old slides and scanning

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by The Video Editor, Mar 16, 2005.

  1. HOW TO GET QUALITY SCANS THAT RESPOND TO COLOR CORRECTION

    If you are using an epson scanner, they come with a toned down version
    of Adobe Photoshop. In it is a good medium quality color correction.
    Scan your slides at 2,400 DPI. You do not need anything higher because
    you are then funneling down beyond the resolution on the slide itself.
    I have scanned several thousand slides since 2001 and I can tell you
    there is no difference between 48bit and 24 bit. The only difference
    you might see between these two is from a native source such as a
    digital camera. The slides do not have enough info in them to utilize
    the potential data beyond 24 bit 2,400 DPI. At 2,400 DPI the color
    correction and auto level adj will work best. Try it at home, do a
    1,200 DPI scan and a 2,400 DPI scan of the same image, put them side by
    side and apply color correction tothem both, save them both, close all
    the files, reopen them and compare side by side. You may have to ZOOM
    way in and look at pixelation side by side. Adobe has histograms based
    on scientifically recorded probability as to how colors change hue in
    the natural world. The more data you have present the better chance it
    can adjust your old faded colors with a better result.
    Read more at my web, I am a professional photographer and videographer
    and video editor with a articles folder.
    http://www.dvdhomevideoeditor.com/product_4_SlidesPhotos.html
    I have been attacked by competitors lately so if it does not come up,
    just click open again.
    Any problems, seriously, drop me a line using email from my web. I
    repsond to all inquiries, period.
    Ted
    Master Editor
    The Video Editor, Mar 16, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. The Video Editor

    Guest

    Is this in regard to web-display only??? If so, my tirade below may be
    a little harsh, but you haven't made it clear..


    > Scan your slides at 2,400 DPI. You do not need anything higher

    because
    > you are then funneling down beyond the resolution on the slide itself


    There is *plenty* of detail beyond 2400 dpi. Ever heard of the Minolta
    5400 dpi CONSUMER film scanners? Go look up the resolution of a drum
    scanner...

    > there is no difference between 48bit and 24 bit


    What???? If you truly believe that, you have never done much
    post-processing, or used a histogram.... I stopped reading.

    If you are going to post stuff like this, explain what you are
    referring to. If this is about general film scanning, then you are
    *way* off the mark, and need to go back and do some serious homework.
    , Mar 16, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. The Video Editor

    rafeb Guest

    wrote:
    > Is this in regard to web-display only??? If so, my tirade below may be
    > a little harsh, but you haven't made it clear..
    >
    >
    >
    >>Scan your slides at 2,400 DPI. You do not need anything higher

    > because
    >>you are then funneling down beyond the resolution on the slide itself

    >
    >
    > There is *plenty* of detail beyond 2400 dpi. Ever heard of the Minolta
    > 5400 dpi CONSUMER film scanners? Go look up the resolution of a drum
    > scanner...



    Sure, you can find drum scanners rated up to 12000 dpi.
    But I've never seen a real photo, from any camera, with
    anywhere near that level of detail. In fact from what
    I've seen, 4000 dpi will capture 95% of the detail in any
    image I've seen, from any camera/lens/film combo.
    2700 dpi might hold 85-90%. Rough figures, of course.

    Check out the scan samples here:

    <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>


    >>there is no difference between 48bit and 24 bit

    >
    >
    > What???? If you truly believe that, you have never done much
    > post-processing, or used a histogram.... I stopped reading.



    Again, if you scan carefully and don't yank too hard
    on the curves tool in Photoshop, a 24 bit scan will
    suffice 95% of the time. I wouldn't say "no difference."
    I would say the difference is highly overrated and over-
    stated. If you're going to judge an image by the gaps
    in its histogram, I'd say it's you who's off the mark.

    Those gaps may be fatal to some images, and utterly
    innocuous to others. Images composed of lots of fine
    detail need minimal bit depth. Images with large areas
    of near-monochrome tones or subtle gradients need more
    bit depth. You can test this with Image->Adjust->Posterize
    in Photoshop. I'm sometimes surprised by how *few* levels
    are necessary for proper rendering of images.


    > If you are going to post stuff like this, explain what you are
    > referring to. If this is about general film scanning, then you are
    > *way* off the mark, and need to go back and do some serious homework.


    I know a thing or two about film scanning. Let's chat.



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafeb, Mar 17, 2005
    #3
  4. rafeb wrote:
    >
    >
    > wrote:
    >> Is this in regard to web-display only??? If so, my tirade below may be
    >> a little harsh, but you haven't made it clear..


    >>> Scan your slides at 2,400 DPI. You do not need anything higher

    >> because
    >>> you are then funneling down beyond the resolution on the slide itself


    >> There is *plenty* of detail beyond 2400 dpi. Ever heard of the Minolta
    >> 5400 dpi CONSUMER film scanners? Go look up the resolution of a drum
    >> scanner...


    > Sure, you can find drum scanners rated up to 12000 dpi.
    > But I've never seen a real photo, from any camera, with
    > anywhere near that level of detail. In fact from what
    > I've seen, 4000 dpi will capture 95% of the detail in any
    > image I've seen, from any camera/lens/film combo.
    > 2700 dpi might hold 85-90%. Rough figures, of course.


    The OP said there was little difference between 2400 and 1200
    ppi scans. Depending on the film and whether or not
    you used a tripod, that statement is way off. I agree
    with chrlz.
    >
    > Check out the scan samples here:
    > <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/>


    Do these samples not show that 4000 ppi drum scans is getting
    most of the info, and the comparison of ~2400 versus 4000 ppi
    is quite a big difference? Then consider the OP says not much
    difference between 2400 and 1200?

    See:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#testarea3
    where 35mm drum scanned velvia is compared at 2700, 4000, 6000,
    and 8000 dpi, along with consumer scanners at 2400 to 4000 dpi.
    Note the detail in "area A and area B. There is a big difference
    between 4000 dpi and 6000 dpi drum scans, but not much
    between 6000 and 8000. There is a huge difference
    from 2400 to 4000 dpi, and even more to 1200 dpi.
    The OP's position is simply not supported by facts.

    Regarding 8 versus 16-bit's per pixel, I have found less need for
    split density filters even on Velvia slide film as I can coax out
    normally unprintable detail in skies and clouds if I do
    16-bit scans. For example:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/gallerie...orado.fall.c09.30.2003.L4.9446-a b.c-700.html
    this image was done with a split density filter but the clouds
    would print white in a standard enlarger print. The 16-bit scan
    allowed me to get the detail in the slide. I am a total convert
    to 16-bit processing. My first step in working on an 8-bit/pixel
    jpeg from my digital camera is convert to 16-bit. That way I minimize
    posterization and can get more out if the image.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Mar 17, 2005
    #4
  5. The Video Editor

    Guest

    I agree totally, rafe, i just wanted to point out the (potentially
    fatal) flaws in the OP. This guy's website suggests he is offering
    these services to ARCHIVE people's images. If I wanted to archive my
    collection of slides, there is no way I would let it be done on
    anything less than a 2700 dpi flim scanner. In reality, I would want
    it done on a 4000 dpi scanner, and yes, I've used both types of scanner
    and seen how they differ. So unless you are just archiving images
    taken on a $50 point and shoot, or they are only for web-viewing, I
    think 2400 is selling most images short....(and especially when he is
    referring to a flatbed scanner that probably only achieves about
    1800-2000 ppi anyway)...

    And yes, I agree you probably won't spot the difference between a 24
    and 48 bit image *if* it is just the initial scan... but if you are
    going to be playing with levels, and doing a fair amount of
    post-processing, working with 48 bits has quite noticable advantages.
    In particular, posterisation will become an issue with some operations,
    and you can end up with something looking like a GIF file.. Once
    bitten, twice shy!

    If all this was about was creating a DVD for family viewing on the
    telly... maybe. But if you were planning to process and print those
    images to say 12x8 with minimal loss of quality....
    , Mar 17, 2005
    #5
  6. The Video Editor

    Guest

    By the way, it probably needs to be said that the only reason the OP
    can't see much difference between 1200 and 2400 is that his scanner is
    only capable of about 1800 anyway - so that is more of a commentary on
    the scanner!
    , Mar 17, 2005
    #6
  7. The Video Editor

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:40:24 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark)" <> wrote:


    >Do these samples not show that 4000 ppi drum scans is getting
    >most of the info, and the comparison of ~2400 versus 4000 ppi
    >is quite a big difference? Then consider the OP says not much
    >difference between 2400 and 1200?



    I guess I'd take a stand somewhere between chrlz and the OP.
    One exaggerates toward the low end, the other towards the
    high end.

    I've only seen a handful of real images, from any scanner,
    that show significant detail beyond 4000 dpi. And I say
    this after a brief period of owning a fine old 5000 dpi
    drum scanner.

