RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative profile's. I > am looking > for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this > new scheme. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by "negative profiles", and why one would need them.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
David, That is what I believed you would say, and I completely disagree with that philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the same results! People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital? Just my opinion having been a professional photographer for 20+ years... Also note, no one ever used film profiles for the Leafscan, which was one of the most prolific high end scanner used for the past 10 years, nor did they ever ask for them. I don't know if they were ever used for any other scanners, the SS4k was the first one I found that had them, and I didn't like them. Austin > Austin, > Profiles are used to characterize a scanner/E6 film system into a device > independent space. There is very little difference in the system response > for E6 films so one profile per device works well. > Negatives have several differences, one being the base changes > form film to > film and the negative is not the final product the prints is. These > complications are why there are no "ICC" profiles for negatives. Polaroid > and others have developed profiles that help characterize various specific > negative films. Currently we have about 12 negative profiles for the 120 > scanner and more for the SS4000. We have found that these profiles are > either dead on or unusable in which case you would do a raw scan. We are > developing a "ring around" profiling scheme where each profile will have > several related profiles to address common exposure differences. > All to get better scans quicker. > David > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:25 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative > > proile scheme > > > > > > > > > Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative profile's. I > > > am looking > > > for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this > > > new scheme. > > > > Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by "negative > > profiles", and > > why one would need them. > >
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin, I think we may be talking by each other a bit. ICC profiles do contain several LUTS including sophisticated 3d luts. These negative profiles will be similar wich "ring around" sub sets to correct for specific conditions such as over exposure, underexposure, high or low contrast, over and under saturation. The bottom line here is we are testing the concept to determine if it is of value. May be or may be not. I guess we will see. David P.S. we won't force anyone to use them :) > -Original Message- > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative > proile scheme > > > > Austin, > > All scanning software characterises film in some way as an > attempt to get > > you near where you want to be. You can still use your > individual artistic > > talents to effect the final product. > > In no scanner software of which I am aware will give you by > > default the raw > > data from the ccd. > > David, raw data has nothing to do with "film profiling". > Setpoints have > nothing to do with film profiling. > > > The raw data fom the scanner is processed through a > > matrix filter or profile. > > What is a matrix filter? The raw data from the scanner is > thresholded with > the setpoints, then run through a LUT to correct for the > non-linearity of > the CCD, then LUT'd again for the tonal curve adjustments you > make. You can > do the non-linearity correction before or after the setpoints > are applied, > it doesn't matter. This is all done on high bit data. If > you are getting 8 > bit data, then the data is decimated from the full span of > the data between > the setpoints, down to 8 bit data. > > > The goal of these profiles and matrix filters is to recover > correctly as > > much information from the film as possible, removes the > base, do general > > corrections based on what it knows about the ccd/scanner > system and film. > > Er, right. But you don't have to profile the film to do > that. The CCD is > already "profiled" in the firmware of the scanner. > > I still disagree with film profiling. How come the Leafscan has given > perfect scans for the past 10+ years with no film profiles? >
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> Austin, > All scanning software characterises film in some way as an attempt to get > you near where you want to be. You can still use your individual artistic > talents to effect the final product. > In no scanner software of which I am aware will give you by > default the raw > data from the ccd. David, raw data has nothing to do with "film profiling". Setpoints have nothing to do with film profiling. > The raw data fom the scanner is processed through a > matrix filter or profile. What is a matrix filter? The raw data from the scanner is thresholded with the setpoints, then run through a LUT to correct for the non-linearity of the CCD, then LUT'd again for the tonal curve adjustments you make. You can do the non-linearity correction before or after the setpoints are applied, it doesn't matter. This is all done on high bit data. If you are getting 8 bit data, then the data is decimated from the full span of the data between the setpoints, down to 8 bit data. > The goal of these profiles and matrix filters is to recover correctly as > much information from the film as possible, removes the base, do general > corrections based on what it knows about the ccd/scanner system and film. Er, right. But you don't have to profile the film to do that. The CCD is already "profiled" in the firmware of the scanner. I still disagree with film profiling. How come the Leafscan has given perfect scans for the past 10+ years with no film profiles?
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin, All scanning software characterises film in some way as an attempt to get you near where you want to be. You can still use your individual artistic talents to effect the final product. In no scanner software of which I am aware will give you by default the raw data from the ccd. The raw data fom the scanner is processed through a matrix filter or profile. What you see on the CRT is NOT what the scanner. The goal of these profiles and matrix filters is to recover correctly as much information from the film as possible, removes the base, do general corrections based on what it knows about the ccd/scanner system and film. All of these tasks are done in the process of printing negatives. Not a whole lot different. David > -Original Message- > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative > proile scheme > > > David, > > That is what I believed you would say, and I completely > disagree with that > philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use > particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the > same results! > People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital? > > Just my opinion having been a professional photographer for > 20+ years... > Also note, no one ever used film profiles for the Leafscan, > which was one of > the most prolific high end scanner used for the past 10 > years, nor did they > ever ask for them. I don't know if they were ever used for any other > scanners, the SS4k was the first one I found that had them, > and I didn't > like them. > > Austin > > > Austin, > > Profiles are used to characterize a scanner/E6 film system > into a device > > independent space. There is very little difference in the > system response > > for E6 films so one profile per device works well. > > Negatives have several differences, one being the base changes > > form film to > > film and the negative is not the final product the prints is. These > > complications are why there are no "ICC" profiles for > negatives. Polaroid > > and others have developed profiles that help characterize > various specific > > negative films. Currently we have about 12 negative > profiles for the 120 > > scanner and more for the SS4000. We have found that these > profiles are > > either dead on or unusable in which case you would do a raw > scan. We are > > developing a "ring around" profiling scheme where each > profile will have > > several related profiles to address common exposure differences. > > All to get better scans quicker. > > David > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:25 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative > > > proile scheme > > > > > > > > > > > > > Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative > profile's. I > > > > am looking > > > > for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this > > > > new scheme. > > > > > > Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by "negative > > > profiles", and > > > why one would need them. > > > >
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> These negative profiles will > be similar wich "ring around" sub sets What's a "ring around sub sets"? > to correct for specific conditions > such as over exposure, underexposure, high or low contrast, But isn't that what a tonal curve adjustment box is supposed to do, or are you saying you will supply a button for the operator to push if s/he sees one of these conditions, and it will automatically set the curve for you? > The bottom line here is we are testing the concept to > determine > if it is of value. May be or may be not. I guess we will see. > David If it is just film characteristic profiling, I would say no...but film characteristic profiling is different than the "specific conditions" you mentioned above, isn't it?
