Scanner Talk - 16-bit TIFF Positive - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Scanner Talk - 16-bit TIFF Positive

«‹›28 »

rohan: Mar 19, 2008; Look, if you had one shot
or one opportunity
To seize everything you ever wanted
in one moment
Would you capture it...
or just let it slip?

"THEIR"

ansel autisms posted:

Dust by hand in PS/LR, scan with minimal settings (no b/w points, no inversion, no sharpening.) No reason to trust your scanning software.

I'm following this advice and processing in PS based on that YouTube video (inverting in PS and adjusting colour levels individually) and it seems as if I should be losing a lot of tonal range -- if the blue channel only takes up a third of the histogram, and I adjust the white/black points to clip each end slightly, doesn't that mean there'll be less distinction between shades of blue? Or is this not how histograms / colours work?

Also, tangentially related to scanning, but is there any good way to adjust the midpoint of each channel? Right now I'm just adjusting them slightly until it looks good, but I have an untrained eye and an uncalibrated monitor so it doesn't seem the best method.

# ? Mar 19, 2014 23:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 21:34

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Baron Dirigible posted:

I'm following this advice and processing in PS based on that YouTube video (inverting in PS and adjusting colour levels individually) and it seems as if I should be losing a lot of tonal range -- if the blue channel only takes up a third of the histogram, and I adjust the white/black points to clip each end slightly, doesn't that mean there'll be less distinction between shades of blue? Or is this not how histograms / colours work?

Also, tangentially related to scanning, but is there any good way to adjust the midpoint of each channel? Right now I'm just adjusting them slightly until it looks good, but I have an untrained eye and an uncalibrated monitor so it doesn't seem the best method.

Scan as 16 bit positive.

Use curves.

MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Mar 26, 2014

# ? Mar 20, 2014 05:45

Ihmemies: Oct 6, 2012

I did a version too! 5 seconds in PS with auto levels (per channel contrast, snap to neutral midtones).

A few seconds more since I think the colors are boring. :v:

Ihmemies fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Mar 23, 2014

# ? Mar 23, 2014 12:10

doctorfrog: Mar 14, 2007; Great.

Looks like the OP is a bit ancient here and has no recent recommendations added, so I'd like a few leads if you guys don't mind.

Who I am: not a photo dude, just a regular layperson, who has several boxes of old notebooks from high school, tons of family photos that aren't digitized, and the knowledge that no one else in the fam is going to do the archive thing if I don't. I also have a kid on the way, and in another couple years I'm sure I'll want to archive every fingerpaint masterpiece of hers, enshrined for all time in digital bits that no one will ever look at again.

What I want to scan: writings and drawings from throughout the family, old yellowed photos, photos from throughout the 80's and 90's, stuff that's in wired notebooks in my closet, old yearbooks, etc. Also will be used for mundane stuff like receipts and household finance type things. No real need to scan negatives, though I have some of those as well.

Necessaries: quality and durability, as this thing is going to see moderate use in the coming years, with the clatter of a spiral binding occasionally hitting the glass. Compatibility with Linux and Windows is also expected, I would hope that's not a problem in 2014. If not, Windows is fine.

Quality: Should be very good, though I am not a prosumer. I have a pretty good eyeball for quality, and I want something that's accurate and capable, but I don't need high end equipment.

Budget: under $300, under $250 preferred. But do let me know if I'm being unrealistic.

A flatbed would be fine, I don't mind flipping pages. My guess is that pack-in software is most likely garbage, so any smart software recommendations (say like autocropping a scan of a 4x6 photo without me dragging a selection box) would also be appreciated.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 21:09

eggsovereasy: May 6, 2011

If you just want to scan prints then nearly any modern scanner should work fine.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 21:13

BANME.sh: Jan 23, 2008; What is this??
Are you some kind of hypnotist??; Grimey Drawer

The Epson V600 is under $200 on Amazon and will do regular photo/document scanning very well, plus also a pretty good job with negatives if you ever want the option.