    Even so, I believe you're now scanning your 4x5 with
    an Epson 4870? And surely you're not going to claim
    that its real resolution is anywhere near 4800 dpi?

    Plus there's something very strange about your scan-
    resolution comparisons. Where's the grain? Even the
    best slide films will have lots of grain showing
    at these resolutions. (The 2nd, 3rd and 4th 35mm
    images in scanres-samp2.jpg)


    >I am a total convert to 16-bit processing. My first
    >step in working on an 8-bit/pixel jpeg from my digital
    >camera is convert to 16-bit. That way I minimize
    >posterization and can get more out if the image.



    I'm not quite convinced. And neither is Dan Margulis.
    But with memory and drive space as cheap as they are,
    one can have it both ways. I confess to doing more
    of my scanning at 16 bit these days, though I'm not
    at all convinced of the need or benefit.

    We agree, I hope, that most scanners don't deliver
    much more than 11 or 12 bits (at best) of real data,
    regardless of their claimed bit depth. Anything
    beyond that is usually noise.

    16-bit processing simply allows you to defer your
    major color moves further down the image-processing
    chain before irretrievable loss of tonality occurs.

    If you scan carefully -- ie., use all the range
    available in all color channels -- the benefit
    is minimal. Unless of course you plan to do
    really radical color moves in Photoshop.

    If you use half the range, you are in effect
    throwing away one bit worth of image data.

    Given a perfect output device, how many folks
    could distinguish every step of a 256-step
    grayscale wedge?

    If you went to 128 steps, how much more distinct
    would the steps be?

    Now add noise to the picture (literally, since
    most images have noise in abundance) and the
    edges between the steps gets even hazier.

    I think if there weren't a histogram for people
    to look at, 16 bit processing wouldn't be anywhere
    near as popular is it is. Somewhere along the
    line someone decided that gapped histograms
    were a Very Bad Thing... regardless of whether
    there's an observable effect of that, on-screen
    or in print.

    Again, if the image in question involves subtle
    gradients and large "near-monochrome" areas, those
    extra bits might come in handy. But I've seen few
    examples of this in practice.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe bustin, Mar 17, 2005
    #7
  8. rafe bustin wrote:

    > Even so, I believe you're now scanning your 4x5 with
    > an Epson 4870? And surely you're not going to claim
    > that its real resolution is anywhere near 4800 dpi?


    That is correct. I'm scanning my 4x5 velvia at 3200 dpi.
    The scanner resolution is probably about that. The scans
    are a little softer than then drum scans I have had done.
    The problem with the drum scanner I use (Linotype-Hell; I need
    to get exact model number) is that while it does
    up to 11,0000 dpi and did 16 bits/pixel output,
    the files written had to be 8-bit. I need to see if that
    has changed in the last year. Anyway, what I found with the
    epson is that while it was a little less spatial resolution
    than the drum scan, the 16-bit output made better images (!!)
    because the intensity detail was so much better.
    >
    > Plus there's something very strange about your scan-
    > resolution comparisons. Where's the grain? Even the
    > best slide films will have lots of grain showing
    > at these resolutions. (The 2nd, 3rd and 4th 35mm
    > images in scanres-samp2.jpg)


    There is lots of grain in the images. Probably the best example
    is the image at:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#digicamres2
    See the image in this section, just above results/conclusions.
    The image labeled "4x5 original 1.03x" shows the grain well.
    Remember these images are fujichrome velvia, which shows much
    less grain in scanned images than provia 100 which is what I see
    most people use in scan comparisons.

    > I'm not quite convinced. And neither is Dan Margulis.
    > But with memory and drive space as cheap as they are,
    > one can have it both ways. I confess to doing more
    > of my scanning at 16 bit these days, though I'm not
    > at all convinced of the need or benefit.


    I also use a program called ImagesPlus which works in true
    16-bit math as opposed to Photoshop's 15-bit. I'm seeing
    posterization in Canon 1D mark II images processed in photoshop
    in "16-bit" that I don't see in ImagesPlus.
    For examples of an intensity profile of 8-bit versus 16-bit,
    see Figure 9a,b,c,d at:
    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

    > We agree, I hope, that most scanners don't deliver
    > much more than 11 or 12 bits (at best) of real data,
    > regardless of their claimed bit depth. Anything
    > beyond that is usually noise.


    I agree. Most have 12-bit A-to-Ds anyway, or are
    photon noise limited. But even with 12-bit DSLR data,
    I see artifacts from processing in photoshop's 15-bit math.
    I guess I need to put together some web pages showing
    that effect. I'll add it to my list.

