Hi Tom, >>Why are high bit worksflows harder and take more time? Because of the >>Photoshop limitations? Wouldn't a 16bit clean program relieve you of these >>hassles? > > Hello afx, I think the slowness is primarily due to the glacial speed that > the scanner transfers data to the computer. Sometimes ten minutes just to No on my box. Here the scanner is the slow part (FS4000), not the SCSI bus.
> much faster. The other time consuming part is making the selection, you > can't just reach for tools, you have to lasso your area to be fixed up, then > apply the feathered selection, then do levels/curves adjustments on the > selection. Or else the other way is to use history erase. either takes ten > more steps (approximately) compared to using a simple dodge/burn tool. > Still, IMHO, it gives a much better result because you can optimize the > levels and curves for each section of an image, no limit, you can have > everbody's faces, for example, individually leveled and curved and color > corrected. Sounds awfully complicated and sort of confirms my theses that the problem is PS not having full 16bit support. > I wish i knew of a program that allowed dodging/burning in 16 bit, do you? Not on the Mac, only on the PC (see the other posts) ;-( If PWP where available on the Mac, I would have bought one instead of the Athlon box I am using now. cheers afx -- Andreas Siegert [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
