On 3/26/2011 10:59 PM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> Thanks again Moose--I do like both of these better in your latest versions
> and indeed prefer them to my own.
:-)
> As for the scanner, I am at a loss. When I see the output histogram, I see
> not spikes or cutoffs or holes.
On 3/27/2011 6:08 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> I used to be a big fan of Vuescan back when I shot 35mm film and scanned it
> with a Nikon film scanner. I found Vuescan far superior to the Nikon Scan
> software. But with the Epson 700, I just could not get Vuescan to work
> properly, and on the other hand, the Epson software is fairly complete and
> easy to use, as Chuck notes. I do not let it to do any sharpening and make
> sure that the scan is rather dull looking (no clipped shadows or highlights),
> save it as a 16 bit TIFF file and continue in Photoshop.
Your descriptions and comments from others using EpsonScan lead me to believe
my analysis was wrong. But still,
somewhere between film and web display, the image is being messed with in an
unattractive way.
Here are histograms, on top, as captured from the screen (greatpix doesn't
allow direct downloads), on the bottom, after
ShadowHighlight. The capture is sort of Unicornlike, with that huge horn, the
modified one more like the normal snake
that's just had dinner.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Tech/Misc&image=SIuf_Plaza_deA_Histogram.jpg>
It should be easy to find out where the alteration is occurring. Look at the
unmodified EpsonScan output, the output
from PS or LR before downsizing, the output after downsizing and ready to
upload, and the final web image. At some
point, it must change dramatically; easy enough to see even without the
histogram.
Once you find out where, you can find out how/why, and change whatever is doing
it.
> I see a normal, smooth histogram. I will try to play a bit more with the
> shadows& highlights tool in PS when processing my next batch of negatives.
If "the scan is rather dull looking" and you "see a normal, smooth histogram ",
the highlight compression hasn't yet
happened, and there's no point in playing with that tool.
> In the past I used it more but then gave it up because I found that it gave
> an unnatural look. But your demonstration is quite convincing.
It works much better with some sorts of images than others. It makes halos
easily on some, it can make others oddly flat
looking, sometimes it requires a delicate hand. On those like these images of
yours, it's really great. I probably make
it sound easier to use than you may find it, what with 8 sliders and 2 other
settings. I'm just really used to using it
and have it opened in a new layer with my defaults by an Action.
But what I'm trying to do is get rid of the reason for needing it, so you can
get your images from film to screen in
good shape with minimum messing about in post.
A. Tenacious Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
