A very technical question about film and scanners.

Discussion in 'Scanners' started by Bot-tastic, Jul 19, 2003.

  1. Bot-tastic

    Bot-tastic Guest

    We all use different films for different situations. So my question is this.
    Is there a common workflow using Adobe photoshop to preserve what was
    captured on the film without altering the colors or contrast?
    Bot-tastic, Jul 19, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. How can one be sure that when one posts, the text reaches the NG
    without being altered and/or rearranged by the computers that
    participate in the transmission of the posting? Is there a way
    to stay away from the computer and still participate in newsgroup
    discussions? Are you sure that it was you who actually wrote that
    warning and not the computer?
    Victor Bazarov, Jul 19, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bot-tastic

    Mxsmanic Guest

    I don't understand the question.
    Mxsmanic, Jul 19, 2003
  4. Bot-tastic

    bmoag Guest

    There is no "correct" color, only a best approximation based on your
    scanner/monitor/printer technical characteristics and your own color sense.
    If you are asking how to achieve a reasonable level of consistency in the
    process that raises the issue of color work-flow management. This is covered
    in confusing and mind-numbing detail in many Photoshop books.
    bmoag, Jul 19, 2003
  5. Bot-tastic

    auspics Guest

    "Silverfast" scanner software has inbuilt correction for different brands of
    Negative colour film has a red cast which equates to a green haze if
    scanned and inverted without colour correction for the film. Unfortunately
    *ALL* colour negative film *MUST* be colour corrected to display a picture
    without a colour cast.

    What you really need to do is shoot a grey card as frame 1 (helps avoid half
    exposed frame there too if you try to get extra from your film) and use this
    image to obtain a colour corrected setting for the film under Photoshop.
    Everything else will be a (hopefully) faithful representative of that colour
    balance. If you use 18% grey, this is what most exposure meters presume to
    be the ideal exposure. The colour balance should be constant all thru the
    film if the lighting has not changed.

    It's not until you use a highend digital camera in RAW mode that you realize
    how much exposure correction is done by a lab for you to receive nicely
    exposed prints. Contary to another posters suggestion that digitals make
    poor photographers... Digital has improved my understanding of what's going
    on and improved my skills with my film cameras.
    auspics, Jul 19, 2003
  6. Bot-tastic

    MonkeeBoy Guest

    taking your point further..
    How do we know reality appears to be what our senses tell us it is? Is
    there a way for our consciencness to interact with the physical reality
    around us without it being manipulated by our senses?

    bloody hell.. How much purity is enough?
    MonkeeBoy, Jul 20, 2003
  7. Bot-tastic

    Mark M Guest

    Stay away from the computer? Hmmm. I suspect YOU stay away from the
    computer--which would explain your bullcrap advice (no offense
    intended...it's just that you're dead wrong here, in my view).

    Even high-level film scanners introduce an "interpretation" of color that
    nearly always requires some correction. If you just take it as is and store
    it, all you'll accomplish is to put off til later what you didn't correct in
    Photoshop today.
    Also... Photoshop won't do anything at all to the image if you don't want
    it to.
    Mark M, Jul 20, 2003
  8. Bot-tastic

    Mxsmanic Guest

    One of the most common complaints of traditional film photographers who
    move to digital is that they spend far too much time in front of a
    computer, and far less time taking pictures. Indeed, for some film
    photographers, this is one important reason why they remain with film.
    Mxsmanic, Jul 20, 2003
  9. I have a series of tips about using a standardized
    workflow to produce prints that match what you see
    Robert Feinman, Jul 20, 2003
  10. Bot-tastic

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Some software handles images in resolution independent modes. Other software
    features include full editing capabilities at the highest bit depth. LivePicture
    was one of these from the past, though it is no longer produced. Some other ones
    are Caldera Cameleo is one of these, with all functions possible in 16 bit colour,
    or even in the CMYK space, areas that are more limited in PhotoShop. Higher up
    would also be Alias StudioTools (actually several solutions and configurations),
    though the 3D features are the primary emphasis. The older Alias Studio Paint
    program was one of the past software solutions I have used. There are others,
    though you may notice that most of these do not run on Windows, nor MacOS, nor on
    Mac OS X. None of them cold be considered affordable, unless you find a good deal
    on a used copy of LivePicture.

