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: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions
Ramesh writes ... ... 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. ... 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. See below ... 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. RWPS for version 6 would imply differently, but which Bruce chooses to use is dependent on the scanner. He implies he developed BruceRGB in the context of poor scanners, but has since switched to AdobeRGB with newer scanners. If the scan needed a severe adjustment, he would claim BruceRGB is the better 8bit editing space. If the scan is closer to right on ... his preference is AdobeRGB. In the context of PS v.6, I'd suggest you buy his most recent version of RWPS ... there is a lot of good information about how Adobe finally got Photoshop right. In the meantime, you can visit is online articles at: http://www.creativepro.com/author/home/40.html specifically ... http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/9155.html http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/7627.html http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/8582.html ... 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. My own preference is to assume I do NOT want to scan the film again, and I therefore scan full-res and to a 64bit Vuescan TIFF (includes IR). My preference for a highbit color space happens to be EktaspaceRGB, but that is a subjective preference ... objectively you should scan highbits into a wide gamut (PhotoproRGB, EktaspaceRGB, Adobe Wide ... Photopro and Ektaspace being the better editing spaces). My other preference is to eventually end up in AdobeRGB and I prefer to keep all images in the same area and archived to the same CD. my US$0.02 ... shAf
Re: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions
Ramesh Kumar_C wrote: 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. My approach to this is: Scan in 36 bit, and capture as 48 bit scan. Work in Photoshop in any aspect that works in 48 bit, and when all those aspects are adjusted, then convert to 24 bit. Working in 48 bit provides extra breathing space in your ability to get good adjustments, but it is not without other problems. Like, it requires a lot more memory, the processes are slowed down due to the extra number crunching necessary, and storage at that bit depth is painfully large. The main things I have found that benefit from the full bit depth are levels and curves, contrast and brightness and hue/color balance adjustment. For amateur use, all of this might be fairly moot, but you need to try both and see which you find acceptable. Art
Re: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma Work flow suggestions
I find it a good idea to scan into a 48 bit file, spot with the cloning tool, crop any border, and then archive. That doesn't commit to any approach to the image but means that you never have to do the drudgery of spotting again. In important cases I often save all the changes in order (not the stages of the files themselves but using the save-levels, save-curve (etc.) commands, along with any associated selections), doing as much as possible in 48 bit, then converting to 24 bit for any local adjustments and saving. This makes it possible to go back to any point and make adjustments and then to proceed with the following commands, but keeps the total disk space used for an image not much bigger than the initial and final image. Of course if scanners improve greatly I'll want to rescan the important images anyway despite the archived files. . . John M. Ramesh Kumar_C wrote: 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.
