load selection. In the Load Selection dialog box I select for Source Document: "filename copy." Once selected, the channel selection shows "Gray" and the operation New Selection radio button is set. Clicking OK loads the selection. A couple of possibilities if this is not working for you. To load a selection from another source document I think the pixel dimensions must be identical; so if for any reason these were changed in your copy - edge selection file that could be why the copy file is not offered as a source document choice. Also, at this point I'm in 8-bit mode; this process may not work in 16-bit mode. Bob Shomler >BTW, recently some of our fellows pointed me to the Bruce Fraser's article >on creativepro.com >taking the approach of two-step sharpening. I assume some of more >knowledgeable PS users here are more or less familiar with this technique so >will probably be able to clarify something for me. > >Basically, I liked that way separating the sharpness for archival and >outputting purposes allowing to preserve maximum of original sharpness >though just enough touch of unsharp mask to bring back the sharpness lost in >the process of scanning. >What I missed is the last point of this process: using Selection menu to >select the Edge Mask created in the duplicated image copy to apply it to the >original image. >I found impossible to do Load Selection into the original image window >without making Save Selection (choosing All option) prior to that (in Edge >Mask image window). >The Save Selection step it missing in his instructions, perhaps because it >might seem obvious to slightly more experienced PS user then me. >I would appreciate if someone here could clarify this point for me. >The link to the article is: >http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html > > >Regards, >Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Scanner profile builder
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 05:35:39PM +0200, Alex Zabrovsky wrote: > Has anybody have a chance to try Kodak's COLORFLOW ICC color profiles > builder software to calibrate his scanners ? (especially would be interested > in IV ED calibration experience). > I found quite rave review of this thing from Bruce Fraser using it on > LS-4000. According to him it would noticeably improve shadow rendering > performance opening up considerably (Nikon's CMS is disabled of course). > Are you referrring here to Bruce's reveiew of the LS4000? Firstly any scanner profiling software will probably produce a similar result - basically they all function by scanning an IT8 target and build a profile from that. I have done this with EZColor and the results are an improvement over what I can get with the NikonScan software. Colour accuracy is the main goal of profiling, if shadow detail is improved it *may* be a bonus - it may also be a shortcoming. I think shadow detail from any of these packages is far from ideal, and can easily be improved with a simple curves adjustment after the fact if you think the image requires it. The detail is usually there in the raw scan, just not usually brought out sufficiently well by the profile. Bruce mentions that the Imacon produces better shadow detail than the LS4000. That may be so but his examples were very poor representations of what he was trying to convey. The Imacon image has a very compressed tonal scale which I presume was necessary to raise the lower tones sufficiently high enough to present more shadow detail. I bet a quick curves manipuation on the LS4000 image could produce a similar result because it is capable of good shadow detail. Many people would manipuate shadow areas of an image differently to prevent tonal compression in the mid & high tones (which often results in washed out colours). In summary I would say that profiling software is useful to get better colour accuracy from you scanner. Shadow detail is better served by making your own custom curves for post processing or by manipulating images on an individual basis according to your needs. -- Tony Terlecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Running Debian/GNU 3.0 Linux Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Scanner profile builder
On 8/12/02 10:16 PM, "Tony Terlecki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Firstly any scanner profiling software will probably produce a similar > result - basically they all function by scanning an IT8 target and build a > profile from that. I have done this with EZColor and the results are an > improvement over what I can get with the NikonScan software. Doesn't the Nikon Scan software install scanner profiles? On my system (Mac OS X), I have a bunch of files with names like NKLS4000LS40_*.icm I have read about workflows where you scan with Nikon Color Management turned off, import the scans into Photoshop, and then assign one of the Nikon profiles to the image. I think I tried this out once, but now I am mostly using VueScan, which has its own built-in profiles for supported scanners. If you build your own scanner profile, is it likely to be better than the ones provided by Nikon? -- Julian Vrieslander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
