Professional Web Applications Themes

A very technical question about film and scanners. - Photography

We all use different films for different situations. So my question is this. Is there a common workflow using Adobe photoshop to preserve what was captured on the film without altering the colors or contrast?...

  1. #1

    Default A very technical question about film and scanners.

    We all use different films for different situations. So my question is this.
    Is there a common workflow using Adobe photoshop to preserve what was
    captured on the film without altering the colors or contrast?


    Bot-tastic Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    "Nicholas O. Lindan" <netcom.com> wrote... 

    How can one be sure that when one posts, the text reaches the NG
    without being altered and/or rearranged by the computers that
    participate in the transmission of the posting? Is there a way
    to stay away from the computer and still participate in newsgroup
    discussions? Are you sure that it was you who actually wrote that
    warning and not the computer?


    Victor Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    Bot-tastic writes:
     

    I don't understand the question.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    There is no "correct" color, only a best approximation based on your
    scanner/monitor/printer technical characteristics and your own color sense.
    If you are asking how to achieve a reasonable level of consistency in the
    process that raises the issue of color work-flow management. This is covered
    in confusing and mind-numbing detail in many Photoshop books.


    bmoag Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    "Silverfast" scanner software has inbuilt correction for different brands of
    film.
    Negative colour film has a red cast which equates to a green haze if
    scanned and inverted without colour correction for the film. Unfortunately
    *ALL* colour negative film *MUST* be colour corrected to display a picture
    without a colour cast.

    What you really need to do is shoot a grey card as frame 1 (helps avoid half
    exposed frame there too if you try to get extra from your film) and use this
    image to obtain a colour corrected setting for the film under Photoshop.
    Everything else will be a (hopefully) faithful representative of that colour
    balance. If you use 18% grey, this is what most exposure meters presume to
    be the ideal exposure. The colour balance should be constant all thru the
    film if the lighting has not changed.

    It's not until you use a highend digital camera in RAW mode that you realize
    how much exposure correction is done by a lab for you to receive nicely
    exposed prints. Contary to another posters suggestion that digitals make
    poor photographers... Digital has improved my understanding of what's going
    on and improved my skills with my film cameras.
    JT

    "Bot-tastic" <com> wrote in message
    news:qWgSa.35$%uswest.net... 
    this. 


    auspics Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.


    "Victor Bazarov" <com> wrote in message
    news:cthSa.99551$.. 
    >
    > How can one be sure that when one posts, the text reaches the NG
    > without being altered and/or rearranged by the computers that
    > participate in the transmission of the posting? Is there a way
    > to stay away from the computer and still participate in newsgroup
    > discussions? Are you sure that it was you who actually wrote that
    > warning and not the computer?
    >[/ref]

    taking your point further..
    How do we know reality appears to be what our senses tell us it is? Is
    there a way for our consciencness to interact with the physical reality
    around us without it being manipulated by our senses?

    bloody hell.. How much purity is enough?


    MonkeeBoy Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.


    "Nicholas O. Lindan" <netcom.com> wrote in message
    news:bfc781$tig$atl.mindspring.net... [/ref]
    this. 
    >
    > Yes, don't use Photoshop! Photoshop is for making alterations.
    >
    > Scan and save, making no adjustments in the scanning software. Turn off
    > any and all automation in the scanning software.
    >
    > Better yet - shoot slides and stay away from the computer. The computer
    > is just going to rearrange things for you to suit it's own whims.[/ref]

    Stay away from the computer? Hmmm. I suspect YOU stay away from the
    computer--which would explain your bullcrap advice (no offense
    intended...it's just that you're dead wrong here, in my view).

    Even high-level film scanners introduce an "interpretation" of color that
    nearly always requires some correction. If you just take it as is and store
    it, all you'll accomplish is to put off til later what you didn't correct in
    Photoshop today.
    Also... Photoshop won't do anything at all to the image if you don't want
    it to.


    Mark Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    Mark M writes:
     

    One of the most common complaints of traditional film photographers who
    move to digital is that they spend far too much time in front of a
    computer, and far less time taking pictures. Indeed, for some film
    photographers, this is one important reason why they remain with film.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    I have a series of tips about using a standardized
    workflow to produce prints that match what you see
    on screen.
    Take a look under the tips section on my home page.


