Re: Conversion Steps/PRO/Observations
Re: Conversion Steps/PRO/Observations
- Subject: Re: Conversion Steps/PRO/Observations
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 11:21:09 -0700
Hi Bruce,
My original post didn't make it onto the list because it was over 5K
long. I'd never heard of that limit before. Oh well, no big. I'd
still like to ask Bruce Lindbloom for a color counting app. Know of
any?
At this point I would still only keep 24-bit files from Linocolor,
even if it could save 48 bits. The ungainly handling of what would
be 470 MB files in Photoshop, compared with the elegant on-the-fly
processing of the scans in Linocolor is one large reason. Another is
that it's nice to have a go-round with the LCH tools in Linocolor as
part of the process, and I wouldn't want to use Linocolor later, in
combination with Photoshop, for pretty much the same reason (opening
giant files would work poorly and be ultra slow, at least for now).
And having done most of the tone moves, saving 48 bits isn't usually
very beneficial anymore.
Also, since the scanner profile itself imposes permanent flavors onto
the image unavoidably (the cal scan option is irrelevant due to
quality limitations), the scanning step already must be seen as a
time of making commitments to the editing process, if you will.
I suppose the ultimate system would save 48 bits raw (pre- scanner
profile but reasonably linear), and allow a perfect combination of
both RGB and LCH edits later, most likely including RGB curves first,
LCH per Linocolor global edits, then detailed RGB global and local
edits. Or something like that. All with no slowdowns from file
handling and easy storage on disks. Then all you need to avoid ever
having to go back and re-scan would be good focus, squareness, etc.
The preview scan in Linocolor is the pits, being always half of
screen res (very small). I am forced to make small fine scans and
open them in Photoshop to check the tones before committing to the
full res scan.
At any rate, I'm just trying to help educate our friends about the
decisions that one must make in choosing a workflow. It's
interesting to hear how you did it.
Have another nice day,
Joe Holmes
Bruce Fraser wrote:
What's the reason for doing all of the toning in Photoshop as opposed to
doing at least part of it within ColorFlex and allowing ColorFlex to make
the transform from scanner RGB to ProPhoto RGB?
The reasons for doing all the toning in Photoshop are that
1.) In Photoshop, I can see every pixel
2.) Photoshop offers me more control, more conveniently, than ColorFlex
I do allow ColorFlex to make the conversion from scanner RGB to ProPhoto RGB.
Bruce
--
email@hidden