Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma & Work flow suggestions




----- Original Message -----
From: Ramesh Kumar_C <RKumar_C@zaplet.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
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 think<smile>
> 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




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.