    Bot-tastic wrote: 

    --
    Robert D Feinman
    net
    Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
    http://robertdfeinman.com

    Robert Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    "Rafe B." wrote:
     
    >
    > What is "higher specification image image editing software?"[/ref]

    Some software handles images in resolution independent modes. Other software
    features include full editing capabilities at the highest bit depth. LivePicture
    was one of these from the past, though it is no longer produced. Some other ones
    are Caldera Cameleo is one of these, with all functions possible in 16 bit colour,
    or even in the CMYK space, areas that are more limited in PhotoShop. Higher up
    would also be Alias StudioTools (actually several solutions and configurations),
    though the 3D features are the primary emphasis. The older Alias Studio Paint
    program was one of the past software solutions I have used. There are others,
    though you may notice that most of these do not run on Windows, nor MacOS, nor on
    Mac OS X. None of them cold be considered affordable, unless you find a good deal
    on a used copy of LivePicture.

    There are also some industry colour solutions that maintain colour accuracy from
    scanning through soft proofing and display, to the final print. Barco, Creo, Scitex
    and others make several solutions, though most require dedicated hardware. The idea
    behind many of these is that the edits are mostly colour adjustments for printing,
    and the software/hardware solutions are integrated.

    The beauty of PhotoShop is that it is affordable, runs on several platforms, and
    easily integrates to a variety of other output solutions. PhotoShop has become an
    industry standard due to the flexibility of uses. Even for high end professional
    output, it should be more than enough for 90% of almost any workflow. The high
    usefulness is some of the reason you rarely here about other products, and why some
    of those products are no longer produced, or are quite expensive.
     

    Absolutely. You would be surprised (shocked, maybe) at the number of times I have
    seen someone take a high priced drum scan, and just start altering it, and never
    save the original scan. Establishing good work flows can only help later work.
     

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>




    Gordon Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    Havn't quoted anything, post's too long already! just wanted to add my 2
    cents.
    For the purist, just ignore photoshop and the scanner. take you film to
    the local 1 hour lab. Oops did I just say take your film to the 1 hr lab?
    Where it will be put in computerized machines which are set for "average"
    exposures. Average, meaning that the machines computer thinks you really
    want all that detail in the background, so you really dont want nice skin
    tones on that model in the foreground. I've been involved with photography
    and image processing, in an ameutur way, for 40 years. I gladly replaced my
    chemicals and darkroom enlarger for all the control that a Computer and
    scanner give you.
    By the way if you want your data to remain pure, Use Ed Hammrick's
    Vuescan. A great program and save your scans in RAW mode that hasn't changed
    one detail in your negative www.vuescan.com . Don't tell him I sent you, he
    doesn't know me from Adam's housecat.
    Paul :)

    --




    Paul Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    > > Even high-level film scanners introduce an "interpretation" of color
    that 
    >
    > Agreed: the scanner s it up, the computer tries to un and[/ref]
    introduces 
    computer. 

    You are one confusing little poster.
    How about making up your mind.

    Here's what you said...
    "Scan and save, making no adjustments in the scanning software. Turn off
    any and all automation in the scanning software."

    Now you're saying don't scan at all?
    Make up your mind, and perhaps we'll begin to understand each other here.


    Mark Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    "Mark M" <net>
     

    Did it ever occur to you there's more than one problem, cause
    and solution to any issue? "If you scan, do the least. Better
    yet, don't scan at all."
     

    Just who do you think you are?
     

    I understand you.

    But you understanding me, it's just not in the cards, is it?

    Please be so kind to put me in your kill file, you are going in mine.

    --
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio netcom.com
    Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
    Nicholas Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    Peter Chant wrote:
     
    > >
    > > Some software handles images in resolution independent modes. Other software
    > > features include full editing capabilities at the highest bit depth. LivePicture
    > > was one of these from the past, though it is no longer produced. Some other ones
    > > are Caldera Cameleo is one of these, with all functions possible in 16 bit colour,
    > > or even in the CMYK space, areas that are more limited in PhotoShop. Higher up[/ref]
    >
    > Hopefully computers will get quicker and memory will grow faster than
    > digital imaging resolution.[/ref]

    That would be nice. However, since I am involved in pre-press preparation, and
    printing, those technologies are the current limits that need to be met.
     

    They are octets, which are just convenient multipliers. True number storage, in
    computational form, is a basis for vector artwork. One good example of that is EPS
    format, though the E part is actually the raster image representation of the true item,
    and is easier for a computer to display.
     

    It is one of the ideas, and developments of Mac OS X, though it is still not used as
    effectively as it should be used. This was a development of display PostScript, as used
    on the NeXT computers. Some of the technology is based upon Adobe PostScript language,
    though the current use is not appropriate for some image formats. My hope is that this
    will be improved in the future, and may show some benefits in image editing.

