[filmscanners] Re: Scanning with too much resolution? (was:PSsharpening...)
I think the two images were published in reverse order relevant to the caption. ...Bob - Original Message - From: Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:48 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanning with too much resolution? (was:PSsharpening...) I took a close look at those two horse images in the PDF file on page 280, by magnifying the PDF as much as possible, so that the individual pixels were easily visible as squares. What I found was that the image that he said had been scanned at a higher resolution was actually rendered in the document with exactly half the resolution. I don't know what's going on here, but that's not a fair comparison. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Julian Vrieslander It's from Dan Margulis' book Professional Photoshop. A couple of the chapters are available on the web. Earlier in this thread, Preston Earle posted a link to one of them: http://www.ledet.com/margulis/PP6_Chapter14.pdf Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
I apologize if I'm getting into some else's discussion, but I suggest the following: 1. make the top layer active and choose blend mode screen 2. move the opacity to 30-40 % 3. you can make further adjustments on adjustment layers added to each of the two scans. I'm assuming you have the two layers registered, this can be checked by using blend mode difference temporarily (the image should go black). Bob Wright - Original Message - From: S Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 2:45 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan Maris, Having layered two such images, I am not clear how to blend them. I have a similar situation in which shadow detail is lost in many small regions of the image. I tried layering the dark on the light and erasing parts of the dark layer where I wanted the shadow detail to show through. Is that what you meant? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan Try making 2 scans - one optimized for the highlights and one for the dark area, and then layer them. Maris On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:01:17 -0800 Ken Durling wrote: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
It doesn't make any difference which layer is on top, but they must me separate scans, one optimized for shadows and one for highlights. Contrast masking is a more advanced and more powerful option but requires selecting a channel for an illumination mask and then using an adjustment layer with the illumination mask to make contrast adjustments.The trick then becomes selecting the right channel and maybe inverting it to achieve the desired result. Experiement with dragging the desired channel to the load channel as a selection icon on the channels palette, then go to layers palette and select an adjustment layer (levels or curves). A mask is automatically made to the adjustment layer. This mask can be inverted, painted on, or otherwise adjusted. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 8:52 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan Being endlessly interested in contrast taming, I just tried this but obviously I am missing something because I can't get it to work. I certainly don't understand how it works, mostly because I don't know what screen does :( Is the technique assuming the dark or light image on top, or doesn't it matter? It does remind me though of the other semi-automatic way of improving high contrast images which works quite well, although if overused gives some strange effects on the light-dark transitions and at the edge of image. Contrast masking... - Image needs to be in 8-bit which is a shame. - duplicate it into a second layer - desaturate top layer and invert (make it a negative of itself) - select OVERLAY as mode - gaussian blur this top layer to 20-70pixels until you get the best effect - reduce the effect if necessary by reducing transparency of top layer Julian At 12:07 08/01/02, you wrote: I apologize if I'm getting into some else's discussion, but I suggest the following: 1. make the top layer active and choose blend mode screen 2. move the opacity to 30-40 % 3. you can make further adjustments on adjustment layers added to each of the two scans. I'm assuming you have the two layers registered, this can be checked by using blend mode difference temporarily (the image should go black). Bob Wright - Original Message - From: S Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 2:45 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Tips needed on difficult scan Maris, Having layered two such images, I am not clear how to blend them. I have a similar situation in which shadow detail is lost in many small regions of the image. I tried layering the dark on the light and erasing parts of the dark layer where I wanted the shadow detail to show through. Is that what you meant? Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 9:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan Try making 2 scans - one optimized for the highlights and one for the dark area, and then layer them. Maris On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 00:01:17 -0800 Ken Durling wrote: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- - Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Editing application
- Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 8:42 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Editing application What would you recommend as the most comprehensive image editing application (software) considering resource/performance ? Comprehensive? = Photoshop 6.0 I'm trying to evaluate what image evaluation/editing software would provide me with best, yet simple managing taking the least amount of system resources possible. Photoshop is probably the most famous, however I suspect it is quite heavy in use (considering my beginning level) and might be quite resource-hungry by itself (memory). cinsidering my beginning level still = Photoshop. None of these programs are supported by tutorial information to the extant that Photoshop is. What about Paint Shop Pro ? I was advised to try it out instead of Photoshop... Paint Shop Pro? Depends on your purpose, print or video? I believe Paint Shop Pro does not support color management. You might be better off with Corel Photo Paint or Picture Window. My comment above regarding tutorial support still applies though. I started with Photo Paint (version 6) and used Photoshop tutorials to learn. I believe the added effort to convert instructions from Photoshop to Photo Paint reinforced understanding of the process. After I took a formal class using Photoshop, I went to Photoshop (version 4 at the time) and have stuck with it since. Bob Wright Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
filmscanners: Vuescan Strategy
Many of the recent suggestions make me question the strategy behind Vuescan. This is certainly up to Ed Hamrick, but my long time understandinghas beenthat the aim was to create a scanned image file that gave the maximum image data for adjustment in an image editor. In no case would I expect any scanner software to produce the final image file (barring those that I would discard as losers anyway). Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Correction for daylight slides with artificial light
1- Pick the color of a white structure (I choose a ceiling near a fluorescent light); 2 - Aplly an overlay layer with the inverse of this color. Try changing the blend mode of the overlay layer to color and adjusting the opacity to taste (maybe 50%). Bob This makes a filter that I can apply to the other slides (as a starting point) much better than all my other tries. While it cannot correct for the uneven illumination, results are very agreable and also very plausible.
Re: filmscanners: Gizmo to make flatbed scan large format film?
If you want to experiement, here's a hint: http://www.afn.org/~afn11300/slides.html Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 6:08 PM Subject: filmscanners: Gizmo to make flatbed scan large format film? Hi everyone, don't laugh too hard, please, but is there something that could turn my flatbed (IBM brand) scanner into a half-way acceptable large format film scanner? Thanks, Herb
Re: filmscanners: Polacolor Histogram
Can't really say about Polacolor, but in Photoshop you Control_mouse_click the dropper. rew - Original Message - From: Gerry Kaslowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:40 PM Subject: filmscanners: Polacolor Histogram What am I doing wrong that I can't get the Histogram buttons for the eyedropper to un-dim ??? Seems simple, but I cant find it. Help only says to hit the buttons. Gerry Kaslowski
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan
Do not have both scanner drivers running simultaneously. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Peter Marquis-Kyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 7:47 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Steve Woolfenden wrote I just downloaded a trial version of vuescan and cant get it to work - presumably it should work without uninstalling nikonscan ? Your presumption is correct. I have had Nikonscan (various versions) and Vuescan (lots of versions) living happily together under Win 95, Win 98SE, Win 2000. Peter Marquis-Kyle
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/articles.html He expects you to use CMYK but you can see through it. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Norman Unsworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 7:37 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? Curves always seems to get the nod as the most sensitive / accurate to make color adjustment. I have to admit I'm terrible at it. Anyone know of a good online tutorial for working with curves? Norm Unsworth, Owner CS Golf (formerly Clark Systems Custom Golf) Outstanding Quality and Value in Custom Golf Equipment 609 641 5712 Please send email to me at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit our Web Site at http://members.home.net/csgolf Lynn writes: ... it struck me that adjusting Green in *Levels* would move the blue in Bear more toward turquoise and yet leave the white snow relatively white. And it does. Curves are better than Levels for this sort of thing. Levels works kind of like curves, but with a fixed shape to the curve, whereas Curves lets you define an exact shape of your own. There are situations in which this is handy, as you might want to (for example) crank blue in the shadows, but not touch it in the highlights, or something like that. However, these settings can't be saved in PS-LE ... Sounds like they've removed exactly the stuff that people might want most once they get used to the product.
