On 15 May 2005 at 16:24, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > What the heck does that mean? That's a pretty strongly qualified > statement, Rob. I have NEVER seen a scanner that didn't, in some way, > reduce the quality of the original negative. If it didn't, why would there > be a > need to sharpen the results, or to adjust color to make the scan look like the > slide or the print, or adjust curves. There is more to making a photograph > than > just contrast and color. Even if the results through all the manipulation are > excellent, it just seems odd to go through what seems like a series of > destructive and reconstructive steps only to end up back where you started.
A 16bit per/colour channel scanner combined with a work-space with a 16bit wide gamut work-space should be able to record and manipulate all the data in well processed film. How the recorded data is represented on screen/print relative to actual visual colour and contrast depends heavily upon the accurate calibration of the scanner. You shouldn't need to adjust colour, curves or contrast on a calibrated system other than to compensate for exposure and uncompensated lighting variations and film batch variations (assuming that you don't calibrate your system for every film as should be done by any pedant). As I mentioned in other words before the degree of destruction of a digital image depends a lot on the working environment you choose. It's much like analogue imaging systems, use the wrong developer and you'll end up with the correct film density but you may loose shadow detail etc. IOW you have to know what you are doing before you can blame the process or equipment. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
