Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: roa5100xx on January 18, 2013, 12:15:03 pm

Title: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: roa5100xx on January 18, 2013, 12:15:03 pm
Hi,
Can ACR be used after the scan stage(35mm slides) for processing (capture sharpening, noise reduction,color, etc). What would be the downside? What would be the upside? Good idea or bad?

Thanks
Herbert

Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: digitaldog on January 18, 2013, 12:18:17 pm
Unless the scanning application kind of sucks, you'd be best served doing as much there as possible. It's faster, it doesn't involve any data loss. If the scanning software is not so good, then ACR would be the next place to alter the color and tone. After that, Photoshop proper.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 18, 2013, 12:29:24 pm
Yes you can, the major precaution being that you do not sharpen the image at the scan stage and then resharpen it in ACR/LR. As well, it is a good idea to normalize the histogram in the scan software at least to prevent unrecoverable clipping once you send the image to an application from which you can print it. Further editing in scan software that brings the image closer to a finished state is a good idea, because that gives you further editing headroom if you need it in other applications in which you may subsequently open it. Scratch and dust removal is best done at the scan stage if your scanning application and scanner allows for infrared detection and removal. Beyond that, each of these applications (scan application, Adobe applications) have their respective comparative advantages, so it is useful to experiment with both and choose the workflow that best suits you.I have much discussion and illustration of these options in my ebook on SilverFast - largely in relation to Lightroom and Photoshop, but the image editing engine and features are mostly the same in Camera Raw and Lightroom.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 18, 2013, 05:44:14 pm
Herbert, I disagree in part with the prior advice.  Also, it appears that Andrew and Mark previously have given inconsistent advice.  Both of them, I believe, have advocated custom scanner profiling, but making the type of adjustments you’re considering would make any custom scanner profile almost useless.  Perhaps Andrew and Mark can explain their apparently inconsistent advice.

In any event, let me explain why I believe that some of Andrew’s and Mark’s advice above is wrong.  First, it’s necessary to have a basic understanding of how a typical scanner operates.  A scanner uses a CCD (like a digital camera) to digitize your slides.  You can change what the CCD records by adjusting exposure and focus (i.e., hardware adjustments), but things like capture sharpening, noise reduction, color, etc (i.e., software adjustments) must be done, after the physical scan, to the data produced by the CCD.  Just because you set your software adjustments in your scanning software before you do your scan does not mean that those adjustments are part of the physical scanning process.  They are not.  Those adjustments are applied by your scanning software to the CCD data after the physical scan.

The point I’m making is that software adjustments are not a part of the physical scanning process. All software adjustments merely adjust the pixel data produced by your scanner’s CCD. As you noted, you can make your software adjustments with your scanning software or in ACR. 

If you make your software adjustments with your scanning software as part of your physical scanning process, it’s kind of like shooting jpeg’s.  Your adjustments are baked into your scan (i.e., destructive with data loss).  You do not get the advantages of a nondestructive workflow as with ACR. 

Another consideration is whether you prefer ACR or your scanning software’s image adjustments.  I’m a big fan of ACR and LR, and much prefer them to scanning software.  So much so that I can’t imagine why anyone would rather use scanning software, but I realize it’s a personal choice.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: digitaldog on January 18, 2013, 05:58:10 pm
I’m a big fan of ACR and LR, and much prefer them to scanning software.  So much so that I can’t imagine why anyone would rather use scanning software, but I realize it’s a personal choice.

The question is, have you ever used really good scanning software ala say, LinoColor or ColorQuartet? I've used both for years driving high end desktop drum scanners and both provided functionality that we don't even have today in ACR or Photoshop (example, a saturation curve UI. Far more powerful selective color controls).

As I mentioned above, if you have a good scanning interface, it's going to be a lot faster and there's going to be less data loss doing it at the scan stage. If the software sucks, well, you have to fix the turd somewhere. ACR is preferable to Photoshop for a number of reasons, just as a good scanning interface is going to be preferable for the same reasons.

