On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:13:52 -0400 Austin Franklin
> That is what I believed you would say, and I completely disagree with
> philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use
> particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the same
> People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital?
How do you propose to transpose the colour and density values of the film
to RGB bit values? The film has its characteristics, so does the scanner.
Either you use profiles, which maintain a fixed relationship between input
and output, or you adjust the scanning process to get the result you want,
or you do a mixture of both. The adjustment can be hardwired and beyond
user control, or under user control via software settings, or a mixture of
In other words, you don't have to use profiles but you do have to do
/something/ - and if you cannot, the decisions have already been made for
you by the mfr. But you cannot dodge the necessity.
And people do it all the time in the darkroom by choosing paper and
chemistry characteristics and varying filtration and exposure.
<LATER> Just seen your later wry comment that 'I am the colour
management':-) Well, I agree with that approach but it takes a lot of time
and skill to get it right as you can find yourself juggling many different
parameters. EG crossed curves can be real brain-ache, and hard to identify
and fix (is this shadow cast blue, cyan, or bluey-cyan or cyan-blue?).
I think DH is proposing a ring-around set of corrections from which the
user chooses the one that looks most plausible, implemented as profiles.
This seems potentially quite a useful aid for the operator, especially the
less skilled/more impatient, and may help get images in the
Vuescan's use of automatic white balance aims at the same place, as does
using PS highlight dropper to achieve the same thing - you just use
whatever tools you feel comfortable with. The Mk1 eyeball is the only
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
info & comparisons