RE: OT - Imacon 848 vs Precision III
RE: OT - Imacon 848 vs Precision III
- Subject: RE: OT - Imacon 848 vs Precision III
- From: "Derek Cooper" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 15:57:38 -0400
Hi Andrew,
You know, I was totally in your line of thinking till I started using the
digital backs by Imacon, and that's what turned me. Could be I'm confusing
scanning / digital backs and praising the 3F format as a result.
You're right, scanning is probably best to 16-bit TIFs and editing in PS.
Using the back introduces an entirely new level of functionality, like
neutralizing a series of images before editing. Features like that are
invaluable.
So, strictly scanning - go for 16-bit TIF and ignore 3F. My apology.
Cheers,
Derek Cooper
www.derekcooper.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Rodney
Sent: September 3, 2003 3:16 PM
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.