HiYa Pete and Everyone, My intended Scanning Methodology - Seperate from my Media Storage Options - is something like this. I've only done a 50 image or so 'test' run to sort out file size and physical process considerations at this point. Some of this is based on some comparative tests of various 'scanner driver' options.
TIFF with internal compression OFF Photograph Fronts: 600 DPI Resolution 24 BIT Color Depth Digital ICE OFF - It's mucking much more than it's fixing. Unsharp Mask (in scanner software) at the High Setting because it appears to be a well behaved and subtle implementation in my testing up to this point. Photograph Backs: 300 DPI Resolution 8 Bit Grey Scale Unsharp Mask set to High All images receive Levels Adjustments Set Manually. The sliders for each color channel are tweaked individually so the sliders are just past the Highest and Lowest Point on the Histogram Display for Each Channel - ie the darkest/dimmest value is changed from zero to 9 if the scans histogram shows no info below 10. I am cautious about overpowering a particular channels level adjustments and making an image look 'wierd'. I believe this is called manually clipping the highlights and shadows. I can find very little 'standards or good practices' info via google or yahoo searches. This is just how I've learned to go about getting good scan results since my first encounter with a grayscale only flatbed back in the early nineties! I'm scanning Fronts and Backs using the scanners auto name and numbering setup to coordinate The front and back of image scans in my files. I am using a file name system of '12-15-08 Scans - Back -005.tif' where the Date describes the date the scan was made on, if it's the front or back, and 005 is the 5th image scanned that day. The physical process is that I arrange the photos on the scanner, do the multiple marquee's for the different images with attendant Levels adjustments, hit SCAN and verify the file name is correct and so is the auto number start point. After the fronts finish scanning, I carefully flip the images, switch to greyscale and lower resolution, and make sure the file name is changed and the auto number start point is rolled back to the right point. My theory is to scan the fronts and backs in order to capture things written on the backs of the photo's themselves. I am physically scanning ALL the backs - even those with nothing marked on them - because it was more efficient to just flip the images over to scan all the backs with a filename and auto number adjustment than coordinate which image with stuff written on it matched up with which file name and number and manually set each name for each scan that needed to be made. By scanning every damn picture back it makes it a lot simpler and faster to get the file names right, if I muff the filename having scanned the back becomes totally meaningless as source of information. Also scanning ALL of them helps avoid missing photo backs that I want scanned. At the conclusion I intend to simply delete all the scans of photo backs nobody wrote anything on. :-) This is the extent of my plan to this point. I'll be kicking off the scanning soon, so valuable suggestions on this side of my project would be really cool so I don't have to rescan stuff! :-) My Intention/Plan is to have 'picture naming' memory parties with various family members in order to view the photo's and add the appropriate info to the image files. Each images specific info will be kept integrat to each specific image file. I haven't researched the exact way to put the info in the tiff's themselves, but I'm feeling confident that the EXIF info I love in my Digital Photography are part of an international standards setup and I can easily access and use that process using Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, and the like. This whole name/date/event side of the project is a work in progress at this point. Richard > Worth bearing in mind is the effect of differing colour profiles - an > image which has been optimised on a monitor in the sRGB colourspace will > look very different on a monitor which uses a wider profile like the Adobe > wide Gamut space - as the channel/level info will be recalculated up to suit > and similarly the other way - data from a wider colourspace is shrunk - or > in the case of absolute colorimetric dumped - to fit the smaller space. > I don't actually use the Fuji Pro black discs for image storage at all - > I use them for Red Book CD Audio - and no coasters or failures yet though I > imagine audio is the most punishing use of CDR - in and out of jewel cases > etc > > Pete --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to g3-5-list-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
