Re: Scanning with USM or not?
Re: Scanning with USM or not?
- Subject: Re: Scanning with USM or not?
- From: Don Hutcheson <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 09:57:57 -0400
Tom,
Applying USM in the scanner undermines a huge chunk of the advantages of RGB
scanning, because the images are less re-purposable. Don't do it.
Yes, high-end separators are using Photoshop USM at this very moment in
place of their Hell and Crosfield scanners' USM, and no one can tell the
difference. In fact it's usually better.
Photoshop's USM (if used carefully) is up to virtually any challenge from
drum scanners, as I've posted before on this forum. Most of the fancy USM
variables on drum scanners are reproducible in Photoshop if you know how,
but in the end not worth the effort.
Later today (time permitting) I'll up-load an outline to the Free Stuff page
of my web site (www.hutchcolor.com) on how to make Photoshop's USM equal or
exceed any drum scanner. That's not a promise.
Would I like some additional USM features in Photoshop? Yes, but I can live
with what we have and I'd want to make darned sure it didn't get top-heavy
with all the redundant USM junk in most drum scanners.
Here's what I'd ask Adobe for:
1. Higher Amount percentages (up to 1000 or 2000)
2. A 'Mode' option as in the Layers menu, especially with the option to
apply USM as Luminosity instead of Normal.
3. Intelligent grain suppression in addition to, or replacing, the rather
crude 'Threshold' control. (Chris Cox, I have a cool and efficient algorithm
for this - FREE to Adobe in return for unspecified favors.)
Like color spaces, USM is an almost religious subject on this forum. Think
like an iconoclast and you'll discover the truth.
Don
*************************************
Don Hutcheson
Hutcheson Consulting
(Color Management Solutions)
www.hutchcolor.com
11 Turnburry Rd
Washington, NJ 07882
Phone: (908) 689 7403
Fax: (908) 689 5305
Mobile: (908) 500 0341
email@hidden
*************************************