Microtek 4000TF

Anyone had experience with this scanner? Am considering it because it seems
to be the only film scanner with profiles for b&w negatives which is
primarily what I need to scan.

Any help/advice appreciated.

jb

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:58:28 -0500, "jbles" <jbles@charter.net> wrote:

>Anyone had experience with this scanner? Am considering it because it seems
>to be the only film scanner with profiles for b&w negatives which is
>primarily what I need to scan.


Scanner profiles are useless, especially for
negatives (color or BW.)

With a bit of practice you'll be able to master
any decent film scanner.

Choosing a scanner based on available
"profiles" is ludicrous, IMO.

Mind you, I'm not saying the Microtek is
a bad scanner. For my money, right now,
I'd go with the new Minolta 5400 (assuming
all you want to scan is 35 mm.)


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

Why do you say scanner profiles are useless?

> Scanner profiles are useless, especially for
> negatives (color or BW.)
>
> With a bit of practice you'll be able to master
> any decent film scanner.
>
> Choosing a scanner based on available
> "profiles" is ludicrous, IMO.
>
> Mind you, I'm not saying the Microtek is
> a bad scanner. For my money, right now,
> I'd go with the new Minolta 5400 (assuming
> all you want to scan is 35 mm.)
>
>
> rafe b.
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:26:06 -0500, "jbles" <jbles@charter.net> wrote:

>Why do you say scanner profiles are useless?

Because, if the rest of your system (mainly
monitor and printer) are properly profiled,
then who needs 'em?

What you do need is to follow one of these
two workflows:

1. Scan "raw" and bring all 16 bits per channel
into your image editor, or

2. Take some care in the scanner driver to make
sure you have reasonable histograms with
approximately the gamma you want, no severe
color cast, and no data lost in the highlights or
shadows.

Having followed either of these procedures, all
that remains is to tweak the image in Photoshop
until it looks right on the screen.

Point I'm making is that it's not too hard to get
a scan that's good enough for any conceivable
purpose -- without a scanner profile. All it takes
is a bit of care in the scanner driver, or failing that,
a 16-bit scan that properly captures all of the
tones in the original.

The ICC standard really doesn't address the
handling of negative images anyway (refering
back to the original post which was concerned
with scanning BW negatives.)


>> Scanner profiles are useless, especially for
>> negatives (color or BW.)
>>
>> With a bit of practice you'll be able to master
>> any decent film scanner.
>>
>> Choosing a scanner based on available
>> "profiles" is ludicrous, IMO.
>>
>> Mind you, I'm not saying the Microtek is
>> a bad scanner. For my money, right now,
>> I'd go with the new Minolta 5400 (assuming
>> all you want to scan is 35 mm.)
>>
>>
>> rafe b.
>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
>

Thanks for the explanation.

"Raphael Bustin" <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ge4p10dhatjheh7iojkasucpb4v5c2tm61@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:26:06 -0500, "jbles" <jbles@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >Why do you say scanner profiles are useless?
>
> Because, if the rest of your system (mainly
> monitor and printer) are properly profiled,
> then who needs 'em?
>
> What you do need is to follow one of these
> two workflows:
>
> 1. Scan "raw" and bring all 16 bits per channel
> into your image editor, or
>
> 2. Take some care in the scanner driver to make
> sure you have reasonable histograms with
> approximately the gamma you want, no severe
> color cast, and no data lost in the highlights or
> shadows.
>
> Having followed either of these procedures, all
> that remains is to tweak the image in Photoshop
> until it looks right on the screen.
>
> Point I'm making is that it's not too hard to get
> a scan that's good enough for any conceivable
> purpose -- without a scanner profile. All it takes
> is a bit of care in the scanner driver, or failing that,
> a 16-bit scan that properly captures all of the
> tones in the original.
>
> The ICC standard really doesn't address the
> handling of negative images anyway (refering
> back to the original post which was concerned
> with scanning BW negatives.)
>
>
> >> Scanner profiles are useless, especially for
> >> negatives (color or BW.)
> >>
> >> With a bit of practice you'll be able to master
> >> any decent film scanner.
> >>
> >> Choosing a scanner based on available
> >> "profiles" is ludicrous, IMO.
> >>
> >> Mind you, I'm not saying the Microtek is
> >> a bad scanner. For my money, right now,
> >> I'd go with the new Minolta 5400 (assuming
> >> all you want to scan is 35 mm.)
> >>
> >>
> >> rafe b.
> >> http://www.terrapinphoto.com
> >
>

