![]() ![]() I am currently using AdobeRGB for everything, and I have my screens calibrated, so i think i'm ok on that front. ![]() Though I did use Lightroom 3 Beta 2, not sure if that makes a difference. Aaron: Lightroom seems to open the 64 bit TIFF files without a problem. PDF if the software supported this format and all settings were equal. Assuming that scanning into a DNG is somehow an advantage is no more true than scanning in TIFF vs. DNG is a TIFF like format that can contain rendered or non rendered, true raw data. In Photoshop you have a big file that you have to work on). Generally, scanning software is much faster (it applies the “corrections” when it scans. It all depends on what software tool you prefer. If you scan high bit, no adjustments and then tone and color correct in Photoshop OR scan in high bit and use the scanner software, the net results are the same. That also doesn’t mean its the best native gamma for that device. You can capture in a TRC 1.0 gamma with any scanner if you setup the input profile for that. The capture or original isn’t linear like raw. And in fact, none of the limitations of raw (interpolated color from a bayer array). Maybe Vuescan's RAW isn't technically a raw file, it's simply the data as it came from the scanner, still gamma 1.0, without histogram adjustments. There is no way to remove them so don't try as this will only damage the film more. The acid in finger prints will actually etch the film given time. At the very least scan as Adobe RGB and use lightroom to convert copies to print down to SRGB. If you have not researched color spaces to it before committing to a big project. There are better color spaces out there and some home printers can do Adobe RGB even today. Most printers commercial and mid to low end home are designed to use SRGB currently. Changing the output color space is also the main reason to scan Raw. ![]() If you were going to do this I would run them as raw as in raw you can also change the output color space. To do this you would have to run them through Vuescan again. ![]() I don't think its possible to have photoshop convert them to 48bit images. When you open these files in photoshop they of course look like infrared images. Scanning as 64RGBI Tiff will let you open it with Vuescan and reapply different cleaning settings. Using the SF210 slide feeder, I assume this means it will autofocus for every slide? Is there any reason to keep the IR channel if I save to a normal TIFF, or would it be best to do 48bit RGB?Ĭoncerning the autofocus, I have it set to autofocus on scan. This basically rids me of the need to scan to a raw file, unless there are some other Vuescan specific edits that can't be done in Lightroom? 'Restore fading' gives some pretty good improvements on some scans, but from what I've read it's basically just a colour shift, thus easily done in Lightroom. Even then, cleaning the slide itself would probably yield better results (though I did notice some slides have fingerprints on them which seem impossible to remove, the IR cleaning helps here). This means that I could probably just keep the setting on light, unless I come across really dirty slides. I did a few tests and I agree that the 'light' setting for dust cleaning seems to give the best results. My main goal is to keep the quality as high as I can and retain as much editing possibility as I can. If I save to Vuescan's RAW (TIFF) format, the resulting files will be very underexposed in Lightroom, if I save to a normal TIFF, I lose the ability to go back and change Vuescan settings. The reason that I output to DNG is because I want to use Lightroom to edit the scans but still retain the possibility to go back into Vuescan and change settings, such as the how much IR cleaning should be done (which can't be done in Lightroom). Does anyone have any idea what the problem might be? Is the Vuescan DNG format just not suited for this? Rescanning the problematic slide makes no difference. It also doesn't happen on all scans, with around 80% the TIFF and the DNG look roughly the same. tif along with the DNG and open it in Lightroom it looks fine. Certain slides seem to be at least 1 stop overexposed, even though the image looks fine in Vuescan. I have however run into a small problem, namely when I open the DNG files in Lightroom. I'm using Vuescan to do all my scanning, and outputting to DNG. I recently prurchased a coolscan 5000 to archive all my parents' old slides. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |