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]

[filmscanners] RE: Scanner calibration

Well Anthony, I have sadly regret my previous conclusions.
I conducted a few tests on both, expired and normally shoot slides and the
pink cast came out on both ! (pink, not the violet one as I though
I described briefly my struggle answering to Arthur, a lot of headaches.

BTW, I have those examples JPEG compressed for various NikonScan color space
If you would be interested, I can send you over those for your examinations
in both Photoshop and NikonScan (this is important - I got opposite results
viewing the images in Photoshop and NikonScan)

Now I already praying that the Kodak's Q-60 IT8 slide calibration will
resolve the issue.
If so, it seems I'll have to turn the Nikon CMS off permanently.

Alex Z

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:22 AM
To: alexz@zoran.co.il
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Scanner calibration

Alex writes:

> Good, but first I would certainly prefer to
> make the most out of the scanner.

I suppose that it if reduces work, that's fine, but I'm not at all convinced
that correction in the scanner is any better than correction in Photoshop.
After all, no matter what parameters you change, it's still the same light
source, same CCDs, etc., so the actual quality or depth of information
obtained in the scan never changes.

If anything, the ideal adjustment would be none at all, in order to obtain
the absolutely raw scan from the scanner; in this way no data would be
sacrificed.  You could then make all necessary adjustments in Photoshop.
This presumably would provide the best results ultimately, but I'll grant
that it would represent a lot of work for each scan.

In any case, a strong violet cast sounds like something you need to turn
_off_, not something that has to be compensated for.  I doubt that the
scanner inherently produces such a color cast in its raw scans (?).

> BTW, there is good point in your saying about
> rendering shadows bluish.  In my case, the violet
> (or strong bluish) case was most prominent in darker,
> shadowed areas of the image indeed.

I've always noticed this.  I think it is characteristic of film, not the
scanner.  After all, dark areas in a film image are actually _underexposed_
areas, and highlights are overexposed areas.  Since things like color
balance and saturation can vary with exposure in a film, this means that
highlights and shadows may be very slightly different in saturation and
color balance than the neutral areas of an image.  Usually it's not
perceptible, but in some cases I notice what appears to be this sort of
effect.  There again, Photoshop corrects things.

> Now, assuming I'll insure the reason for that
> thing was the outdated film, I'll scan them as
> it is with confidence and will correct the cast in
> Photoshop.

Can you see a color cast upon direct examination of the film under a loupe?
A violet cast would certainly be consistent with old film.

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.