Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Got a new (OT) squeeze; my poor pooch

Subject: Re: [OM] Got a new (OT) squeeze; my poor pooch
From: Joel Wilcox <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:34:39 -0500
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012, at 10:24 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 6/18/2012 10:02 AM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> > I recently picked up a beautiful Mamiya RB67 Pro-S with two useful "C"
> > lenses, the 90 and the 250.
> 
> Congrats!

Thanks!

> In the stairs image, it seems to me the shadows are blocked up and the
> highlights a little too compressed. Also, 
> assuming it is as it looks, a bright, sunny, midsummer's day, the shadows
> of the foliage on the stairs and the building 
> on itself don't seem to be contrasty enough.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wilcox/old-cap-stairsw.htm>
> 
> The building image needs these things less, but I did much the same thing
> to it, to show what it would do. 
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wilcox/old-cap-1-w.htm>

I respect what you do, especially with your own fine images, but I learn
almost nothing from what you do with mine other than what you do or
don't seem to like, and I can't believe anybody else cares one way or
the other.  My wish is that you would show more of your own work and
share what you have done to get to the results that are important to
you.  I believe I would learn quite a bit from that. Get up from that
computer and go take some photos, man! 

> Vuescan uses standard ICC color profiles. I suppose there might be some
> B&W profiles out there, although I'm not sure 
> how that might work. IT8 profiling works by comparing scan values for the
> color patches to absolute numbers I suppose it 
> may first brightness correct the whole thing using the B&W steps? I can't
> at the moment imagine how to use that for B&W
> 
> And you might try Ed again on B&W profiling. The renaissance in B&W film
> work may have put more pressure on him in the 
> meantime. If anyone could figure out a way to create B&W profiles using
> just the B&W steps on the IT8 target, I'd think 
> he would be the one. I don't know if they could be standard ICC format,
> though.

I think he has always had a halting gait when it comes to profiles. 
Initially, the canned profiles were supposed to be sufficient, but they
didn't cover all the films, then he suggested using the Advantix ones
for color as starting points and the TMAX for BW (if I recall his
responses of the old Epson scanner list correctly).  Finally, he
provided a way to do custom profiling, but I had to coax it out of him
as to what canned profile to set it to when building a custom profile. 
I suggested "generic" and he agreed -- and I'm not meaning to complain
-- but it seems odd that there is even any other choice if one means to
create a custom profile.  Vuescan is a so many things to so many people.
 It is hard to imagine how he has done what he has done, but there seem
to be a few doors without a landing at times.

> If it's close to being a gamma problem, one could make custom PS color
> settings with different gammas and find one you 
> like for a particular film. If you use VueScan's RAW output option, you
> can then apply any gamma you want to the image 
> in PS.

If you don't mind, I will paraphrase this conversation and give it
another try with Ed.

> > I don't see why there would be any point in scanning in 16bit rather
> > than 8bit if doing BW, so I don't see why the option is available, or
> > why anyone would scan BW in RGB mode, which is also apparently possible.
> 
> You are conflating bit depth with color. There is exactly the same reason
> to work in 16 bit in B&W as in color.
> 
> 8 bit B&W allows 256 grey tones for use in the image. 16 bit allows 65536
> separate tones. 256 is fine for a perfectly 
> exposed and profiled image, for both printing and web. But as soon as one
> starts bending bits in an editor, 256 bits 
> becomes inadequate, and funny things begin to happen, as alterations
> clump and spread tones.

OK, I have no problem with that.  I can select RGB or Grayscale and work
in 16bit with either.  Ken suggested scanning in RGB and then converting
the scan to grayscale in PS.  That seems to me to add an unnecessary
step.  What do you think?

> Every once in a while, I am working with an 8 bit image, and things
> aren't working quite as expected. Then I notice why, 
> and have to go back, convert to 16 and redo at least part of the work.
> I've found no reliable way to know on which 
> images or at what stage of work the oddness may occur, so I just work in
> 16 bit.
> 
> An 8 bit color image is 24 bit, 8 for each color channel, 16 bits per
> channel is 48 bits total.

I'm familiar with the ratios.  It is necessary to know this in order to
make one of the input settings line up with another setting in
preferences (I think -- have to check that.  If you have 16bit in one
place and 24 bit in the other, the scan takes forever or doesn't work at
all.

Joel W.

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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