    > If you scan carefully -- ie., use all the range
    > available in all color channels -- the benefit
    > is minimal. Unless of course you plan to do
    > really radical color moves in Photoshop.


    I agree, except when you need to compress dynamic
    range, like bring detail out of clouds, it can't be done
    in 8-bit (and I'm not talking color shifting).
    Similarly when you want to bring detail
    out of the shadows. 16-bit scans give you a better
    chance of getting the detail, just like RAW files
    on a digital camera give you more detail.

    > Given a perfect output device, how many folks
    > could distinguish every step of a 256-step
    > grayscale wedge?


    This is irrelevant. The whole point of image processing
    is to bring the dynamic range into what can be output
    into a medium for human viewing. It is a matter of
    capturing the huge scene dynamic range, which is often
    over 10, 11, or more stops, and compressing it for
    viewing. Often the output medium is the limiting step,
    not the human eye.

    > I think if there weren't a histogram for people
    > to look at, 16 bit processing wouldn't be anywhere
    > near as popular is it is. Somewhere along the
    > line someone decided that gapped histograms
    > were a Very Bad Thing... regardless of whether
    > there's an observable effect of that, on-screen
    > or in print.


    I strongly disagree. I've been doing image processing
    for about 30 years. Sometimes I'm working with
    data with a signal-to-noise tens of thousands and dynamic
    ranges of millions (scientific applications). The ability
    to capture a scene and bring out detail that could be seen
    with the eye is pretty amazing--things that could not be done
    with a traditional enlarger without special masks and
    extreme skill. And that goes for film and 16-bit scans as
    well as digital cameras and RAW files.
    >
    > Again, if the image in question involves subtle
    > gradients and large "near-monochrome" areas, those
    > extra bits might come in handy. But I've seen few
    > examples of this in practice.


    Perhaps it depends on what images you like to do.
    I would say every landscape photo that includes the sky
    and clouds qualifies.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Mar 17, 2005
    #8
  9. The Video Editor

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:40:01 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark)" <> wrote:


    >I strongly disagree. I've been doing image processing
    >for about 30 years. Sometimes I'm working with
    >data with a signal-to-noise tens of thousands and dynamic
    >ranges of millions (scientific applications). The ability
    >to capture a scene and bring out detail that could be seen
    >with the eye is pretty amazing--things that could not be done
    >with a traditional enlarger without special masks and
    >extreme skill. And that goes for film and 16-bit scans as
    >well as digital cameras and RAW files.



    So it goes. This topic's been beat to death on
    this and other fora for years, and even the
    experts disagree. I respect and admire your
    work and articles in this topic, but I think
    there's still room for debate.

    I don't usually resort to math in my approach to
    "digital darkroom" but I know what works and what
    doesn't. Posterization, even in clear blue skies,
    is not an issue with my files or prints. Pure
    luck? I doubt it. See if you can spot posterization
    on any images on my website or the scan snippets
    site. Clear blue sky? How about the 2nd "Perfect
    Scan" near the top of the scan-snippets site?

    On "my" side of the argument is a very clever fellow
    named Dan Margulis, whom you may have heard of. In
    fact you'll see a thread of this same discussion
    somewhere on Dan's web site. A fellow named
    Jeff Schewe is his main opponent in that debate.

    I'm not about to discourage anyone from using 16
    bit image files, but I've heard lots of ridiculous
    claims for the benefits of doing so. For digicams
    I certainly encourage the use of RAW files, but
    that's a slightly different issue.

    As for image resolution... again, I'm eager to
    receive and post full-res scan samples -- any
    film, any lens, any camera -- that can beat
    the scans already posted. I really am
    interested in the question, "Just how much
    detail can be extracted from 0.25" x 0.25"
    of film." Only real photos please, not
    test targets. If you've got 6000 dpi scans,
    I'll be happy to post a 1500 x 1500 pixel,
    full-res snippet, cherry-picked for the
    sharpest detail you can find, and JPG'd at
    best quality/minimimum compression. Please
    send a small "overview" JPG of the frame
    from which the snippet is derived.


    rafe b.
    scan snippets:
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis
    rafe bustin, Mar 17, 2005
    #9
  10. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > By the way, it probably needs to be said that the only reason the OP
    > can't see much difference between 1200 and 2400 is that his scanner is
    > only capable of about 1800 anyway - so that is more of a commentary on
    > the scanner!
    >


    OK now that all of us have read (and tried to understand) the arguments can
    someone please advise which flatbed to buy?
    I have about 4000 colour slides and lots of black and white family photos
    going back to the early 1940s whioch I would like to digitise for the whole
    family. We are not wealthy and were wondering whether an Epson of about
    2800dpi is enough or 3600 dpi or if in fact we need to spend $900 for one
    with 4000 or even 4800 dpi? As you are aware the price does rocket upwards
    the higher the resolution.