The Epson software is also pretty decent out of the box (handles autocropping of multiple photos or negatives at a time), but my only complaint is the default "auto tone" settings will clip your black/white values a little bit (however you can tweak this manually)

# ? Mar 24, 2014 21:19

doctorfrog: Mar 14, 2007; Great.

BANME.sh posted:

The Epson V600 is under $200 on Amazon and will do regular photo/document scanning very well, plus also a pretty good job with negatives if you ever want the option.

The Epson software is also pretty decent out of the box (handles autocropping of multiple photos or negatives at a time), but my only complaint is the default "auto tone" settings will clip your black/white values a little bit (however you can tweak this manually)

Thanks. I'll take a look at that, and the price is really reasonable as well.

# ? Mar 24, 2014 23:37

Geektox: Aug 1, 2012; Good people don't rip other people's arms off.

The Epson V600 and Canon 9000f are both similar in price. Is one better than the other? Is there a huge noticeable difference in quality between the V600 and V700? They both seem to scan at the same resolution.

# ? Mar 26, 2014 05:59

VomitOnLino: Jun 13, 2005; Sometimes I get lost.

Geektox posted:

The Epson V600 and Canon 9000f are both similar in price. Is one better than the other? Is there a huge noticeable difference in quality between the V600 and V700? They both seem to scan at the same resolution.

I don't have either, but my friends do. From what I heard the main difference seems to be the size of the area where you can scan transparencies.
Maybe some v600/v700 owning dorkroomer can weigh in.

# ? Mar 26, 2014 07:23

eggsovereasy: May 6, 2011

Manufacturer resolution specs are so bullshit they can almost be ignored.

My V700 does produce nicer scans than my V600 did, but the reason I upgraded and what really justifies the $300 jump in price, is the ability scan large format film (2 4x5 sheets or 1 8x10). Also, the V600 can do 2 strips of 6 frames of 35mm or 1 strip of 120 (4 6x4.5, 3 6x6, or 2 6x9) while the V700 can do twice that.

If you don't need to scan large format film, I would save money and get the V600. I don't know anything about Canon scanners.

# ? Mar 26, 2014 07:54

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

VomitOnLino posted:

Silverfast can be persuaded to let you keep the highlights, usually.
In the nega-fix tab, there's an "Auto tolerance slider", if I slide that all the way to the left I usually get to keep all my highlights, even with film where I botched the dev due to being lazy.

For B&W it was just too drat annoying, even using the HDR setting, which is apparently the raw setting, I get a small amount of clipping.

Vuescan with .dngs is nice, I can scan only from the green channel and all the .dngs are scanned at the same exposure.

# ? Mar 26, 2014 19:38

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

notlodar posted:

For B&W it was just too drat annoying, even using the HDR setting, which is apparently the raw setting, I get a small amount of clipping.

Vuescan with .dngs is nice, I can scan only from the green channel and all the .dngs are scanned at the same exposure.

MrBlandAverage posted:

Scan as 16 bit positive.

Use curves.

# ? Mar 26, 2014 21:57

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

ansel autisms posted:

HDR = raw = scans as positive no matter what cause it don't give a poo poo

Normal 16bit results in the same image with Silverfast's annoying auto exposure bumping up the black start point.

To be fair, I only had this problem with overexposed HP5+ and two frames of overexposed Acros in Silverfast Ai 6.6, since then I have convinced those dudes to hand over an AI 8.0 key and it seems to handle things better. But I still like my Vuescan green channel scanning.

Also, levels before curves gives me better results.

edit: scanning in raw is the new shooting in raw :agesilaus:

notlodar fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Mar 27, 2014

# ? Mar 27, 2014 00:17

Chill Callahan: Nov 14, 2012

Geektox posted:

The Epson V600 and Canon 9000f are both similar in price. Is one better than the other? Is there a huge noticeable difference in quality between the V600 and V700? They both seem to scan at the same resolution.

