Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/05/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Looks like there's just a bit more contrast in the positive scan version than in the negative scan version. Don't see much difference otherwise. Op 15-mei-06, om 05:23 heeft Dr. Chippendale het volgende geschreven: > Adam Bridge wrote: >> So why use the scanner software at all and just do it in a tool >> designed for pixel manipulation: Photoshop? >> >> Yes, you can adjust the input curves in your scanning software, but >> that's no different than adjusting the curves in Photoshop. >> >> So lots of time spent scanning seems wasted - get the pixels in and >> then deal with them in Photoshop. >> >> I'm totally willing to be convinced this is wrong-thinking but you're >> going to have to demonstrate why this is the case. > > Adam, > > You raise exactly the point I was trying to make when I stated here > http://homepage.mac.com/chammann/foto/Personal35.html that I scan > my B&W > negatives as positives. I think It does matter how you scan > because, like > any digital recording medium (not different from a digital camera's > sensor), > a scanner puts the emphasis on the lower half of the light values > (the > bottom half of the histogram). Values in the higher zones get less > differentiated. So yo get two different tonalities that can only be > modified > later on in Photoshop. > Case in point: same negative of a rock abstract, scanned as a > positive: > http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/515678/display/5652501 > And scanned as a negative: > http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/cat/1758/display/5672679 > Excuse thew slightly different cropping. I prefer the tonality of > the first > one. > Greetings, Christoph > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >