Rob Harrison wrote:
> I'm talking about the issue of "color management" rather than "color
> accuracy." Different kettle of fish....
I must respectfully differ here. Perhaps if we define two different
things, "Color Management" and "color management", we can agree
> I'll always tweak the colors to make them look good...which may or may not
> reflect the actual scene.
That is color management; managing the colors to make them look the way
you like. I do a lot of that myself.
Color Management is a process the goal of which is that original
subject, monitor image and printed output can be viewed side-by-side and
all have the same colors. It is a critical part of the work of many
graphics professionals, product photographers, etc. and a cornerstone of
the catalog industry.
From my perspective, I do an amateur job of Color Management as the
first step, then make any adjustments of my own from there.
> The problem
> with the Fuji Frontier "scans at development" I'm getting from Ivey is that
> a) they vary randomly between superb and crappy and
I had the same problem with scan with development from an Agfa system. A
couple of rolls would be great, then one would be useless. And they said
there wer no adjustments they could make. I gave up on it.
> b) if they are scanned in sRGB colorspace (which seems to be the case from
> what Ivey tells me) there's no expanding them beyond that,
>
Very likely true that they are sRBG, but simply not so tagged in the
files. It is certainly possible to expand them. Simply assign the sRGB
profile to them, then convert to aRGB. The usual problems I and others
wrote about extensively recently apply if you are working with 8-bit.
Extensive stretching and squeezing, with the color space conversions
being one of those actions, can cause undesired effects in the image.
> which automatically limits the quality and thus usefulness for 8.5 x11
> portfolio print purposes, even if the resolution is adequate.
>
This is not theoretically true. A good quality 8-bit, sRGB scan can make
an excellent print. The trick is getting the quality scan needed. And as
you and I have found, cheap automated scans aren't what is needed. And
since one must go elsewhere for the quality needed, why not get 16-bit
aRGB scans? You can always go down in bit depth depth and gamut later.
As the link you later posted illustrates, the popular wisdom that
printers have less gamut than even sRGB isn't true. Nonetheless, a
nicely done sRGB file can make a great print. I"m not advocating
anything, just pointing out what I have learned from experience. I work
exclusively in aRGB with film scans and DSLR files. If a printer driver
later converts them, at least it will be one optimized for results with
the printer involved.
> That is, I've discovered the basic problem is that the $14.95 per roll ~2 MB
> each scans at development are fine for web use and proofing, but not for high
> quality printing.
I in many cases found them to clip highlights and lose shadow detail to
the extent that they weren't even good proofs of what is on the film.
Nor did they always allow me to make as good web images as did better scans.
> Thus, if I continue to use film, I need better scans of (only) the negs of
> which I want high quality prints, which adds another hardware, software, time
> and/or expense to the process. Starting with a digital file bypasses that
> step...but as you say, not the color accuracy issues.
>
If full color accuracy isn't important, you probably won't need anything
for outdoor shots and only something simple like a WhiBal for
others.While it's possible to get good, natural looking results from
oddly balanced originals, it is SO much easier to have a reference to
get them close before you do any adjusting of your own.
> My printer and monitors each have custom calibrated profiles, so I'm getting
> pretty close to what I see on screen out of the printer.
>
Mine too, a very important step to maintain some semblance of sanity,
let alone equanimity.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|