    Thanks in advance.

    Gerrit - Oz
    Gerrit 't Hart, Mar 17, 2005
    #10
  11. "Gerrit 't Hart" <> wrote:
    >
    > OK now that all of us have read (and tried to understand) the arguments

    can
    > someone please advise which flatbed to buy?


    Epson 4870 (under US$500) or Epson 4990 (US$600). (Prices are just guesses.)

    > I have about 4000 colour slides and lots of black and white family photos
    > going back to the early 1940s whioch I would like to digitise for the

    whole
    > family. We are not wealthy and were wondering whether an Epson of about
    > 2800dpi is enough or 3600 dpi or if in fact we need to spend $900 for one
    > with 4000 or even 4800 dpi? As you are aware the price does rocket upwards
    > the higher the resolution.


    Both these provide digital ICE, which automagically hides dust and scratches
    when scanning color slides. Not having ICE is not nice. The 4990 has a
    larger transparency adapter, so can scan more slides at the same time and
    might be worth the extra money in speeding up the process.

    The 4800 dpi claimed for these is a tad bogus. You can scan at 2400 dpi with
    them and get nearly the same results (but better results than with "2400
    dpi" scanners).

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 17, 2005
    #11
  12. The Video Editor

    Guest

    rafe bustin <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:40:24 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    > to rnclark)" <> wrote:


    >>I am a total convert to 16-bit processing. My first
    >>step in working on an 8-bit/pixel jpeg from my digital
    >>camera is convert to 16-bit. That way I minimize
    >>posterization and can get more out if the image.


    > I'm not quite convinced.


    It depends on your working space. 8 bits might be enough for sRGB,
    but if you're working in a wide gamut space -- and that is a good idea
    when you're scanning transparenices -- then 16 bits is a Good Thing.

    Andrew.
    , Mar 17, 2005
    #12
  13. The Video Editor

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >rafe bustin <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:40:24 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    >> to rnclark)" <> wrote:

    >
    >>>I am a total convert to 16-bit processing. My first
    >>>step in working on an 8-bit/pixel jpeg from my digital
    >>>camera is convert to 16-bit. That way I minimize
    >>>posterization and can get more out if the image.

    >
    >> I'm not quite convinced.

    >
    >It depends on your working space. 8 bits might be enough for sRGB,
    >but if you're working in a wide gamut space -- and that is a good idea
    >when you're scanning transparenices -- then 16 bits is a Good Thing.


    Indeed. If the bits that make up a pixel value can represent lots of
    different colours, then it stands to reason that they can represent fewer
    sahdes of those colours - something has to give. 8 bit per channel wide
    gamut images would seem to be at a greater risk of posterisation than
    narrower gamut images.

    This implies that when converting to 8 bits, sRGB for web use, one should
    convert to sRGB *first*, then convert to 8 bits, and not th eother way
    around.
    Chris Brown, Mar 17, 2005
    #13
  14. The Video Editor

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:17:28 +0800, "Gerrit 't Hart" <>
    wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> By the way, it probably needs to be said that the only reason the OP
    >> can't see much difference between 1200 and 2400 is that his scanner is
    >> only capable of about 1800 anyway - so that is more of a commentary on
    >> the scanner!
    >>

    >
    >OK now that all of us have read (and tried to understand) the arguments can
    >someone please advise which flatbed to buy?
    >I have about 4000 colour slides and lots of black and white family photos
    >going back to the early 1940s whioch I would like to digitise for the whole
    >family. We are not wealthy and were wondering whether an Epson of about
    >2800dpi is enough or 3600 dpi or if in fact we need to spend $900 for one
    >with 4000 or even 4800 dpi? As you are aware the price does rocket upwards
    >the higher the resolution.



    Cheap good film scanner?

    Plustek OpticFilm 7200, $189 at TigerDirect.

    NOT from personal experience. Google it and
    decide for yourself.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe bustin, Mar 17, 2005
    #14
  15. rafe bustin wrote:
    > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:40:01 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    > to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>I strongly disagree. I've been doing image processing
    >>for about 30 years. Sometimes I'm working with
    >>data with a signal-to-noise tens of thousands and dynamic
    >>ranges of millions (scientific applications). The ability
    >>to capture a scene and bring out detail that could be seen
    >>with the eye is pretty amazing--things that could not be done
    >>with a traditional enlarger without special masks and
    >>extreme skill. And that goes for film and 16-bit scans as
    >>well as digital cameras and RAW files.

    >
    >
    >
    > So it goes. This topic's been beat to death on
    > this and other fora for years, and even the
    > experts disagree. I respect and admire your
    > work and articles in this topic, but I think
    > there's still room for debate.
    >
    > I don't usually resort to math in my approach to
    > "digital darkroom" but I know what works and what
    > doesn't. Posterization, even in clear blue skies,
    > is not an issue with my files or prints. Pure
    > luck? I doubt it. See if you can spot posterization
    > on any images on my website or the scan snippets
    > site. Clear blue sky? How about the 2nd "Perfect
    > Scan" near the top of the scan-snippets site?


    Blue sky is not so much an issue as are clouds. Clouds give
    a scene character, and our eyes+brains are see that detail.
    If it is washed out, it is like seeing a person's face erased
    so you can't see their eyes, nose or mouth.

    Here are some images from your site that I think need work, and
    if these are film scans, might be improved with a 16-bit scan:

    Bright cloud left center has little detail,
    and rocks are black with no detail, image needs
    shadow and highlight work:
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/oregon_bird_on_beach3.html
    Scan this one with 8-bits and 16-bits/channel and see how much
    shadow and highlight detail you can bring out in each.

    Cloud highlights blown:
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/chengs_tree.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/marcydam2.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/mt_dix_grass.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/chim_pond_sunset_reflection.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/bridlepath_leaves_solarized.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/old_lobster_trap.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/morocco_cityscape.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/duomo_from_uffizi.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/log_fence_near_wayah_bald.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/kinsman_cairn2.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/nahmakanta_lake.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/cadillac_flowers.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/acadia.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/acadia_sunset2.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/tide_pool.html
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/red_cliff.html

    I believe the above photos could be improved with a
    16-bit scan. I'm not commenting on the image quality.
    You have many nice photos. But in my opinion, blown
    highlights on many.

    I can point to images on my site that could use improvements too.
    Sometime I'll go back and do better.
    Example, here is a poor one (8-bit scan 4x5, poor processing;
    not sure how much better processing will help):
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.san-juan-mtns/web/c092997.L4.14b1-600.sanjuans.html

    This one is better (8-bit scan, 35mm):
    http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.san-juan-mtns/web/c092997.10.17a1-600.sanjuans.html

    Better yet in my opinion (16-bit scan 4x5):
    http://www.clarkvision.com/gallerie...orado.fall.c09.30.2003.L4.9446-a b.c-700.html


    Roger
    http://www.clarkvision.com
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Mar 18, 2005
    #15
  16. The Video Editor

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:03:05 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark)" <> wrote:


    >Cloud highlights blown:
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/chengs_tree.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/marcydam2.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/mt_dix_grass.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/chim_pond_sunset_reflection.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/bridlepath_leaves_solarized.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/old_lobster_trap.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/morocco_cityscape.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/duomo_from_uffizi.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/log_fence_near_wayah_bald.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/kinsman_cairn2.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/nahmakanta_lake.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/cadillac_flowers.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/acadia.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/acadia_sunset2.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/tide_pool.html
    >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/red_cliff.html



    I think we must disagree on the definition of
    "blown" highlights. I prefer to use the term
    clipped, if you don't mind <G>.

    "Clipped" to me, means a signficant count of
    pixels in one or more color channels at 0 or 255,
    ie. a histogram piled up against either wall.

    I found three images from the above list with
    some degree of clipping. On that basis, I'm
    happy to dismiss those three as lousy scans.
    (But nothing nearly as bad as your first
    sanjuan image.)

    I plucked several of these images back off the
    site and selected a 30x30 pixel region from the
    brightest portion of the sky. The histograms
    of those regions were perfectly reasonable
    (to my thinking) in every color channel. I'm
    curious what you'd have expected to see
    differently had these been 16-bit scans.

    I use as much tonal range as I dare. If I
    allocate more tones for the highlights, or
    for the shadows, I've got to steal them from
    somewhere else. Surely you know all that.