The best scanner with crappy software is an expensive door stop.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 18, 2013, 06:36:21 pm
Herbert,

Before you have a chance to become confused, you may wish to consider the following:

Dean's first paragraph is irrelevant because we are not discussing scanner profiling. Scanner profiling is a "good thing to do" for dealing with reflective scans and positive transparency scans for the same reason that any device profiling is worthwhile, and that advice is valid regardless of what image editing options you elect to perform. Your question wasn't about profiling the scanner, so let's move on from there.

Dean's second paragraph is correct, except for scanner-dependent operations such as lamp control (in Nikon scanners) and infra-red scratch and dust removal on colour transparent media (positive and negative) using scanners and applications that support it. Unless the scanner has user-adjustable lamp-control, exposure adjustment is not a scanner dependent operation. It is software controlled. For dust and scratch removal, both SilverFast and Vuescan support it for a range of scanners. You can check on the SilverFast website for the scanners that allow for infrared detection; SilverFast's iSRD tool is much more granular than the infrared detection tool offered in Vuescan, but both can do it and removing all this debris at the scan stage is a vastly superior solution to scratch and dust removal in Photoshop or any raw converter.

Dean's third paragraph is correct, but you knew that and you are asking where it is better to make these adjustments.

Dean's fourth paragraph can be correct, depending on the kind of scan you produce. If you produce an adjusted scan in the scanning software and export it to your hard-drive he's right. All the adjustments done in the scanning software are baked-in. That is either OK or not so OK, depending on the quality of the adjustments and how permanently you want to keep them.

SilverFast and Vuescan both offer the facility to make a "raw" scan (in SilverFast called "HDR"). These scans are not "raw" in the same sense as a raw data file from a digital camera. These scans are fully rendered, three channel pixel-based images by the time you see them (and that is true in Vuescan too, whether they have a "DNG" container or not). They are only raw in the sense that nothing else is done to them except to dump everything read by the scanner's sensor into a processed, linear, but UNedited image file, so nothing has been destroyed that you have any control over. You can keep this as a master file and never damage it by never saving over it. For example, you can call it up in Photoshop, make any adjustments you want, then do a "Save As", the original file you were working on goes back to sleep as it was - unaltered and undamaged, while the newly created file has your adjustments.

The other way of doing this "non-destructively", which is where Dean's point is correct, is to open the scanned image in Lightroom or Camera Raw and make your edits there. Nothing happens to the file until you export it, if you ever do, because all that happens within the raw converter is that a metadata instruction set with all your edits sits with or in the image file, and only when you do something such as printing it or exporting it for whatever purpose, those edits get implemented on the fly ON THE EXPORTED IMAGE, so the original remains unaltered/undamaged, but the exported image has been altered.

Turning to Dean's final paragraph, there can of course be differences between Dean's preferences, factual considerations and what suits you. The factual consideration is that each digital image editing application only has so much "adjustability" built into its controls. So the more you can safely edit within the scanning software, even though it is baked in unless you use the raw scan option I defined above, the better the starting point of the image for the next level of adjusting you may wish to do in another image editing application, and the less further editing will be required. This is logically unambiguous and proves itself in reality too, especially for very difficult images.

One reason why you may wish to deploy software outside the scanning application for image editing is simply because it can often do stuff that you can't do in the scanning software because the scanning software wasn't designed for it. For example, no scanning software allows you to correct pin cushion or barrel distortion or to implement perspective controls, whereas Lightroom/ACR do. Another reason to consider the options between the scanning software and say ACR/LR, is that much of what you should do between these applications depends on which tool is best for the job at hand, and that varies; so my basic point, and what I emphasize in my book, is not to be dogmatic about this. There is NOT "one size fits all". SilverFast, for example, has a white balancing tool that is quite unique, insofar as it lets you balance four separate zones in one image where each one needs different balancing, at once, with four mouse clicks. It can work really well, and I haven't seen another application that does this. Lightroom I would contend is much stronger than ANY scanner application in teasing out shadow detail while maintaining and even enhancing the quality of deep shadow tones. Don't look for uni-dimensional recipes in this work. It's horses for courses. Some things work better in some places than others. Have the options available, experiment, and use whatever gives you a more satisfactory final result.

Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 18, 2013, 06:38:19 pm
I haven't used a drum scanner, and I assumed that Herbert's question wasn't about drum scanners.  My comments are about typical consumer scanners and related scanning software.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: digitaldog on January 18, 2013, 06:45:04 pm
I haven't used a drum scanner, and I assumed that Herbert's question wasn't about drum scanners.  My comments are about typical consumer scanners and related scanning software.

You're missing the point. The hardware isn't under discussion here. The high end drum scanners of past just spent considerable time and effort providing excellent and powerful scanning software. They didn't' expect customers to spend ten's of thousands of dollars on hardware and mate with crappy software. Again, a great scanner with bad software is a huge waste.

Scanning software like a raw converter can be OK, good or superb. If you have a crappy scanning interface, pass the processing onto something better. That said, about the only software I've played with recently that comes close to providing the tools I would expect for scanning as I had in the past would be SilverFast. IF you had this software AND you knew how to use it, I don't think ACR would be useful outside of the corrections Mark discusses in terms of pin cushion or barrel distortion. And even then, I'm not sure ACR deals with rendered images to the same degree/quality as feeding it a raw.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 18, 2013, 06:54:35 pm
Andrew, I fully agree with you that SilverFast is the best of the lot in scanning software and makes sense to do lots of stuff there, but I still recommend a pragmatic approach to the use of tools for image editing. Actually, in preparing my book, which is based on years of experience, I did/do edit high-bit rendered TIFF images from the scanner in Lightroom and it does an excellent job, as much as SilverFast also does an excellent job for the functions where it has comparative advantage.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 18, 2013, 07:50:33 pm
You're missing the point. The hardware isn't under discussion here. The high end drum scanners of past just spent considerable time and effort providing excellent and powerful scanning software. They didn't' expect customers to spend ten's of thousands of dollars on hardware and mate with crappy software. Again, a great scanner with bad software is a huge waste.

Scanning software like a raw converter can be OK, good or superb. If you have a crappy scanning interface, pass the processing onto something better. That said, about the only software I've played with recently that comes close to providing the tools I would expect for scanning as I had in the past would be SilverFast. IF you had this software AND you knew how to use it, I don't think ACR would be useful outside of the corrections Mark discusses in terms of pin cushion or barrel distortion. And even then, I'm not sure ACR deals with rendered images to the same degree/quality as feeding it a raw.

I’ve used Silverfast (and know how to use it), but I prefer ACR and LR.  With respect to software edits, SilverFast and ACR can start with the same pixel data from the scanner CCD. You like the way SilverFast edits that data.  I like ACR/LR. 
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Alan Klein on January 18, 2013, 10:49:06 pm
Do setting black and white points at the scan stage provide more data than scanning "flat" and doing those adjustments in Post?
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 18, 2013, 11:17:39 pm
What do you mean by "data"? Luminance levels? Pixels? For any given resolution setting, a completely unadjusted linear scan contains the most output data you can get from the scanner at that resolution.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Alan Klein on January 19, 2013, 12:21:44 am
Both?  Any?  All?  IS it better to leave the points alone during the scan?
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 19, 2013, 12:44:28 am
Do setting black and white points at the scan stage provide more data than scanning "flat" and doing those adjustments in Post?

The short answer to your question is – No. 

A black and white point setting in your scan software does not affect the actual physical scan or the data produced by your scanner’s CCD.  It merely causes your scanning software to edit that data in accordance with your settings.  In other words, setting a black and white point can be done in your scanning software or PS, for example, and the results would be similar.

To amplify Mark’s answer, your scanner’s CCD outputs 16 bit linear unadjusted data.  (Only hardware adjustments can change the data your CCD outputs.) That linear data is the starting point for all subsequent edits regardless whether those adjustments are done with scanning software, PS, ACR, other image editing software.   It’s not practical to work with linear data, however, so most people at least output a gamma adjusted file from their scanning software.  Some people, however, output the 16 bit linear unadjusted data and then make a gamma adjustment and color correct the data via a scanner profile or other method.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Schewe on January 19, 2013, 12:44:53 am
Both?  Any?  All?  IS it better to leave the points alone during the scan?

There is one significant advantage the ACR/LR has regarding tone and color control over ANY scanner software I know is the ACR/LR has the ability to do both global (like in a scanner software) AND local image adjustments...if you think about it, this is a major difference.

As it relates to black and white point adjustments I think it's 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other for black point adjustments but I would suggest that ACR/LR has the best set of tools for adjusting white point. Yes, a scan ain't a raw file and you can't recover any clipped data from a scan but the ability to adjust highlights and white in ACR/LR added to the ability to adjust curve end points adds a degree of control I don't think ANY scanner software I am familiar with, has...so, setting the black and white points in the scanner software should be done very, VERY carefully to avoid wasting and usable image data that may be there and used by ACR/LR.

The fact you can globally set black and white points and then do local adjustments makes a real good case for doing very open (flat) scans in the scanner software and rely on the ACR/LR toolset to optimize the overall tone mapping. If you can get a decent full range scan with a decent color balance, that would be the best starting point for ACR/LR tone and color adjustments post scan.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 19, 2013, 12:49:01 am
Alan, you asked: Both?  Any?  All?  IS it better to leave the points alone during the scan?

Not necessarily. It depends on where the end points of the histogram sit. If the luminance range of the prescan doesn't stretch to the end points of the tonal range, by remapping the deepest gray to black and the lightest gray to white, you are increasing contrast. If the resulting image looks better that way, and the quality of the remapping is good (because you are working in 16-bits per channel with good scanner software) there is no clipping of black or white and no harm done. In fact you end up with a better looking image straight from the scan stage. BUT if the tonal range of the prescan is already bumping-up against the walls of the histogram panel, any remapping that would sacrifice data from the end points of the tonal range is usually not a good idea, because you would be clipping luminance levels. No scan software I'm familiar with can rebuild highlights or rescue shadows as well as Lightroom/ACR can. SilverFast's "AACO" tool, if used VERY conservatively, and combined with SilverFast's Multi-Exposure (which does a second pass for adding exposure to dark areas), can help give shadow rescue a decent start at the scan stage. Apart from, or in addition to that, for those cases where shadows look hopelessly blocked and highlights look clipped, you'll get further exporting the scan to Lightroom/ACR where you can often rescue highlights and continue rescuing shadows there more effectively. I find combining the capabilities of software at both stages of the image-making process can be very helpful. Often it is not a case of "either-or", regardless of what some would have us believe. Once you've tried these various permutations and combinations yourself, you'll see the point.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 19, 2013, 01:00:51 am

To amplify Mark’s answer, your scanner’s CCD outputs 16 bit linear unadjusted data.  (Only hardware adjustments can change the data your CCD outputs.) That linear data is the starting point for all subsequent edits regardless whether those adjustments are done with scanning software, PS, ACR, other image editing software.   It’s not practical to work with linear data, however, so most people at least output a gamma adjusted file from their scanning software.  Some people, however, output the 16 bit linear unadjusted data and then make a gamma adjustment and color correct the data via a scanner profile or other method.