    Unfortunately, with photograph images in digital form, these are restricted to square
    pixels. The Fuji idea of non square pixels is novel, but without dedicated software, or
    displays that are non square pixel in nature, that technology is not as effective as
    possible.

    If the future brings display technology that more closely matches the random patterning
    of screen modulation variable printing, then that would be wonderful imaging
    technology. Unfortunately, for now we are stuck with some affordable systems, and a
    handful of higher specification solutions.
     

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>


    Gordon Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    In article <net>,
    Gordon Moat <net> writes: 
    >
    > They are octets, which are just convenient multipliers. True number storage, in
    > computational form, is a basis for vector artwork. One good example of that is EPS
    > format, though the E part is actually the raster image representation of the true item,
    > and is easier for a computer to display.
    >[/ref]

    I think more or less we are thinking of similar things, but I what I
    really meant rather than vector graphics was representing a pixel by:

    red(float)green(float)blue(float) or CMYK, or LAB or whatever colour
    system is appropriate.

    As for non-sqaure pixels, unless you want them rectangular it is not
    easy on a CRT unless there is something I am missing.

    --
    co.uk
    http://www.petezilla.co.uk

    Peter Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    Peter Chant wrote:
     
    > >
    > > They are octets, which are just convenient multipliers. True number storage, in
    > > computational form, is a basis for vector artwork. One good example of that is EPS
    > > format, though the E part is actually the raster image representation of the true item,
    > > and is easier for a computer to display.
    > >[/ref]
    >
    > I think more or less we are thinking of similar things, but I what I
    > really meant rather than vector graphics was representing a pixel by:
    >
    > red(float)green(float)blue(float) or CMYK, or LAB or whatever colour
    > system is appropriate.[/ref]

    Sure, I see where you are headed. Might be something for one of the engineering groups.
     

    Rectangular would be represented in video. Actually, one of the tougher workflows is taking
    still images, and setting them up for proper display on video. This is square pixels
    converted to rectangular pixels, and necessary for round objects to appear round (for
    example). While using a non-zooming image is simple enough, larger images that are panned
    and zoomed become a bit more work.

    Anyway, that was a bit off topic. My hope is that some future display technology escapes the
    current pixel shapes. Hexagons might be nice, if there is a need to remain geometric, though
    overlapping layers of circles, or something, might be another direction. I really have no
    idea if anyone is even considering this direction, but I think it would be interesting.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>

    Gordon Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    Philip Homburg wrote:
     
    >
    > Image manipulation algorithms do not really care whether pixels are square
    > or rectangular, and whether the grid is rotated by 45 degrees or not.[/ref]

    Well, the Fuji idea of hexagonal shapes might make an interesting display grid concept.
    However, I have no idea if that is considered for future displays, or even possible.
     

    So much is evolutionary, with ever increasing resolution, and faster screen redrawing.
    Still, there is a need with printing to see proof prints, or press proofs. While I am able
    to use soft proofing for some projects, it would be nice to be able to rely on it for all
    projects. The other issue is the RGB display gamut limitations, though I would be surprised
    if those are improved in the near future.
     

    Well, we were just speculating on the future. Getting away from proofing would be nice, but
    it is not reliable enough for some current work. With printing, the RIP often is the final
    "resample", and the only reliable (current technology) proof is a press proof.

    CRTs can be good for colour previewing, but I switched to all LCD about three years ago. It
    is easier on the eyes to work on an LCD, even if the colour gamut is not as wide.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>

    Gordon Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    In article <net>,
    Gordon Moat <net> wrote: 
    >
    >Well, the Fuji idea of hexagonal shapes might make an interesting display grid concept.[/ref]

    As far as I can tell, Fuji still uses a rectangular grid. A real hexagonal
    grid (with angles of 120 degrees instead of 90 degress) will be
    interesting from a mathematical point of view. But I doubt that you gain
    anything over a rectangular grid.
     

    What's the point? Display technology is quite capable of exceeding the
    resolution of human vision.
     
    >
    >So much is evolutionary, with ever increasing resolution, and faster screen redrawing.
    >Still, there is a need with printing to see proof prints, or press proofs. While I am able
    >to use soft proofing for some projects, it would be nice to be able to rely on it for all
    >projects. The other issue is the RGB display gamut limitations, though I would be surprised
    >if those are improved in the near future.[/ref]

    The gamut of a display is independent of the shape of the pixels. Trying to
    change both at the same time doesn't seem very productive.

    Some kind of subtractive technology may be necessary to match output of
    paper.
     
