Now that you've mentioned HDR and Silverfast I recall that you've stated
before that that's the way you work. I have no experience with your
scanning method. I also don't have an Eizo screen. But I can say the
the histogram for the boy's hand shows that much of the shadow area is
pure black and it cannot be adjusted by the brightness control. I
suspect you must be visually much more forgiving of the dark shadows
than I am. But if you like it and it appears as reality to you then you
should ignore my comments.
Chuck Norcutt
On 11/7/2012 2:15 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
> Thanks, Chuck. I'm scanning with Silverfast and doing two exposure HDR
> scans. They come out very dark and contrasty naturally but contain all of
> the information available in the slide. The Kodachrome target is pretty
> accurate. I just don't see that in the shadows of the boy's hand. On my
> calibrated Eizo screen the shadows are soft and not black at all. I'll
> admit that they look over saturated but that's the way I see the color in
> Guatemala. I'll try to restrain myself and dial the saturation into the
> negative on the next one just for comparison.
>
> Tina
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> wrote:
>
>> A big improvement over the previous "Kids in caps" but still
>> oversaturated and, I think, still a bit too much contrast. Note in
>> particular: This appears to be soft, moderately bright daylight but
>> soft enough that it is not casting any strong shadows. Now look at the
>> boy's hand at right. Half of the skin tones have gone to black or
>> nearly so. That just shouldn't be the case in this light.
>>
>> Can you show us an original scan with no adjustments? Maybe the scanner
>> is set to produce too much contrast to begin with. If a scan is too
>> dark or contrasty it can be difficult to recover what should be there.
>> A good scan will, if anything, be (like an expose to the right digital
>> image) a bit too bright but not have any blown highlights. One can back
>> the brightness down and increase contrast... but it's much more
>> difficult to make significant corrections in the opposite direction.
>>
>> Finally, you should be working in 16 bits during adjustments. 8 bits is
>> enough to cover the dynamic range of a printed image but does not
>> contain enough tonal detail to maintain tonal separation during major
>> brightness/contrast editing. You can go back to 8 bits when the editing
>> is done.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> On 11/6/2012 2:32 PM, Tina Manley wrote:
>>> PESO:
>>>
>>> We drove 30 minutes, waited in line 45 minutes and drove back home 30
>>> minutes this morning but we voted!!! Hope you did.
>>>
>>> Now I'm processing more scans. Clarity seems to make a big difference
>> and
>>> I'm backing off more on these Kodachrome, contrasty scans.
>>>
>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/147189757
>>>
>>> C&C greatly appreciated. I couldn't do this without all of the help and
>>> advice I receive here!
>>>
>>> Tina
>>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|