Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Scanner progress

Subject: [OM] Re: Scanner progress
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:16:02 -0700
Andrew Dacey wrote:

>On 8/14/05, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  
>
>>The real thing that makes for great images right out of the scanner is
>>film profiles. Vuescan doesn't do curves, etc. at the scanner level, and
>>I'm not sure how useful it would be for batch scans anyway, unless they
>>are all under the same lighting and of similar subjects. I've posted
>>this before, but it may be worth another look. In each case, the same
>>frame is scanned with and without a profile for the film, with no other
>>processing <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/VuesProf/index.htm>. See
>>the help file section on film profiling. It makes a HUGE difference.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes I saw those before. I'm a little reluctant to go this route but it
>may be the only way to get great stuff right from the scanner,
>especially for negs. That's the other thing to consider here, I'm used
>to scanning slides. In Vuescan with my 2710 I'd just set the media
>type to image and could use auto levels or white point and get an
>excellent scan. With colour neg film you need to account for the
>orange mask so I suspect that's where the film profiling really starts
>to shine.
>  
>
For those films where he has Negative Vendor, Brand and Type, the orange 
mask is nicely taken care of. As Kodak, in particular, has juggled fim 
names around, one can try older profiles for the same basic film. 
Creating  profile with IT8 target will take care of it too.

A third way is to right click on what you want to be a neutral tone on a 
preview image to set the white balance. Then with Lock Base Color, you 
should be good.

>>Remember that you can set up an action to do the same adjustments
>>automatically to a whole batch of images.
>>    
>>
>This is true. But I think it's a little more individual for each frame
>to get the best results. 
>
But no worse than with batch scanning with a profile, where some shots 
may still need individual attention. It just moves the 'profiling' work 
into a different environment. Batch the first round of adjustment with 
action(s), then do any fine tuning. That's what I'm going to have to do 
with older films where I can't make a profile. But for many of the last 
few year's shots, the film is still available and I can just shoot an 
IT8 target on one frame and use the rest normally. Gotta go out and 
shoot some Supra 800 soon.

>I should point out that I'm probably making a lot more out of this
>than I should. I was just spoiled by being able to get excellent scans
>of slides from my 2710 using Vuescan without the need to do much (or
>any) post-scan adjustments (other than cleaning up dust and a bit of
>sharpening). The scans I'm getting from the 9950F are really good,
>they just need some work in PS. I get great shadow detail and nothing
>is clipped.
>  
>
Now that's the kind of thing I want to know about! I've been seriously 
thinking about a 9950F. The FS4000 is a great scanner, but scanning all 
my old images four slides or negative frames (since most old negs I have 
are in strips of four) sounds really tedious. A great deal of the older 
film wouldn't benefit from the attention of really high resolution 
scanning anyway, so mounting 5 strips or 12 slides and just walking away 
sounds very attractive.

One thing I've found from some random sampling of old photos is how much 
more there is in the negs than one would ever have guessed back then 
from the crummy 3.5x5 drugstore prints. Especially so for the sort of 
pebble finish ones my late wife liked to buy so relatives and kids 
didn't smudge them.

Moose


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz