Roger wrote:
> Rob, I want IT-8 calibration because I'm color blind and I want
> to reduce the number of variables I have to deal with.
Oh! OK, that makes sense.
> IT-8 calibration and color management are steps in the right
> direction, but we've got a long way to go.
At the moment the process of going from an image on a piece of film to an
image on the screen that matches it well to an image on paper that matches
it well is waaaaay too hard. At least for those of us who are silly enough
to do this stuff on a PC instead of a Mac. It gets worse (as Tony has
mentioned)
if you involve a printing company. I've seen gorgeous scans on my screen,
and I can make wonderful prints on my Epson, but I've yet to see results
that are close on the magazine pages I've contributed to. :( Then again
they haven't been high gloss reproductions. I'll wait and see what the
next issue of the magazine looks like for how the printer has mangled my
Provia 100F scans...
Murphy's law of Thermodynamics - things get worse under pressure.
> Now that I've said all of that, I have to admit that I've been
> considering buying Vuescan just to see if I could live with it.
> I'm not real happy with SilverFast's price gouging.
Ed would be better answering this but AFAIK he has characterised the scanners
which Vuescan supports and there is some sort of "calibration" going on.
Certainly if you take a raw scan and recrop it there is a "mode" option
where you select the scanner, so I presume this must be some sort of
scanner-specific
correction. But then with the sort of work I've been doing, colour accuracy
hasn't been critical. I'm more concerned about getting an image on the
screen that I like than one which accurately reproduces what the film produced.
The film's image is only a representation of reality anyway!
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
