on 6/28/02 1:28 AM, Benson Honig at benson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Jim - when you verify after scanning - are you just making sure that the
> picture is there - or are you making sure that it is up to some sort of
> standard? In other words, are you confident that you can fix most anything
> from a tiff format - or are there some red lines where you go back and try
> another scan with different parameters?
>
> I decided to buy Vuescan - and found it does a much better job (The HP
> software may have been part of my problem) but also opens up more options -
> larger files with more depth, more variability, etc...In sum, after looking
> again at Walt's amazing photo, I figure that it is just a matter of my
> being a poor "driver" of this scanning technology. I can't say I really
> understand it - I do understand most of the darkroom, but it seems not to
> apply.
>
> Benson
When I scan an image, I like to look at the scanned image to make sure that
its all there and that I got detail where I want it... If I don't see
certain details, or if I think I should be getting more shadow information,
etc I might go back and rescan using a different parameter i.e. multipass
scan, etc.
I use Vuescan, I think it is about the best deal going... sometimes I use
the Silverfast Ai software that came with the SprintScan. Vuescan promotes
the idea that scanning once is all you need, then you can 'scan from disk'
from the saved TIF file. I would probably open the saved TIF in Photoshop to
work on it, I think Vuescan is suggesting this if you use their program for
color correction or unsharp mask, etc. you don't need to rescan each time
you change the processing...
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|