Re: [Leica] Re: questions on computer for photo work

[Henry Ambrose <digphoto@nashville.net>]

>
>The Nikon software is OK. Not really great, but fine. The ICE works, the
>16x multisampling on the hardware and software sides works, and the files
>can be saved as 48bit files.
I guess 48 bit lets you work around the plug-in.
>
>>If the only software choice of software is the latest version for the
>>Polaroid then you may be right. Did you have a choice? Will the 4000 work
>>with any other than the "idiot push button" version (new version)?
I'll comment here on my own remark: 
Someone else on this list mentioned the new version of Polacolor Insight 
after I made the above post. So, I downloaded it  and tried it again. My 
previous experience was with a beta version. Well I got an OK scan from a 
transparency. The negative profiles do not work worth a dam. The old 
plug-in was/is much better all around.
>
>There is no software which will allow you to bring all the 12bit info into
>Photoshop, and that is what I want.
If (big if) I had good scanning software I'd be quite content at the 8bit 
into PS. With good scanning software that allows you ACCURATE CONTROL 
you'll get better 8 bits into PS. Probably better than you would believe.
I use Agfa scanners/scanning cameras and they actually have good scanning 
software with real controls.
>
>>In these desktop slide scanning machines, the software is their real
>>downfall, especially if you are used to good pre-press scanning software.
>>I wish the manufacturers would catch on to this shortcoming. I hear that
>>Silverfast makes great software that will work wit the Nikon but its
>>expensive!
You should look at Silverfast. I've heard very good things about it. Its 
what Leica uses for the S1 I think. (on topic now)
>
>No CCD scanner is the equal of a decent drum scanner (yet!). The resolution
>of the drum scanners is higher, but the _really_ important issue is that
>the Dmax of the drum scanners is a lot higher, the dynamic range is higher
>and the noise level is lower. The Eversmart is an excellent CCD scanner,
>but for $50,000US is still is not as good as a number of $20,000 drum
>scanners.
Of course.
>
>Into a more realistic range:
>The Polaroid 4000 has to have a lot better software before I would consider
>it. The Nikon has better Dmax, and a lower noise level than the Polaroid
>purely on the hardware side, which I feel is more important to me than the
>higher resolution of the Polaroid. As far as the scanning software is
>concerned, with 12 bit capable or better scanners, I would much rather take
>the raw scans into Photoshop as 48bit files and do my correction there.
Have you ever used any other scanners? Good software will work. It 
exists! Just not shipped with desktop slide scanners.
>
>I just got a SF200 slide feeder for the Nikon. I intend my procedure to be:
>dump a bunch of slides into the feeder, set it for 16x multisampling and
>save the files to my hard drive. Go away for a few hours. Come back, open
>the images, do the basic corrections, and save the files as 8bit JPEGs at
>max quality (lossless). That brings the files down to between 7 and 13Mb.
>Then I write them to CD.
You might try to save them as native PS files. Probably fastest and 
smallest, no loss.
>
>   *            Henning J. Wulff

I'm not trying to tell you your equipment/way of working is faulty.
I am saying that what we get sold is not so good. And I 'm confused why 
we keep getting crap. I kind of think if I keep bringing this up someone 
(at a scanner maker) will hear it.

Henry