Hi all,

I use VS to scan my archive. Most of them are negatives, some of them
are slides. I use a Nikon LS-5000 on a Linux box. I initially decided
to save them as JPEGs with 2000 DPI. This gives me approx. 2000x3000
pixels, enough for printing and for the web. One nice feature I like in
VS are film types.

Until now I was quite happy, but I encountered some film types *not* in
the list. One of them is a KODAK VR 100-3 for example. Although I
bought the professional version I haven't done any profiling (and I have
no IT8 targets). It is very difficult to decide if the colors are ok,
the best choice I found is FUJI SUPER HG 100 Gen 2. But this is my
personal taste.

Then I read some articles on the net and in this NG it would be wise to
scan "raw" and do the editing later. VS can do that (I scan with light
infrared clean, medium grain reduction and 4 times multi-passing) but
images get huge (30 MB with 2000 DPI, 120 MB with 4000 DPI) and I still
don't know what film type to use. :-\

My first question are: has someone found a better film type or can
confirm that this is a good choice? Do I need color calibration anyway?
What is the "correct" way to cope with this?

If I use Gimp (2.2) for editing this has some drawbacks. It lacks color
profiles (until 2.4) and it can't handle 16-bit TIFFs. It should be no
big deal for printing 4x6 or just editing for the web. There is no PS
for Linux, but Gimp can handle PS plugins. Are there any PS plugins for
"developing" this "raw" scans?

--
Cheers,
Oliver

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 21:58:38 +0200, Oliver Vecernik <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>What is the "correct" way to cope with this?

Recently I happened upon the same problem, some of the negative films
I used back in the 70s and early 80s were not in the drop-down list,
and any proxy I tried made for very bad images.

I decided to scan as Image - BTW, the best for transparencies! - to
later use everything I have in Photoshop. Turned out the easiest way
to get rid of the orange mask was to Invert in PS, so now the image
looks bluish, and then add an Adjustment layer Color with an
appropriate apricot tone (experiment a bit).

At first you will only see the colour you chose; now set the Blending
Mode to Colour (some others may also work). Finally change Opacity
until the image looks right, this is very easy if you have some
universal colour in your photo, like human skin tone or macadam.

This work-flow should easily be adjustable to The GIMP and many other
programs. Personally I scan 16-bit and save as TIFF at full resolution
(5400 ppi) to have headroom. You can do this with lower res, and
theoretically even with saving JPEGs from Vuescan - but don't. Saving
as JPEG when you know you will have to correct and process afterwards
is not a good idea because you'll lose quality with every change and
save.

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:23:42 +0200, Evo2Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>This work-flow should easily be adjustable to The GIMP and many other
>programs. Personally I scan 16-bit and save as TIFF at full resolution
>(5400 ppi) to have headroom. You can do this with lower res, and
>theoretically even with saving JPEGs from Vuescan - but don't. Saving
>as JPEG when you know you will have to correct and process afterwards
>is not a good idea because you'll lose quality with every change and
>save.


That's good advice. Don't save to JPG till you're really, really
done messing with an image.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

Oliver Vecernik a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I use VS to scan my archive. Most of them are negatives, some of them
> are slides. I use a Nikon LS-5000 on a Linux box. I initially decided
> to save them as JPEGs with 2000 DPI. This gives me approx. 2000x3000
> pixels, enough for printing and for the web. One nice feature I like in
> VS are film types.
>
> Until now I was quite happy, but I encountered some film types *not* in
> the list. One of them is a KODAK VR 100-3 for example. Although I
> bought the professional version I haven't done any profiling (and I have
> no IT8 targets). It is very difficult to decide if the colors are ok,
> the best choice I found is FUJI SUPER HG 100 Gen 2. But this is my
> personal taste.
>
> Then I read some articles on the net and in this NG it would be wise to
> scan "raw" and do the editing later. VS can do that (I scan with light
> infrared clean, medium grain reduction and 4 times multi-passing) but
> images get huge (30 MB with 2000 DPI, 120 MB with 4000 DPI) and I still
> don't know what film type to use. :-\
>
> My first question are: has someone found a better film type or can
> confirm that this is a good choice? Do I need color calibration anyway?
> What is the "correct" way to cope with this?
>
> If I use Gimp (2.2) for editing this has some drawbacks. It lacks color
> profiles (until 2.4) and it can't handle 16-bit TIFFs. It should be no
> big deal for printing 4x6 or just editing for the web. There is no PS
> for Linux, but Gimp can handle PS plugins. Are there any PS plugins for
> "developing" this "raw" scans?
>