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
- Original Message - From: Robert Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:51 PM Subject: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1 and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. Now these same photographers, as all others, say MF is absolutely necessary for the big enlargments. This seems to be a contradiction as the digital cameras mentioned only produce approx. a 6M*12bit=9Mbyte file compared to about (2*4000)^2*36bit=274Mbytes for a 4000dpi scan or approx 1000Mbytes assuming film has an 'equivalent' of about 8000dpi. Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need 24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20, i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and throughs their MF scannera away to go digital? ...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes... 6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 bytes/pixel it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8. Bob Wright Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding photographer and commercial photographers is? Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
- Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 3:14 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography ...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes... 6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 bytes/pixel it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8. Bob Wright Er, no. That would be 144M BITS, not bytes, which is 24M Bytes... Mea coupa! But still greater than 6 Mbytes.
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?
I don't think PS LE allows access to individual channels in the curves dialog. In the full version you can select the color channel in the curves dialog and control click(PC) on a point in the image, then change the output level to the desired amount. Do this to each of the color channels before clicking OK and you will have adjusted the image as you are suggesting. If the adjustment is really great, I suspect you might get some wild results, but this is the method commonly used to adjust flesh tones. In most cases you probably would use a color sampler and input the sampler's tones and output the desired tones in each channel. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:29 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? Anthony wrote: I'm not sure ... what do you mean by reference color? OK, I'm probably not using the proper terminology here. I mean that if I select color R=0/G=181/B=145 (which may or may not approximate the general hue and brightness of Rob's turquoise slide--I'm working from color-memory of a limestone-sand lagoon in the Bahamas), can I not then suggest to Photoshop in one of the color-correction adjustments that *this* is the color that I want at this certain point, and to key the entire picture or selection to that color point? Does that make sense? I thought I'd seen this capability in a PS manual or here on the list, but I might be mistaken. I've only used the full version of PS, so I'm not sure what Adobe removes in the LE version. Not enough to cripple its usability, but enough to frustrate a user into the middle of next week, sometimes. I don't know that their newer Essentials version is any better. At least one version, which came bundled with one of my periphs, is a toy program that's also incompatible with several other real programs, and no longer on my HD. Best regards--LRA Original message: From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 05:35:52 +0200 Lynn writes: Isn't there also a way to select a color in Photoshop, either from the screen or from the palette, and tell it This is the reference color for *that* area? I'm not sure ... what do you mean by reference color? I've only used the full version of PS, so I'm not sure what Adobe removes in the LE version. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?
- Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 2:24 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? Isn't there also a way to select a color in Photoshop, either from the screen or from the palette, and tell it This is the reference color for *that* area? I mean, of course, without painting it all in one flat color? It seems I found that in a manual once, but it got away from me and I can't find it again. :-( Best regards--LRA If you paint in blend mode color, you change the color without affecting tone. Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?
Appears you would find Chapters 10 and 11 of Professional Photoshop 6 by Dan Margulis interesting. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 6:30 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? Obviously the wider the working colour space the more chance that most of the colours of each real world colour space are represented and hence why not sRGB, but I can' t help thinking that we will only ever achieve a reasonable match unless printers, scanners, monitors and eyes improve their colour gamut too. Steve - Original Message - From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 2:02 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? So what's the colour gamut of the average human eye and how much variance is there between people's perception ? I bizarrely found during the colour blind discussion that I could change the hue of some of the colour charts such that I (CB) could very clearly see the correct number on the chart and so called normal people could see nothing but dots. It rather makes me wonder if we are metaphorically chasing the Holy Grail. I use AdobeRGB and feel I get quite a good match on the 1270 with Epson papers when printing from PS. I can also get prerceptually decent results from my digicam with slightly different driver settings without the colour matching. I have however sometimes seen posturisation on digicam pictures from the Epson that have been converted to AdobeRGB before editting and subsequent printing. It all seems to be a bit of a mess. We have one set of colours for each of the following: 1) scanner 2) monitor 3) printer 4) human eye - which is uncalibrated and has wild variations from one too another. None of them match up - each has some colours that are not seen by other devices/people. We then have an artificial mediator in the middle (the processing colour space eg Adobe RGB) which also has colours that are not seen by any of the other 4 and the 4) also have colours that can not be represented by the processing colour space. We then do 8 bit conversions (theres bound to be some inaccuracy here) from one colour space to another where neither can represent the other in it's entirety. Perhaps we should be amazed that we ever get a good match. Steve - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 10:34 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? Laurie, Are you sure about that? I don't know, but I suspect that the 4-color general/business application inkjets also print colors outside of the sRGB color space, primarily because, in general, some ink colors are outside of the colors visible on the monitor just as some colors visible on the monitor are not printable using normal printing processes, i.e. inkjets. Maris - Original Message - From: LAURIE SOLOMON [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 12:49 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? | shAf, | What the original poster fails to take into account and you failed to point | out is that not all Epson inkjet printer are the same just as not all HP | inkjets are the same. Some are 4 color general/business application | printers while others are photo application printers (4 or 6 color). They | do not all have the same color gamut. The lower end general /business color | printers probably do not need a larger gamut than sRBG; whereas the higher | end photo printers may produce much higher quality outputs with the larger | color gamut. Obviously one can print on any color inkjet with the narrower | sRBG gamut; and in that sense it is suitable for all inkjets; however that | does not make it optimum for all inkjets. :-) | | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf | Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 7:27 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? | | | Steve writes ... | | Many people on this list use Epson printers that supposedly | work with sRGB. | If you don't use external printing services or if the | external service you use have their printing set-up to | sRGB then why not use sRGB. | Everytime you convert to or from one colour profile to | another you have the potential to mess up your print | If your end target is sRGB (which includes web work) why | not just work in sRGB? | | If you have absolutely no need for a color space with a larger gamut | than sRGB, then you may as well be using it ... archive to target. But I | believe you're wrong about sRGB being the suitable color space
Re: filmscanners: Bypassing the scanner software filters and getting the raw data?
I think the driver software allows adjustment to exposure, color channel by color channel, and thus provides better correction, especially for negatives. I don't think the actual hardware output is fixed, the final scan is performed after you make adjustments in the driver. Other than color negative reversal, I believe most of the concern about doing corrections in the driver software vs subsequent adjustment in an image editor is addressed by editing 16 bit per channel files. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Mark Edmonds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 11:52 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Bypassing the scanner software filters and getting the raw data? Yes, one of the reasons behind me asking the question. The Minolta software is fine for simple adjustments but only enables you to preview on small lo-res scans. I'd much rather work on the full scan in something like Photopaint (What?! someone who doesn't use Photoshop and actually likes Photopaint?! I must be mad!). I'd be interested in knowing what the reasons are for prefering adjustment in the scanning software as opposed to the main paint program. If the actual hardware output is fixed, then surely it doesn't matter which you adjust in - it just comes down to which package enables you to get the best results. Mark I tend to agree with you--if you're going to correct in the image program, what's the point of correcting in the driver program? Or vice-versa? OTOH, not all programs are equal. Best regards--LRA
Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 1:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as I know. In Photoshop, when you save as TIF, you will get a dialog re. byte order and a check box for LZW compression. Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: problem with monitor
I'd suggest you check household power quality. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 12:28 PM Subject: filmscanners: problem with monitor Electronic devices are hopeless. Every month some electronic devices in my household refuse to work properly. This week: a monitor. The image on the screen just started to shrink suddenly at times in every direction 2, maybe 3 mm or just shrink horizontally. Additionally sometimes the screen "jerks" (I'm afraid I'm afraid I might not find the proper word). My simple question is: is it the monitor or rather the graphic card at fault? My monitor is LG Flatron 795FT Plus my graphic card, hmm... don't know, some card is Riva TNT2 M64 32MB AGP. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski
Re: filmscanners: Re: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly
- Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:43 PM Subject: filmscanners: Re: autolevels was re: filmscanners: Vuescan blue anomaly Maris wrote: Sometimes you can't use anything - rather than using the eyedropper you just have to guestimate - trial and error - until the number for a near-white spot are near-white but not-quite-white numbers. OK, let me rephrase the question slightly - isn't the intention of the black and white point to define where the minimum and maximum brightness points are? If so, why is a point of sun reflection in a photograph not a good point to use for the white point? Because it's not representative of the majority of the image? Rob Generally when using the eyedroppers in Levels or Curves they are set to output target values. The black point is generally short of absolute black and the actual number represents an ink limit based on the media planned for output. The white dropper is generally set to a point less than completely white (nothing printed). When you then use the white dropper, you are defining the level of that point to the preset values, and all whiter points will be completely blown out. Therefore if the white dropper is set to RGB 244 (for example) you don't want to select a bright reflection that should be RGB 255. Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
- Original Message - From: Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 6:31 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED David, when using Photoshop, if you convert the image to LAB mode (Image|Mode|Lab Color) then you will find that you can USM in the Lightness channel without touching colour. Then convert back to RGB or CMYK when you're done. Jawed True, but avoid the mode change by Fading the USM filter choosing Luminosity as the mode. Bob
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
Well, that brings up a whole new subject. Since your are going to convert to 8 bit mode for final output, I think that better than doing Mode changes, although I'm not put out much by that either. Such discussions (16 bit editing vs 8 bit, and mode changes back and forth) are too much theory and to little actual perception in the image. Bob - Original Message - From: Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 4:48 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED Ah, you have to be in 8-bit mode to do the fade - something I avoid like the plague... Still that's nice, PS making a virtual layer for you for the last operation. Hmm... Jawed -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert E. Wright Sent: 06 July 2001 18:58 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED - Original Message - From: Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 6:31 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED David, when using Photoshop, if you convert the image to LAB mode (Image|Mode|Lab Color) then you will find that you can USM in the Lightness channel without touching colour. Then convert back to RGB or CMYK when you're done. Jawed True, but avoid the mode change by Fading the USM filter choosing Luminosity as the mode. Bob
Re: filmscanners: Color Cast removal/and blue blues
I've no experience with underwater images, but you may be interested in pages 135-138 of Dan Margulis' book Professional Photoshop 6. He is essentiallu suggesting blending channels and using lighten blend mode. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: mahimahi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 2:41 PM Subject: filmscanners: Color Cast removal/and blue blues --Hello I am having problems in regard to color cast removal when using the Nikon LS1000/silverfast combination. The problem shots are underwater images which include a deep blue background but end up pea green. Shots that do not include a blue background. I also use a Acer 2720s which the factory software includes a film type selector. This helps a little but when scanning Fuji NPC 160 (which is not included in the list of film types) produces similar green output. Problem #2. (Positive film On both scanners) When trying to scan images with a light blue background and a subject (Sperm Whale Infant) which is quite different in tone from the background on the original. The resulting output is all blue (whale and background). Any tweaking of the color in the scanner software to bring out the color of the subject results a water background that has a reddish purple tint.
Re: filmscanners: Scanning 101...A basic question...
- Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning 101...A basic question... Marvin Demuth wrote: I have read the recent debates over working with raw files and those produced via profiles and I am confused. In working with scanning color negatives, if you choose to work with the raw file that is supposed to have all the information in pure form, what is your starting point for getting an acceptable image on your monitor as your starting point for your adjustments? Obviously, some software has to used. I am trying to relate this to printing color negatives, which is within my experience. With this process, for any degree of efficiency, you have to start with color filtration commensurate with the film you are using. Marvin Demuth I think Marvin makes an obvious but very significant point here. A raw scan of a negative, should be negative, not positive. Any manner of converting it into a positive means some type of profile has been actuated on it. Art In performing the scan, of negatives, to produce the raw scan aren't scanners/software varying the color channel exposure to remove the negative mask? Even if this exposure variation is based on some sort of measurement of the film done by the scanner, it represents profiling in the general sense. Bob
Re: filmscanners: Colour fix problem
1. use the eyedropper to sample a midtone that contains the color cast (I used a point on the MIG's fuselage between the wing and the number) 2. fill a new layer with the sampled color and invert the layer (imageadjustinvert) 3. change the layers blend mode to 'color' and reduce opacity to suit (~50%) Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Ian Boag [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 10:26 AM Subject: filmscanners: Colour fix problem I have attached two heavily crunched down photos. I am looking for help here on how to fix one of them. Last year I went to the RAF museum at Hendon. I took pictures on regular Fuji 200 film using a Konica Revio APS camera. I also had an Agfa 1680 digicam. The museum has some kind of arc lighting which came out all green in the prints. It scans like that too. See greenmig.jpg (the pic is a Mig-15). The scan was done on a Kodak FD-300. Comes out much the same whether I use their auto fix on scanning or not. The digicam took a picture that looks about right (see digimig.jpg). Generally the FD-300 does a job that I am happy with. My problem is how to fix the green scans. If I just throw in magenta correction I eventually get the plane looking right, but the roof and surroundings go bad. The situation is complicated of course by the fact that the camera suffers from vignetting at full aperture on max wide. Any ideas would be gratefully accepted. Ian Boag
Re: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions
- Original Message - From: Ramesh Kumar_C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:19 AM Subject: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions Hi Sorry, for asking pre-discussed topic. Once I get following doubts cleared, I thinksmile I will be ready to take on the scanning world. I am using Minolta Dimage II, VueScan. Scanner has 12bit/channel output I am using Adobe Photo 6.0. This is about 24bits 48 bits: Scanner can deliver 36 bits; So I am in a dilemma whether to store the scanner output in 48bit TIFF file or 24bit TIFF file. I have thought of following 2 methods, let me know which of the following will be good. a) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 24 bit TIFF file. Edit this 24bit TIFF file in 8-bit channel in PS. This is easy solution. b) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 48 bit TIFF file. Edit this 48bit TIFF file in 16-bit channel in PS. Then convert 48bit TIFF file to 24 bits. Given your reason for not wanting to store RAW scans below, I see no reason to 'store' 48 bit files. I suggest you output 48 bit files from Vuescan and do color correction in Photoshop, then reduce to 8 bit per channel for storage. Most subsequent editing and output will require 8 bit per channel files anyway. This is about WorkFlow: I use Win2000. Reason for using BruceRGB is its recommended in Real World of Photoshop. Let me know if its a good choice. I think Bruce believes BruceRGB has been overcome by time and improvements in scanners and scanning. AdobeRGB has become a little more the standard, but this is a highly subjective decision. I am an amature; At present out-put device is going to be desk-top and I am not going to print the images in near future. My negatives have lot of scratches/dust, so I have to scan them again using another scanner which has ICE. So I do not want to store the RAW scan. You really ought to spend some time learning technics to edit scratches/dust in Photoshop. Digital ICE is not necessarly the only option. Such skills are still good to develope. a) Scan using BruceRGB in VS, Copy to CD1. This I can use for re-editing provided my editing skills improove. b) Edit in BruceRGB using Adobe PS. Copy the ouput to CD2. c) Convert from BruceRGB to sRGB. And convert from TIFF to JPG and store in CD3. Why do CD3 at all? You could always use the images on CD2 and convert for final output. The only advantage I see in CD3 is added redundency. Please let me know your opinion about my workflow. Thanks Ramesh Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Device Profile in VueScan
I think you well find the following: There are two Minolta profiles on your system (c:\windows\color if using a PC).One for negative and one for positive images. The Vuescan help file states that Device RGB is only useful if you select image as the media type. From the Vuescan help file...The Device RGB color space doesn't embed any ICC profile into the TIFF or JPEG files, and outputs images in the color space of the device. The Device RGB option is only useful when Device|Media type is set to Image Note that no profile is embedded. The Minolta profiles are not recommended as working spaces. I am not sure what you are trying to do, but suspect you would be best served to use Adobe RGB as you working space, select either image, slide, or negative, as appropriate, under Device/Media type, and have Vuescan tag the crop files as Adobe RGB in the color tab. Vuescan well use the appropriate Minolta profile to characterize the scanner in producing the scan, and the tagged file will then open in Photoshop 6 without need for further conversion. Bob Wright Based on your statement, following is my understanding. Minolta will have provided a Profile file, which will be laying some where in my PC. Vuescan will use this profile when Device RGB is selected in Color | Color Space. In VueScan, Color | Color Space shows just Device RGB. Device RGB seems to be generic and it does not specify the name of the device. I think VS picks the RIGHT profile depending on the scanner selected in Device | Mode. In PS6.0 Color space will have the name of the devices too; like Minolta Scan Dual II. Thanks Ramesh -Original Message- From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 2:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Device Profile in VueScan To the best of my knowledge Device Profile applies to Scan and to RAW scan. As to your second question, yes - Device Profile transfers the profile of the scanner. Vuescan itself does not apply a Vuescan profile. Maris - Original Message - From: Ramesh Kumar_C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 12:19 PM Subject: filmscanners: Device Profile in VueScan | Hi | I use Minolta Dimage Dual II with Vuescan. | | In VueScan, Is it good to use RAW scan or Scan with DeviceProfile? | | | In VueScan, If I select Device Profile, is it the profile of the scanner? | In my PS6.0, I see two profiles related to Minolta Dimage Dual II , but | none on Vuescan. | | Thanks in advance | Ramesh | |
Re: filmscanners: which space?
CMYK is not a reduced color space compared to RGB. Printer CMYK is. But that is because the color space of the inks is more reduced. OK. Are you suggesting that some sort of CMYK settings in Photoshop could make the CMYK mode's gamut more similar to RGB, and thus reduce the losses in RGB to CMYK to RGB conversions? (Asumming you would print to these CMYK settings.) Bob Wright Oops. That should have been ...would not print to these CMYK settings...
Re: filmscanners: which space?
- Original Message - From: Karl Schulmeisters [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 1:08 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? CMYK is not a reduced color space compared to RGB. Printer CMYK is. But that is because the color space of the inks is more reduced. OK. Are you suggesting that some sort of CMYK settings in Photoshop could make the CMYK mode's gamut more similar to RGB, and thus reduce the losses in RGB to CMYK to RGB conversions? (Asumming you would print to these CMYK settings.) Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Minolta in W2K
I have the Scan Elite and have used both the Twain and stand alone DS Elite program. I believe you had a choice at step 10 (my copy of the manual) of installation instructions. It was choose either typical or Twain File. If you chose Twain File that was all you loaded, if you chose typical you got both. I can't really help on the installation to W2K as I am using W98se. I will add though that when I start the scanner with the computer already operating, by refreshing the SCSI card in Device Manager, it shows up under 'other devices as Minolta #2885 with a yellow question mark at the other devices tab and a yellow exclamation mark at Minolta #2885. Never the less every thing seems to work correctly, and has since I first installed 8Feb2000. When you installed it did you have the scanner turned on before you started the computer? Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:44 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta in W2K Pat: I have a Minolta Elite (since last November)... The only way I use it is thru PShop as a twain import... I scan mostly Fuji Reala negs, set the scanner up for 16 bit 2 or 4 pass scan with DIce on, max resolution (unless I just want some quick lo res scans for proofs), color match RGB space, then hit the go button and let it scan the image into PShop as a negative, where I then invert it, adjust the brightness in the LAB color space, then retrurn to RGB to adjust levels (with the eyedroppers, since this makes it a more accurate tweak)... The few transparencies I have scanned I also Twain into Pshop I just checked my programs pop-up bar, looked at the Minolta bar, and all it has is the help and remove... I believe it was made to be used as a TWAIN import device and not stand-alone... Mike M. Pat Perez wrote: I sold my Canoscan 2710 recently in order to get a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite. I really wanted the Digital ICE. I tried loading the software and it wouldn't recognize the device. This was odd, since Vuescan saw it just fine (and doesn't depend upon TWAIN support). I emailed Minolta support, who told me to uninstall Vuescan and try again. Uh huh. Anyway, I mentally put it on the back burner until today, and saw that there was a dialog box being hidden during the SW install that asked for my W2K CD. I provided the disc, rebooted, and the same problem continues. On a lark, I tried acquiring an image with Photoshop 5 LE, and lo and behold, it launches the Minolta SW just fine, and seems fully functional, so at least I know I *can* use the Minolta SW, albeit in a roundabout way. Does anyone here have any suggestions on how to try to resolve this so that I can launch the Minolta SW directly? Pat __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
filmscanners: remove
- Original Message - From: Ken Hornbrook To: mailto:Undisclosed-Recipient:@harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 3:31 PM Subject: filmscanners: My Photography in the Park Dear Friends, I will be exibiting many of my Fine Art Landscape and Nature Photographs at the Sierra Madre Art Fair. The Sierra Madre Art Fair is held in Memorial Parkat the intersection of Sierra Madre Blvd and Hermosa Avenue in beautiful Sierra Madre onSaturday May 19 and Sunday May 20 from9:30 am till5 pm. My booth is #37, which is in the northwest corner of the park. To reach Sierra Madre, take Baldwin Avenue north from the 210 Fwy. There will be new photographs from our January trip, including Zion, Coyote Buttes, and Antelope Canyon. I look forward to seeing you there. Regards, Ken Hornbrook [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://home.earthlink.net/~six_victor If you wish to be removed from my mailing list, please reply with the word "Remove" in the subject line.
Re: filmscanners: Book on Image Editing/Colour Correction
ISBN 0-201-72199-6 - Original Message - From: Dale Gail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 4:36 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Book on Image Editing/Colour Correction Robert, Do you have the ISBN number for real World PhotoShop 6? Thank you Dale - Original Message - From: Robert E. Wright [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 7:29 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Book on Image Editing/Colour Correction Add this one to your candidates: Real World Photoshop 6 by Blatner and Fraser. - Original Message - From: Ramesh Kumar_C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:20 PM Subject: filmscanners: Book on Image Editing/Colour Correction Hi I am novice in Scanning and Image Editing/Colour Correction (Using PS). I have little/confusing theoritical knowledge about RGB, gamma and colourspace:-). I am new to Photoshop too.I am thinking of buying a book which concentrates more on the Image Editing/Colour Correction (Using PS) and has little theory about RGB, gamma and colourspace. The book has to be practical(with illustrations) and should give steps to do PS. I browsed in amazon.com and read the reviews about following books. Inside Photo Shop 6, Adobe Photoshop 6.0 for Photographers, Professional Photoshop 6: The Classic Guide to Color Correction Please suggest some books. Thanks Ramesh
Re: filmscanners: Book on Image Editing/Colour Correction
Add this one to your candidates: Real World Photoshop 6 by Blatner and Fraser. - Original Message - From: Ramesh Kumar_C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:20 PM Subject: filmscanners: Book on Image Editing/Colour Correction Hi I am novice in Scanning and Image Editing/Colour Correction (Using PS). I have little/confusing theoritical knowledge about RGB, gamma and colourspace:-). I am new to Photoshop too.I am thinking of buying a book which concentrates more on the Image Editing/Colour Correction (Using PS) and has little theory about RGB, gamma and colourspace. The book has to be practical(with illustrations) and should give steps to do PS. I browsed in amazon.com and read the reviews about following books. Inside Photo Shop 6, Adobe Photoshop 6.0 for Photographers, Professional Photoshop 6: The Classic Guide to Color Correction Please suggest some books. Thanks Ramesh
Re: filmscanners: Dual Scan II - striping
- Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 4:37 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Dual Scan II - striping Vlad wrote: I send you the sample to look at. If it's the attached jpeg you were talking about - what stripes? I can't see any, not even with the monitor brightness turned all the way up? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com I was able to see very light strips in the blue sky area. They appeared slightly diagonal though and, unless he rotated the clip, not really in the scan direction. Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Noise (was: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
- Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 3:58 AM Subject: filmscanners: Noise (was: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan I'm less interested in the "why's" of the problem than in a means of dealing with it. After all, what's done is done, and getting acceptible results--short of retouching a picture pixel-by-pixel--is the next consideration. Best regards--LRA Aah yes, but it is understanding the "whys" that will lead to the "means of dealing with it". Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
- Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 9:27 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan ... I believe that for some reason there is more CCD noise in the blue channel than other channels. It may be that the effect of Nikon's collimated light is more pronounced in the blue channel than elsewhere - certainly shorter wavelengths might show different focus than longer wavelengths. However, the negative has the blue channel inverted doesn't it? :) I'm not hugely concerned about what the source of the effect may be - the fact is that on my LS30, all slide films scan far better in terms of apparent grain than the neg films I've tried. ... Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com I think every reference I've seen regarding noise is scanned images identifies the Blue channel as being the most noisy. I have never seen an explanation of why this is so, but does not appear to be dependant on the light source or specific scanner. Maybe the noise isn't coming the film? Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: negative and skin tones
- Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 8:31 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: negative and skin tones My understanding is that there is a degradation or change returning from CMYK to RGB but this is from what I have read and I have not experimented myself as you have. I do have two questions, though: 1.Visually did you see a difference between the original RGB and the new RGB made from the duplicated CMYK? Certainly. The new RGB looked just like the CMYK. The point is I did not see nor could I demonstarate a differince between the CMYK and the new RGB. 2.Were the numbers the same or different between these two RGBs? Sinced the difference blend mode was completly black (x-x=00) I must assume so. Bob Maris - Original Message - From: "Robert E. Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 7:12 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: negative and skin tones | | - Original Message - | From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 7:47 AM | Subject: Re: filmscanners: negative and skin tones | | | | Another problem that comes to mind is that scanners export the image in | RGB | and desktop printers (without exceptions that I am aware of) require RGB | input, performing the RGB-CMYK conversion internally. As there is loss in | color in the RGB-CMYK conversion and the subsequent CMYK-RGB re-conversion | many try to avoid having to color-correct in CMYK despite the benefits of | the black channel. | | Maris | | The change in going from RGB to CMYK is quite observable, and expected due | to the implied change in out put media (to print), but is a further loss in | going from CMYK back to RGB demonstratable? | | I just tried an experiement on one image. I first converted from RGB to CMYK | (difference observable). I then duplicated the CMYK image and converted it | to RGB. Finally I copied the RGB into the CMYK image and used difference | blend mode, result complely black. I also copied the CMYK image into the RGB | file. Same result. | | Bob Wright | | |
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
- Original Message - From: Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 3:28 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB" Vuescan has an option to tag files with the selected color space profile (except for Device RGB, which according to the help file "doesn't embed any ICC profile into the TIFF or JPEG files..."). The embedded profile is recognized by Photoshop (at least it is in my config). ProPhoto RGB is one of the color spaces Vuescan offers for file output. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm What color space does Photoshop (6) open a file tagged ProPhoto RGB into? Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: device RGB
My point was that I don't find a ProPhoto RGB profile in the Photoshop dialog. I guess I'll just have to try it. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:03 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB" What color space does Photoshop (6) open a file tagged ProPhoto RGB into? Depends on the Photoshop 6 Color Settings [Edit Color Settings]. It should act as set for a profile mismatch. If you have 'ask when opening' checked for profile mismatches it should present a dialog box on opening the file. Page 128-129 in the PS6 User Guide lists what PS will do for various color management settings. Ian Lyons has written a good essay on PS6 color. See: http://www.computer-darkroom.com/photoshop_6/ps6_1.htm Or skip ahead to near the end of page 5 of 10 where this specific topic is discussed http://www.computer-darkroom.com/photoshop_6/ps6_5.htm. -- Bob Shomler http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
- Original Message - From: Richard Starr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 5:27 AM Subject: filmscanners: Printdpi The dpi thread leads me to ask what the best dpi for printing on an Epson printer (Stylus 600 for example) would be. My habit is to correct an image at the scanned resolution then move it to a default blank page for printing, using PhotoShop's free transformation for sizing. I save the 'print' version as well as the full resolution file. The prints look good. You would do better to use imageduplicate and imagesize. Start by unchecking the resample box, and setting desired print size (actual print size, not paper size). If the resulting resolution is greater than 240ppi, print it. Generally the minimum resolution for printing might be 150ppi, but many would disagree and a good number would recommend at least 200ppi. Bob Wright I normally use a blank page set for 8.5 x11 inches and 110 dpi. I'm wondering if I'd see better results at a higher dpi or faster results at a lower dpi. Lower dpi would result in a smaller file for storage too. There must be an ideal maximum resolution beyond which the image doesn't print better and a minimum resolution below which it is noticeably degraded. Comments? Rich
Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan
You might be interested in downloading the following PDF file, http://www.ledet.com/margulis/PP6_Chapter2.pdf Hope it helps, Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Jim Sharp [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 6:12 AM Subject: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan I have a Minolta Scan Dual I purchased recently, mostly with the thought of using it with color negative film for web work. It was inexpensive and I assumed it would be adequate for my intended use. I have been using Vuescan with it and have been basically pleased with how it's worked out with one exception. - Color saturation. It seems no matter what I try my scans come out "flat" for lack of a better word. They just don't seem to have much color, yet the negatives are fine when printed using a standard photographic process. I can fix this to a large degree in Photoshop, but it's tedious and difficult to keep the color balance correct, especially with skin tones. No matter what I try, even a low $$ photographic reprint still looks much better to my eye. I'm pretty new to all this and I can't help but think there is something basic I'm missing... Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- Jim
Re: filmscanners: Picture Window Tutorial
I'm not Roman, but am sure he meant Picture Window at: http://dl-c.com/ Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Eli Bowen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:07 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan Hi Roman, Do you have the URL of the Windows Picture web site you mentioned? Thanks, Eli -Original Message- From: Roman Kielich(r) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan At 05:40 22/03/2001 -0800, you wrote: I recommend you go to web site of Windows Picture and see an example of a good tutorial. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: 110 film
You have a good point. I've seen many reports regarding digitizing Minox 8x11mm that combining optical enlargement and scanning resulting prints may be a better compromise. However, I think you must realize that the 110 format probably didn't produce the best negative or transparency because it relied on a plastic cartridge to hold the film flat and at the precise film plane. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Michael Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 9:28 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: 110 film Ive scanned some 110 trannies for a family member ,otherwise Id have said no ! I Drum scanned at 4000 dpi and we then printed via the epson to around 5x4 inches. the results were acceptable inasmuch as they provided a memory of an occasion,but award winners they were not . Perhaps a better way would be to have them printed at a Mini lab,some of them must still print 110,then scan the prints. I believe the results would be more acceptable. Just my Euros worth. regardsMichael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files
Re: filmscanners: 110 film
It works best if you fabricate a mask from opaque paper. The attached URL is a design for scanning 8x11mm minox transparincies. http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/scanmask/scan-mask.html Bob Wright - Original Message - From: John Matturri [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 6:18 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: 110 film You may be able to get slidemounts in the appropriate size for individual size. I used to be able to get paper mounts in every imaginable size from Spirotone in NY, which no longer exists in any form I believe. There may be another source. It is also possible that Wess makes an appropriately sized plastic mount; they have a catalog with a very wide variety of mounts, including probably 110 (Wess Plastics, Hauppauge, NY, 800-487-9377, no website). Accurately cutting that small film between the framelines may be a pain. I've had not too great success scanning 16mm movie frames by simply placing a strip into the (SS4000) strip film holder. Will do in a pinch but really can't get the film to stay flat even with tape. John M. Jolene wrote: I have been quietly reading the list for a couple of weeks now, as I am preparing to buy my very first filmscanner. Here is my question. I have a big ol' box of negatives (I think they are 16mm in size) from family pictures. I would really like a scanner that is capable of handling these, but will also do a great job with 35 mm film and slides, which will be my primary use.
Re: filmscanners: Photoshop Curves vs Levels
If the curve(s) are straight lines, linear, then I guess you should be able to do the same adjustment in Levels. This image appears to cry for non-linear adjustment in separate channels. I don't think the real highlights are in skin tones. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Alan Womack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Majordomo leben.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:41 AM Subject: filmscanners: Photoshop Curves vs Levels Last couple of days I was working on a scan from my ScanWit from Fuji Super G 400 of my 2 year old son playing with his trucks. I had used a couple of flash units and screwed up the light level a bit and certainly the background shadows. The local minilab printed crap, but the expression was cute.. So into VueScan I went, aweful. Color balance wouldn't come close, way too blue. Also there was bad posterization in highlights from his face. I went to MiraPhoto and found I couldn't control where it placed the actual highlights what so ever, it was mapping the brightest part (those skin reflections) up to 255. Obviously this wouldn't work. I took a look at a RAW scan from VueScan in PS and found there was a difference in skin values or maybe 3 RGB and way too much blue. 7-10 points more blue than red, which is typically in my children 30-40 below red when skin tones are in the low 200 range. (the Raw scan was in the 37 to 41 range) I then took up a curve that was nearly straight up to move my highlights in tke skin into the 200 neighborhood and spent another couple hours fixing the skin tones. So my question is: Is there a fundamental difference between using levels to stretch the histogram versus using curves to stretch the same with a very steep line? alan
Re: filmscanners: SS4000VuescanGrafics Program
Why do you worry? The raw file has no been color adjusted. The difference beween sRGB and Adobe RGB (or any other work space) is not an image mode change, it is a profile, a definition. Data is not lost. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: John D. Horton To: fimscanner Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 7:43 AM Subject: filmscanners: SS4000VuescanGrafics Program When I open a raw filescan from Vuescan in my graphics program (Picture Window--color management disabled) It has a color profile of sRGB. The crop TIFF file showsthe color profile as isentered in Vuescan. Both files are 48 bit. For those that have PS, what does the raw scan open in your graphics program? From my understanding sRGB has a smaller color space than say Adobe RGB.The raw file scan,I have assumed, contains all the colors that are available in the 48bits.Why then are theysqueezed into sRGBcolor space and the crop files into a wider space? Thank You John Horton
Re: filmscanners: Tweaking images in PS6
I experimented with correcting old Ek slides using layers in PS and found that when printed on an EPSON 870, it appeared that there was a greenish layer over the original image. When I worked on the image directly and printed it on the same printer it looked normal, i.e. no green haze. Was I doing something wrong in not combining the layers before printing? Orion Knox I suspect you didn't have the background layer selected. Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: real value?
- Original Message - From: Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 4:01 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value? Michael, I've got to be careful here as this is a scanners BBS not a printer BBS but I wonder why there are so few people film scanning then printing with dye sublimation printers? Surely these would fully complement say a 4000 dpi scanner? My only questions are: (1) BW - I see no mention of this is any Dye sub printer literature (2) Where do I find an A3 Dye sub printer under 2000 UK Pounds? Olympus P-400 at 1000 USD? Ian - Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:26 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value? Ian, I totally agree. HP has fallen victim to the same short term marketing mentality that infects too many of today's manufacturers and service providers. That said, I do think that their printers at least are much better made than Epson's... What I would really like to see is the old HP mentality applied to their printers, etc., so that we would have truly professional equipment, both in manufacture and design... I will also reply to Art's comment about the price comparison between HP and Epson... wheteher it's the 740, the 870, or the 2000, they all have the print head as part of the printer, so if the darned thing clogs beyond repair, you're scr (my spell-checker just kicked in). As for HP, ain't nobody that I know making third party archival pigment/inks for the darn thing Just give me a Fuji Frontier... Mike Moore Ian Jackson wrote: Michael Moore wrote. Michael, I respect your comment about HP assuming you meant the same oscilloscopes, power supplies etc, that I also used. However HP's Computers, printers, software and service FOR THOSE PRODUCTS, are just not in the same league. Somehow I feel you would not disagree? Ian - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value? Michael Moore wrote: I cut my electronics teeth on HP when I trained as an electronics tech in Th US Navy... Their stuff was always built to last... Last summer I bought an HP 932C... it's built much better than my Epson 740... plus the cartridges come with the nozzles built in so if a print head clogs, you just replace the cartridge... I bought it to replace an Epson that had a clogged print head...(third party inks!)... I thinks it's a load of bull that things can't be made to last... Mike M Didn't the 932C cost a good deal more than the 740 (I'm not on top of the prices on these)? And yes, most anything can be made to last, it costs more RD and usually more in material and manufacturing expense to do so. That's not my point. Making a car last (say a Ford Model T) that can't go above 30 miles an hour, other than as a collectable, doesn't make good sense in a world that demands cars that can go 80 mph for practical considerations. The same is true (and more so) of high tech. If you owned a 10 megabyte harddrive and it was built to last for 50 years, would you still be using it today? Not likely. The darn thing has more value in aluminum and gold than in either practical use or resale value. BTW, I have a perfectly good 10 meg hard drive I'll sell you (weighs about 15 pounds -- you pay postage, too) And if you'd like that one, you'll really appreciate my dual drive Bernoulli with disks (which are 12" wide and hold 5 or 10 megs each... it weights about 50 pounds.) and is bigger than a tower computer ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: [OFF] problem with image brightness
Both the attached image and the web site image look OK on my moniter. Using PC and Win98se. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: fotografia - tomasz zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:58 AM Subject: filmscanners: [OFF] problem with image brightness I have enclosed one picture that looks ok in Photoshop on my monitor. Please also have a look at the same picture at http://155.158.220.252/radek/tz.ok/ this is my site "under construction". This picture you can find in "portfolio" and the "pejzaz" - in the bottom line. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
I clicked on the URL in your message and it opened OK. Having tried it, I really don't recommend the procedure in the site though. - Original Message - From: Roman Kielich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 2:52 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask At 11:52 12/01/2001 -0800, you wrote: http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr/DigitalPhoto/derCurveMeister/index.htm 404 - not found "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: Adobe Photoshop 5.5 or 6
- Original Message - From: Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 10:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Adobe Photoshop 5.5 or 6 Are you trying to tell me I just parted with $300 for something I already had? No. There is a lot more to Photoshop than selection tools. I don't even know if LE has color range or not, but I understand it does not allow access to the separate color channels for editing. Photoshop is such a comprehensive program that it takes some commitment to learn it, even the capability that one person uses. I doubt that very many users use the great majority of what it offers. "Robert E. Wright" wrote: Suggest you investigate the color range tool under the select menu. Normally it works quite well on sky selections. I don't know about Photoshop LE, but the magic wand has not changed in several versions of Photoshop. The add, subtract, and exclude options on the new options pallete were available as hot keys. - Original Message - From: Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:15 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Adobe Photoshop 5.5 or 6 I just bought PS6 as an upgrade from PS LE... got the special price of $299 since I ordered before Jan. 1... now it'll cost $499 for the same upgrade... I am not a PS Guru... the main reason I bought it is the time I calculate it will save me when I want to change the sky color or whatever I used to have to fight to outline with one of the lasso tools or the limitations of the magic wandPS6 has modified the magic wand where I can separate a sky or other mostly solid background with a few clicks of the magic wand, as well as erase the magic wand from areas where I dont want the separation anyway... that's what jsutified the money for me... Mike Moore
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
Why not "invert" and do the color correction? - Original Message - From: Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 4:57 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: orange mask I don't know why all scanners don't handle orange mask by looking at a bit of leader or inter-frame unexposed area and automatically determine the _exact_ mask for each film. Do any of them? It would seem much easier than any other way? Cheers, Julian At 02:50 13/01/01, you wrote: It would be nice if the scanner vendors provided an applet that allowed one to create an orange-mask filter for any particular film. All you really need, I think, is a blank (unexposed) frame. Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 nowon B+H web
Finally!? - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:59 PM Subject: RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 nowon B+H web In other words number of bits does NOT define Dmax, it only defines what the best possible might be. Absolutely correct! It is but one piece of the system, and the system is only as good as its worst part.
