|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
At 04:46 AM 1/10/2000 -0800, Michael Greer wrote: > >This whole thread has evolved to this point because I was trying to make a >point about the relative importance of scan software in today's digital imaging >workflow. Jerry was concerned about not having Silverfast available to him in >the Epson Expression 1600's software bundle. Then he started wondering what >seperates Silverfast from other such application. I was trying to point out >that yesterday (before scan software returned high bit data to the host and >before the host could accept it), scan software was much more important than to >today. Today, since hosts can accept the high bit data and scanners can return >it, the reliance on the "goodness" of scan software as waned. This is NOT to >say it's better to do the corrections in the host application. I do mine in the >scan software. This is simply to say that they CAN be done there with >equivalent results. We're on the same wavelength here. I'm willing to use whichever alternative gives me the "best" images with the least work. With my present situation, this is generally the scanner software. I'm still having trouble getting decent scans (i.e. decent prints) of some images, and so far, I haven't managed to improve those specific images by using raw scans in Photoshop--but I'm still hopeful that I will eventually. I've saved up the worst ones and am about to head into my darkroom to try printing them there. (I had forgotten how much easier it was just to turn on the Epson printer and start printing.) Gary Hunt <email@example.com> - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users