I think Alan is asking where it is best to edit what the scanner produces. That is what Jeff Schewe and I addressed. I largely agree with all that Jeff said, except in my experience I think LR/ACR can also have value-added over scan software at the lower end of the tonal range. It isn't true that it isn't practical to work with linear data, for the reason Jeff stated. You don't want to end up there because it usually looks pretty flat, but as a starting point - as you said yourself - that's where the scans start, and as Jeff mentioned, often a good starting point for working in LR/ACR. Here again, there is no one-way truth in this. It depends on the image, it depends on the scan software, it depends on the operator not over-doing the adjustments - you can export images with gamma = or >1.0 and be fine either way.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 19, 2013, 01:42:31 am
Do setting black and white points at the scan stage provide more data than scanning "flat" and doing those adjustments in Post?

I think Alan is asking where it is best to edit what the scanner produces. That is what Jeff Schewe and I addressed.


Of course, I must have misread Alan’s question and didn’t properly address his real question.  My apologies.  ::)  

It isn't true that it isn't practical to work with linear data, for the reason Jeff stated. You don't want to end up there because it usually looks pretty flat, but as a starting point - as you said yourself - that's where the scans start, and as Jeff mentioned, often a good starting point for working in LR/ACR.

Looks like I also misread Jeff’s reply since I don’t see where he talked about linear data. Are you sure, Mark, that Jeff recommends staring in LR/ACR with linear data from the scanner?  Linear data doesn’t just look pretty flat; it looks extremely dark with horrible color.  That’s why with camera raw files LR/ACR provides a gamma adjusted view for editing photos.  I don’t think it’s practical to make color and tone adjustments directly on and viewing linear data.  But if Jeff and you are able to do so, I must be wrong.  :o

By the way, what profile would be embedded with a linear file?

I'd also say that I agree with what Jeff wrote, but apparently I'm not capable of accurately reading today, so I'll take a fresh look tomorrow.  :'(
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Schewe on January 19, 2013, 01:58:21 am
Looks like I also misread Jeff’s reply since I don’t see where he talked about linear data. Are you sure, Mark, that Jeff recommends staring in LR/ACR with linear data from the scanner?

I never mentioned "linear" data from the scanner...pretty sure that was Mark and maybe Andrew. Regardless, whatever image you get out of a scanner–ICC profiled to a specific color gamut and gamma or a "raw" linear output, it doesn't really matter. Doing the tone and color correction in ACR/LR is superior because of the ability to do both global and local adjustments.

I have two scanners, an Imacon 848 and an Epson Perfection V750-M Pro Scanner. When I'm scanning 4x5 film or smaller, I use the Imacon 848 and optimize the scan in Flexcolor and output a 16 bit image with the custom scanner profile I've made. If I'm scanning on the Epson I tend to do do flat scans in 16 bit Adobe RGB and optimize the image in Photoshop (and ignore "profiles"). I'll bring either scan into LR to do final tone & color corrections. That seems to work very well. BTW I don't do any sharpening in either scanner software! In the Imacon you actually have to turn sharpening on but move sharpening to -120 to defeat sharpening (turn it off).
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 19, 2013, 09:31:14 am
Jeff, where you said above "very open flat scans" I thought you had in mind linear because that's what you get from a gamma setting of 1.0 in the scanner; however one can also produce open flat scans that are not necessarily linear so your point is well taken.

Dean's point that linear scans start life looking dark and ugly is correct, but in the newer versions of LR/ACR they can be handled well even though when you first look at them it's depressing. I still elect most of the time to move them upwards of gamma 1.0 in the scan software to provide more editing latitude in post-scan software. There's nothing sacrosanct about linear gamma.

It's true that ACR/LR is advantageous in respect of handling both local and global corrections. I should point out however that a number of SilverFast's tools provide for creating masks and doing localized editing with them. It is, however, not as fully-featured as LR/ACR in these respects.

I also generally think it's suboptimal to bake either sharpening or grain reduction into in a scan; one wants the flexibility and quality of the sharpening workflow from capture to output sharpening, and reversibility in respect of grain mitigation. However there are people who wish to do their complete editing in the scan software without buying anything else, and for those folks, SilverFast does offer a complete workflow including these tools. It's sharpening algorithms have improved in version 8.

Where you say you ignore profiles with the Epson scanner, I find if not using a scanner profile at the scan stage, the image starts life more corrected in the post-scan stage of image editing by assigning the scanner profile on opening it in Photoshop and converting to the working space.

Interesting that you go to Photoshop and then to LR/ACR. If I need to do any work on the scan beyond what I can do in the scan software, I'll first go to LR/ACR, then if I need something neither SilverFast nor LR/ACR can do I'll open it in Photoshop, then bring it back to LR for printing, where the print module is just an easier trip than Photoshop's.

Well, Herbert, you see - you asked a seemingly simple question and as often happens, you find out that the answers are not as short as the question! That's fine and normal, because image editing provides multiple paths to outcomes, some better than others - depending - and it's in the "depending" where all the fun is.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 19, 2013, 10:55:04 am
Linear data doesn’t just look pretty flat; it looks extremely dark with horrible color.  That’s why with camera raw files LR/ACR provides a gamma adjusted view for editing photos.  I don’t think it’s practical to make color and tone adjustments directly on and viewing linear data.  But if Jeff and you are able to do so, I must be wrong.  :o

By the way, what profile would be embedded with a linear file?


Dean, just to make sure I'm not talking through my hat - one always likes to question oneself despite years of experience with this, because software and possibilities keep changing. I just now opened my trusty Nikon 5000-ED, hauled out a test slide (just an ordinary photo that doesn't have extremes of contrast) and ran four scans: gamma 1.0 profiled and unprofiled; gamma 2.2 profiled and unprofiled. SilverFast allows one to make all those choices. Indeed the gamma 1.0 scans look like you say they would look - as usual. Profiling or not profiling in this case didn't make a big difference to the starting point whether in gamma 1.0 or gamma 2.2. I opened them all in Lightroom 4.3 and I was able to quickly bring all of them to roughly the same appearance with different treatment in each case. What works better in the final analysis can also be image-dependent. This is why my essential point remains that one needs to remain pragmatic about all this and recognize each software for its comparative advantage.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 19, 2013, 10:57:55 am
Jeff, where you said above "very open flat scans" I thought you had in mind linear because that's what you get from a gamma setting of 1.0 in the scanner; however one can also produce open flat scans that are not necessarily linear so your point is well taken.

Dean's point that linear scans start life looking dark and ugly is correct, but in the newer versions of LR/ACR they can be handled well even though when you first look at them it's depressing.

Mark, you must live in a world different than mine.  ::)  Linear scans are not open and flat looking, not even close. Attached is a sample of a linear scan and the same scan, but with my linear profile assigned.  (Both versions were converted to sRGB for web viewing and saved as jpegs.) 

It’s incredible that you or anyone else would find it practical to use that linear version to make color and tone adjustments without first making a gamma adjustment.  It seems to defy belief, but if you say you do so, I’ll take your word on it. 
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 19, 2013, 11:29:10 am
We were probably writing on the same subject at very close intervals. Yes I agree, those linear scans look like crap before you've done anything to them, but the point is that they contain all the image data you need for post-scan adjustment into decent images. As I said, not usually my favorite starting point either because they're very dark and need radical remapping, but they can be worked into perfectly satisfactory images, depending on the image and the software. My normal workflow is to make gamma-adjusted scans as well, so in practice we aren't far apart.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: digitaldog on January 19, 2013, 12:01:18 pm
Linear captures do not necessarily look nor have to appear dark. They do when you view them assumed to be gamma corrected. If you have a profile that properly defines the linear gamma data, it looks quite good. I have really old Kodak DCS captures in a linear form but after assigning the proper ICC profile, it looks just fine. I've used that example for years when showing people that what first appears dark and awful can appear lovely without changing a single numeric value in the document.

(http://digitaldog.net/files/TaggedUntaggedLinear.jpg)
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: roa5100xx on January 19, 2013, 01:28:42 pm
Hi Everyone,
Thank you for all of your replies, this turned out to be a very interesting discussion. I see I have a lot to learn.