Re: filmscanners: Adobe Photoshop 5.5 or 6
Suggest you investigate the color range tool under the select menu. Normally it works quite well on sky selections. I don't know about Photoshop LE, but the magic wand has not changed in several versions of Photoshop. The add, subtract, and exclude options on the new options pallete were available as hot keys. - Original Message - From: Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:15 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Adobe Photoshop 5.5 or 6 I just bought PS6 as an upgrade from PS LE... got the special price of $299 since I ordered before Jan. 1... now it'll cost $499 for the same upgrade... I am not a PS Guru... the main reason I bought it is the time I calculate it will save me when I want to change the sky color or whatever I used to have to fight to outline with one of the lasso tools or the limitations of the magic wandPS6 has modified the magic wand where I can separate a sky or other mostly solid background with a few clicks of the magic wand, as well as erase the magic wand from areas where I dont want the separation anyway... that's what jsutified the money for me... Mike Moore Ezio wrote: 35$ for PS 6 is for sure a ''warezed'' copy. ''warezed'' is the new word meaning cracked or back-up copy. The only site , as far as I know , where you can upgrade from LE is Adobe itself : www.adobe.com ; net store. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Peter de Graaf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 12:38 PM Subject: filmscanners: Adobe Photoshop 5.5 or 6 Hi all, Could somebody point me to a (cheap ?) site where I can download/order PS 5.5 (or 6) as an upgrade to the LE version? I've read that somebody paid 35$ for 6.0. Is this really possible? Thanks in advance. Regards, Peter
Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
- Original Message - From: shAf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 6:31 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners Rob writes ... "photoscientia" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My understanding is that changing the so-called colour space in Photoshop simply changes the embedded profile, without actually making any difference to the image data itself. Well, that makes perfect sense - as I understand it, the profile is simply a mapping between numeric values and actual colours. I think you better examine the RGB pixel values before and after a profile-to-profile ... shAf :o) I think... If you change the "so called colour space" or your working space, you will not change the pixel values. If you do "profile to profile" you will. If you use the color sampler tool to select points in the image, you can confirm this by doing a working space change and then a profile to profile change. The original question was what to do with an untaged file from a scanner the outputs sRGB (as I recall). Simply convert it to your working space before editing. Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: Scanning Polachrome slides
David, My empression is that Polachrome is for slide projection and no good for enlargement or scanning. The RGB filter in front of the panchromatic layer must limit the resolution to unacceptable levels for enlargement or scanning? This is acceptable. I just want to confirm that is the case. Bob - Original Message - From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 7:43 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning Polachrome slides Bob, I don't know first hand but will ask. David -Original Message- From: Robert E. Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Scanning Polachrome slides What experience is out there regarding scanning Polachrome slides? What are the issues? Thanks. Bob Wright
Re: filmscanners: RE:
Al, how have you concluded that the Scan Elite software does all its calculations on 8 bit data? Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Bond, Alistair [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 7:33 AM Subject: filmscanners: RE: Henk wrote: Just bought a Minolta Dimage dual II with USB. I hope someone can give me some clue why my scans are so dark. Presumably you have switched autoexposure on in the options Are there any highlights in the preview that are at 255,255,255, ie pure white? On more than one occasion, I have thought that the preview scan was too dark (with autoexposure off) before I noticed that there were some highlights were already close to pure white. In these cases, switching on autoexposure does make the general slide look more balanced but the increasing exposure has burnt out the highlights: where I have needed to retain the highlight detail, I have switched autoexposure back off and tweaking the curves or levels in Photoshop to compress the highlights and bring up the mid-tones. (You could make these adjustments in the driver software but, if the Dual II software is like my Elite software, it does all its calculations on 8 bit data so its better to scan out in 16 bit mode and do these in Photoshop.) If you do a scan and look at the histogram in Photoshop, that should help to show whether there is data towards the 255 end. Good luck, Al Bond
filmscanners: Re:
A shot in the darkMake sure you haven't selected 16bit linear color depth in the preferences dialog. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Henk Zegwaard To: Filmscanners Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 7:41 AM Hi i am Henk. Just bought a Minolta Dimage dual II with USB. I hope someone can give me some clue why my scans are so dark. Is that because of i use the original software ? Do i have to buy Vuescan?. Or do i have to change settings. Sorry buti am a beginner , perhaps i do not belong here Thanks anyway..
Re: Question: Do any program settings affect the way Vuescan scans?
I think you'll find the choice between negative or positive (slide) will affect exposure of separate channels in the scan. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 9:17 PM Subject: RE: Question: Do any program settings affect the way Vuescan scans? Other than the number of passes setting do any of the other settings in Vuescan actually affect the way the scanning is done or does it just alter the output. The brightness control - at least with the Nikon scanners - is the same as the analogue gain control in Nikonscan. It changes the integration time. The only other controls which changethe way the scanner scans other than the number of passes (AFAIK) are those related to the scan area. My main reason for asking is if you have an underexposed slide and want to try to obtain more detail from shadow areas is the only concrete way to improve this by setting for multiple passes (16 for example). Are there any settings which actually adjust the length of the scan or intensity of the lamp to better illuminate the dark areas? The brightness control does if the scanner is capable of it. Be aware you must rescan using Scan/Device not Scan/Memory to see the effect of changes in the Brightness control. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest. The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: What is a good flatbedscanner for making contact sheets?
Why would you want to use a flatbed scanner for contact sheets when you have a better film scanner? Any film scanner? You could scan at what ever resolution you want and build the "contact sheet" in software. Many catalog programs and other programs provide "browsers" for this purpose. Photoshop even includes a function to create contact sheets from any directory/folder. The product should certainly be better than you're going to get using a flatbed scanner for 35mm. Bob Wright - Original Message - From: sirius [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 2:25 AM Subject: What is a good flatbedscanner for making contact sheets? Hi, i had like some advise on buying a flatbed with transparancy adapter. My goal is to be able to make a reasonable good contactsheet of a film of 36 exposures (6 strips of 6), it is the missing thing in my digital darkroom. The flatbed must comply with The following: 1. transparancy adapter must be big enough to take 6-7 strips of 6 exposures. 2. the quality of the scan must be big enough for a good contact sheet at double size.(A3) which means at least 600 dpi 3. the scan density capacity must be big enough to handle slides and negatives in a reasonable way. 4. the software must be good enough to deal with most films.(vuescan capable would be nice) 5. the scan must be as fast as possible. 6. the price should be under 1000$, the cheaper , the better. 7. and. no, i dont want a dedicated filmscanner because i have already the polaroid ss4000. Any comments and experiences are welcome. thanx a lot, Jan Albrecht The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest. The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: Need a Photoshop suggestion!
- Original Message - From: Bond, Alistair [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 7:50 AM Subject: Need a Photoshop suggestion! Hi folks! I wonder if anyone can give me some pointers on how to achieve something in Photoshop. My Elite has a couple of very faint single pixel tramlines in the green channel. These are invisible in 99% of scans but do start to become obvious if I have to really pull up shadow detail but cannot increase exposure (in order to preserve highlight detail). Currently, I use the marquee tool in Photoshop to highlight the whole line and the Median filter to blend in with the adjacent lines. This is OK but the lines only really affect the deep shadow detail. (It looks like these 2 CCD elements are returning a slightly higher base value than the others.) Once above this level, these elements are fine and return proper mid and highlight data - and I don't want to apply the Median filter to the good data. What I really want to do is find a way of only selecting the pixels below a particular value in the line and apply the Median filter to those pixels only. Any ideas how I can do this, or any other approaches which might do the same thing? My suggestion: 1. Marque select tram line 2. color range select shadows 3. edit selection using quick mask to eliminate unaffected/undesired part of selection 4. create new layer from selection (new layer via copy or control J) 5. choose layer blend mode darken and move tool 6. move a couple of pixels with arrow keys Good luck, Bob Wright (Incidentally, I did a scan of a piece of opaque card in the slide holder with same exposure settings, to get a CCD anomaly scan, and subtracted this from the main scan. This removed the lines nicely from the shadow areas but ADDED a new line in the highlight areas! This seems to backup my conclusion that the CCD anomalies only affect a limited range of low values.) TIA, Al Bond The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest. The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
