[filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan
Remind us what scanner you have, Ken? Bear in mind that dark bits on Velvia are considered the evil of the filmscanning world - so dark that lots of scanners simply can't see properly! Multi-pass scanning with Vuescan in combination with the "Long exposure" pass, with my Nikon LS40, didn't improve the scanner's ability to see into the black. Velvia is definitely just a little too much for the LS40... (As is Kodachrome.) Jawed Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
In a message dated 1/5/2002 3:36:39 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Needless to say, upon initial scan at the default > white and black points of 1, the histograms go off the scale at either > end. Leave the black point (%) set at 0, and set white point (%) to 1. Then experiment primarily with the "Color|Brightness" option. This applies effectively a gamma curve, bringing more detail out of dark areas without saturating bright areas. Regards, Ed Hamrick Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 05:31:15 EST, you wrote: >Leave the black point (%) set at 0, and set white point (%) >to 1. > >Then experiment primarily with the "Color|Brightness" >option. This applies effectively a gamma curve, bringing >more detail out of dark areas without saturating bright >areas. Thank you, Ed. I'll work with that today. Does it make much difference what color balance setting I use? I've been generally usuing either "White Balance" or "Auto Levels." I'm thinking I'd see more direct effects if I used "Neutral?" Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 05:31:15 EST, you wrote: >Leave the black point (%) set at 0, and set white point (%) >to 1. > >Then experiment primarily with the "Color|Brightness" >option. This applies effectively a gamma curve, bringing >more detail out of dark areas without saturating bright >areas. This is working great. Thanks! Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
Hi Ken, I don't know about the scanning part but...there are ways to take several different scans at different settings and merge them in Photoshop or another application. This will give you the results you want. I'm not an expert but I've read about this and can find out some information if you want. Sincerely, Denise - Original Message - From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 11:44 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Tips needed on difficult scan HI folks - I'm still working away here, improving my understanding and techniques. Since the addition of histograms to Vuescan, I've been trying to utilize them some, but remain somewhat confused, as I'm just starting to get a grasp of the ones in PS Elements, which have 3 sldiers, and input and output controls. I have a slide that I've been spending hours trying to yield what I can see through the loupe on the light table, but it's evading me. It's a very high contrast sunset shot taken on Velvia, with one side very dark under dense clouds, and the opposite side has brilliant - one might say "blown out" - area of sunlight. Along the bottom of the photo is a lot of city detail, seen from above - I was shooting from up in the hills overlooking SF Bay. It was taken with a sharp lens, so the detail is there, and I'd like to retrieve it. My main problem has been trying to bring out all the detail in the city - which is in the relatively dark area of the photo. Secondarily, the finding a contrast range that doesn't blow out the sunlit areas too severely, while not darkeneing the shadows too much. But what I'd like help with is how to utilize the Vuescan histograms to achieve this. Needless to say, upon initial scan at the default white and black points of 1, the histograms go off the scale at either end. What general guidelines should I use for trying setting that will bring the contrast range within the scale? And what effect do the color balance settings have on the effectiveness of the black and white point settings? Thanks for any lights, and if seeing an example of this particular scan would be helpful, I can supply. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.313 / Virus Database: 174 - Release Date: 1/3/02 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan
Hi. I posted a query in regard of LS-40 (IV ED) performance for the scanner users, however nobody answered yet. (I even though no LS-40 users on the List yet) Would appreciate if you will give your opinion about this scanner. I mainly care about his true dynamic range for the ability to pull out dark details (I shoot a lot of night scenic) against his noise level and the Nikon's known AF (insufficient DOF) problem from which 4000ED (and apparently LS-40) are reported to suffer from. Did you experienced DOF problem with either mounted/unmounted slides and negative strips ? Does the LS-40 allows multi-pass or multi-sampling ? Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 7:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan Remind us what scanner you have, Ken? Bear in mind that dark bits on Velvia are considered the evil of the filmscanning world - so dark that lots of scanners simply can't see properly! Multi-pass scanning with Vuescan in combination with the "Long exposure" pass, with my Nikon LS40, didn't improve the scanner's ability to see into the black. Velvia is definitely just a little too much for the LS40... (As is Kodachrome.) Jawed 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: Tips needed on difficult scan
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 05:54:39 -, you wrote: >Remind us what scanner you have, Ken? I just have a lowly Canon FS2710 > >Bear in mind that dark bits on Velvia are considered the evil of the >filmscanning world - so dark that lots of scanners simply can't see >properly! Multi-pass scanning with Vuescan in combination with the "Long >exposure" pass, with my Nikon LS40, didn't improve the scanner's ability to >see into the black. Velvia is definitely just a little too much for the >LS40... (As is Kodachrome.) Yes, I know Velvia is famous for that, and I have definitely experienced it with Kodachrome - even worse as a matter of fact. But that was probably that particular series of shots, of white flowers against a very dark background. I decided to capitalize on it as an effect. Now there's a way out! (I MEANT that to be grainy! It's my photographic version of impressionism! ) I had the feeling though, that the dark areas in this particular slide were not totally beyond reach, and Ed's suggestion elsewhere in this thread did succeed in helping a lot. I don't think I'll ever get what I see through the loupe, or projected on the wall, but it has been fascinating trying to get close! Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
Hi Ken, this won´t help you here, but in general if you shot slide to scan it then, you might try out Provia in the future, while being at least as fine grained as Velvia, it is less hard in its contrast and thus keeps more shadow detail. I have seen a Web site (dont have the URL right now, but it should be findable via Google.com search) which does exactly a comparision of an identical shot - on emade with Velvia, one with Provia. It was evident that at first sight the Velvia had more intense colors (looking more interesting) than the provia which seemed more tamed and less contrasty. But the authoir showd very well that in the dark shadows the Velvia just lost where the Provia still showed detail. The conclusion therer was that if you shoot for further digital editing, the Provia is clearly the winner. For your current shot, if its really important, try to find someone with a Imacon or a drum scanner and get it scanned by him. Greetings Bernhard - Original Message - From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 6:44 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Tips needed on difficult scan HI folks - I'm still working away here, improving my understanding and techniques. Since the addition of histograms to Vuescan, I've been trying to utilize them some, but remain somewhat confused, as I'm just starting to get a grasp of the ones in PS Elements, which have 3 sldiers, and input and output controls. I have a slide that I've been spending hours trying to yield what I can see through the loupe on the light table, but it's evading me. It's a very high contrast sunset shot taken on Velvia, with one side very dark under dense clouds, and the opposite side has brilliant - one might say "blown out" - area of sunlight. Along the bottom of the photo is a lot of city detail, seen from above - I was shooting from up in the hills overlooking SF Bay. It was taken with a sharp lens, so the detail is there, and I'd like to retrieve it. My main problem has been trying to bring out all the detail in the city - which is in the relatively dark area of the photo. Secondarily, the finding a contrast range that doesn't blow out the sunlit areas too severely, while not darkeneing the shadows too much. But what I'd like help with is how to utilize the Vuescan histograms to achieve this. Needless to say, upon initial scan at the default white and black points of 1, the histograms go off the scale at either end. What general guidelines should I use for trying setting that will bring the contrast range within the scale? And what effect do the color balance settings have on the effectiveness of the black and white point settings? Thanks for any lights, and if seeing an example of this particular scan would be helpful, I can supply. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 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: Tips needed on difficult scan
> > Hi. > I posted a query in regard of LS-40 (IV ED) performance for the scanner > users, however nobody answered yet. (I even though no LS-40 users on the > List yet) > Would appreciate if you will give your opinion about this scanner. > I mainly care about his true dynamic range for the ability to > pull out dark > details (I shoot a lot of night scenic) against his noise level Well, you caught me, I own an LS40. I get the impression that noise in this scanner is *very low*, i.e. not relevant. Multi-scanning is possible (only with Vuescan) and in my opinion it gives *no improvement* in image quality. Others disagree. There is a difference - I perceive this difference as no improvement, that's all. Do you shoot negs for your night scenes? You will not have any problems with noise. BUT, if the film is relatively grainy, the LS40's 2900dpi resolution *will* tend to exaggerate the grain in the film. It's called "grain aliasing" and can make the grain in the scan look significantly more obvious than it looks in a print. The LS40's scanner software, Nikon Scan comes with an option called GEM (some acronym to do with grain, I forget the precise name) which is tweakable. I find that a setting of 2 reduces the graininess very nicely while having no detrimental effect on detail in the scan. Some of my films have aged badly (I suspect mostly due to my lack of care before processing) and show high levels of grain, requiring me to use GEM at the max setting. (Maybe I've misunderstood the kind of damage one can do to a film by storing it badly.) As far as I can tell, scanners with a resolution in the range 2400-3000dpi are the scanners that will tend to exaggerate grain the most. Additionally, the type of light in the LS40 (three LEDs that turn on and off rapidly so that only one colour, red, green or blue, is shining at any time) apparently tends to exaggerate grain (and defects such as scratches and dust). There is an argument for saying that if you run software that corrects for grain (GEM) or corrects for defects (ICE) then the scanner should resolve these features clearly - i.e. it makes the software's job easier, since the problems are "clearer". Dunno if this argument is true. Dunno how much of a difference in image quality one actually sees when comparing scanners of the same resolution with the same software but with different lights. > and the > Nikon's known AF (insufficient DOF) problem from which 4000ED (and > apparently LS-40) are reported to suffer from. > Did you experienced DOF problem with either mounted/unmounted slides and > negative strips ? No. I just can't be bothered looking and testing. Life is too short. Note I used a "crappy" 28-200mm Vivitar lens from the mid 80s and a Canon P&S zoom camera, so my lenses are hardly the most demanding. If you were the average member of this list you probably would notice that the LS40 has a small DOF, though. I freely admit to being fairly un-picky - which is why I didn't want to respond to your original email, since I think my views are very much biased towards the lenient end of the scale. > Does the LS-40 allows multi-pass or multi-sampling ? Only with Vuescan. You can get Vuescan to perform upto 16 passes. You can get Vuescan to performa a long-exposure pass (in an effort to see into the dark parts of the film). As I said before, I firmly believe these two options do not provide an increase in image quality, under any circumstances (slide or neg, good or bad exposures). As for dynamic range, I personally believe that Astia is just within the capabilities of the LS40, Provia F 100 is marginal and Velvia is just outside. Since I don't normally shoot slide film, my opinion isn't worth a huge amount - but I have tested this using a number of slides for each film type. A while back I posted the following: http://www.cupidity.force9.co.uk/Scanners/LS40/tests.htm (yeah I know, life wasn't too short, I got geeky) which you might find interesting. I have decided, on reflection, that some of my comments on these pages relating to colour are unfair. Not all of them, mind. My advice, therefore, is to ignore my comments on colour. One other note: I used Auto Exposure off, when scanning with Nikon Scan (hmm, I think I did...). This has a slightly beneficial impact on colour (in my opinion - though others on this list disagree). It's also worth noting that Vuescan has been updated significantly since these tests. Vuescan will produce different looking results. But I suggest it will not affect the overall conclusion: multi-scanning and long exposure are a waste of time with the LS40. Have to say, looking back at these images, the Nikon Scan images strike me as massively better than the Vuescan images in colour and contrast. Have you searched the archive? Can I be bothered to root out the web addresses for the archive - no, not now... Jawed -
[filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan
Thanks Jawed, appreciate your input. In fact, I mostly will scan slides rather then prints. (I shoot negatives only for portrait and other people-related stuff, using slides for anything else). What I meant under AF problem is actually too shallow DOF the Nikons seem to generate resulting to scanned slides with non-event sharpness over the slide surface. That was reported by 4000ED users and I suspect the LS-40 built in similar way... That's good you mentioned slide films scanning capability relatively to scanner's effective dynamic range, although I understand you have no much experience with slides. I mainly shoot Fuji Sensia II 100 which is actually consumer version of Astia, so based on your comments I can believe it will do good for that film. In fact, I'm still contemplating about LS-40 and Minolta's Elite II which looks a bit better in his specifications, however I was frightened a bit by the few recent reports about certain bug inherent in Elite II producing weird streaks (looking like deep scratches) due to probably dusty CCD or some hardware problem. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 12:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan > > Hi. > I posted a query in regard of LS-40 (IV ED) performance for the scanner > users, however nobody answered yet. (I even though no LS-40 users on the > List yet) > Would appreciate if you will give your opinion about this scanner. > I mainly care about his true dynamic range for the ability to > pull out dark > details (I shoot a lot of night scenic) against his noise level Well, you caught me, I own an LS40. I get the impression that noise in this scanner is *very low*, i.e. not relevant. Multi-scanning is possible (only with Vuescan) and in my opinion it gives *no improvement* in image quality. Others disagree. There is a difference - I perceive this difference as no improvement, that's all. Do you shoot negs for your night scenes? You will not have any problems with noise. BUT, if the film is relatively grainy, the LS40's 2900dpi resolution *will* tend to exaggerate the grain in the film. It's called "grain aliasing" and can make the grain in the scan look significantly more obvious than it looks in a print. The LS40's scanner software, Nikon Scan comes with an option called GEM (some acronym to do with grain, I forget the precise name) which is tweakable. I find that a setting of 2 reduces the graininess very nicely while having no detrimental effect on detail in the scan. Some of my films have aged badly (I suspect mostly due to my lack of care before processing) and show high levels of grain, requiring me to use GEM at the max setting. (Maybe I've misunderstood the kind of damage one can do to a film by storing it badly.) As far as I can tell, scanners with a resolution in the range 2400-3000dpi are the scanners that will tend to exaggerate grain the most. Additionally, the type of light in the LS40 (three LEDs that turn on and off rapidly so that only one colour, red, green or blue, is shining at any time) apparently tends to exaggerate grain (and defects such as scratches and dust). There is an argument for saying that if you run software that corrects for grain (GEM) or corrects for defects (ICE) then the scanner should resolve these features clearly - i.e. it makes the software's job easier, since the problems are "clearer". Dunno if this argument is true. Dunno how much of a difference in image quality one actually sees when comparing scanners of the same resolution with the same software but with different lights. > and the > Nikon's known AF (insufficient DOF) problem from which 4000ED (and > apparently LS-40) are reported to suffer from. > Did you experienced DOF problem with either mounted/unmounted slides and > negative strips ? No. I just can't be bothered looking and testing. Life is too short. Note I used a "crappy" 28-200mm Vivitar lens from the mid 80s and a Canon P&S zoom camera, so my lenses are hardly the most demanding. If you were the average member of this list you probably would notice that the LS40 has a small DOF, though. I freely admit to being fairly un-picky - which is why I didn't want to respond to your original email, since I think my views are very much biased towards the lenient end of the scale. > Does the LS-40 allows multi-pass or multi-sampling ? Only with Vuescan. You can get Vuescan to perform upto 16 passes. You can get Vuescan to performa a long-exposure pass (in an effort to see into the dark parts of the film). As I said before, I firmly believe these two options do not provide an increase in image quality, under any circumstances (slide or neg, good or bad exposures). As for
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
n, 6 Jan 2002 11:03:30 +0100 >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600. >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600. >X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-UIDL: _-IH.JECO8.sulphur >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "Bernie Ess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan > Bob Goldstein 408/253-4489 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
Try making 2 scans - one optimized for the highlights and one for the dark area, and then layer them. Maris On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:01:17 -0800 "Ken Durling" wrote: > HI folks - > > I'm still working away here, improving my understanding and > techniques. Since the addition of histograms to Vuescan, I've been > trying to utilize them some, but remain somewhat confused, as I'm just > starting to get a grasp of the ones in PS Elements, which have 3 > sldiers, and input and output controls. > > I have a slide that I've been spending hours trying to yield what I > can see through the loupe on the light table, but it's evading me. > It's a very high contrast sunset shot taken on Velvia, with one side > very dark under dense clouds, and the opposite side has brilliant - > one might say "blown out" - area of sunlight. Along the bottom of the > photo is a lot of city detail, seen from above - I was shooting from > up in the hills overlooking SF Bay. It was taken with a sharp lens, > so the detail is there, and I'd like to retrieve it. > > My main problem has been trying to bring out all the detail in the > city - which is in the relatively dark area of the photo. > Secondarily, the finding a contrast range that doesn't blow out the > sunlit areas too severely, while not darkeneing the shadows too much. > > But what I'd like help with is how to utilize the Vuescan histograms > to achieve this. Needless to say, upon initial scan at the default > white and black points of 1, the histograms go off the scale at either > end. What general guidelines should I use for trying setting that > will bring the contrast range within the scale? And what effect do > the color balance settings have on the effectiveness of the black and > white point settings? > > Thanks for any lights, and if seeing an example of this particular > scan would be helpful, I can supply. > > > Ken Durling > > > > Photo.net portfolio: > > http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 > > -- -- > 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: Tips needed on difficult scan
I apologize if I'm getting into some else's discussion, but I suggest the following: 1. make the top layer active and choose blend mode screen 2. move the opacity to 30-40 % 3. you can make further adjustments on adjustment layers added to each of the two scans. I'm assuming you have the two layers registered, this can be checked by using blend mode difference temporarily (the image should go black). Bob Wright - Original Message - From: "S Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 2:45 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan Maris, Having layered two such images, I am not clear how to blend them. I have a similar situation in which shadow detail is lost in many small regions of the image. I tried layering the dark on the light and erasing parts of the dark layer where I wanted the shadow detail to show through. Is that what you meant? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan Try making 2 scans - one optimized for the highlights and one for the dark area, and then layer them. Maris On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:01:17 -0800 "Ken Durling" wrote: > http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 > > -- -- > 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 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:07:14 -0800, you wrote: >I apologize if I'm getting into some else's discussion, but I suggest the >following: No apology necessary! All input is welcome. And thanks everyone - this is going to push me into a new sector of the learning curve with PS Elements, as I've never tried to combine two versions of an image. Hell, I'm barely getting comfortable with layers! But it sounds too fascinating to resist - I'll keep you posted. Or should I say, I'm sure I'll be back with more questions. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
It doesn't make any difference which layer is on top, but they must me separate scans, one optimized for shadows and one for highlights. Contrast masking is a more advanced and more powerful option but requires selecting a channel for an illumination mask and then using an adjustment layer with the illumination mask to make contrast adjustments.The trick then becomes selecting the right channel and maybe inverting it to achieve the desired result. Experiement with dragging the desired channel to the "load channel as a selection" icon on the channels palette, then go to layers palette and select an adjustment layer (levels or curves). A mask is automatically made to the adjustment layer. This mask can be inverted, painted on, or otherwise adjusted. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: "Julian Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 8:52 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan Being endlessly interested in contrast taming, I just tried this but obviously I am missing something because I can't get it to work. I certainly don't understand how it works, mostly because I don't know what "screen" does :( Is the technique assuming the dark or light image on top, or doesn't it matter? It does remind me though of the other semi-automatic way of improving high contrast images which works quite well, although if overused gives some strange effects on the light-dark transitions and at the edge of image. Contrast masking... - Image needs to be in 8-bit which is a shame. - duplicate it into a second layer - desaturate top layer and invert (make it a negative of itself) - select OVERLAY as mode - gaussian blur this top layer to 20-70pixels until you get the best effect - reduce the effect if necessary by reducing transparency of top layer Julian At 12:07 08/01/02, you wrote: >I apologize if I'm getting into some else's discussion, but I suggest the >following: > >1. make the top layer active and choose blend mode screen >2. move the opacity to 30-40 % >3. you can make further adjustments on adjustment layers added to each of >the two scans. >I'm assuming you have the two layers registered, this can be checked by >using blend mode difference temporarily (the image should go black). > >Bob Wright > >- Original Message - >From: "S Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 2:45 PM >Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan > > >Maris, > >Having layered two such images, I am not clear how to blend them. I have a >similar situation in which shadow detail is lost in many small regions of >the image. > >I tried layering the dark on the light and erasing parts of the dark layer >where I wanted the shadow detail to show through. Is that what you meant? > >Stan > >-----Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:58 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan > > >Try making 2 scans - one optimized for the highlights and one for the >dark area, and then layer them. > >Maris > >On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:01:17 -0800 "Ken Durling" wrote: > > http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 > > > > >-- >-- > > 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 > > >--- - >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: Tips needed on difficult scan
