Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow
Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow
- Subject: Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow
- From: email@hidden (Bruce Fraser)
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 11:21:45 -0700
At 10:46 AM +0100 8/5/01, Martin [apple account] wrote:
1. Scan in 16 bit mode (genuine 14bit) of the raw negative and then have to
invert and do colour work in Photoshop
2. Scan in 8 bit and be able to carry out inversion and colour manipulation
during scanning -- resulting in clean 8 bit positive image
So, in the belief that I am short changing my clients by not scanning negs
in 16 bit mode, I scan lots of image in twice and compare the results.
What do I find? Bugger all difference.
But you ARE scanning in 16-bit mode when you make your moves in the
scanner software. What you're doing is functinoally equivalent to
bringing the raw data into Photoshop and working on 16-bits/channel
there. So I wouldn't expect to see any dramatic differences.
I prefer to bring the high-bit data into Photoshop because I know
Photoshop's tools very well, and I can see the whole image instead of
a postage stamp, but we're both making our big moves on high-bit data.
The other important difference is that the Imacon gives me a high-bit
positive image from neg scans. Before the Imacon, I used a Leaf,
which has teh same limitation your scanner does, and I never did have
any great success at converting the result to positive iin
Photoshop...
That's why I prefer using flatbeds for all but the most difficult images.
The sound of an oil-mounted transparency coming loose from a drum at 250 rpm
is most unpleasant!
Film handling is another great feature of the Imacon. It's less
invasive than any other scanner I've used.
Bruce
--
email@hidden