Re: Scanner woes

Another method of attack is to batch them and then go back and manually scan the ones that are not good enough.


Ken Weitzel wrote:


Alex Wilde wrote:

In message <miMeg.102885$dW3.36597@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, degrub <degrub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes

Are you letting NS set the exposure ?



Yes.


Yes there is a difference between bunching up all of the density range of the neg over a few bits of the A/D converter ( think using 6 bits out of the 14 !) and using all 14 bits. You will loose the distinctions in tone of the image. Whether it is visible to you are not depends on how much of the density range the neg used for the image to begin with. If it was reasonably exposed , then you should see the difference in the two scans, at least partially on the CRT. If your image is only using 8 bits of density range or less , then you will not likely see any difference in the CRT (8 bit /pixel device) between the two scans. The extra "headroom" bits will help when you are adjusting the image in PS. We have worked with 8 bit per pixel images for years and done quite well, you just had to get the scan correct (setting white and black points) to begin with and then limit the size of any curve edits to the image.

I think I understand that. Given what you said the your last sentence, is trying to archive negative scans 'unattended' a futile task? Maybe my workflow needs rethinking.

What I can't understand is why some scans are bunched up as described, and others okay - both seemingly of very similar contrast / exposure. This is why I am worried about applying a 'global' curves setting to the scans. In making the some right, surely I'm making others worse? If this is the case, then my goal of almost uninterrupted scanning of negs is a none starter.


Hi Alex...

Experienced much of what you're seeing as well (archiving negs
that span many, many years)

I'm pretty much convinced that what's happening is that our
brain is doing a *lot* of pre or post or somewhere in between
of what the eye actually sees and what our brain thinks it should
see.

IOW, the eye can be fooled, but not the scanner.

FWIW, I'm three years into scanning negs and slides, and still
a little of half way through the pile... doing 'em one by one :)

Take care.

Ken

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scanner woes
    ... then my goal of almost uninterrupted scanning of negs is a none starter. ... of what the eye actually sees and what our brain thinks it should ... IOW, the eye can be fooled, but not the scanner. ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)
  • When did ebay get soft and puffy?
    ... I realize ebay is on the left coast, but does their super success have to make them all soft in the brain? ... I mean, no negs for bidders, no peeking at WHO is bidding or bid rather, and the auto complete? ...
    (alt.marketing.online.ebay)