Forwarded by list admin due to server transfer. Apologies for the delay
---- Forwarded Message ----
Received: from mail.cix.co.uk (UIDL=0:_ry.ikjI8.sulphur) by tsphoto (VPOP3)
with POP3; Fri, 21 Dec 2001 04:30:29 -0000
Received: from sulphur.cix.co.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sulphur.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.2_BM26) with ESMTP id
fBKJGnX03232
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:16:49 GMT
Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com (imo-m05.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.8])
by sulphur.cix.co.uk (8.11.3/CIX/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fBKJGmC03224
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 19:16:48 GMT
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id c.ea.1fda82a4 (4207)
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:16:37 -0500
(EST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:16:36 EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="part1_ea.1fda82a4.29539314_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536
X-Envelope-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-UIDL: _ry.ikjI8.sulphur
Subject: Re: filmscanners: iCorrect software
--part1_ea.1fda82a4.29539314_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Some of us are color blind, so something like iCorrect is a blessing, even
if
it's not perfect. I've only had my copy of iCorrect Professional for a
couple of days and have only used it for correcting skin tones. I ran a
test
where I did the best job of adjusting color balance "by the numbers." I
then
took that image and used iCorrect to adjust the skin tones. When I showed
both images to a friend with good color vision, he said both were
acceptable
images, though he'd have preferred something in between them. iCorrect
seems
to give gray (too much cyan) skin tones. If you're going to error, it's
best
to error on the side of safety, and that's what iCorrect seems to do.
As a color blind person, my workflow (at least for right now is) for
correcting skin tones is going to be: 1) Color correct "by the numbers"
using SilverFast and/or Photoshop. 2) Make a duplicate layer in Photoshop
and use iCorrect to process it 3) Use Photoshop to select 4 sampling
points
on the model's skin so as to get a CMYK readout of the colors at each point
and then write down those numbers for the iCorrect layer and for the "by
the
numbers" layer. 4) Finally, adjust the "by the numbers" layer so that its
sampling points read half way between its original values and those of the
iCorrect layer.
Hopefully, I'll be able to come up with a better workflow, but that's what
I'm going to use for the time being. You are correct in questioning the
value of iCorrect for a person with good color vision who wants the best
possible color balance possible. It's best to do that with Photoshop, etc.
But if a person (even someone with good color vision) has a lot of photos
he
wants to print, doesn't want to spend a lot of time color balancing each
one,
and is happy with "acceptable" results like you'd get with your average
photo
processing lab, then iCorrect can be very useful.
One thing I've realized is that with all of the tweaking and processing of
colors that I'm doing, it would be best to do it all in 48-bit mode where
you've got a lot of color depth to work with and less chance of running out
of bits to manipulate. iCorrect Professional can work in 48-bit mode.
Photoshop has some limited capability and I suspect that the next release
will have even more (just a guess on my part). Unfortunately for me,
SilverFast, while it can work in 48-bit mode, always outputs a processed
image in 24-bit mode. That means I can't feed a 48-bit image from
SilverFast
to iCorrect. I consider that a severe shortcoming of SilverFast and have
posted a request to Lasersoft on their forum that they fix SilverFast so
that
it can output 48-bit files if the user requests. If there are any other
SilverFast users who feel as I do, you should also post a request on the
SilverFast forum. Lasersoft says they've had some internal discussion of
this topic and if enough of us request it, they might do it.
In a message dated 12/19/2001 11:52:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I agree the plug-in seems the way to go, assuming the stand-alone
software
> has the same feature set. After working a few times with the demo,
though.,
> I question somewhat the wisdom of buying it at all. It works after a
> fashion, but not on all material and the results are here and there.
Also,
> I'm not sure it's any faster to use the iCorrect filter than the other
> image-correction tools already available to PS or PSP users.
>
> Appreciate the password if I do bite--where's your review of this
software?
> I'd like to read it.
>
--part1_ea.1fda82a4.29539314_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Some of us are color blind,
so something like iCorrect is a blessing, even if it's not perfect.
I've only had my copy of iCorrect Professional for a couple of days
and have only used it for correcting skin tones. I ran a test where I
did the best job of adjusting color balance "by the numbers." I then
took that image and used iCorrect to adjust the skin tones. When I
showed both images to a friend with good color vision, he said both were
acceptable images, though he'd have preferred something in between them.
iCorrect seems to give gray (too much cyan) skin tones. If
you're going to error, it's best to error on the side of safety, and that's
what iCorrect seems to do.
<BR>
<BR>As a color blind person, my workflow (at least for right now is) for
correcting skin tones is going to be: 1) Color correct "by the
numbers" using SilverFast and/or Photoshop. 2) Make a duplicate layer
in Photoshop and use iCorrect to process it 3) Use Photoshop to
select 4 sampling points on the model's skin so as to get a CMYK readout of
the colors at each point and then write down those numbers for the iCorrect
layer and for the "by the numbers" layer. 4) Finally, adjust
the "by the numbers" layer so that its sampling points read half way
between its original values and those of the iCorrect layer.
<BR>
<BR>Hopefully, I'll be able to come up with a better workflow, but that's
what I'm going to use for the time being. You are correct in
questioning the value of iCorrect for a person with good color vision who
wants the best possible color balance possible. It's best to do that
with Photoshop, etc. But if a person (even someone with good color
vision) has a lot of photos he wants to print, doesn't want to spend a lot
of time color balancing each one, and is happy with "acceptable" results
like you'd get with your average photo processing lab, then iCorrect can be
very useful.
<BR>
<BR>One thing I've realized is that with all of the tweaking and processing
of colors that I'm doing, it would be best to do it all in 48-bit mode
where you've got a lot of color depth to work with and less chance of
running out of bits to manipulate. iCorrect Professional can work in
48-bit mode. Photoshop has some limited capability and I suspect that
the next release will have even more (just a guess on my part).
Unfortunately for me, SilverFast, while it can work in 48-bit mode,
always outputs a processed image in 24-bit mode. That means I can't
feed a 48-bit image from SilverFast to iCorrect. I consider that a
severe shortcoming of SilverFast and have posted a request to Lasersoft on
their forum that they fix SilverFast so that it can output 48-bit files if
the user requests. If there are any other SilverFast users who feel
as I do, you should also post a request on the SilverFast forum.
Lasersoft says they've had some internal !
discussion of this topic and if enough of us request it, they might do it.
<BR>
<BR>In a message dated 12/19/2001 11:52:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid;
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I agree the plug-in
seems the way to go, assuming the stand-alone software
<BR>has the same feature set. After working a few times with the demo,
though.,
<BR>I question somewhat the wisdom of buying it at all. It works after a
<BR>fashion, but not on all material and the results are here and there.
Also,
<BR>I'm not sure it's any faster to use the iCorrect filter than the other
<BR>image-correction tools already available to PS or PSP users.
<BR>
<BR>Appreciate the password if I do bite--where's your review of this
software?
<BR>I'd like to read it.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
--part1_ea.1fda82a4.29539314_boundary--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or
body
