Henk,
At the risk of raising Austin's ire, I think that he is being more of a
purist than most people in both what he regards as the proper workflow and
the correct way to use scanners to capture images off of fillm or flat
artwork and prints. His position is basically that the scanner when used
properly should produce an accurrate and proper reproduction of the subject
matter that it is capturing and that the use of post scanning image editiing
programs (either scanner programs or applications like Photoshop) should not
be necessary and are only to be used as (a) a last resort, (b) to do
creative manipulations and artsy deriviatives generated off the original, or
(c) to do restorations. Most users do not follow that work flow nor take
that approach to scanning. While I do see some technical disagreements in
the discussion as to possible benefits and uses of 16-bit scans (raw lineal
or raw non-lineal scans) and the potential benefits and uses of enhancement
and adjustment tools the support working with 16-bit files, I think that
much of the fire in the debate does not really appear to revolve around the
technical aspects as much as the difference in approaches to scanning and
uses for the files being produced.
As for persons claiming that certain technical scanning problems are either
produced because scans were 8 bit rather than 16 bit or can best be deal
with if the file is 16 bit versus 8 bit, I think that this is essentially an
empirical and practical question (even if theroretically and analytically a
case could be made for said claims). Thus, Austin's request for concrete
examples is legitimate and justified with respect to such claims. That they
have not been produced does not indicate as he would have it that they do
not exist or are not significant; but it does serves as grounds for his
refusal to accept said claims as well as legitimate grounds for his not
wanting to partake in the discussion ( something which he suggestes is the
case but which apparently he is unable to follow up on by just not
responding).
As for everyone, myself included, if something works for you, why not just
continue to do it rather than getting into arguments with those who disagree
on these lists so as to turn it into a battle of who is right and who is
wrong, which method is the proper way to do things and which is not, or what
workflow is better. Once every0one has said what they do ot think should be
done, we should all know what the universe of opinions and positions are and
be done with it without getting into extended arguments.
-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Henk de Jong
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:08 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Austin Franklin wrote:
> If you require extreme tonal curve manipulation, then I suggest you
> look at getting the image "right" on film, instead of relying on your
> image editing program to get it right for you after the fact.
I am a travel photographer in my spare time. Most of the time I come home
from a travel I can not do a second time. The films I bring home is all the
material I have. When light conditions at the moment of taking the photo
were bad, but the photo is to important to miss, the only way to use the
photo is by extreme manipulation.
> Of course, there are some instances where this is not possible/practical.
So, in the end you admit...
:-)
--
Henk de Jong
Nepal and Burma (Myanmar) - Photo Galleries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
