Just sampling some RGB values of the image, dark area of his hair read
(1,20,30), unbalanced. The red cloth read (216,2,2), even it is read color I
have never seen so extreme red bias, there is serious G and B cutoff. Left
hand of the boy read (161,84,2), green is almost totally disappeared,
shouldn't happen with daylight illumination. No matter you "feel" the color
is right or not but the RGB data just not normal.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Now that you've mentioned HDR and Silverfast I recall that you've stated
> before that that's the way you work. I have no experience with your
> scanning method. I also don't have an Eizo screen. But I can say the
> the histogram for the boy's hand shows that much of the shadow area is
> pure black and it cannot be adjusted by the brightness control. I
> suspect you must be visually much more forgiving of the dark shadows
> than I am. But if you like it and it appears as reality to you then you
> should ignore my comments.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 11/7/2012 2:15 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
>> Thanks, Chuck. I'm scanning with Silverfast and doing two exposure HDR
>> scans. They come out very dark and contrasty naturally but contain all
>> of
>> the information available in the slide. The Kodachrome target is pretty
>> accurate. I just don't see that in the shadows of the boy's hand. On my
>> calibrated Eizo screen the shadows are soft and not black at all. I'll
>> admit that they look over saturated but that's the way I see the color in
>> Guatemala. I'll try to restrain myself and dial the saturation into the
>> negative on the next one just for comparison.
>>
>> Tina
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Chuck Norcutt
>> <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> A big improvement over the previous "Kids in caps" but still
>>> oversaturated and, I think, still a bit too much contrast. Note in
>>> particular: This appears to be soft, moderately bright daylight but
>>> soft enough that it is not casting any strong shadows. Now look at the
>>> boy's hand at right. Half of the skin tones have gone to black or
>>> nearly so. That just shouldn't be the case in this light.
>>>
>>> Can you show us an original scan with no adjustments? Maybe the scanner
>>> is set to produce too much contrast to begin with. If a scan is too
>>> dark or contrasty it can be difficult to recover what should be there.
>>> A good scan will, if anything, be (like an expose to the right digital
>>> image) a bit too bright but not have any blown highlights. One can back
>>> the brightness down and increase contrast... but it's much more
>>> difficult to make significant corrections in the opposite direction.
>>>
>>> Finally, you should be working in 16 bits during adjustments. 8 bits is
>>> enough to cover the dynamic range of a printed image but does not
>>> contain enough tonal detail to maintain tonal separation during major
>>> brightness/contrast editing. You can go back to 8 bits when the editing
>>> is done.
>>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/6/2012 2:32 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
>>>> PESO:
>>>>
>>>> We drove 30 minutes, waited in line 45 minutes and drove back home 30
>>>> minutes this morning but we voted!!! Hope you did.
>>>>
>>>> Now I'm processing more scans. Clarity seems to make a big difference
>>> and
>>>> I'm backing off more on these Kodachrome, contrasty scans.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/147189757
>>>>
>>>> C&C greatly appreciated. I couldn't do this without all of the help
>>>> and
>>>> advice I receive here!
>>>>
>>>> Tina
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|