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I´m on, remember me the distributor in sweden that you helped our decades ago when I had a ss120 and no drivers... Still remember the beer I promised you... Best regards, Stefan on 01-06-06 23.41, Hemingway, David J at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Polaroid is developing a new scheme for negative profile's. I am looking > for any Sprintscan 120 user who would like to help evaluate this new scheme. > > Please contact me directly OFF LIST > Thank you > David Hemingway > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> With one film term for transparencies and color management, individual > film characteristics is exactly what you do get. *Effective* film > terms for color negative films will get closer to a specific films' > characteristics, not further away, and the problem to solve is > ineffective film terms. What do you believe "film terms" are? There are two issues here (well three actually). One is the film it self, two is the image on the film, and three is the scanner. Of course, I want to color correct for the image on the film, due to lighting or whatever...and I want to color correct for the scanner. Setpoints and tonal curves are not film dependant, they are image dependant, and one setpoint/tonal curve for one image may not be the correct setpoint/tonal curve for another...even on the same strip of film. > The Leaf was designed before practical color management. Scans from a > correctly calibrated and color managed scanner will look very much > like the original when you first bring it into PS unless you've worked > on it in the scan software. Who wouldn't want that? I get that with the Leaf now, with no scanner color management. I am the scanner color management! Scanner color management is somewhat dubious, IMO. Monitor, I agree with, printer, paper, ink, yes, those are all somewhat consistent...more so than film! I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I believe it just can't "work". There is far more to it than providing one film profile for everyone to use!
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin wrote: > I completely disagree with that > philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use > particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the same results! > People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital? With one film term for transparencies and color management, individual film characteristics is exactly what you do get. *Effective* film terms for color negative films will get closer to a specific films' characteristics, not further away, and the problem to solve is ineffective film terms. > Just my opinion having been a professional photographer for 20+ years... > Also note, no one ever used film profiles for the Leafscan, which was one of > the most prolific high end scanner used for the past 10 years, nor did they > ever ask for them. I don't know if they were ever used for any other > scanners, the SS4k was the first one I found that had them, and I didn't > like them. The Leaf was designed before practical color management. Scans from a correctly calibrated and color managed scanner will look very much like the original when you first bring it into PS unless you've worked on it in the scan software. Who wouldn't want that? If the film terms for the SS4000 didn't give you this, either the terms weren't accurate, the scanner wasn't calibrated well, or your system's CM wasn't set up correctly. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin Franklin wrote: > > I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color > managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are > all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. > Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard "general" correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... > > Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a > consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I > believe it just can't "work". There is far more to it than providing one > film profile for everyone to use! I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in the testing phase... Isaac
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color > > managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer > etc. Those are > > all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from > deterministic. > > Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. > > But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard "general" > correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for > each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I believe, unless you do your own development. > > Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do > BTW) for a > > consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every > frame), I > > believe it just can't "work". There is far more to it than > providing one > > film profile for everyone to use! > > I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... > Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's > not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... > sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the > ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there > are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This > may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is > always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a > scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in > the testing phase... I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when shown, it opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did was just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and saw just how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare their work to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll make you better at what you're doing ;-)
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
David, concerning Polaroid's negative profiling plans for the SS 120, you've received some "why bother" and "it's a bad idea" comments from Austin Franklin while Isaac Crawford defended the idea. I, also, think there's merit in your plan and I hope it works. Do you think it will work well enough for a colorblind person like me to get "acceptable" results? I get decent results with E-6 transparency film, but my one feeble attempt with negative film didn't go well. For E-6, I use SilverFast rather than Insight (for my SS4000) because it can be IT-8 calibrated. I'm getting close to having my workflow nailed down so that I don't need to do any color corrections; I just make the E-6 scan and do an occasional contrast or brightness tweak in SilverFast. I usually shoot in a studio setting, so I have total control over exposure, contrast, lighting, etc. I normally shoot medium format negative film and when a client needs something for the web, I have to shoot some 35 mm E-6 in addition so that I can scan it with my SS4000. A good negative profiling system for the SS 120 would allow me to shoot medium format negative film for virtually all of my jobs. I have a Microtek ScanMaker 5 flatbed scanner with IT-8 calibrated ScanWizard software that I can use to scan medium format film, but its ScanWizard software has limited negative film profiles (none for Kodak 160NC that I use) and I could find none that were even close to acceptable. Being colorblind, I want the machinery to do what I can't. And even if I had good color vision, I'd still want to as little "mothering" of the negative scan as I could get away with. My time is too valuable to do by hand what technology can when enough money is thrown at it.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> > > > I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton > scanning (or as > > I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd > > prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the > basics, that > > way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on > themselves. > > I don't really > understand what > you're after... A raw scan every time? Absolutely not! I don't do raw scans. What I was trying to say, was get the scan right in the scanner driver (setpoints and tonal curves). Learning how to use setpoints and tonal adjustments in the scanner driver can go a LONG way. Clean negatives goes a long way too ;-) All tonal adjustments have to be done with high bit data, and for me, that means in the scanner. My scanner gets the tonal adjustments downloaded to it, and performs that on the fly, so only 8 bit data gets send to the PC.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Austin Franklin wrote: > > > Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > > > I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color > > > managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer > > etc. Those are > > > all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from > > deterministic. > > > Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. > > > > But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard "general" > > correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for > > each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... > > Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I believe, > unless you do your own development. Right, but it saved a lot of time... I could then concentrate on tweaking instead of starting all over again for every image. I believe that this is what Polaroid is after... > > > > Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do > > BTW) for a > > > consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every > > frame), I > > > believe it just can't "work". There is far more to it than > > providing one > > > film profile for everyone to use! > > > > I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... > > Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's > > not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... > > sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the > > ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there > > are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This > > may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is > > always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a > > scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in > > the testing phase... > > I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as > I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd > prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that > way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I don't really understand what you're after... A raw scan every time? Once again, we're talking about options. For the people that want to get really involved, there are the raw scans from vuescan to work with. For people that don't want to bother, there are a variety of programs available that can get pretty decent results right off the bat, and for many people that's all they need. This is all Polaroid is offering, another option... > > Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when shown, it > opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did was > just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and saw just > how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare their work > to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll make you > better at what you're doing ;-) Yeah, but you gotta start somewhere... I am all in favor of making technology more accessible to people. There are many that refer to this as "dumbing down", but without exception, the people that use that phrase already know how to use that piece of equipment...:-) Isaac
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> David, concerning Polaroid's negative profiling plans for the SS 120, you've > received some "why bother" and "it's a bad idea" comments from Austin > Franklin while Isaac Crawford defended the idea. I'm sorry that I gave the impression that "it's a bad idea". I don't think it's a bad idea, I just don't see the merit in it, at least for me. I do believe that it will do some people some good, as a starting point. But to believe that you can just 'pick your film' and your scan will be perfect, I think would not be the case, and lead to disappointment. As a note, I don't believe other vendors are taking this approach, for what ever reason. Anyone know if I mistaken about this?
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> > With one film term for transparencies and color management, individual > > film characteristics is exactly what you do get. *Effective* film > > terms for color negative films will get closer to a specific films' > > characteristics, not further away, and the problem to solve is > > ineffective film terms. > > What do you believe "film terms" are? There are two issues here (well three > actually). One is the film it self, two is the image on the film, and three > is the scanner. Of course, I want to color correct for the image on the > film, due to lighting or whatever...and I want to color correct for the > scanner. Setpoints and tonal curves are not film dependant, they are image > dependant, and one setpoint/tonal curve for one image may not be the correct > setpoint/tonal curve for another...even on the same strip of film. > > > The Leaf was designed before practical color management. Scans from a > > correctly calibrated and color managed scanner will look very much > > like the original when you first bring it into PS unless you've worked > > on it in the scan software. Who wouldn't want that? > > I get that with the Leaf now, with no scanner color management. I am the > scanner color management! Scanner color management is somewhat dubious, > IMO. Monitor, I agree with, printer, paper, ink, yes, those are all > somewhat consistent...more so than film! > > I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color > managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc. Those are > all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from deterministic. > Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. > > Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW) for a > consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every frame), I > believe it just can't "work". There is far more to it than providing one > film profile for everyone to use! Obviously, the level of accuracy required of monitor and printer profiles isn't possible or required. I don't remember suggesting otherwise. If you don't want to use film terms (profiles), then don't. The scanner police won't break down your door, I promise. Since any modern hi-end scanner will allow either approach I fail to see the reason for your original post. Really Austin, what is the problem? Dave
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Mistaken???!!! You?? Lawrence >Anyone know if I mistaken about this? >
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> > Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > > > I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color > > > managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer > > etc. Those are > > > all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from > > deterministic. > > > Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. > > > > But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard "general" > > correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for > > each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... > > Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I believe, > unless you do your own development. > > > > Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do > > BTW) for a > > > consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every > > frame), I > > > believe it just can't "work". There is far more to it than > > providing one > > > film profile for everyone to use! > > > > I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... > > Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's > > not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... > > sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the > > ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there > > are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This > > may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is > > always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a > > scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in > > the testing phase... > > I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as > I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd > prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that > way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. > > Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when shown, it > opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did was > just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and saw just > how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare their work > to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll make you > better at what you're doing ;-) And what would you know of humility
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> > Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > > > I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color > > > managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer > > etc. Those are > > > all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from > > deterministic. > > > Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc. > > > > But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard "general" > > correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack for > > each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me... > > Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I believe, > unless you do your own development. > > > > Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do > > BTW) for a > > > consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every > > frame), I > > > believe it just can't "work". There is far more to it than > > providing one > > > film profile for everyone to use! > > > > I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run... > > Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what does? It's > > not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters... > > sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in the > > ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as there > > are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss? This > > may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it! It is > > always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a > > scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including us in > > the testing phase... > > I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton scanning (or as > I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd > prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the basics, that > way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on themselves. > > Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when shown, it > opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did was > just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and saw just > how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare their work > to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll make you > better at what you're doing ;-) Since you profess interest in both humility and learning, I suggest you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the colorsync list. Dave > >
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> I suggest > you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of > profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the colorsync > list. Thanks. I will take a spin through the archives...but would you mind pointing me to where the list is?
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> Since any modern hi-end scanner will allow either approach What other scanner have film profiles? > I fail to > see the reason for your original post. I was questioning the reality of the usefulness of film profiles, given the inability to actually control a number of the variables. Simple as that. I don't dispute they are useful for some, but I believe that use is more limited than I took the intent to be.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> > I suggest > > you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of > > profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the colorsync > > list. > > Thanks. I will take a spin through the archives...but would you mind > pointing me to where the list is? http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> I'm sorry that I gave the impression that "it's a bad idea". I don't think > it's a bad idea, I just don't see the merit in it, at least for me. The CO2 expelled to get to this point has just brought my lawn, and 3 rhododendron back to life! ;-p Todd
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
LOL... Good god. Some people REALLY like to hear/read themselves speak don't they? Lawrence > > The CO2 expelled to get to this point has just brought my lawn, and 3 > rhododendron back to life! ;-p > > Todd >
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
tflash wrote: > >> I'm sorry that I gave the impression that "it's a bad idea". I don't think >> it's a bad idea, I just don't see the merit in it, at least for me. > > > The CO2 expelled to get to this point has just brought my lawn, and 3 > rhododendron back to life! ;-p > > Todd Not to mention having started 3 forest fires due to global warming ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
At 23:07 08/06/01, you wrote: >Do minilabs read the emulsion type before printing neg? No. My lab once told me that my prints were not up to their usual excellence "because we haven't got the Supra profile right yet". So I understand that minilabs DO use individual film profiles for some purpose. That said I agree with Austin that this is not the best way to go for a scanner - for three reasons: a) as Johnny said, emulsions change with bewildering rapidity, so even if you try hard you can be trapped without the correct profile. b) as Austin said, the exposure and light source used when taking the photo etc must change the characteristics c) films change from nominal characteristics before and after exposure - so there is no accurate reference anyway. Changes start as soon as the film is out of the fridge, and fading can easily take a film a long way from the assumed profile. The point of using profiles of course is to match the scanner's filter characteristics (or LED bandwidth) with the film response curves, and to remove the mask of a neg. But there is an alternative, and that is for the scanner to do some kind of analysis of the film itself and attempt to automatically "profile" the film and hence produce a good automatic scan. (which is what I thought minilabs did until the exchange quoted above). This is what the Nikons do, by means which are beyond me, and IMHO they do it very well. I have used only five film scanner/software combinations in my time, but the Nikon with Nikon ver 3 software is IME far and away the best at producing good default scans. With ROC I imagine it is even better. Julian Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> The point of using profiles of course is to match the scanner's filter > characteristics (or LED bandwidth) with the film response curves I don't believe that's quite right. Those are two separate issues. Typically, there is a CCD response curve embedded in the scanner in the form of a LUT, which corrects for the non-linearity of the CCD. That is separate from the tonal curves you apply either manually or by using a "film profile".
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:20:40 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > If the film > terms for the SS4000 didn't give you this, either the terms weren't > accurate, the scanner wasn't calibrated well, or your system's CM > wasn't set up correctly. This would be true of slide, but there's inescapabaly much more variability with colour neg. due to the nature of the film. And although I've not used a Leafscan, I bet what it got from colour neg was only approximate too. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:13:52 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > That is what I believed you would say, and I completely disagree with > that > philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use > particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the same > results! > People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital? How do you propose to transpose the colour and density values of the film to RGB bit values? The film has its characteristics, so does the scanner. Either you use profiles, which maintain a fixed relationship between input and output, or you adjust the scanning process to get the result you want, or you do a mixture of both. The adjustment can be hardwired and beyond user control, or under user control via software settings, or a mixture of both. In other words, you don't have to use profiles but you do have to do /something/ - and if you cannot, the decisions have already been made for you by the mfr. But you cannot dodge the necessity. And people do it all the time in the darkroom by choosing paper and chemistry characteristics and varying filtration and exposure. Just seen your later wry comment that 'I am the colour management':-) Well, I agree with that approach but it takes a lot of time and skill to get it right as you can find yourself juggling many different parameters. EG crossed curves can be real brain-ache, and hard to identify and fix (is this shadow cast blue, cyan, or bluey-cyan or cyan-blue?). I think DH is proposing a ring-around set of corrections from which the user chooses the one that looks most plausible, implemented as profiles. This seems potentially quite a useful aid for the operator, especially the less skilled/more impatient, and may help get images in the ballpark. Vuescan's use of automatic white balance aims at the same place, as does using PS highlight dropper to achieve the same thing - you just use whatever tools you feel comfortable with. The Mk1 eyeball is the only final arbiter. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > ...but film > characteristic profiling is different than the "specific conditions" you > mentioned above, isn't it? Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, depending on exposure, processing etc. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:13:30 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Ever think something you did was > just great (even a print you made) Not for more than a few minutes. And it's very cruel of you to ask this Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:20:40 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > > If the film > > terms for the SS4000 didn't give you this, either the terms weren't > > accurate, the scanner wasn't calibrated well, or your system's CM > > wasn't set up correctly. > > This would be true of slide, but there's inescapabaly much more > variability with colour neg. due to the nature of the film. And although > I've not used a Leafscan, I bet what it got from colour neg was only > approximate too. I've generally found those film-type "profiles" (not the ICC kind, but the kind you find in some film-scanner-drivers) to be useful, at best, as starting points. Interesting that NikonScan (3.1, at least) doesn't have them at all, yet does a pretty good job at inverting negatives and coming up with useful, believable images with different types of negative film. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > ...but film > > characteristic profiling is different than the "specific conditions" you > > mentioned above, isn't it? > > Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, > depending on exposure, processing etc. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily in the mask layer. Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less than chrome films. Dave King
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Rafe wrote: >I've generally found those film-type "profiles" >(not the ICC kind, but the kind you find in some >film-scanner-drivers) to be useful, at best, >as starting points. Interesting that NikonScan >(3.1, at least) doesn't have them at all, yet >does a pretty good job at inverting negatives >and coming up with useful, believable images >with different types of negative film. I find that somewhat more than interesting. If Nikonscan has no profiles, how does it know where the startpoint is? This isn't meant to be disrespectful--I'm truly curious. It might answer some perplexing questions I've had for some time, now. Photoshop also has no film profiles, and also does a good job of inverting a negative image. Is it White Point, Balance, or what? Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> >Interesting that NikonScan > >(3.1, at least) doesn't have them at all, yet > >does a pretty good job at inverting negatives > >and coming up with useful, believable images > >with different types of negative film. > > I find that somewhat more than interesting. If Nikonscan has no > profiles, how does it know where the startpoint is? This isn't > meant to be disrespectful--I'm truly curious. It might answer > some perplexing questions I've had for some time, now. The Leafscan never had any film profiles, and it's been the staple of high end scanners for over 10 years. What questions did you have?
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
At 06:45 PM 6/11/01 -0400, Dave King wrote: >> On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin >> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> >> > ...but film >> > characteristic profiling is different than the "specific >conditions" you >> > mentioned above, isn't it? >> >> Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, >> depending on exposure, processing etc. >> >> Regards >> >> Tony Sleep > >Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily in >the mask layer. Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good >labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they >do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent >as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the >studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get >to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or >lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less >than chrome films. Well, Dave, I'm surprised to hear this analysis. My own impressions are more in line with Tony's, though my experience with chromes in recent years has been limited. OTOH, I've not really had access to top-drawer professional processing labs, either, and my subjects are not in a studio, under controlled light. If C41 films were as consistent as you say, why are those negative-film "profiles" so consistently clueless? rafe b.
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> >The Leafscan never had any film profiles, and it's been the > staple of high > >end scanners for over 10 years. > > > The 8000 ED gives it a nice run for the money, Austin. > I dare say -- it's even better. Though I don't expect > you'll agree, without some convincing. I'd have to see a B&W scan comparison, that's what matters to me ;-)
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
- Original Message - From: rafeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:52 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme > At 06:45 PM 6/11/01 -0400, Dave King wrote: > >> On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin > >> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> > >> > ...but film > >> > characteristic profiling is different than the "specific > >conditions" you > >> > mentioned above, isn't it? > >> > >> Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable, > >> depending on exposure, processing etc. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Tony Sleep > > > >Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily in > >the mask layer. Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good > >labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they > >do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent > >as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the > >studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get > >to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or > >lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less > >than chrome films. > > > Well, Dave, I'm surprised to hear this analysis. > My own impressions are more in line with Tony's, > though my experience with chromes in recent years > has been limited. > > OTOH, I've not really had access to top-drawer > professional processing labs, either, and my > subjects are not in a studio, under controlled light. > > If C41 films were as consistent as you say, why > are those negative-film "profiles" so consistently > clueless? > > > rafe b. Good question, I can't say I know the answer. Perhaps it's because processing varies so much in the real world, and that would make Tony right and me wrong. I suppose the standards of NYC pro labs have spoiled me and warped my perspective on these things. Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:45:13 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily in
> the mask layer.
