[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography

["Laurie@advancenet.net" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

> When many people scan film, though, they subject the image to
> automated processing that may well result in the kind of irreversible
> image degradation you were talking about earlier. By storing a file
> directly from the CCD output of the scanner and dealing with all
> processing post-capture you allow yourself the freedom to oversee any
> processing manually, potentially avoiding the kind of problems you
> seemed to be referring to.

True; but this automatic processing may include a few of the things that one
manually controls when using a Camera RAW application to interpret the image
data values.  However, for the most part with respect to these things, it
uses defaults in the automatic processing; but most of the automatic
processing that is done by the scanning software has to do with things that
one can already do in Photoshop such as levels and curves settings,
saturation settings, brightness and contrast settings, etc. and not with
things that are done with Camera RAW applications. Thus by storing a file
directly from the CDD output of the scanner and dealing with all processing
post capture, you are not really dealing with the interpretive processes
that one is manually dealing with when processing a Camera RAW file in a
Camera RAW application.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of R. Jackson
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 7:11 PM
> To: laurie@advancenet.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Laurie@advancenet.net wrote:
>
> > I have not used VueScan in years and am unfamiliar with its current
> > raw
> > output.  When I used it the raw scan was 16 bit non-linear scan
> > without any
> > software processing applied at all output as a TIFF file.
>
> Correct. You can also save the VueScan data as an Adobe DNG file,
> which allows for lossless compression and a considerable space
> savings over 16-bit uncompressed tiff files, which may seem trivial,
> but when scanning color 6x7 transparencies at 4800 dpi the output is
> 13,376 x 10,676 and around 260 meg in size. DNG can pull that back to
> around 175 meg.
>
> >   This is not
> > exactly the same as Camera RAW which via camera raw conversion
> > programs
> > allows the user to interpret the raw data as to exposure, white
> light,
> > saturation levels, chromatic distortion, and color settings prior to
> > converting the interpreted data into a standard format which the
> > user can
> > then manipulate in image editing programs like Photoshop.
>
> All true.
>
> When many people scan film, though, they subject the image to
> automated processing that may well result in the kind of irreversible
> image degradation you were talking about earlier. By storing a file
> directly from the CCD output of the scanner and dealing with all
> processing post-capture you allow yourself the freedom to oversee any
> processing manually, potentially avoiding the kind of problems you
> seemed to be referring to. Obviously it's more time-consuming. I find
> that the RAW files from VueScan can withstand a considerable amount
> of tweaking in Photoshop before they start to show visible artifacts.
> Obviously much more than most pre-processed scanner output. Of
> course, they don't look as appealing right out of the scanner, which
> may put off more casual users.
>
> -Rob
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title or body


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body