Epson is much better in image quality. Haven't had any experience between the v600 and v700 though.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 04:28

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

notlodar posted:

HDR = raw = scans as positive no matter what cause it don't give a poo poo

Normal 16bit results in the same image with Silverfast's annoying auto exposure bumping up the black start point.

To be fair, I only had this problem with overexposed HP5+ and two frames of overexposed Acros in Silverfast Ai 6.6, since then I have convinced those dudes to hand over an AI 8.0 key and it seems to handle things better. But I still like my Vuescan green channel scanning.

Also, levels before curves gives me better results.

edit: scanning in raw is the new shooting in raw

This entire post is so confusing and wrong I don't know where to begin.

If you're someone trying to figure out scanning, please just completely ignore the quoted post and maybe also everything else by this poster.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 16:17

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

MrBlandAverage posted:

This entire post is so confusing and wrong I don't know where to begin.

If you're someone trying to figure out scanning, please just completely ignore the quoted post and maybe also everything else by this poster.

for b&w wet scanning it's the bees knees. you can always isolate the best color channel in photoshop but who wants to do that. :mmmsmug:

# ? Mar 27, 2014 17:12

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

notlodar posted:

for b&w wet scanning it's the bees knees. you can always isolate the best color channel in photoshop but who wants to do that.

You give the most misleading and stupid advice in this thread. Please stop.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 17:17

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

notlodar posted:

you can always isolate the best color channel in photoshop but who wants to do that.

anybody who wants to exercise enough control over their results to get the best possible output

# ? Mar 27, 2014 17:18

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Must you guys take everything so seriously?

# ? Mar 27, 2014 17:50

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

notlodar posted:

Must you guys take everything so seriously?

I see we've moved on to "rolling with the punches."

# ? Mar 27, 2014 17:57

Musket: Mar 19, 2008

notlodar posted:

Must you guys take everything so seriously?

Correcting bad statements is serious business around these parts.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 18:08

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

MrBlandAverage posted:

I see we've moved on to "rolling with the punches."

you betta check yoself. i knew those smug emoticons would grind your gears.

notlodar's guide to bad guides

Wet scanning is awesome and makes your dick bigger with gasoline. You should all try it. Here's a link http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/cheapfluidmounting.html
Can't find Kami fluid? Or you're cheap? Get some Naphtha.
It's actually quite easy once your used to it. Film curling is less of an issue and the results are more consistent.

Scanning B&W? Use the best channel. Why wouldn't you want to work with the best data? Hearsay on the internet suggests that Epson scanners have the best "optics" in the Green channel. My own tests made it seem like it was the red channel, but I'm going to listen to those apug/LFF losers for now. They invest way more time and money into this poo poo than I do.

Scan RAW. Because you want more control.

Use levels before curves. Because it makes using curves easier.

But really, wet scanning is awesome and easy.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 18:20

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

If you really need to do wet scanning to counteract film curl you really must have serious issues in your developing workflow.

TIFF is "raw." DNG is just a wrapper around a TIFF.

There's no reason to use levels at all. Your inability to learn the tools in front of you is clearly a barrier you struggle to pass. Have you considered shooting digital?

# ? Mar 27, 2014 18:32

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

ansel autism's guide for notlodar's posting: don't.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 18:33

Musket: Mar 19, 2008

ansel autisms posted:

If you really need to do wet scanning to counteract film curl you really must have serious issues in your developing workflow.

TIFF is "raw." DNG is just a wrapper around a TIFF.

There's no reason to use levels at all. Your inability to learn the tools in front of you is clearly a barrier you struggle to pass. Have you considered shooting digital?

Mods, please rename this thread. Scanner Talk: Have you considered shooting digital. TIA.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 18:35

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

ansel autisms posted:

If you really need to do wet scanning to counteract film curl you really must have serious issues in your developing workflow.

TIFF is "raw." DNG is just a wrapper around a TIFF.

There's no reason to use levels at all. Your inability to learn the tools in front of you is clearly a barrier you struggle to pass. Have you considered shooting digital?

