>I have used col neg (Superia and other Fuji mostly) in various
>fluorescents and it copes wonderfully with no camera filtration.
While I have found this to be the case as well with normal subjects wherein
the film was printed via traditional wet photographic methods rather than
via scanning and outputting to monitor and/or inkjet. The poster did not
say how the output was to be produced (e.g., on a monitor, inkjet, or
something else). Since there are various types of fluorescent tubes that
can generate a variety of color casts, I would suggest that one would
probably need some information on what type of tube is being used in the
microscope lamp and what sorts of luminescences it in combination with the
subject generate that the film may see and register that would be out of
gamut for digitalization, for monitor color spaces, or for printer color
spaces to determine if it indeed can be digitally reporduced as it appears
on the transparency or on the photographic prints from the negatives. But
this is just mere speculation on my part at this point given that most of my
familiarity with the products of photomicroscopy with traditional
photography has involved only black and white films and radiographs that
ppeople from the local University bring me to process, proof, and/or print
via traditional wet dorakroom methods.
-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of
TonySleep@halftone.co.uk
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 9:47 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Difficult scan problem
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:30:13 -0500 Laurie Solomon (laurie@advancenet.net)
wrote:
> Tony, what if the "constant colour temp lightsource" is a fluorescent
> discontinuous light source such as what he has said was the light source
> for
> the microscope; will what you suggest still hold?
I have used col neg (Superia and other Fuji mostly) in various
fluorescents and it copes wonderfully with no camera filtration. Unless the
microscope lamp is very weird it should be possible to get good results.
I haven't tried it of course, but I use the eyedroppers as described for
colour correction with just about every colour neg I scan. Usually I use
Vuescan White Balance as a starting point, save in 16bit, then do this in
PS. PS Auto levels is frequently very wrong and I seldom use that.
With crystals, mostly there is going to be a problem finding anything in
the image which is a mid-ish-grey to use the midtone eyedropper on. But
fixed exposure and illuminant remove the variables, so provided a decent
set of corrections can be obtained and saved using an image which does
contain a neutral grey, merely applying the saved levels adjustments should
give a good result with all images from this setup. Close enough that all
that may need doing would be limited to overall gamma, perhaps contrast,
and maybe tweak the hue and saturation a little on some subjects.
Oddly enough, over 30yrs ago I had a maths teacher whose hobby was
photomicroscopy of crystals. He used (Agfa) colour neg and produced awesome
20x16's. It's worth persevering here I think.
Regards
Tony Sleep
- Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
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