But that seems to be a variable, since mask density appears to vary
according to processing.
> Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good
> labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as they
> do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as consistent
> as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the
> studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you get
> to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer or
> lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less
> than chrome films.
It's true I don't see a lot of variation in C41 films of the same type,
but it's not the film which varies, it's the image. The scanning task is
quite different from scanning slide. With slide, you have a fixed
reference, with neg it's interpretive.
The source of difficulty here is the latitude of C41 and ability to
produce uncorrected results across a wide range of colour temperature and
exposure which you sort out later. With slide, you have next to no
tolerance. If it's screwed on the film, you aren't going to be able to do
a great deal with the scan as the wide OD range occupies all, or nearly
all, of the dynamic range of the scan.
If you always shoot colneg under more or less controlled conditions, and
place exposure on the same part of the curve (conditions more or less
imposed by slide) then, yes, I would believe profiling could be done with
reasonable precision - given a consistent lab.
But the utility of colneg is the amazing ~10stop range, which enables
exposure to be located however you want on the curve, and allows enormous
liberties to be taken with illuminant colour, including mixed sources.
In this scenario, the colneg is only a waypoint on route to the final
image which exists nowhere except in your head. You absolutely don't want
a mechanical, invariant translation as you would with slide+profiles. It
will look horrible, say, to get a 'straight' scan of an image taken under
flourescent without filtration.
You have a lot of freedom to muck about with values, as most images leave
plenty of headroom once scanned.
DH's suggestion of a ring-around of profiles seems like it maybe a handy
shortcut from the info locked up in the neg to an image which approximates
what you were after, at least part of the way - by mapping response for
film under a variety of conditions.
To restate St Ansel for the C21st 'The negative is the score, the print is
the performance, and profiles are pianola rolls' :)
I'm sure you know all this stuff anyhow, and do it anyhow ('I am the
colour management' :-) All I'd add is : isn't it curious how much colour
correction can vary from one neg to the next, even when taken in the same
place and same time.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:45:13 -0400 Dave King
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily
in
> > the mask layer.
>
> But that seems to be a variable, since mask density appears to vary
> according to processing.
>
> > Processing is standardized by manufacturers, and good
> > labs use the same technology to insure consistency with C-41 as
they
> > do with E-6. In my experience, neg film of one type is as
consistent
> > as chrome film. If you shoot under controlled conditions in the
> > studio and use a good lab for processing, you'll see this when you
get
> > to the darkroom. Exposure is another story, but the manufacturer
or
> > lab can't be faulted for that. But even here color negs vary less
> > than chrome films.
>
> It's true I don't see a lot of variation in C41 films of the same
type,
> but it's not the film which varies, it's the image. The scanning
task is
> quite different from scanning slide. With slide, you have a fixed
> reference, with neg it's interpretive.
>
> The source of difficulty here is the latitude of C41 and ability to
> produce uncorrected results across a wide range of colour
temperature and
> exposure which you sort out later. With slide, you have next to no
> tolerance. If it's screwed on the film, you aren't going to be able
to do
> a great deal with the scan as the wide OD range occupies all, or
nearly
> all, of the dynamic range of the scan.
>
> If you always shoot colneg under more or less controlled conditions,
and
> place exposure on the same part of the curve (conditions more or
less
> imposed by slide) then, yes, I would believe profiling could be done
with
> reasonable precision - given a consistent lab.
That was my point. I mentioned shooting in the studio, but outdoors
in sunlight should be about the same.
> But the utility of colneg is the amazing ~10stop range, which
enables
> exposure to be located however you want on the curve, and allows
enormous
> liberties to be taken with illuminant colour, including mixed
sources.
True, and I'm sure most of us take advantage of that range sometime or
the other, and goddam grateful for it too:). But if one had an
accurate colneg profile, I would think one could get as good first
results with varying negs scanning as in the darkroom. Can't really
blame a profile for not predicting light temp etc variables.
> In this scenario, the colneg is only a waypoint on route to the
final
> image which exists nowhere except in your head. You absolutely don't
want
> a mechanical, invariant translation as you would with
slide+profiles. It
> will look horrible, say, to get a 'straight' scan of an image taken
under
> flourescent without filtration.
But a 'profile' scan of the flourescent green chrome would have the
same problem. It's going to come up looking pretty much like the
chrome, for better or worse. You're still stuck doing alot of work.
Profiling isn't intended to deal with variables, it's intended to
establish predictible accurate results under standard conditions. So
I *do* want an invarient translation for most work, and perhaps even
as a point of departure in editing difficult material, or at the very
least as a frame of reference. If it really works accurately, time is
saved!
Canned neg profiles may be generally less accurate than dynamic
profiles (?), and part of the perception that neg profiles are useless
may come from this. Practical color management is still so new that I
can imagine a few other reasons why neg profiles might seem useless
most of the time.
> You have a lot of freedom to muck about with values, as most images
leave
> plenty of headroom once scanned.
>
> DH's suggestion of a ring-around of profiles seems like it maybe a
handy
> shortcut from the info locked up in the neg to an image which
approximates
> what you were after, at least part of the way - by mapping response
for
> film under a variety of conditions.
>
> To restate St Ansel for the C21st 'The negative is the score, the
print is
> the performance, and profiles are pianola rolls' :)
And profiteroles served after the performance. :)
> I'm sure you know all this stuff anyhow, and do it anyhow ('I am the
> colour management' :-) All I'd add is : isn't it curious how much
colour
> correction can vary from one neg to the next, even when taken in the
same
> place and same time.
