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: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme



> > With one film term for transparencies and color management,
individual
> > film characteristics is exactly what you do get.  *Effective* film
> > terms for color negative films will get closer to a specific
films'
> > characteristics, not further away, and the problem to solve is
> > ineffective film terms.
>
> What do you believe "film terms" are?  There are two issues here
(well three
> actually).  One is the film it self, two is the image on the film,
and three
> is the scanner.  Of course, I want to color correct for the image on
the
> film, due to lighting or whatever...and I want to color correct for
the
> scanner.  Setpoints and tonal curves are not film dependant, they
are image
> dependant, and one setpoint/tonal curve for one image may not be the
correct
> setpoint/tonal curve for another...even on the same strip of film.
>
> > The Leaf was designed before practical color management.  Scans
from a
> > correctly calibrated and color managed scanner will look very much
> > like the original when you first bring it into PS unless you've
worked
> > on it in the scan software.  Who wouldn't want that?
>
> I get that with the Leaf now, with no scanner color management.  I
am the
> scanner color management!  Scanner color management is somewhat
dubious,
> IMO.  Monitor, I agree with, printer, paper, ink, yes, those are all
> somewhat consistent...more so than film!
>
> I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color
> managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer etc.
Those are
> all deterministic.  Film is image dependant, and is far from
deterministic.
> Too many variables, lighting, exposure, development etc.
>
> Unless you truly profile/characterize a film/system (which I do BTW)
for a
> consistent set of conditions (or include a color chart on every
frame), I
> believe it just can't "work".  There is far more to it than
providing one
> film profile for everyone to use!

Obviously, the level of accuracy required of monitor and printer
profiles isn't possible or required.  I don't remember suggesting
otherwise.  If you don't want to use film terms (profiles), then
don't.  The scanner police won't break down your door, I promise.
Since any modern hi-end scanner will allow either approach I fail to
see the reason for your original post.  Really Austin, what is the
problem?

Dave




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.