Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
> > Austin Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are
> > > 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.
> > But a properly developed neg will usually have a standard
> > correction. In my RA-4 days, I had a different basic filter pack
> > each film, sounds a lot like profiling to me...
> Absolutely, but it can really only be used as a starting point, I
> unless you do your own development.
> > > 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!
> > I believe that this system is how most of the minilabs are run...
> > Obviously a profile won't give you a perfect result, but what
> > not like they're going to prevent you from adjusting parameters...
> > sheesh. Profiling neg films is a potentially good way to get in
> > ballpark, you'd be surprsied how accurate they can be, as long as
> > are updates on a regular basis... Besides, why make such a fuss?
> > may help some people out, and if you don't like it, don't use it!
> > always better to have more optioons than less. I'm happy to see a
> > scanner manufacturer trying to improve their product and including
> > the testing phase...
> I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton
scanning (or as
> I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them.
> prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the
> way they can get a perfect scan most every time...and rely on
> Typically, people don't know what good results look like, and when
> opens up a whole new world for them... Ever think something you did
> just great (even a print you made) and you saw someone else's, and
> how not so great yours was? Most people have nothing to compare
> to, and that's a shame. Even though it's humbling, I think it'll
> better at what you're doing ;-)
Since you profess interest in both humility and learning, I suggest
you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of
profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the colorsync