Hummm, can't say I've noticed color variations of this sort, in the
darkroom or on the desktop. Maybe later. :)
Dave
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:54:57 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > True, and I'm sure most of us take advantage of that range sometime or > the other, and goddam grateful for it too:). But if one had an > accurate colneg profile, I would think one could get as good first > results with varying negs scanning as in the darkroom. Can't really > blame a profile for not predicting light temp etc variables. Nope, you are quite right - a profile should classically be just be a straight translation mechanism. However... there is a case for a family of profiles which characterise the film under a variety of illuminant conditions. That seems to be what DH is proposing. > But a 'profile' scan of the flourescent green chrome would have the > same problem. It's going to come up looking pretty much like the > chrome, for better or worse. You're still stuck doing alot of work. > Profiling isn't intended to deal with variables, it's intended to > establish predictible accurate results under standard conditions. Yup. Except with colour neg, there's this whole range of not-very-standard conditions which have to be factored in. That's why nobody bothers with ICC for colour neg - a single, standard profile really doesn't get you very far. However I can forsee the ICC fundamentalists sharpening their knives and sparking a terminological Jihad : it may keep the peace better to stick with the standard understanding of a single profile, and offer preset adjustment macros to cope with the variables - or do as other s/w does, rely on adjustments based on white point or whatever. I now think a lot is possible here, having had to eat my words some months ago when I was arguing that manual corrections to colour neg appeared mandatory, and could never be done in software because human judgement and intent were involved. Just to make me look maximally silly, Ed Hamrick went and added some rather smart correction routines based on white point, which generally work extremely well and save me a lot of time. I'll be interested to see if the Polaroid approach works, and until then I'm not doing soothsaying again :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> I now think a lot is possible here, having had to eat my words some months > > ago when I was arguing that manual corrections to colour neg appeared > mandatory, and could never be done in software because human judgement > and intent were involved. Just to make me look maximally silly, Ed Hamrick > > went and added some rather smart correction routines based on white > point, which generally work extremely well and save me a lot of time. > I think I missed this. What settings do you use to access this type of correction?
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Tony: Would you be so kind as to give a step by step outline of your technique for dealing with color neg from exposure to final output? Am particularly interested in how you are dealing with 1. inversion...do you do it with the scan software or take it into PShop 2. setting white/black/gray points/ etc. Thanx Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:54:57 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > > True, and I'm sure most of us take advantage of that range sometime or > > the other, and goddam grateful for it too:). But if one had an > > accurate colneg profile, I would think one could get as good first > > results with varying negs scanning as in the darkroom. Can't really > > blame a profile for not predicting light temp etc variables. > > Nope, you are quite right - a profile should classically be just be a > straight translation mechanism. However... there is a case for a family of > profiles which characterise the film under a variety of illuminant > conditions. That seems to be what DH is proposing. > > > But a 'profile' scan of the flourescent green chrome would have the > > same problem. It's going to come up looking pretty much like the > > chrome, for better or worse. You're still stuck doing alot of work. > > Profiling isn't intended to deal with variables, it's intended to > > establish predictible accurate results under standard conditions. > > Yup. Except with colour neg, there's this whole range of not-very-standard > conditions which have to be factored in. That's why nobody bothers with > ICC for colour neg - a single, standard profile really doesn't get you > very far. However I can forsee the ICC fundamentalists sharpening their > knives and sparking a terminological Jihad : it may keep the peace better > to stick with the standard understanding of a single profile, and offer > preset adjustment macros to cope with the variables - or do as other s/w > does, rely on adjustments based on white point or whatever. > > I now think a lot is possible here, having had to eat my words some months > ago when I was arguing that manual corrections to colour neg appeared > mandatory, and could never be done in software because human judgement > and intent were involved. Just to make me look maximally silly, Ed Hamrick > went and added some rather smart correction routines based on white > point, which generally work extremely well and save me a lot of time. > > I'll be interested to see if the Polaroid approach works, and until then > I'm not doing soothsaying again :) > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner > info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:28:21 -0600 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Tony: Would you be so kind as to give a step by step outline of your
> technique
> for dealing with color neg from exposure to final output? Am
> particularly
> interested in how you are dealing with 1. inversion...do you do it with
> the
> scan software or take it into PShop 2. setting white/black/gray
> points/ etc.
>
> Thanx
>
> Mike M.
I don't actually have a single regime, but a rather variable recipe which
I adapt ad hoc depending on the problems that emerge. But I'll try and
give an idea.
First off, nowadays I invariably use Vuescan for colour neg, scanning to
16 bits. Having messed about plenty with Insight, Binuscan and Silverfast,
I've found that whilst all of them can give very good results a lot of the
time, each can occasionally result in a scan which an utter b*tch to sort
out. Vuescan just seems more consistent, or at least I have evolved a way
of working with it which works reliably for me. But this route is slow,
far slower and requiring vastly more effort from me than the others. This
suits me because I would rather scan once then do things incrementally.
With the others, any significant problem I can't fix usually means
re-scanning.
I aim to do the gross colour correction in Vuescan ('cos it's rather good
at it), but leave levels, saturation and final tweaking of curves and
colour to be done in PS. VS handles mask removal, so I don't even need to
think about that.
Typically this will mean using VS with 'white balance' selected, but
sometimes it isn't the best choice. This is just a trial and error thing,
based on the preview from memory. Whatever is closest to ballpark is best.
I'll select VS image controls so I get a scan which has headroom at both
ends - ie from dark grey to pale grey rather than max.black to white
highlights. VS default white point setting is too high for me, so I reset
it to 0.01. I want to try and get everything off the film at this stage
and make those decisions later in PS.
Typically the VS output scan will look washed out, low contrast and
desaturated as a result. This is good! With 16bits, there's plenty of room
for improving things.
First job in PS is to open the VS scan000n.tif file and do all the tedious
spotting and damage correction then save the image over itself. Then again
immediately to a different name/location. That way I can always go back,
or create another version with different corrections for a layer. This is
often the easiest way to get good highlights and good shadows in one image
- two separately corrected scans from the same VS original.
(Spotting is why I hate to have to go back and re-scan - it means
re-spotting and that takes ages and is criminally boring).
With a scan that is otherwise fairly correctly colour balanced, I'll then
set the levels. I'll clip the black point slightly, leave a bit of
highlight headroom, and get the overall gamma about right with the midtone
slider. Sometimes all that needs doing after that is to increase
saturation - I usually have to dial in +30 to +40 or so. Other times, I'll
need to revisit levels (or contrast/brightness) as well - it just depends.
Logically it would seem more sensible to increase the saturation as the
very first step (to make colour errors more obvious), but I find I can
never get it right if I do it before levels and have to adjust it again
anyhow.
With a scan which is 'off' regarding colour, there are various things I'll
try depending on what I think will work best. Usually I'll start with
levels again, and the channel histograms can be useful. I generally fix
the black point first using the slider, again clipped a bit. What happens
next is a bit suck it and see. You can mess about with the midtone and
highlight sliders on each channel, but this can result in chaos. If that
sort of thing is necessary, I find curves more intuitive and precise.
A useful shortcut to correcting casts is to double-click on the PS
highlight tool and set the tool to the tone and colour you want to
achieve. For example if you have a bit of white shirt collar which is
looking a murky pale blue/cyan, you'd select a neutral near-white. Drop
that on the offending bit of collar and PS will adjust the whole image :
magic! (though it can take some experimentation with the sample area, and
the precise tone/colour you want). This works particularly well for colour
negs shot in flourescent or tungsten, but it's best IMO to leave some
trace of the illuminant colour - fully corrected just looks wrong.