    You can't look at a given image and presume
    that a given region should have a given a
    specific median or standard deviation of
    tones. As the "artist," I get to choose
    how the tones are distributed.

    The only way I know to get around this is
    with selective tonal control or contrast
    masking, which I do use from time to time.

    In my experience, scanning and editing in
    16-bit isn't going to change a thing. But
    I'll tell you what... I'm ready to challenge
    my own assumptions and see if I can make a
    few more rigorous tests. All these negatives
    are still around, and the scanner's ready to
    roll.

    Thanks for the challenge. I'll report back
    when I've learned a bit more.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe bustin, Mar 18, 2005
    #16
  17. rafe bustin wrote:

    > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:03:05 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    > to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>Cloud highlights blown:
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/chengs_tree.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/marcydam2.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/mt_dix_grass.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/chim_pond_sunset_reflection.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/bridlepath_leaves_solarized.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/old_lobster_trap.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/morocco_cityscape.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/duomo_from_uffizi.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/log_fence_near_wayah_bald.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/kinsman_cairn2.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/nahmakanta_lake.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/cadillac_flowers.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/acadia.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/acadia_sunset2.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/tide_pool.html
    >>http://www.terrapinphoto.com/red_cliff.html

    >
    >
    >
    > I think we must disagree on the definition of
    > "blown" highlights. I prefer to use the term
    > clipped, if you don't mind <G>.
    >
    > "Clipped" to me, means a signficant count of
    > pixels in one or more color channels at 0 or 255,
    > ie. a histogram piled up against either wall.


    It is more than that, and I don't necessarily go by the
    histogram. Besides a clipped high end, those values just
    darker than the clip point will be highly posterized by
    an 8-bit scan. This is because the shape of the
    film's chacacteristic curve is becoming very flat at the
    high end, so 8-bit intensity changes turn out to be
    missing a lot of detaill in the highlights.
    You can recover it to some degree with clouds
    because you can convert to 16-bit, select the clouds, stretch
    them (as if you applied a split density filter; note that is
    not a simple intensity reduction because with a split density
    the image would fall on a different part of the film's
    characteristic curve). For 8-bit images (in 16-bit mode)
    blur the clouds a little (not to much to lose detail), and
    it averages between the 8-bit values. But a 16-bit scan would
    give you more information to begin with.

    > I found three images from the above list with
    > some degree of clipping. On that basis, I'm
    > happy to dismiss those three as lousy scans.
    > (But nothing nearly as bad as your first
    > sanjuan image.)
    >
    > I plucked several of these images back off the
    > site and selected a 30x30 pixel region from the
    > brightest portion of the sky. The histograms
    > of those regions were perfectly reasonable
    > (to my thinking) in every color channel. I'm
    > curious what you'd have expected to see
    > differently had these been 16-bit scans.
    >
    > I use as much tonal range as I dare. If I
    > allocate more tones for the highlights, or
    > for the shadows, I've got to steal them from
    > somewhere else. Surely you know all that.


    Ah, but it is not a matter of tonal range as it is
    in dividing that tonal range into more levels. That is the
    different between 8-bit and 16-bit. With 16-bit, you
    scan all the possible detail there is in the image
    (true because film is "noisy") so 16-bit digitizes that
    noise (intensity variations due to grain). Then in
    your photo editor, you can select regions (like the sky
    as you would with a split density filter on the camera)
    and adjust the dynamic range so it can be viewed
    on a monitor and printed in a print. There is no one
    stretch for an image. Most (close to all?) images need
    some selective "dodging and burning" to print well.
    Read Ansel Adam's "The Print."

    > You can't look at a given image and presume
    > that a given region should have a given a
    > specific median or standard deviation of
    > tones. As the "artist," I get to choose
    > how the tones are distributed.


    Yes.

    > The only way I know to get around this is
    > with selective tonal control or contrast
    > masking, which I do use from time to time.


    Yes, see above.

    > In my experience, scanning and editing in
    > 16-bit isn't going to change a thing. But
    > I'll tell you what... I'm ready to challenge
    > my own assumptions and see if I can make a
    > few more rigorous tests. All these negatives
    > are still around, and the scanner's ready to
    > roll.


    That's great.

    > Thanks for the challenge. I'll report back
    > when I've learned a bit more.


    If you would like, you could post a small, say 1000x1000 pixel
    image at 16-bit (tif or psd), original scan and I'll work on it for you,
    so I can show you what I mean. This could be a non-publicized
    link so the whole world does not grab it. Then, if you like,
    you can post the results.

