Re: OT - Imacon 848 vs Precision III
Re: OT - Imacon 848 vs Precision III
- Subject: Re: OT - Imacon 848 vs Precision III
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 13:15:54 -0600
on 9/3/03 11:19 AM, Derek Cooper wrote:
>
Nice thing about the 3F format is you can get a monkey to do the scans,
>
and then a skilled individual can come back and actually apply the
>
appropriate settings.
3F is kind of nonsense IMHO. You can do exactly the same thing (at any file
size and greater speed) using 16bit scans. Why would you want to apply the
edits in FlexColor considering the speed (compared to Photoshop), the
toolset (decent as a scanning UI, not decent as an image editor) and have to
do so globally? I've yet to see a single function using 3F that wasn't
slower than Photoshop or slower and not as good. I don't get it.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.imagingrevue.com/
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.