You can do the same thing with the shadow and midtone droppers, but I find
the highlight one usually the most helpful.
After getting the colour more or less balanced, I adjust the saturation
and then make any final adjustments to levels, colour balance etc.
That's it.
Except it isn't (oh, I love the history list:). I fairly often run into
trouble with levels and end up u
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 09:34:30 -0700 Shough, Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I think I missed this. What settings do you use to access this type of > correction? Ed has a variety of colour correction routines built into Vuescan - eg 'neutral', 'tungsten' etc. 'White balance' is another on the same drop-list menu, but not a preset - it appears to try and figure out the corrections necessary, and does rather a good job generally. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Hi Tony
Thanks for very informative mail and it helped me.
Hope other's too share thier technique.
Thanks
Ramesh
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 11:07 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:28:21 -0600 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Tony: Would you be so kind as to give a step by step outline of your
> technique
> for dealing with color neg from exposure to final output? Am
> particularly
> interested in how you are dealing with 1. inversion...do you do it with
> the
> scan software or take it into PShop 2. setting white/black/gray
> points/ etc.
>
> Thanx
>
> Mike M.
I don't actually have a single regime, but a rather variable recipe which
I adapt ad hoc depending on the problems that emerge. But I'll try and
give an idea.
First off, nowadays I invariably use Vuescan for colour neg, scanning to
16 bits. Having messed about plenty with Insight, Binuscan and Silverfast,
I've found that whilst all of them can give very good results a lot of the
time, each can occasionally result in a scan which an utter b*tch to sort
out. Vuescan just seems more consistent, or at least I have evolved a way
of working with it which works reliably for me. But this route is slow,
far slower and requiring vastly more effort from me than the others. This
suits me because I would rather scan once then do things incrementally.
With the others, any significant problem I can't fix usually means
re-scanning.
I aim to do the gross colour correction in Vuescan ('cos it's rather good
at it), but leave levels, saturation and final tweaking of curves and
colour to be done in PS. VS handles mask removal, so I don't even need to
think about that.
Typically this will mean using VS with 'white balance' selected, but
sometimes it isn't the best choice. This is just a trial and error thing,
based on the preview from memory. Whatever is closest to ballpark is best.
I'll select VS image controls so I get a scan which has headroom at both
ends - ie from dark grey to pale grey rather than max.black to white
highlights. VS default white point setting is too high for me, so I reset
it to 0.01. I want to try and get everything off the film at this stage
and make those decisions later in PS.
Typically the VS output scan will look washed out, low contrast and
desaturated as a result. This is good! With 16bits, there's plenty of room
for improving things.
First job in PS is to open the VS scan000n.tif file and do all the tedious
spotting and damage correction then save the image over itself. Then again
immediately to a different name/location. That way I can always go back,
or create another version with different corrections for a layer. This is
often the easiest way to get good highlights and good shadows in one image
- two separately corrected scans from the same VS original.
(Spotting is why I hate to have to go back and re-scan - it means
re-spotting and that takes ages and is criminally boring).
With a scan that is otherwise fairly correctly colour balanced, I'll then
set the levels. I'll clip the black point slightly, leave a bit of
highlight headroom, and get the overall gamma about right with the midtone
slider. Sometimes all that needs doing after that is to increase
saturation - I usually have to dial in +30 to +40 or so. Other times, I'll
need to revisit levels (or contrast/brightness) as well - it just depends.
Logically it would seem more sensible to increase the saturation as the
very first step (to make colour errors more obvious), but I find I can
never get it right if I do it before levels and have to adjust it again
anyhow.
With a scan which is 'off' regarding colour, there are various things I'll
try depending on what I think will work best. Usually I'll start with
levels again, and the channel histograms can be useful. I generally fix
the black point first using the slider, again clipped a bit. What happens
next is a bit suck it and see. You can mess about with the midtone and
highlight sliders on each channel, but this can result in chaos. If that
sort of thing is necessary, I find curves more intuitive and precise.
A useful shortcut to correcting casts is to double-click on the PS
highlight tool and set the tool to the tone and colour you want to
achieve. For example if you have a bit of white shirt collar which is
looking a murky pale blue/cyan, you'd select a neutral near-white. Drop
that on the offending bit of collar and PS will adjust the whole image :
magic! (though it can take some experimentation with the sample area, and
the precise tone/colour you want). This works particularly well for colour
negs shot in flourescent or
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Hi All, I was very interested to hear your method of operation Tony. I too have developed a technique purely by trial and error over the years together with some reading up. My method is almost identical to yours especially: 1.When scanning have the darkest area a dark grey and the lightest area a light grey so as to ensure you are capturing all the info. 2. Do basic curve adjustment at scanning stage and tweak that in PS 3. Do Saturation adjustment as the penultimate step - before unsharp mask. I don't always use it - I have found that some subjects that in the past I would have bumped up the saturation on have actually benefitted more from a bir more tweeking in curves - usually the red. 4. If the scan is particularly awkward do two adjustments and combine with levels - sometimes do two separate scans and combine these. I actually tend to use the black eye dropper more than the white. This is probably more a result of having a lot of subjects against black and liking my blacks to be really black! I will also often start by using the auto function in curves and then reducing the effects that it has given me. Like Tony there is no single process that I use - it will depend on how well the image scans and how well it reacts to black point, auto etc. I am using an LS2000 with Nikon Scan. Since I do nearly all my adjustment with PS I have not felt the need to go to Vuescan. I am reluctant to embark on a new 'learning curve' when things seem to be working ok for me. We are looking at getting an LS8000 and may try Vuescan at that point. Regards, Chris Chris Parks Image Quest 3-D The Moos Poffley End Witney Oxon OX8 5UW England Tel: +44 (0)1993 704050 Fax: +44 (0)1993 779203 Web: www.imagequest3d.com
RE: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
I am really enjoying the email on workflow and hope that others will post theirs. I remember Johnny Deadman offering to write down his workflow once, but it was just before I went offline for a few weeks and I never did get to see it. I find it enormously helpful to learn how folks go about digital scanning and printing, and it's sure to save me some time and frustration as I begin my own journey down this bumpy road. Dan
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme (LONG)