    >
    >Well, we were just speculating on the future. Getting away from proofing would be nice, but
    >it is not reliable enough for some current work. With printing, the RIP often is the final
    >"resample", and the only reliable (current technology) proof is a press proof.[/ref]

    Well, for printing, the pixel shape of the image capture device doesn't
    really matter. The main thing is that the print resolution is high enough.
     

    I like the LCD screen on my desk at work for text. I don't like it at
    all for judging photos. As always, newer models are supposed to be better.





    Philip Homburg
    Philip Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    Philip Homburg wrote:
     
    > >
    > >Well, the Fuji idea of hexagonal shapes might make an interesting display grid concept.[/ref]
    >
    > As far as I can tell, Fuji still uses a rectangular grid. A real hexagonal
    > grid (with angles of 120 degrees instead of 90 degress) will be
    > interesting from a mathematical point of view. But I doubt that you gain
    > anything over a rectangular grid.[/ref]

    Here is an often published image that leads me to think it is not rectangular:

    <http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S2/CCDRESL.JPG>

    It could be the shapes are an attempt to explain the technology, rather than the actual shapes.
    They claim an advantage, but . . . .
     
    >
    > What's the point? Display technology is quite capable of exceeding the
    > resolution of human vision.[/ref]

    Rather than resolution differences, possibly some colour display advantage, or less of an
    aliasing problem. If the current technology is as good as it gets, then that means there is no
    more development being done. Somehow, I think there may still be improvements, though perhaps
    none in resolution.
     
    > >
    > >So much is evolutionary, with ever increasing resolution, and faster screen redrawing.
    > >Still, there is a need with printing to see proof prints, or press proofs. While I am able
    > >to use soft proofing for some projects, it would be nice to be able to rely on it for all
    > >projects. The other issue is the RGB display gamut limitations, though I would be surprised
    > >if those are improved in the near future.[/ref]
    >
    > The gamut of a display is independent of the shape of the pixels. Trying to
    > change both at the same time doesn't seem very productive.[/ref]

    Perhaps, but what would prevent separate groups from pursuing different research goals? It is
    not like only one company, or even one individual, might be working on improvement. Of course,
    like you implied, all might be at the pinnacle of development, and there may be no further
    improvements possible.
     

    We keep hearing about OLEP technology, though very few products use it. Perhaps this is one
    future direction, though hard to tell what possible benefits so far. With small display
    devices, like phones, and car stereos, this technology is already in use, though mostly cost
    savings are the obvious early benefit. It might be limited technology as well, and no future
    improvements.
     
    > >
    > >Well, we were just speculating on the future. Getting away from proofing would be nice, but
    > >it is not reliable enough for some current work. With printing, the RIP often is the final
    > >"resample", and the only reliable (current technology) proof is a press proof.[/ref]
    >
    > Well, for printing, the pixel shape of the image capture device doesn't
    > really matter. The main thing is that the print resolution is high enough.[/ref]

    The shape of the output spot can be varied by different printing methods. Collotype is an
    example of printing without spots, though there are some other more modern similar techniques.
    The frequency and amount of output spots are other variables. It could be that there are too
    many variables with printing to point one direction.
     
    >
    > I like the LCD screen on my desk at work for text. I don't like it at
    > all for judging photos. As always, newer models are supposed to be better.[/ref]

    Some of the newer LCDs are quite nice, and improved over early versions. However, there is
    still a need to verify 100% Cyan, 100% Yellow, and several other colour ranges by digitally
    sampling, and looking at the numbers. Only the proof print comes close to the final prints, and
    regardless of display, all displays are colour accuracy limited.

    Ciao!

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    <http://www.allgstudio.com>

    Gordon Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: A very technical question about film and scanners.

    Great feedback from everyone. Thanks. Imagine it dosn't make a difference at
    all as long as "I" like it and at least One other person likes it. Mabye
    people just like preservation. To preserve what is existing and not to move
    to something new. Mabye people just like to see something special at the end
    of all the endless technical jargon and a hard days work. I would just like
    to say that I enjoy experincing life and what is all around me.




    Bot-tastic Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Photoshop technical question
    By Nick Blahna in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 28th, 03:37 AM
  2. Film Scanners
    By Paul Handley in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 1st, 08:07 PM
  3. 620 film question
    By ops in forum Photography
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 1st, 02:13 AM
  4. Help - 35mm digital film scanners
    By o r b s c u r e DDJ in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 11th, 07:09 PM
  5. Film Question?
    By Rob Wild in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 27th, 12:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139