I have been using SilverFast for about two(maybe three ) weeks. I have been using ARC and Photoshop for long time, and feel more comfortable using it. That's why I asked the question. But I don't want to give up anything (image quaity) that I should be doing in SilverFast by using ARC. Like I said "I have a lot to learn." Well, I guess there are no easy answers.

It seems I have a number options. So I will do some experimenting and see which options I like best.

Thanks again

Herbert
 
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: roa5100xx on January 19, 2013, 01:32:30 pm
Mark,
I download your book, very good job.

Herbert
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 19, 2013, 01:54:51 pm
Mark,
I download your book, very good job.

Herbert

Much appreciated Herbert, glad you find it useful.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 19, 2013, 02:19:38 pm
Linear captures do not necessarily look nor have to appear dark. They do when you view them assumed to be gamma corrected. If you have a profile that properly defines the linear gamma data, it looks quite good. I have really old Kodak DCS captures in a linear form but after assigning the proper ICC profile, it looks just fine. I've used that example for years when showing people that what first appears dark and awful can appear lovely without changing a single numeric value in the document.

Andrew, while I appreciate what you are saying here in its context, the fact is that for people using SilverFast 8 and its profiles, there are numerous ways of doing this, between using the HDR scan mode or not using it, profiling or not profiling, gamma linear or gamma>1.0, and if using HDR scan mode, gamma >1.0 selected or not selected for HDR output to an external editor. Within either the HDR or non-HDR scan modes, the choices are independent variables. There are a total of 12 permutations and combinations I can develop within SilverFast before we get to an external editor. Depending on what you select, you will start-out with a dark image or a nice looking image assuming the original media is nice looking. Depending on the photograph itself, I can make edits to produce a similar-looking and decent end-result from any of these options be it within SilverFast alone, or SilverFast combined with LR, or LR alone, depending on the challenges of the image.  I'm not about to start writing and illustrating another dissertation on this because I just don't have time; but what I'm saying here is why I recommend that we should be pragmatic. There are many answers and we can certainly provide guidance on what we think are best practices, but it is up to users to then know what the options are and to experiment and develop their own workflow preferences.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 19, 2013, 02:45:38 pm
Linear captures do not necessarily look nor have to appear dark. They do when you view them assumed to be gamma corrected. If you have a profile that properly defines the linear gamma data, it looks quite good. I have really old Kodak DCS captures in a linear form but after assigning the proper ICC profile, it looks just fine. I've used that example for years when showing people that what first appears dark and awful can appear lovely without changing a single numeric value in the document.

Andrew, maybe I’m just missing the point.  Your example appears to show the same thing as my example.  Your first example is dark.  In your second example, you assigned your profile and it looks normal.  I did the same.  Is there something about your example that is different than mine?

Also, I don’t understand what you mean by “without changing a single numeric value in the document.”  When I look at your example in PS, the numeric values in the two are very different.  
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: digitaldog on January 19, 2013, 03:26:05 pm
Also, I don’t understand what you mean by “without changing a single numeric value in the document.”  When I look at your example in PS, the numeric values in the two are very different.  

The only thing I did was assign the correct profile to the image. That doesn't change the numbers at all. Only the meaning of the numbers.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Schewe on January 19, 2013, 04:12:34 pm
Where you say you ignore profiles with the Epson scanner, I find if not using a scanner profile at the scan stage, the image starts life more corrected in the post-scan stage of image editing by assigning the scanner profile on opening it in Photoshop and converting to the working space.