Johnny Deadman wrote: > Do minilabs read the emulsion type before printing neg? No. > I don't know exactly what you mean by "do mini-labs "read" emulsion types before printing negs" If you mean do they read for each subtle change of emulsion a manufacturer makes, then your answer is correct. If you mean do they have a starting point that is based upon the emulsion dye base, the answer USED TO BE absolutely. Our Noritsu unit had something like 32 "channels", each one was pre-programmed for a specific emulsion dye base. As new emulsions became available, I programmed them myself, if they weren't provided by the manufacturer. Today, I think newer machines just read the blank film area and make an automatic correction. With faster computers and more sophisticated software it is no longer really necessary to have a base filter pack programmed into the machine for each film type. That means they do not correct for difference responses of the emulsion layers, or characteristics of the color balance of the film, but just attempt to come up with a "zero" point, so that if you were to make a print for a 18% grey card, you'd get something approaching a print that looked like 18% grey. Unless one considers the sensitivity peculiarities of a specific film as a type of defect to be corrected for (all films suffer from their own versions of reciprocity errors, as well), then it would be best not to correct in complex profile of the film. Kodak used to offer two versions of scans for PCD. One was a base correction type that did not alter for film characteristics. The other was an averaging type that attempted to make all films look the same regardless of the emulsion type. The reason for this was simple. For a pro photog who wanted to maintain the integrity of the film's characteristics, the base type was good, but for a person creating a PCD presentation where they had multiple sources (different age, emulsions and film types -including maybe both slides and negs) and they wanted some consistency of color throughout the presentation, then the second type of scan made more sense. This is a philosophical issue. Some photogs simply are after repeatable results, and do not want to either play with or emphasize the film characteristics, while others want the scan to represent the film image, and have chosen (or accidentally) gotten a result that works with the specific emulsion characteristics. I know that sometimes an image has been pushed beyond my expectations due to the film doing something I wasn't anticipating, making it into a winner, while other times, upon reflection, I can look at an image and say "Gee, had I just used __ film instead, this would have been so much nicer." More often than that, I say "Gee, had I just bracketed that a bit more, or had I just waited for the lighting to change a bit more, or had I just not used that lens, or that angle or that processor (who put a scratch in the middle of it!)..." you get the idea... Although I haven't gotten to the point where I'm saying "Gee, if I had just remembered to recharge the batteries, put film in the camera, to remove the lens cap, or worse still, to bring my camera equipment!" I'm sure that will eventually happen. I have had one "gee, if I had just remembered to rewind the film into the cassette BEFORE opening the back of the camera, that would have been a really good idea (or works "to that effect" ) ;-) Actually, in case this happens to someone else (I'm SURE I'm the only photog who ever did it...) if you do happen to open the back of the camera before rewinding the film into the cassette (yes, I know, Canons work the other way around) Quickly slam the camera back shut. Believe it or not. Film is relatively opaque before processing, and although you will lose your last frames and have some edge light fogging, most of the frames will likely survive... really! Art Art
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme (LONG)
In a message dated 6/8/2001 8:11:44 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I remember reading something in the Vuescan manual which > said something about 'making the image look as much like the original scene > as possible'. In other words, applying a inverse H&D curve, presumably, plus > a custom base removal mask in the case of color neg. This seems absurd (the > first part, I mean) since if successful it makes all emulsions look the > same. This is exactly the design goal of PhotoCD, and it's a design goal of VueScan. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme(LONG)
on 6/10/01 6:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I remember reading something in the Vuescan manual which >> said something about 'making the image look as much like the original scene >> as possible'. In other words, applying a inverse H&D curve, presumably, > plus >> a custom base removal mask in the case of color neg. This seems absurd (the >> first part, I mean) since if successful it makes all emulsions look the >> same. > > This is exactly the design goal of PhotoCD, and it's a design > goal of VueScan. wow your design goal is to eliminate the specific characteristics of individual emulsions??? which we as photographers CHOOSE because we like the rendering??? genuinely speechless in Toronto -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme (LONG)
In a message dated 6/10/2001 9:23:24 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > your design goal is to eliminate the specific characteristics of individual > emulsions??? The design goal is to reproduce the actual scene as much as possible. Displaying the scene on a calibrated monitor should look like the original scene as much as possible. > which we as photographers CHOOSE because we like the rendering??? If you set the film terms to the default, the image should end up looking like the print you'd get back from Kodak. It's only if you set the film type to match the actual film that you'll end up matching the scene. Similarly with slide film, if you set "Device|Media type" to "Image" you'll get a scan that looks like the slide. If you set it to "Slide film", you'll get a scan that looks like the original scene. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme(LONG)
I take Ed's comment, that the goal is a *custom* base removal for that any particular film, and to make the image "look as much like the original scene as possible", means making it look like the original as captured by that particular film, but not making it look like the original as a generic person would see it. Otherwise, the different mask settings for the different films would seem to be spurious. Maris - Original Message - From: "Johnny Deadman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 9:18 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme(LONG) | on 6/10/01 6:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | >> I remember reading something in the Vuescan manual which | >> said something about 'making the image look as much like the original scene | >> as possible'. In other words, applying a inverse H&D curve, presumably, | > plus | >> a custom base removal mask in the case of color neg. This seems absurd (the | >> first part, I mean) since if successful it makes all emulsions look the | >> same. | > | > This is exactly the design goal of PhotoCD, and it's a design | > goal of VueScan. | | wow | | | your design goal is to eliminate the specific characteristics of individual | emulsions??? | | which we as photographers CHOOSE because we like the rendering??? | | | genuinely speechless in Toronto | | | | | -- | John Brownlow | | http://www.pinkheadedbug.com |
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme(LONG)
Maris wrote: >I take Ed's comment, that the goal is a *custom* base removal for that any >particular film, and to make the image "look as much like the original scene >as possible", means making it look like the original as captured by that >particular film, but not making it look like the original as a generic >person would see it. Otherwise, the different mask settings for the >different films would seem to be spurious. Conversly, i.e. the other side of the coin, is that one can use "Default" or "Image" as the original preview scan, and then use any one of the film-type profiles to alter the appearance of the picture, using the Scan Memory facility of Vuescan, regardless of what film you happened to be using that day (or in my case, what film "Whomever" happened to be using). :-) Seems to me, this gives an artistic photographer a lot more lattitude than just loading up the favorite film and banging away. Excuse me if I'm missing something here, but I've always thought that artistic expression was always enhanced by the artist's recognizing the value of "Happy Accident." Nothing against "total control" (I envy it), but sometimes the "suprise" is better that our plans. Not always, of course, but sometimes. :-) Best regards--LRA Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
