Re: artifacts, scanner noise or grain ? was Software creating output?

["Rafe B." <rafeb@channel1.com>]

At 11:41 AM 6/13/99 +0200, Christiane wrote:

>Many thanks for your remarks; I used to shoot Fuji rather than Kodak; I've 
>switched to Kodak because the scanner has more/better profiles for Kodak 
>emulsion than for Fuji's.. too bad they have all that grain..


Christiane, I think that would be a silly way to
go, frankly.  Don't let the scanner software 
rule you that way!

Film grain is forever, but scanner profiles are 
these ethereal digital things that mean little.

Strangely, I've gone exactly the opposite route
from you.  I shot Kodacolor 200 almost exclusively,
until I noticed the HUGE improvement in grain by
switching to ISO 100.  So now I'm a Fuji Reala
fan, and/or Royal Gold 100.

A bad scanner profile simply means that you'll have
to spend a bit more time with the TWAIN driver,
getting the scan right.

But switching to a different film brand (with more
grain, to boot) is an extreme reaction.  A bit
crazy, if you ask me.

Maybe check with Polaroid, and beg/plead for a new
profile for the film you *want* to use?  Or have a
look at the profiles and see if you can create the
one you need by judiciously cloning and editing one 
of the existing ones.

FWIW, the "color management" I get from the Polaroid
SprintScan Plus TWAIN driver is for the birds.  I
still spend 5, 10, 15 minutes on a worthy image,
fixing up the scan curves/tones/exposures before
I request the final scan.



rafe b.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages.
http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.