"Raphael Bustin" <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ge4p10dhatjheh7iojkasucpb4v5c2tm61@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 00:26:06 -0500, "jbles" <jbles@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >Why do you say scanner profiles are useless?
>
> Because, if the rest of your system (mainly
> monitor and printer) are properly profiled,
> then who needs 'em?

I disagree.

Different scanners produce different raw data from the same piece of film.
The main difference is due to the spectral emission of the scanner
lightsource interacting with the particular spectral transmission of the
film dye-set. This will result is some colors to be of higher saturation on
one scanner, and lower on another.

The whole purpose of scanner profiling is to get a very similar response for
a certain dye-set regardless of the scanner used.

> What you do need is to follow one of these
> two workflows:
>
> 1. Scan "raw" and bring all 16 bits per channel
> into your image editor, or
>
> 2. Take some care in the scanner driver to make
> sure you have reasonable histograms with
> approximately the gamma you want, no severe
> color cast, and no data lost in the highlights or
> shadows.
>
> Having followed either of these procedures, all
> that remains is to tweak the image in Photoshop
> until it looks right on the screen.

Since no profile is assigned to the unprofiled scan, the colors will look
different in Photoshop. One could have assumed a certain colorspace, but
that is probably cause for more corrections to get a perceptually pleasing
image (which will still be different from the same scan on a different
scanner). So which one is close to the truth? It's a guess although both may
look pleasing, but different.

> Point I'm making is that it's not too hard to get
> a scan that's good enough for any conceivable
> purpose -- without a scanner profile. All it takes
> is a bit of care in the scanner driver, or failing that,
> a 16-bit scan that properly captures all of the
> tones in the original.
>
> The ICC standard really doesn't address the
> handling of negative images anyway (refering
> back to the original post which was concerned
> with scanning BW negatives.)

One can shoot a reflective IT8 target on negative film and use that to
create a profile with linear response in the density range of the target.
Without a profile, the shadows and higlights are very much compressed (toe
and shoulder of the characteristic curve) in different ways for the
different layers.

For Black and White film it can be beneficial to linearize the contrast, but
this can also be done in a post-processing step (based on a stepwedge or
exposure sequence).

Bart

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 17:36:46 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:


>Since no profile is assigned to the unprofiled scan, the colors will look
>different in Photoshop. One could have assumed a certain colorspace, but
>that is probably cause for more corrections to get a perceptually pleasing
>image (which will still be different from the same scan on a different
>scanner). So which one is close to the truth? It's a guess although both may
>look pleasing, but different.


So what does it matter that the two scanners look
different in Photoshop? If the rest of the system is
profiled and calibrated, you can edit the image in
Photoshop to look the way you want it to -- assuming
of course that the tonality of the scan is adequate
to begin with.

If you're shooting chromes for professional or
commercial purposes (eg. catalog photos) then
I would agree that a profiled scanner can be useful.

For personal use, or for shooting negatives,
"objectively accurate" color simply isn't a concern,
and in fact (when shooting BW or color negatives)
isn't even possible.


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

"Raphael Bustin" <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ddkq10ts74spbbhifp7asft8csg5for86a@4ax.com...
SNIP
> So what does it matter that the two scanners look
> different in Photoshop? If the rest of the system is
> profiled and calibrated, you can edit the image in
> Photoshop to look the way you want it to -- assuming
> of course that the tonality of the scan is adequate
> to begin with.

Unless you assign a profile to the image, profiling the rest of the system
is meaningless. At best you'll have a decent gamma approximation, but that's
all it is.