    There are also some industry colour solutions that maintain colour accuracy from
    scanning through soft proofing and display, to the final print. Barco, Creo, Scitex
    and others make several solutions, though most require dedicated hardware. The idea
    behind many of these is that the edits are mostly colour adjustments for printing,
    and the software/hardware solutions are integrated.

    The beauty of PhotoShop is that it is affordable, runs on several platforms, and
    easily integrates to a variety of other output solutions. PhotoShop has become an
    industry standard due to the flexibility of uses. Even for high end professional
    output, it should be more than enough for 90% of almost any workflow. The high
    usefulness is some of the reason you rarely here about other products, and why some
    of those products are no longer produced, or are quite expensive.
    Absolutely. You would be surprised (shocked, maybe) at the number of times I have
    seen someone take a high priced drum scan, and just start altering it, and never
    save the original scan. Establishing good work flows can only help later work.

    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    Gordon Moat, Jul 20, 2003
  11. Bot-tastic

    Paul Handley Guest

    Havn't quoted anything, post's too long already! just wanted to add my 2
    For the purist, just ignore photoshop and the scanner. take you film to
    the local 1 hour lab. Oops did I just say take your film to the 1 hr lab?
    Where it will be put in computerized machines which are set for "average"
    exposures. Average, meaning that the machines computer thinks you really
    want all that detail in the background, so you really dont want nice skin
    tones on that model in the foreground. I've been involved with photography
    and image processing, in an ameutur way, for 40 years. I gladly replaced my
    chemicals and darkroom enlarger for all the control that a Computer and
    scanner give you.
    By the way if you want your data to remain pure, Use Ed Hammrick's
    Vuescan. A great program and save your scans in RAW mode that hasn't changed
    one detail in your negative www.vuescan.com . Don't tell him I sent you, he
    doesn't know me from Adam's housecat.
    Paul :)

    Paul Handley, Jul 21, 2003
  12. Bot-tastic

    Mark M Guest

    Even high-level film scanners introduce an "interpretation" of color
    You are one confusing little poster.
    How about making up your mind.

    Here's what you said...
    "Scan and save, making no adjustments in the scanning software. Turn off
    any and all automation in the scanning software."

    Now you're saying don't scan at all?
    Make up your mind, and perhaps we'll begin to understand each other here.
    Mark M, Jul 21, 2003
  13. Did it ever occur to you there's more than one problem, cause
    and solution to any issue? "If you scan, do the least. Better
    yet, don't scan at all."
    Just who do you think you are?
    I understand you.

    But you understanding me, it's just not in the cards, is it?

    Please be so kind to put me in your kill file, you are going in mine.
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Jul 21, 2003
  14. Bot-tastic

    Gordon Moat Guest

    That would be nice. However, since I am involved in pre-press preparation, and
    printing, those technologies are the current limits that need to be met.
    They are octets, which are just convenient multipliers. True number storage, in
    computational form, is a basis for vector artwork. One good example of that is EPS
    format, though the E part is actually the raster image representation of the true item,
    and is easier for a computer to display.
    It is one of the ideas, and developments of Mac OS X, though it is still not used as
    effectively as it should be used. This was a development of display PostScript, as used
    on the NeXT computers. Some of the technology is based upon Adobe PostScript language,
    though the current use is not appropriate for some image formats. My hope is that this
    will be improved in the future, and may show some benefits in image editing.

    Unfortunately, with photograph images in digital form, these are restricted to square
    pixels. The Fuji idea of non square pixels is novel, but without dedicated software, or
    displays that are non square pixel in nature, that technology is not as effective as

    If the future brings display technology that more closely matches the random patterning
    of screen modulation variable printing, then that would be wonderful imaging
    technology. Unfortunately, for now we are stuck with some affordable systems, and a
    handful of higher specification solutions.


    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    Gordon Moat, Jul 21, 2003
  15. Bot-tastic

    Peter Chant Guest

    I think more or less we are thinking of similar things, but I what I
    really meant rather than vector graphics was representing a pixel by:

    red(float)green(float)blue(float) or CMYK, or LAB or whatever colour
    system is appropriate.

    As for non-sqaure pixels, unless you want them rectangular it is not
    easy on a CRT unless there is something I am missing.
    Peter Chant, Jul 21, 2003
  16. Bot-tastic

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Sure, I see where you are headed. Might be something for one of the engineering groups.
    Rectangular would be represented in video. Actually, one of the tougher workflows is taking
    still images, and setting them up for proper display on video. This is square pixels
    converted to rectangular pixels, and necessary for round objects to appear round (for
    example). While using a non-zooming image is simple enough, larger images that are panned
    and zoomed become a bit more work.

