M�rio, You said .
"Most people say that, with 12 bits depth scans , there is no advantage in tuning prior to scan over working the scan in Photoshop". You are of course aware that the Minolta is 16 bit? I have the Epson 1290 and am reading about the many independant ink systems available for it (and your 1270). This is a fine bulletin board for our great media. Ian "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" ----- Original Message ----- From: "M�rio Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:15 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning B&W negatives > Ian, > > Sorry for the confusion that I caused. In the first post, I referred my > films brandt and age to better define their features, just in case this > would be important for some suggestions for scanning them. I was > particularly thinking about their fine grain. > > In my second post I just snipped badly. I was so enthusiastic with my > results that I stopped just in time to avoid saying something like "ei > everybody, come and see the wonderful results that I got and how I am living > again so many important moments in my life!" :-) . > > I should have quoted only that I intended to put "dynamic range" in > automatic, disable all the other tunings in the scanning software, obtain > "pure" raw files for archiving purposes and do all the tuning work in > Photoshop 6. This is my workflow for slides. Most people say that, with 12 > bits depth scans , there is no advantage in tuning prior to scan over > working the scan in Photoshop. I read a person that stressed that things are > not absolutely like that, I don't remember already who and where, but my > learning curve is not yet so high to study myself these very intersting but, > for now, difficult subjects. > > Perhaeps because, with my Nikon F5 excellent metering and a little with my > experience, it is almost an impossible mission to get a ugly exposed slide, > the workflow above has worked well for me. Not the same with my sometimes > ugly exposed or developed B&W negatives where I must tune the dynamic range > IN the scanning software and sometimes cut large portions of the histogram, > or I will not be able to get acceptable contrast in Photoshop. I am > discovering that perhaeps this also happens in well exposed negatives with > very high or very low contrasts. > > I never thought that B&W print was a so complicated subjet and, for now, I > cannot go further than my Epson 1270 with Epson inks. While the prints that > I am obtaining are acceptable, I expect to get in the future much better. So > I am with a problem -- I have no way to be sure that I am tuning well in the > scanning sofware. > > Sorry for the very long post. > > M�rio Teixeira > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ian Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, 25 October, 2001 1:42 AM > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning B&W negatives > > > | Mario, > | > | Do you mean that for FP4/FP5 its much better to adjust contrast during > | scanning than in photoshop? > | > | Ian > | ----- Original Message ----- > | From: "M�rio Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > | Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 8:43 AM > | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning B&W negatives > | > | > | > > | > I wrote: > | > > | > | , I will begin with my old B&W negatives (several hundreds), mainly > | Ilford > | > | FP4 and HP5, many of them more than 30 years old > | > ..........| > | > | I intend to: scan at 4000 ppi, gray scale 16 bits; "dynamic > | range" -- > | > | automatic, but all the other tunings in the scanning software > | (including > | > | unsharp mask) disabled; save the raw scans as TIF. I don't intend to > | > "work" > | > | the photos in the scanner, but after in Photoshop. > | > > | > Ho ho, that's not so easy!... With B&W I must "make decisions" before > | > getting the "untouched archival scan" -- with very contrasted or very > | > uniform > | > scenes, underexposed or overexposed negatives, etc, I must tune > | manually the > | > "dynamic range" (sometimes dramatic cuts in the histogram) or I will > | not get > | > good results in Photoshop. > | > > | > And not several hundreds but a few thousands -- digital retouching is > | a > | > miracle! > | > > | > I thank very much all the help and suggestions that I received. > | > > | > Best regards, > | > > | > M�rio Teixeira > | > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | > > | > > | > > | > _________________________________________________________ > | > Do You Yahoo!? > | > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > | > > | > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com >
