Ramesh writes ...
> This is about 24bits & 48 bits:
> Scanner can deliver 36 bits; So I am in a dilemma
> whether to store the scanner output in 48bit TIFF file
> or 24bit TIFF file.
> a) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 24 bit TIFF file. Edit
> this 24bit TIFF file in 8-bit channel in PS.
> This is easy solution.
> b) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 48 bit TIFF file. Edit
> this 48bit TIFF file in 16-bit channel in PS.
> Then convert 48bit TIFF file to 24 bits.
See below ...
> This is about WorkFlow:
> I use Win2000. Reason for using "BruceRGB" is its
> recommended in "Real World of Photoshop".
> Let me know if its a good choice.
"RWPS" for version 6 would imply differently, but which Bruce chooses
to use is dependent on the scanner. He implies he developed BruceRGB
in the context of "poor" scanners, but has since switched to AdobeRGB
with newer scanners. If the scan needed a severe adjustment, he would
claim BruceRGB is the better 8bit editing space. If the scan is
closer to right on ... his preference is AdobeRGB.
In the context of PS v.6, I'd suggest you buy his most recent version
of "RWPS" ... there is a lot of good information about how Adobe
finally got Photoshop right. In the meantime, you can visit is online
> a) Scan using BruceRGB in VS, Copy to CD1. This I can use
> for re-editing provided my editing skills improove.
> b) Edit in BruceRGB using Adobe PS. Copy the ouput to CD2.
> c) Convert from BruceRGB to sRGB. And convert from TIFF to
> JPG and store in CD3.
My own preference is to assume I do NOT want to scan the film again,
and I therefore scan full-res and to a 64bit Vuescan TIFF (includes
IR). My preference for a highbit color space happens to be
EktaspaceRGB, but that is a subjective preference ... objectively you
should scan highbits into a wide gamut (PhotoproRGB, EktaspaceRGB,
Adobe Wide ... Photopro and Ektaspace being the better editing
spaces). My other preference is to eventually end up in AdobeRGB and
I prefer to keep all images in the same area and archived to the same
my US$0.02 ... shAf