> If you're shooting chromes for professional or
> commercial purposes (eg. catalog photos) then
> I would agree that a profiled scanner can be useful.
>
> For personal use, or for shooting negatives,
> "objectively accurate" color simply isn't a concern,
> and in fact (when shooting BW or color negatives)
> isn't even possible.

That may work (like with the Nikon scanners) but as I said, different
scanners result in different saturations similar to assigning sRGB,
ColorMatch or Adobe RGB to a file in your otherwise color profiled
environment. Basically the only difference is different assumptions for the
RGB primaries (probably all three wrong).

Bart

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:41:41 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>
>"Raphael Bustin" <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:ddkq10ts74spbbhifp7asft8csg5for86a@4ax.com...
>SNIP
>> So what does it matter that the two scanners look
>> different in Photoshop? If the rest of the system is
>> profiled and calibrated, you can edit the image in
>> Photoshop to look the way you want it to -- assuming
>> of course that the tonality of the scan is adequate
>> to begin with.
>
>Unless you assign a profile to the image, profiling the rest of the system
>is meaningless. At best you'll have a decent gamma approximation, but that's
>all it is.


You can assign the profile to the image when you
open it in Photoshop. So what's the problem?

As to the rest of it being meaningless, I heartily
disagree. What matters to me is that my prints
match my monitor. And for that all I need is profiles
for the monitor and the printer.

There are lots of folks using ICC workflow without
profiling their scanners.

For that matter, I've been working in Photoshop 4,
without ICC profiles of any kind for years. If you pay
attention to your histograms and densitometer
readings, set your white points and black points
and neutrals by the numbers, you can kiss the ICC
bye-bye.

If you're scanning negatives, any assignment
to an ICC color space is entirely arbitrary anyway.

Digital imaging had a long rich history before
the ICC showed up to make everything all better...


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

"Raphael Bustin" <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:jvuq10d7dh2fuedd6kupk9tkod1mh8g8gb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 22:41:41 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
> <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Raphael Bustin" <rafe.bustin@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:ddkq10ts74spbbhifp7asft8csg5for86a@4ax.com...
> >SNIP
> >> So what does it matter that the two scanners look
> >> different in Photoshop? If the rest of the system is
> >> profiled and calibrated, you can edit the image in
> >> Photoshop to look the way you want it to -- assuming
> >> of course that the tonality of the scan is adequate
> >> to begin with.
> >
> >Unless you assign a profile to the image, profiling the rest
> >of the system is meaningless. At best you'll have a decent
> >gamma approximation, but that's all it is.
>
>
> You can assign the profile to the image when you
> open it in Photoshop. So what's the problem?

Yes, but which profile?

> As to the rest of it being meaningless, I heartily
> disagree.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

> What matters to me is that my prints match my monitor.
> And for that all I need is profiles for the monitor and the printer.

Yes, but that's the issue. If you have enabled (!) color management, Color
is converted on the fly. Without specifying what the profile (any profile)
of the scanner file is, you can be in for a surprise. As I said, try
assigning a (different) profile. Once you've assigned a/any profile, you can
rely on the screen reflecting the 'correct' color to balance, tonescale,
etc. But the saturation and linearity will not be accurate. It may look
pleasing, but it is not accurate.

> There are lots of folks using ICC workflow without
> profiling their scanners.
>
> For that matter, I've been working in Photoshop 4,
> without ICC profiles of any kind for years.

That was my first serious attempt at PS as well.

> If you pay attention to your histograms and densitometer
> readings, set your white points and black points
> and neutrals by the numbers, you can kiss the ICC
> bye-bye.

We disagree. The image will look neutral where expected, but was that red
tomato 150 or 200 in the red channel, and how much green and blue was there
to desaturate the color? The only way to come reasonably close from the
moment you open the file, is profiling. From there creativity kicks in.

> If you're scanning negatives, any assignment
> to an ICC color space is entirely arbitrary anyway.

After mask removal, preferably at scan time by balancing the RGB exposure
ratio, and inverting, it's the same as for slides (only with a larger scene
dynamic range).

> Digital imaging had a long rich history before
> the ICC showed up to make everything all better...

I know, been there, seen it, done it (almost) all.

Bart