Scanner Profiling Software -- ICC Scan
Scanner Profiling Software -- ICC Scan
- Subject: Scanner Profiling Software -- ICC Scan
- From: "Slavitt, Howard" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:58:34 -0700
I am profiling a scanner (Polaroid's Sprintscan 120), and am wondering how
much profiles are likely to differ from one software package to the next. I
have the Silverfast software for the scanner, and used its calibration
process with the provided IT8 slide. The profile I obtained is very good,
although it has noticeable shortcomings, depending on the particular slide,
with the yellows and magentas; sometimes the yellows are overemphasized and
the magentas underemphasized, or vice versa, as compared to the original
viewed on a light table. I am making raw 48 bit scans and gamma correcting
them for a 2.2 gamma in the Silverfast software, and then exporting them to
Photoshop 6 where I apply the profile before converting to Adobe RGB '98
colorspace for further 48 bit editing.
I figure there are two reasons why the color calibration may be a bit below
my expectations: a) the 35 mm slide may not match the data (Silverfast sends
a "ROES" slide rather than a Kodak IT8 slide; does anyone know how the
quality between the two compares?, or b) I suspect that the profile
generating engine is basic and probably not as robust as some stand alone
products -- in particular, I am thinking of buying "ICC Scan,"
www.profilecity.com's stand alone scanner calibration, for $150.00 to make
the profiles.
Two questions: 1) How much will scanner profiles differ from one profiling
package to the next?, 2) If I use ICC Scan, am I likely to get better
results if I profile, either a) raw 48 bit scans from Silverfast which have
already been gamma corrected, or b) raw 48 bit scans (either from Silverfast
or Polacolor) that have NOT been gamma corrected?
Thanks in advance for the help. Howard Slavitt.