~~Once you scan your negative you are shooting digital. I darkroom print everything and fax it to email to maintain the most analog integrity.~~

There are numerous benefits to wet mount scanning. here

All TIFFs are not created equal. Your 16bit TIFFs are not the same as 16bit RAW TIFFs. If you cut a tiff, does the TIFF not save the changes? If I alter the histogram in Silverfast, does my TIFF scan not bleed? TIFF TIFF TIFF

You can use curves as levels, but I prefer levels when working on B&W negatives. So use curves before you use curves.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 18:51

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

notlodar posted:

~~Once you scan your negative you are shooting digital. I darkroom print everything and fax it to email to maintain the most analog integrity.~~

There are numerous benefits to wet mount scanning. here

All TIFFs are not created equal. Your 16bit TIFFs are not the same as 16bit RAW TIFFs. If you cut a tiff, does the TIFF not save the changes? If I alter the histogram in Silverfast, does my TIFF scan not bleed? TIFF TIFF TIFF

You can use curves as levels, but I prefer levels when working on B&W negatives. So use curves before you use curves.

You're making everything way more complicated than it needs to be. Please stop posting.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:00

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

MrBlandAverage posted:

You're making everything way more complicated than it needs to be. Please stop posting.

Dear Oregoons,

Please post content.

Best,
notlodar

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:05

bellows lugosi: Aug 9, 2003

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/dng_spec_1.4.0.0.pdf

quote:

DNG is an extension of the TIFF 6.0 format, and is compatible with the TIFF-EP standard.

You don't know what you're talking about. Please stop posting.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:19

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

notlodar posted:

Dear Oregoons,

Please post content.

Best,
notlodar

This is a bad response to someone who has posted more images in the last month than you have in five years. You should be ashamed.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:20

Musket: Mar 19, 2008

notlodar posted:

Dear Oregoons,

Yall just dont get that i work with RealRAW.

Best,
notlodar

ftfy.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:25

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

ansel autisms posted:

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/dng_spec_1.4.0.0.pdf

You don't know what you're talking about. Please stop posting.

RAWs in Vuescan save as DNGs, RAWs in silverfast save as TIFFs. Who cares? I think you are waging war on the wrong point there, fella.

MrBlandAverage posted:

This is a bad response to someone who has posted more images in the last month than you have in five years. You should be ashamed.

Actually it was one of you Oregoons that printed out a bunch of photos of my girlfriend that I posted here,then presented them to use at a bar in Portland one night. Let's just say that I posted less pics after that.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:26

Musket: Mar 19, 2008

notlodar posted:

RAWs in Vuescan save as DNGs, RAWs in silverfast save as TIFFs. Who cares? I think you are waging war on the wrong point there, fella.

Actually it was one of you Oregoons that printed out a bunch of photos of my girlfriend that I posted here,then presented them to use at a bar in Portland one night. Let's just say that I posted less pics after that.

That was me. Come at me bro.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:26

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Musket posted:

That was me. Come at me bro.

No I actually like your posts here

edit: she said she wants to punch you in the face :shrug:

notlodar fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Mar 27, 2014

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:27

Dr. Despair: Nov 4, 2009; 39 perfect posts with each roll.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:33

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

notlodar posted:

No I actually like your posts here

too bad we don't like yours

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:33

Musket: Mar 19, 2008

jfc. call the burn ward.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:33

Musket: Mar 19, 2008

notlodar posted:

No I actually like your posts here

edit: she said she wants to punch you in the face

Her sister printed those, take it up with her.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:38

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Musket posted:

Her sister printed those, take it up with her.

I figured you for a good guy.

You have to stop hanging around those other Oregoons, they're a bad influence. It's like you guys just go around making GBS threads up threads. You don't have to follow them around, you're better than that. Be your own man.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 19:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 4, 2024 21:34

SoundMonkey: Apr 22, 2006; I just push buttons.

Holy poo poo shut up about Portland pub drama and/or stop doing it.

# ? Mar 27, 2014 22:23

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Scanner Talk - 16-bit TIFF Positive

«‹›28 »