Just a few more words here.. in an effort to make it hopefully more logical.. First a scanner has to be dialed in to respond to a certain film type correctly.. The scanner is working in an rgb space much like our eyes but it's a mechanical widget.. I will totally agree that it's just fine to let a scanner do it thing but only when it has a proper input file that will allow it to respond to the film type correctly. Scanners have input profiles that help them respond or capture data properly.. To assume that one input profile will allow a scanner to respond to all film types is totally incorrect. Their are basically maybe 4 / 6 different input profiles required to capture all the various film types out there.. Plus over time a scanners response characteristics change..You'll still get a scan if you use the wrong one but it won't be the correct characterization or scanner response to the film..
Ok so hang with me for a minute here ok? What a scanner does is simply creates a mathematical representation of the rgb response of the scanner to the film type so that in our digital world we can see it and use it.. Ok so the tiff file that comes off the scanner is a fixed mathematical image that is subject to some level of being degraded from a quality standpoint as we take our trust little Photoshop chain saw to it.. The farther you push the file the more degrading things will start to show up.. So all that being said now lets go back to the scan process for a minute.. The single point I'm attempting to share is that if you do something that tells the scanner to interpret the rgb differently then it is it is simply creating altered mathematical data that that is derived from how the scanner responds to the rgb scanning process.. Where I'm going with this is simple the mathematical information that is in the tiff file is a loss less, at this point, representation that is closer to hopefully one's final intent ..What I'm trying to say is that you've gained some head room that you won't loose in Photoshop pushing pixels around.. I sincerely apologize ... again I'm not really that great at saying things ..
So to sum up or try to.. we need the scanner to respond correctly to capture accurately what is on the piece of film.. That is controlled buy the scanners input profile.. If I ask the scanner to see the rgb source a little differently so the capture can be improved a bit that is a plus not a minus.. remember I'm scanning a pixel at a time.. so I can tell it to see a certain pixel type a little different .. So how many of you in Photoshop adjust just one pixel value all over your image.. The end point is that the scanner is a great partner and a great tool to assist in making world class images.. and to think that it can't participate in that and that PS is the only one is total BS.. It's simply a partner ship.. Those that choose to not utilize that partnership I say are working harder to get to the other side.. That is not to say that PS isn't a great tool it most certainly is.. But PS can only respond to what you tell it to do.. The scanners job is the other half of the equation.. It responds to the film type and an rgb to digital conversion of that response and what's kool is that we can teach it how to do that.. Sorry I may be derailing the train here don't mean to do that.
jimbo
----- Original Message -----
From: 'pdesmidt tds.net' pdesmidt@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Workflow assistance?
Jimbo said, "Anyway if you make some adjustments to the initial capture to get you closer to your final intent the tiff you then get is still loss less initially so your closer to where you want to go.."
Jimbo's right, as long as the adjustments affect what data the scanner captures. Things like exposure time, aperture size... But if the adjustments are applied to the captured data, such as a curves adjustment, then there's no advantage to doing the adjustment in the scanner software over doing the adjustment in Photoshop. The problem is that it's hard to know whether the scanning software is making capture adjustments or post capture software adjustments.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 8:06 AM, 'mrjimbo2' mrjimbo2@wispwest.net [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint] <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I think I'm getting it now.. Where I'm getting confused is your using the term "raw" I believe you save your files off as tiff's right? As is typically done with most scanners. The term raw to me I associate more with the current file format of DSLR's.. which is a totally different file format in function.. The tiff format , which I think very highly of, is technically loss less in it's initial capture level so the..scan is loss less. But as soon as you start modifying a tiff whether it's 8 or 16 bit you start the process of acquiring some form of loss. The reason is that the file is now a mathematical interpretation of color.. When the scanner see's it it's still rgb not math yet... Anyway if you make some adjustments to the initial capture to get you closer to your final intent the tiff you then get is still loss less initially so your closer to where you want to go.. I am not the greatest at vocalizing things I apologize for that. Paul is so great at it.. :-)..
Ok regarding scanning .. depending upon what I'm up to I often scan a B&W negs in color.. this is what's up with that .. In B&W we have basically 255 steps.. white is 0 and black is 255.. When you scan in color you basically have 3 sets of 255 steps each set see's the B&W differently so when were making significant adjustments it helps us hold the final intent closer and the technology of going from color to B&W is about the best it's ever been today. Just sayin...
Ok masks, I am in total agreement with Paul.. masks are literally awesome and often a real PIA to make but well worth the effort.. Their are many ways to make masks. I typically like using a channel mask that I make.. maybe one of my favorites is as follows.. I copy the whole image into a new channel.. Selecting that channel I then go into filters and use find edges.. This basically turns the image into sort of a line drawing.. now using levels I adjust it to retain what I want ..typically the left slider moves way over to the right.. and the right slider will move closer to the left.. their is one more step .. but first if you want several masks that will affect areas of the image differently make another copy of that channel for use later.. The next step is to look at the mask and erase anything you don't want it to affect.. or add in what's missing.. Ok now I use Gaussin blur on the channel maybe 2 to 4 pixels to affect a blend when I use the mask to help eliminate pixelation at the edges.. Then it simply a matter of loading the mask but make sure to select inverse so it works properly.. This is probably my favorite masking method as it so fast to get their and it easy to modify it to achieve different results in different areas of the image.. You can even make an action to build it.. still allowing for your making adjustments in the process of making it. Their are a few other tricks that can be tied to masks to help when the detail starts really getting small that you want to work with but hopefully you get the concept of the mask I like..
jimbo
----- Original Message -----
From: michael3442@yahoo.com [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Workflow assistance?
Thanks again, Jimbo. The concept behind "raw scan" is that scanning can be either a one or two step process. As a one step process you scan the image and save the file to disk without any processing at the hardware/scanner level (resembling a RAW capture). The idea is that PS is just as capable, if not more-so, than the scanner's software to render the file into a suitable image. As a two step process, first the image is scanned and then, due to choices made when setting up the scanning software, the file is processed in the scanner; then it's saved to disk. From here the file can be further processed in PS, LR, and so on.
I've done a fair amount of experimentation with these two methods and do not find any advantage to the two step process over the one step. With the one step method I can be certain I'm getting everything the image has to offer without the intervention by the scanner's software. Raw scanned images/negs show up as dark images in PS and that may be seen as a disadvantage; however, that does not reflect on the quality of the file. (I'm not an authority on this method; I've just read a bit and have experimented a bit. If I'm proven to be misguided, then I'll change my ways.)
As for the image(s) in this series (NE Minnesota landscapes in winter), I only shoot when it's completely overcast, outside, thus providing very low contrast. It also may be snowing as can be observed in the present image. With these images, what I "see" eventually turns up as the final print and may be different from what the film/sensor records, but that's the way it always is; the tools are part of the process at arriving at a final image ready for viewing. I'm not trying to be true to the film/sensor; I'm trying to be true to my experience of nature. These images aren't for everyone, but a surprising number of folks find they strike a fairly deep cord. I'll post a couple of additional images from this series that I've recently completed; they'll be up sometime this evening (fri.).
As for equipment, I scan with an Epson 4870 using Epson Scan, process with PS CS5, and print with an Epson r2400 (larger prints will eventually have to be sent out).
Michael
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7918 - Release Date: 07/25/14
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7924 - Release Date: 07/26/14Message
Re: [Digital BW] Re: Workflow assistance?
2014-07-26 by mrjimbo2