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: 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 <mmje@mmje.demon.co.uk>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
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
> 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
> 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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.