Re: Film scanner experiment & questions

["Gary L. Hunt" <glh@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

That would have done it all right, but as it turns out (having
redone the scans after I saw your note), my problem was a
different form of operator ignorance.  I was using raw 12 bit mode
but I neglected to include the scanner profile in the file, so
Photoshop sucked it in without a profile due to the way I had it
set.  I did not realize that the scanner profile expands the raw scan
so much--there's a huge difference (roughly a factor of 2 in the
usable density range) with and without it.  Not only that, the version
converted with the profile has much smoother looking tones as
well.  It looks much more respectable now compared to my Nikon
(which is on its way back to be repaired today--good thing I didn't
get rid of the Polaroid.)

Gary Hunt <glh@datawav.net>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:17:54 -0500
>From: "Hemingway, David J" <HEMINGD@polaroid.com>
>Subject: RE: Film scanner experiment & questions
>
>If you use the Raw 12 bit scan mode then he should get little or no
>compression with the 4000.  From this it seems to indicate that you chose
>the Color Negative profile and scanned at 12 bits.  This could clip a 3.0
>density negative because a 3.0 density negative corresponds to about a
>+1000000000 (you get the idea) stops overexposure.
>
>David

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.