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: [filmscanners_Digest] hi bit

  • To: lexa@lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] hi bit
  • From: "HPA" <tom@historicphotoarchive.com>
  • Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 08:55:45 -0700
  • In-reply-to: <200309210000.RAA03442@technicaladvantage.net>
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

>> in excellent condition.  Hi bit workflows are much harder to do, take far
>> more time, and use more storage space.  However learning them can improve
> Why are high bit worksflows harder and take more time? Because of the
> Photoshop limitations? Wouldn't a 16bit clean program relieve you of these
> hassles?

Hello afx, I think the slowness is primarily due to the glacial speed that
the scanner transfers data to the computer. Sometimes ten minutes just to
get a scan.  I have a G4, maybe it is old and slow, maybe new computers are
much faster.  The other time consuming part is making the selection, you
can't just reach for tools, you have to lasso your area to be fixed up, then
apply the feathered selection, then do levels/curves adjustments on the
selection.  Or else the other way is to use history erase.  either takes ten
more steps (approximately) compared to using a simple dodge/burn tool.
Still, IMHO, it gives a much better result because you can optimize the
levels and curves for each section of an image, no limit, you can have
everbody's faces, for example, individually leveled and curved and color

I wish i knew of a program that allowed dodging/burning in 16 bit, do you?

tom Robinson

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.