Rob wrote:
>what you say about RGB and turquoise would presumably apply to the scanner
>itself.
>From the limited number of Nikon scans I've seen on the Net and in
publications, I'd guess that's true. They seem to have a strong Blue
component (it shows also in skin tones and warm ochre-ish values, as you'd
expect).
The PS tweak is pretty simple--you can fiddle with Color Balance and
Saturation to get the turquoise colors pretty close. But if you have lots of
those pictures (and you probably do, since there are lots of limestone reefs
and lagoons in your part of the world), you'll save much time by tweaking
the scan properties and getting the scan colors closer at the start.
I *think* there's also a way to save global tweak-settings in Photoshop,
based on the eyedropper and a sampled (or created) color, but I'm not sure
how to do it. Maybe someone better with PS does.
As you probably know, Lake Erie is not particularly turquoise--we're very
happy when it isn't *brown*! ;-)
Best regards--LRA
Original message--
>From: "Rob Geraghty" <harper@wordweb.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?
>Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 19:14:23 +1000
>
>"Lynn Allen" <ktrout@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Turquoise has a lot of yellow, cyan, and almost no red (other than
>shadows,
> > ripples, etc), in terms of CMYK. It can be a bugger on a monitor, where
>RGB
> > are your working colors.
>
>I tried printing it, but the print looks like the screen - not like the
>slide. So I'm
>not convinced that it's the monitor which is losing the colour. Having
>said
>that,
>what you say about RGB and turquoise would presumably apply to the scanner
>itself. :(
>
>Rob
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
