First of all I like to make a statement which is a bad excuse after all, but
nevertheless for me an important one:
English is not my native language. It takes a lot of energy and time to
understand what the writers mean and it takes even more energy and time to
write my own ideas and replies in English. I try to explain everybody on
this list what my reasons are why I would like to edit in 16bit/channel.
Brad Davis wrote:
> (And yes Henk de Jong, if the product of your kitchen is flawed, I
> may well expect to be brought into the kitchen - to you too, I
> suggest that you either provide the evidence or stop making
> assertions that you are unwilling to support with evidence.
> It gets very old.)
Why should I support my ideas with evidence? Austin already admitted that
there are circumstances with inferior shots (he claimed he never makes with
his Hasselblad ;-) which are better of corrected with 16bit/channel editing.
He also pointed out very clearly that white and blackpoint should be set in
a 16bit/channel environment. He choose to do that only in the scanner
software. My workflow is to do this as much as possible in VueScan and the
artistic corrections in the editing software.
One is calling names on this list, another is hammering on proof, proof and
proof. This whole discussion tends to be about religion where "my God" is
the only true one. In the beginning of this discussion someone wrote that
advocating in favour of 16bit/channel was wrong advise to newbies. And
that was the moment I jumped in. Let the newbies find out themselves, let
them work out there own workflow in which they are happy and producing
beautiful pictures, because that is were it is all about. It is not the
workflow, but the final product which counts.
Furthermore I agree with Laurie's postings on this subject:
"First, it assumes that the software being used allows for this; but
granting that it does for purposes of argument, it may completely moot the
discussion
for you but not for others for a number of reasons that they are trying to
tell you but while you are listening you are not hearing. Among those is the
fact that since as you say if you get the setpoints and tonal corrections
reasonably close to the scanner driver using high bit, you have done
essentially what they say they are doing just they have choose to do the
setpoint correction and tonal adjustments to the high bit data in a third
party editor rather than in the scanner even if it is possible with the
scanner software that they are using since they feel more compfortable with
the third party image editor or it is better than that of the scanner
software."
Maybe not in a very kind way I have pointed out in one of my postings that
Austin has none or very few knowledge about VueScan. VueScan can deliver a
16bit/channel image with or without white and blackpoint set and with or
without tonal corrections. If you have a 16bit/channel editor you can do all
those corrections on high bit data if you prefer.
The purpose of this discussion is not to proof that your religion is the
only true one, but to let you re-think about your own favourite workflow
which could maybe enhanced or changed by the ideas and workflow of others.
It's not a case of wrong or right in my opinion, but a different workflow
which has a need for different tools.
I wish everybody happy scan times and like the Hal 9000 series computer in
2001 A Space Odyssey said:
"This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye"
;-)
--
Henk de Jong
Nepal and Burma (Myanmar) - Photo Galleries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