    Anyway, that was a bit off topic. My hope is that some future display technology escapes the
    current pixel shapes. Hexagons might be nice, if there is a need to remain geometric, though
    overlapping layers of circles, or something, might be another direction. I really have no
    idea if anyone is even considering this direction, but I think it would be interesting.


    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    Gordon Moat, Jul 22, 2003
  17. Bot-tastic

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Well, the Fuji idea of hexagonal shapes might make an interesting display grid concept.
    However, I have no idea if that is considered for future displays, or even possible.
    So much is evolutionary, with ever increasing resolution, and faster screen redrawing.
    Still, there is a need with printing to see proof prints, or press proofs. While I am able
    to use soft proofing for some projects, it would be nice to be able to rely on it for all
    projects. The other issue is the RGB display gamut limitations, though I would be surprised
    if those are improved in the near future.
    Well, we were just speculating on the future. Getting away from proofing would be nice, but
    it is not reliable enough for some current work. With printing, the RIP often is the final
    "resample", and the only reliable (current technology) proof is a press proof.

    CRTs can be good for colour previewing, but I switched to all LCD about three years ago. It
    is easier on the eyes to work on an LCD, even if the colour gamut is not as wide.


    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    Gordon Moat, Jul 22, 2003
  18. As far as I can tell, Fuji still uses a rectangular grid. A real hexagonal
    grid (with angles of 120 degrees instead of 90 degress) will be
    interesting from a mathematical point of view. But I doubt that you gain
    anything over a rectangular grid.
    What's the point? Display technology is quite capable of exceeding the
    resolution of human vision.
    The gamut of a display is independent of the shape of the pixels. Trying to
    change both at the same time doesn't seem very productive.

    Some kind of subtractive technology may be necessary to match output of
    Well, for printing, the pixel shape of the image capture device doesn't
    really matter. The main thing is that the print resolution is high enough.
    I like the LCD screen on my desk at work for text. I don't like it at
    all for judging photos. As always, newer models are supposed to be better.

    Philip Homburg
    Philip Homburg, Jul 22, 2003
  19. Bot-tastic

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Here is an often published image that leads me to think it is not rectangular:


    It could be the shapes are an attempt to explain the technology, rather than the actual shapes.
    They claim an advantage, but . . . .
    Rather than resolution differences, possibly some colour display advantage, or less of an
    aliasing problem. If the current technology is as good as it gets, then that means there is no
    more development being done. Somehow, I think there may still be improvements, though perhaps
    none in resolution.
    Perhaps, but what would prevent separate groups from pursuing different research goals? It is
    not like only one company, or even one individual, might be working on improvement. Of course,
    like you implied, all might be at the pinnacle of development, and there may be no further
    improvements possible.
    We keep hearing about OLEP technology, though very few products use it. Perhaps this is one
    future direction, though hard to tell what possible benefits so far. With small display
    devices, like phones, and car stereos, this technology is already in use, though mostly cost
    savings are the obvious early benefit. It might be limited technology as well, and no future
    The shape of the output spot can be varied by different printing methods. Collotype is an
    example of printing without spots, though there are some other more modern similar techniques.
    The frequency and amount of output spots are other variables. It could be that there are too
    many variables with printing to point one direction.
    Some of the newer LCDs are quite nice, and improved over early versions. However, there is
    still a need to verify 100% Cyan, 100% Yellow, and several other colour ranges by digitally
    sampling, and looking at the numbers. Only the proof print comes close to the final prints, and
    regardless of display, all displays are colour accuracy limited.


    Gordon Moat
    Alliance Graphique Studio
    Gordon Moat, Jul 22, 2003
  20. Bot-tastic

    Bot-tastic Guest

    Great feedback from everyone. Thanks. Imagine it dosn't make a difference at
    all as long as "I" like it and at least One other person likes it. Mabye
    people just like preservation. To preserve what is existing and not to move
    to something new. Mabye people just like to see something special at the end
    of all the endless technical jargon and a hard days work. I would just like
    to say that I enjoy experincing life and what is all around me.
    Bot-tastic, Jul 23, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.