Hi
it's good to find somebody whose advices are the same i tried to
give,but with better knowlege
and fluent english !
(And whose pictures can be looked at without beeing almost killed by
boredom)
yves
Le 26 mai 04, à 06:34, Moose a écrit :
>
> I'm sort of non-plussed by this whole thread. Doesn't anybody read the
> manual and learn what they are doing with new equipment? The exerpts
> from various posts in the threads are in no particular order and
> unattributed, but handily allow me to rant:
>
> jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Hi sorry yet more questions from me. I decided to buy a relativly
>> cheap
>> scanner. Minolta Dimage IV (3200dpi) on the principle I could not
>> justify
>> the cost of a 5400dpi film scanner. the aim was to scan some hundreds
>> of
>> print film negatives with as accurate and repeatable results as
>> possible
>> with minimum fuss.
>>
> A perfectly reasonable goal. And likely achievable with your scanner
> and
> Viewscan. I can't speak for the Minolta software, as I've not used it.
> The Canon software with my FS2710 is consistent but very limited.
>
>> And at least in terms of the post-scanning software the color
>> correction to compensate for the negative base is always going to
>> present a challenge to color accuracy, whereas a slide is inherently
>> neutral.
>>
> The scanner software should compensate for the film base color in the
> scanning process. Viewscan has a great many film base profiles built in
> and adds more all the time. A slide is not inherently neutral. The
> base
> may be neutral (although Viewscan has base adjustment for slide filme
> too.), but all slide films have color biases.
>
>> I would agree with observations on this list that colours are less
>> saturated and that the result is less sharp when scanned. (I have not
>> tried manual focusing)
>>
> That is simply not my experience. For an extreme example I have posted
> before, see this comparison. The appearance of the print is rather
> accurately reproduced on screen (although larger than 4x6") on my
> monitor and the other image is from a scan.
> <http://www.geocities.com/dreammoose/Portra160NC/>
>
>> the dynamic range of a slide is much greater than that of a negative,
>> and it must therefore be more demanding of the scanner to reproduce
>> that dynamic range.
>>
> To clarify, the range of densities on a slide is indeed slightly
> greater
> than the range of densities in a neg. However, the neg records a wider
> range of brightness from the subject, i.e. scene brightness is
> 'compressed' relative to slide film. Somehow in this thread people
> started referring to the scanner in question as 'cheap' and acting like
> it is a poor product. Is it not true that the Dimage IV was Minolta's
> top model before the 5400? As a relatively recent design, it should
> have
> sufficient dynamic range to deal with any film. My Canoscan 2720 dpi
> scanner is old compared to the Dimage IV and I have no trouble scanning
> slides and negatives. I just select the correct Media Type in the
> Device
> menu and the correct film Vendor, Brand and Type in the Color menu and
> both scan fine.
>
>> My real hate of negative film is that without an accurate profile, it
>> becomes subjective as to what is 'right'
>>
> Some leap of faith there. There is no technology currently available
> which accurately records the whole light spectrum from a scene. All
> films, negative or reversal, depend on imprecise color filtering into 3
> or 4 layers of panchromatic emulsion. This process results in some
> lovely images that may seem to accurately reproduce the original scene,
> but that is simply not true. Take a bunch of shots at the same time
> with
> identical (hah!) cameras and lenses and several different slide films.
> Every slide will look somewhat different. Which is right?? Working with
> color neg film simply addresses this directly, relying on the person
> who
> creates the final image to create something that matches the memory of
> the original. Sure, slide films are rather repeatable and consistent,
> but 'right', I don't agree.
>
>> Perhaps comming from a record playing hifi background I wanted a pure
>> approach with little or no automatic correction and tinkering. I guess
>> this is probably not practical.
>>
> Interesting. That record you play with no adjustment was adjusted like
> crazy in the process of recording and mixing. Likewise, the prints you
> have been getting are highly adjusted in the automated printing
> process.
> Viewscan will let you do it either way or somewhere in between. But you
> have to make a choice. If you want consistent results without learning
> how to do a manual scan, but also without automated exposure and color
> balance, you will be disappointed.
>
>> With negatives on Vuescan, just to get you going, go to the "Colors"
>> menu and select "White balance". That will work for many many images
>> and get you something at least acceptable for almost all of them.
>>
> Yup, a good starting point. It will, however, give weird results with
> highly monochromatic images. A pic of a green meadow with many
> different shades in the trees scattered through it will come out pretty
> far off. The Neutral setting is more reliable for many images.
>
>> I'm sorry my version of Vuescan is not up to date. I hesitate to say
>> more
>> about it because it changes like the wind.
>>
> Why not? Updates are free.
>
>> Ultimately, if you can get software that presents you with a histogram
>> and allows you to set the dark and light points on it, you will have
>> the
>> control you desire.
>>
> So update your Viewscan, it provides histograms, allows setting black
> and white points, different brightness curves and more.
>
>> At the moment I only take colour prints and have never use slide
>> film. I
>> tend to use Fuji 100, 200 and occasionally 400 ASA film.
>>
> I use almost only color print film, although I lean to the Kodak side.
>
>> I tried the software and can get consistent results from the **same**
>> frame but **even** **more** **widly** **inconsistent** results between
>> frames on the same roll. (I should mention the prints I got back from
>> the
>> film are fine).
>>
> Those prints that are fine are the result of automated exposure and
> color balance adjustments in the printer.
>
>> These scans where made with the *lock* *exposure* and *colour*
>> *ballance* settings. so the software does not adjust the exposure and
>> colour ballance for each frame individually.
>>
> So why are you locking them? I have never done that. If you are going
> to do so, for whatever reason, you should take the first setting from a
> very average image. If you get it right for an image which is not
> representative of the others on the roll and lock the settings, the
> rest
> will be wrong.
>
>> So the quesition in my mind is, bearing in mind that the developed
>> photos
>> look fine. what is going on?????????????????????
>>
>> 1. is scanner *correctly* seeing large differences between exposures
>> on
>> the same film which is being compensated for by the developer when
>> they
>> make the prints. This would imply either
>> 1. My om 3's light meter is not consistent
>>
> Easily testable. Probably fine. Take a roll of slides to test both this
> and the following question.
>
>> 2. I am rubbish at controlling the exposure!!!!!!!
>>
> It is really easy to get a bit sloppy in exposure technique when using
> print film and getting automated prints back. That printing equipment
> is
> really good at its job of adjusting brightness and color balance. Some
> of the folks who adjust the machines have 'interesting' ideas of how to
> set them, though.
>
>> 3. Its the nature of print film and not to worry
>>
> It is indeed the nature of print film to record a much wider range of
> brightness than can be reproduced on print paper. Thus someone or
> something has to decide how much of that range and what part of it to
> put in the print.
>
>> 2. there are not large differences in exposure between shoots on the
>> same
>> film and that the scanner is not consistent. (however scanning the
>> same
>> shoot on different occasions with scan view give consistent results)
>>
> Sound like the scanner is ok.
>
>> 3. I should just let the ascanning software automatically set the
>> exposure
>> for each shoot and not worry about this at all.
>>
> For a mass project like you are undertaking, I would recommend some
> experimentation with the software options to find an automation setting
> that works well for several sample images. Then use that for the
> project. Those few great shots (OK, if all your shots are great, you
> may
> have a problem, but you have one with the prints too. :-) ) that don't
> look their best can then be rescanned with custom adjustment. The
> crucial thing is to get the overall histogram about right. Anything
> else
> can be adjusted in the photo editor. If you scan in 64 bit, even
> histogram errors aren't much trouble, as there is enough dynamic range
> in the digital file to allow later adjustment.
>
>> 4. I should start taking slides and forget about print film because
>> it is
>> too inconsistent.
>>
> Obviously up to you, but consistant quality scans from print film are
> quite possible and the greater range of subject brightness recorded on
> color neg film is a definite plus. As a simple example, I've found that
> the rather blank white skys common to prints of snapshots of people
> outdoors actually have quite a bit of detail and color available on the
> neg which can add a lot to the image. On slide film, those blown out
> highlights are simply gone forever. I won't say that the images I've
> posted in the various subdirectories of
> <http://www.geocities.com/dreammoose/> are the greatest photography in
> the world, but they are all scans of color negative film and I would
> claim that they have good sharpness, contrast and color balance.
>
> A wordy Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|