If i were you i would read the user guide of vuescan, specially the
topic 'advanced workflow suggestions' in order to get a good exposure
and color balance whatever film you work with.
You must set vuescan as 'advanced'
And then try the best white balance for you; i often use neutral or auto
levels and get results i find very natural. (matter of taste...)
I would also suggest you to use the tiff format and, after
modifications, save them as jpeg files.
JM

Raphael Bustin wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 11:23:42 +0200, Evo2Me <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>> This work-flow should easily be adjustable to The GIMP and many other
>> programs. Personally I scan 16-bit and save as TIFF at full resolution
>> (5400 ppi) to have headroom. You can do this with lower res, and
>> theoretically even with saving JPEGs from Vuescan - but don't. Saving
>> as JPEG when you know you will have to correct and process afterwards
>> is not a good idea because you'll lose quality with every change and
>> save.
>
>
> That's good advice. Don't save to JPG till you're really, really
> done messing with an image.

Better yet, never use jpg at all.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:48:45 GMT, Randy Howard
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Better yet, never use jpg at all.

What else, JPEG2K - unfortunately not very widely supported. GIF - not
suitable for photos; PNG - still not too good supported, resulting
files from photos are usually larger than JPEGs; TIFF - not good for
Web or e-mail ...

JPEG is a good end format for many applications [not as in 'software',
the general meaning].

Evo2Me wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:48:45 GMT, Randy Howard
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Better yet, never use jpg at all.
>
> What else, JPEG2K - unfortunately not very widely supported. GIF - not
> suitable for photos; PNG - still not too good supported,

The only problem with PNG is for websites when people are still
using the stupid IE6 and you use transparency in the png file.
Too bad. Maybe they'll upgrade to a real web browser. PNG has
been around for a decade or so, maybe MS will finally start
supporting it properly.


> resulting files from photos are usually larger than JPEGs;

Sure they're larger, because they are higher quality.


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:02:26 GMT, Randy Howard
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Sure they're larger, because they are higher quality.

Oh, I have been a great fan of PNG since shortly after its inception;
I am also a great fan of JP2. Nevertheless, JPEG in its original form
is not a bad file format - as long as you use it as an output file
only.

Once I was in the Wilds on a prolonged shoot with a D1x and decided to
go with JPEG since it wasn't clear if I'd have the time to download
NEFs. Those JPEGs are very good, but only in their original form. For
any manipulation I open them and immediately save them as PSD or TIFF.
Or I print them directly.

Another reason to use JPEG is panorama work. Using 12 200 MB TIFFs
doesn't work well, so I convert to high-quality JPEGs, which are much
smaller. Unfortunately JP2 isn't supported yet by many applications.
Have to look if I could use PNG ...

Evo2Me wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed)>):

> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:02:26 GMT, Randy Howard
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Sure they're larger, because they are higher quality.
>
> Oh, I have been a great fan of PNG since shortly after its inception;
> I am also a great fan of JP2. Nevertheless, JPEG in its original form
> is not a bad file format - as long as you use it as an output file
> only.

For a website or something, sure.

> Once I was in the Wilds on a prolonged shoot with a D1x and decided to
> go with JPEG since it wasn't clear if I'd have the time to download
> NEFs. Those JPEGs are very good, but only in their original form. For
> any manipulation I open them and immediately save them as PSD or TIFF.
> Or I print them directly.

Indeed. I usually have most of the keepers as a PSD file. I
would probably use DNG, but I've yet to hear a convincing
argument as to why I should. :-)

> Another reason to use JPEG is panorama work. Using 12 200 MB TIFFs
> doesn't work well, so I convert to high-quality JPEGs, which are much
> smaller.

My photoshop box as 4GB of RAM in it, so that isn't a problem.
:-)

> Unfortunately JP2 isn't supported yet by many applications.

Oh well...

> Have to look if I could use PNG ...

The only real downside I can think of with PNG is no way to
preserve EXIF data AFAIK.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw