You may be right that it merely is a calibration issue, but could it
be that some of your shadow detail is actually being clipped on the
scan? One of the problems with most "affordable" scanners is the
limited dynamic range (Dmax 3.0 or less), in effect meaning that you
cannot scan detail in the very densest parts of a colour
transparency. And some media, especially Velvia can be very dense.
This problem can be transferred to the highlight areas of negatives,
but they usually have a much lower Dmax than transparencies.
Tim Mimpriss
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bond, Alistair" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 3:03 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Poor shadows - Monitor limitations?
> Hi folks!
>
> I'm trying to work out whether a particular issue is to do with my
> monitor or not. Slide scans made with my Minolta Elite normally
look
> pretty good without any further adjustment in Photoshop: sometimes a
> little dark but colours are generally fairly accurate and saturated
> and contrast is nice and punchy.
>
> I'm happy until I look at slides on the lightbox - highlights and
the
> upper midtones are spot on but the lower midtones and shadows are
all
> a bit brighter on the light box and, as a result, the detail in
these
> areas is more obvious than on the screen. However, if I use curves,
> levels etc to bring up the shadows, I lose contrast and saturation
and
> can never get it looking quite right again.
>
> It could, of course, be my ham fisted use of Photoshop's tools but
I'm
> wondering if it could be a limitation of my monitor, especially as
it
> is an ageing 14". It's a DDC monitor and one of the Matrox drivers
> for my G400 (Vbext.exe I think from memory) loads on startup and
> reports that it will user the DDC settings supplied by the monitor.
I
> have calibrated the system using Adobe gamma (with the monitor
> contrast set to maximum and the brilliance set to minimum) and
images
> in Adobe 1998 in Photoshop look fairly close to the sRGB version of
> the same image displayed in a non-ICC savvy viewer. So I think it
is
> reasonably well calibrated now.
>
> I did try calibrating it as an alternative using the 6 colour
patches
> instead on Pete Andrew's photoscentia site but I couldn't get them
all
> balanced. The best I could do did show shadow detail well but the
> overall gamma was way too high with poor contrast as a result.
> (Incidentally Pete what colour space were the patches created in?)
>
> I am actively looking for a new monitor but am I being too
optimistic
> in hoping that it might resolve this?
>
>
>
> Al Bond
>
>