Just a point about film names. Provia is made in two versions. The standard version is rather grainy (in fact it is only made in the 400 ISO version now, if I'm not mistaken, having been superseded by Astia in the 100 ISO version, and is the same film as Fujichrome 400 Sensia II.) The fine grain Provia is called Provia F, and is made both in a 100 and 400 ISO film. Provia F is a very nice film, especially for scanning, as it has a very small and "soft" grain. Art Bernie Ess wrote: > Hi Ken, > this won´t help you here, but in general if you shot slide to scan it then, > you might try out Provia in the future, while being at least as fine grained > as Velvia, it is less hard in its contrast and thus keeps more shadow > detail. > I have seen a Web site (dont have the URL right now, but it should be > findable via Google.com search) which does exactly a comparision of an > identical shot - on emade with Velvia, one with Provia. It was evident that > at first sight the Velvia had more intense colors (looking more interesting) > than the provia which seemed more tamed and less contrasty. But the authoir > showd very well that in the dark shadows the Velvia just lost where the > Provia still showed detail. > The conclusion therer was that if you shoot for further digital editing, the > Provia is clearly the winner. > > For your current shot, if its really important, try to find someone with a > Imacon or a drum scanner and get it scanned by him. > > Greetings Bernhard > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
- Original Message - From: Julian Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 11:52 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan Being endlessly interested in contrast taming, I just tried this but obviously I am missing something because I can't get it to work. I certainly don't understand how it works, mostly because I don't know what "screen" does :( Is the technique assuming the dark or light image on top, or doesn't it matter? It does remind me though of the other semi-automatic way of improving high contrast images which works quite well, although if overused gives some strange effects on the light-dark transitions and at the edge of image. Contrast masking... - Image needs to be in 8-bit which is a shame. - duplicate it into a second layer - desaturate top layer and invert (make it a negative of itself) - select OVERLAY as mode - gaussian blur this top layer to 20-70pixels until you get the best effect - reduce the effect if necessary by reducing transparency of top layer Julian I love this technique for contrasty chromes (never need it for negs with Vuescan), but I question the need for the gaussian blur part. The digital "contrast mask" is an exact pixel for pixel overlay, and old school film contrast masks were made "out of focus" to compensate for dimensional instability between film and mask layers not an issue with digital. So another way to do this is no blur and much lower transparency on CRM layer. 20 to 40 percent is all you can do without a blur, but IMO looks better than using blur. The contrast reducing effect moves faster but with more precision in final result. Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan >Stan
Ah I just saw Maris's reply which makes mine a trifle redundant. To answer this query though... - select the top layer - Layer/Add layer mask/Reveal all (or use icon at bottom of layers palette) - paint with black on the white mask with soft-edged brushes to see parts of the bottom image you want - you can paint with white to "undo" or fine tune what you did with the last step, and use white or black or grays for further correction or fine tuning. - when finished, flatten the image. There are other variations on layer masking. Layer masks are the most useful thing I have discovered in PS (I am sure there is plenty more yet though. As Woody Allen points out, "the autodidactic always has huge holes in his knowledge" ) Julian At 09:45 08/01/02, you wrote: >Maris, > >Having layered two such images, I am not clear how to blend them. I have a >similar situation in which shadow detail is lost in many small regions of >the image. > >I tried layering the dark on the light and erasing parts of the dark layer >where I wanted the shadow detail to show through. Is that what you meant? > >Stan > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:58 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan > > >Try making 2 scans - one optimized for the highlights and one for the >dark area, and then layer them. > >Maris > >On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:01:17 -0800 "Ken Durling" wrote: > > http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 > > > > >-- >-- > > 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 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan >Stan
Yes, that's perfect. Thanks. Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Norman Unsworth Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 7:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan >Stan Here's a previous from Julian that I've added to my Photoshop 'tips and tricks' binder. It's the same technique, just explained in a little more detail. It's a great and easy technique: tuning. - when finished, flatten the image. 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