    > rafe b.
    > http://www.terrapinphoto.com


    When I get some time, I'll pull out some of my 8,000 to 11,000 dpi
    drum scans for your web site--might be a couple of months--
    remind me then. The next two months are real busy.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Mar 19, 2005
    #17
  18. The Video Editor

    rafe bustin Guest

    On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:04:51 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark)" <> wrote:


    >Ah, but it is not a matter of tonal range as it is
    >in dividing that tonal range into more levels. That is the
    >different between 8-bit and 16-bit. With 16-bit, you
    >scan all the possible detail there is in the image
    >(true because film is "noisy") so 16-bit digitizes that
    >noise (intensity variations due to grain). Then in
    >your photo editor, you can select regions (like the sky
    >as you would with a split density filter on the camera)
    >and adjust the dynamic range so it can be viewed
    >on a monitor and printed in a print. There is no one
    >stretch for an image. Most (close to all?) images need
    >some selective "dodging and burning" to print well.
    >Read Ansel Adam's "The Print."



    I think I'm beginning to understand some
    of our differences.

    For starters, I use selective tonal
    manipulation sparingly. Perhaps I lack
    the talent to do it well. Or perhaps I'm
    overly sensitive to the negative effects
    when it's not done well. Or maybe it's
    due to the first serious book I read when
    I started down this road, years ago, and
    the practices encouraged/discouraged by
    the author (again, Dan Margulis.)

    One of the simpler and more effective
    techniques that I use for a "classic"
    landscape is to make an alpha channel
    consisting of a simple gradient, and
    apply my tonal adjustments through that
    alpha channel. Making and placing the
    gradient is critical, of course. I think
    of this as applying a graduated-ND
    filter, after the fact.

    I'm not going to comment on the 8/16 bit
    issue now. Suffice to say, I've been
    working with film scans for some time,
    and have tried, on numerous occasions, to
    convince myself of the need for, or value
    of 16-bit scans.

    I'm fully aware of what happens to tones
    as a consequence of Curves/Levels
    adjustments, and the (rather simple)
    mathematical argument in favor of having
    more codes to work with. I simply haven't
    seen the benefit, at least in the way I
    practice the "digital darkroom."


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe bustin, Mar 19, 2005
    #18
  19. "rafe bustin" <> wrote:
    >
    > I think I'm beginning to understand some
    > of our differences.


    The rest of us figured it out ages ago. Roger likes dramatic and Rafe likes
    subtle. Both do what they like well, and see the other as completely missing
    the important stuff that are quite pleased to be successfully getting into
    their respective images.

    Knock yourselves out, guys! The rest of us are enjoying both the photos and
    the fireworks.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 19, 2005
    #19
  20. On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 13:24:31 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"rafe bustin" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> I think I'm beginning to understand some
    >> of our differences.

    >
    >The rest of us figured it out ages ago. Roger likes dramatic and Rafe likes
    >subtle. Both do what they like well, and see the other as completely missing
    >the important stuff that are quite pleased to be successfully getting into
    >their respective images.
    >
    >Knock yourselves out, guys! The rest of us are enjoying both the photos and
    >the fireworks.
    >
    >David J. Littleboy
    >Tokyo, Japan
    >

    I'm certain my observations will not be well accepted, but anyhow here
    they are. Of all the 35mm slides I've been privileged to see,
    including some of my own, none of them are really worthy of this
    argument. Most lack the fine detail that this depth of scanning
    precision warrants. But then I'm only an amateur photographer and my
    slides plus those of my acquaintances fit this category.

    When I see some of the details the current crop of good digital
    cameras produce, I'm ready to forget scanning of any slides. They
    just aren't worth it the trouble, unless they contain something that
    we just can't allow to be lost.

    Olin McDaniel
    Olin K. McDaniel, Mar 23, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Terry Pinnell

    Scanning 35mm slides?

    Terry Pinnell, Mar 7, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,676
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Mar 8, 2005
  2. Charlie Self

    Scanning slides

    Charlie Self, Jul 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    492
    Mxsmanic
    Jul 26, 2003
  3. Brian Stirling

    Preparation for scanning slides and prints (Minolta 5400)

    Brian Stirling, Nov 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    421
    Bart van der Wolf
    Nov 14, 2003
  4. RH Horn
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    11,940
    Tom Monego
    May 7, 2004
  5. Oliver Costich

    Scanning old 35mm slides

    Oliver Costich, Mar 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    334
    The Video Editor
    Mar 16, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page