Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: ColorSteps?
These are the symptoms that I had experienced with scans from my Epson
1200U Photo - midtone gradients in steps with a blue-gray to blue-black cast
pale greens (that should have been rich green). There was also a substantial
detail in these areas of pale green. I had defined these symptoms as
I thought the images were unacceptable and never tried printing them. I did,
look at them in Photoshop 5.5 and Paint Shop Pro 6.0 and the images were the
viewed in both applications. I am using an ATI All-in-Wonder Pro 128 display
and was previously using a Rage Fury 128 - both using ATI Rage 128
did note that these problems occurred on scans from slightly over exposed
and slightly under exposed transparencies.
I sent the scanned images to Epson, with the problem areas annotated, and they
concurred with what I described but said none of their scanners would do any
I returned the scanner and they are refunding my money.
I have a friend with an Epson Perfection 1640 who is very pleased with it. He
using a Mac (don't want to get another fire started here), but there were two
didn't do that you have pointed out. one is I did not make a test print (I
what I saw on the screen would show up in the print). And 2, I did not try the
using another display card. I should mention, however, that I have another
with an Epson 1200 Photo who is using a Matrox G-400 display adapter. I have
similar symptoms on his scans although he insists that they are not as
prevalent as on
my scans. That is subjective because the scans were not of the same images.
After reading some of these posts I think I will ask my friend with the Epson
Perfection 1640 to scan some of my problem images and compare the results.
Good points to consider and this is only one example that makes this group
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I ran into a problem with Photoshop 4.01 on the PC where it posterized
> badly when I did levels adjustments in 16 bit. The problem did not
> occur if I worked in 8 bit. It usually happened in midtones going quite
> dark blue-black.
> I never printed these so, I have no idea what they would have looked
> like. However, I was told by some it was probably a graphic/video card
> driver problem. I had upgraded to the newest version, so I contacted
> Diamond, my videocard manufacturer. They admitted there were some
> incompatibilities with the card I had and Photoshop, and suggested I
> update the card on a trade in basis.
> On a last attempt, I upgraded to Photoshop 5.0, and magically the
> problem went away, so it was either a PS and Diamond problem, or a PS
> only problem, but it's gone now, and I did not replace my videocard or
> have I upgraded the driver since.
> I recognize your situation is on a Mac, and I don't know if any of this
> relates, but obviously PS Version 4 for Windows was buggy.
> Richard Starr wrote:
> > --- You wrote:
> > You will be able to chack whether it is the file, or a problem with the
> > display/graphics system, by viewing the histogram. Contouring shows up as
> > missing bit values, leaving the histogram looking like a mangy dog's comb.
> > What file type is this, and what processing has been done (and by what) en
> > route to the screen? And what scanner/software?
> > --- end of quote ---
> > Thanks for the answers to this. I am still finding my way with my
> > Nikon 3510AF. Full resolution scans take 15 minutes and correcting the
> > misregistration takes 10 more. Until I can afford a modern scanner, I'm
> > in the dark ages. The film in one case is either Kodak 1000 negative film
> > 800 negative film from maybe Agfa. Definitley available light material
> > my little Olympus XA4 (a jewel.) I would have done some curves or gamma
> > adjustments in Photoshop. Maybe a curves adjustment in the Nikon software
> > one of the pictures.
> > The odd thing is that the posterization seems to show in the display and
> > the print. This suggests a bug somewhere in the software or hardware. It's
> > Photoshop 4.0.1 on a SuperMac with an ATI video board and a Sony monitor.
> > all good stuff.
> > Still, this Photoshop version is a little buggy, I think. I used to use
> > version on a 68000 Mac and it worked better with regard to previews anyway.
> > the PPC Mac (it installs as a ppc version) checking and unchecking
> > boxes may or may not affect the display depending on the thing being
> > When the display is previewed, the adjustment affects the whole screen, so
> > background becomes magenta or darker or whatever. It's hard to make subtle
> > judgements that way even if the image fills most of the screen. I don't
> > the 68k Mac version did these things. Maybe later versions don't.
> > (Holding the mouse down on the drag strip of the control window in many
> > functions does cause the display to go back to the unpreviewed version in
> > of the control windows but not all. This seems to me to be sloppy
> > probably corrected in later versions. )
> > So given these little probs with Photoshop, maybe there is something that
> > slightly unreliable display.
> > Rich