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]

[filmscanners] RE: Repeated "Tonal correction", is it god?

  • To: lexa@lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Repeated "Tonal correction", is it god?
  • From: "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:20:33 -0500
  • Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
  • Thread-index: AcLp1BmICoQvkwN3QtmP6ZtSEI57eAAbqOgA
  • Thread-topic: [filmscanners] RE: Repeated "Tonal correction", is it god?
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

Soloman wrote:...

>As I said that is my opinion and reasoning; others may think and reason
>differently or even have experiences to the contrary.  I would be happy to
>hear what they have to say and to be enlightened myself on the answers to
>your questions.

Thanks for you/whole group, for thought provoking responses. 
I have do not have any professional experience in Digital Imaging/DSPs, 
so can not dispute anything. It's prudent to stick to "best-practices".
I will aggree that PS is better tool than scanner s/w. As Art said, its good to 
use highbit data for editing.
I think I will stick to single and post-scan "tonal correction" method.
I am yet to see whether there is any apparent difference b/w 8/16 bit scans; If 
they are same I will stick to 8bit and archive it.
And I will do "tonal correction" in PS as and when needed.

Thanks again, go to learn few things..

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.