I'm not "ignoring" profiles with the Epson, I've just never bothered to do a custom scanner profile. I have the Epson scanner software simply scan into Adobe RGB. For the Imacon, I've made a really good custom profile using Don Huchison's Q60 target and ProfileMaker (I've not bothered to redo it in i1 Profiler since I rarely need to scan).
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Alan Klein on January 19, 2013, 04:42:10 pm
1. I use a V600 with the supplied Epson scan software.   You can't do multiple scans or hardware adjustment of the scan itself like a V750. I find that if I set Color Correct-Continuous Auto Exposure with a Gamma of 2.2 (default setting), I get color restoration in the scan that is very good.  Are the other Gamma settings of any value?  Other is 1.8  You can also select ICM instead with either sRGB or Adobe RGB, or Colormatch, or Apple RGB outputs.  I've never tried it but was wondering the value of using ICM instead of the aforementioned Continuous Auto Exposure?  

2.  How do you adjust LR3  when I scan flat. (I usually get a dark off color scan that's in a narrow band of the histogram).   If I use Auto Levels adjustment in Elements 8 on a flat scan, I can match Auto control during the scan mentioned in 1. above.  However, I'm concerned that Elements 8 may be clipping with Auto levels.  How would I use Elements to avoid clipping?

3.  I also have LR3.  How would I use LR3 on a flat scan?
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 19, 2013, 05:29:45 pm
I'm not "ignoring" profiles with the Epson, I've just never bothered to do a custom scanner profile. I have the Epson scanner software simply scan into Adobe RGB. For the Imacon, I've made a really good custom profile using Don Huchison's Q60 target and ProfileMaker (I've not bothered to redo it in i1 Profiler since I rarely need to scan).

OK, where you said above "(and ignore "profiles")" I took it literally. I've been relying on LSI's profiles or their Auto IT-8 custom profiling using their targets, which are IT8's, less granular than Don's. It would be nice to compare - one of these days when I get some more recent profiling software.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 19, 2013, 05:36:13 pm
1. I use a V600 with the supplied Epson scan software.   You can't do multiple scans or hardware adjustment of the scan itself like a V750. I find that if I set Color Correct-Continuous Auto Exposure with a Gamma of 2.2 (default setting), I get color restoration in the scan that is very good.  Are the other Gamma settings of any value?  Other is 1.8  You can also select ICM instead with either sRGB or Adobe RGB, or Colormatch, or Apple RGB outputs.  I've never tried it but was wondering the value of using ICM instead of the aforementioned Continuous Auto Exposure?  

2.  How do you adjust LR3  when I scan flat. (I usually get a dark off color scan that's in a narrow band of the histogram).   If I use Auto Levels adjustment in Elements 8 on a flat scan, I can match Auto control during the scan mentioned in 1. above.  However, I'm concerned that Elements 8 may be clipping with Auto levels.  How would I use Elements to avoid clipping?

3.  I also have LR3.  How would I use LR3 on a flat scan?

I'm a control freak so I don't do auto-anything in any software. Any time of I've tried, I've never been happy with the results, either because of clipping or some other issue, so I need to undo it and then adjust the photo properly. So I just stopped even thinking about auto this or that and adjust them manually. In LR3 you would use the Exposure, Fill Light sliders, increasing both, and possibly reducing contrast. You should consider upgrading to LR4.3 - as good as LR 3 was, 4.3. is that much better for this kind of work - it will give you even more granular and more flexible control over darks and lights. and the upgrade price is reasonable.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 20, 2013, 02:21:16 pm
Profiling or not profiling in this case didn't make a big difference to the starting point whether in gamma 1.0 or gamma 2.2.

Mark, if assigning a profile to your linear scan didn’t make a dramatic difference, then you must have used the wrong profile or a very poor profile.  See Andrew’s and my examples above.  A proper linear profile should make your image look normal.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 20, 2013, 02:26:54 pm
Unless the scanner has user-adjustable lamp-control, exposure adjustment is not a scanner dependent operation. It is software controlled.

Mark, I didn’t reply this statement before because, although it’s wrong, it seemed to be irrelevant, and I didn’t see any reason to debate a point neither I nor Herbert raised.  But on reflection, maybe there is some use in discussing it.

My scanner and scanning software (Minolta 5400) has an exposure adjustment.  It works similar to camera exposure adjustment.  It controls the scan time.  The physical effect is very obvious.  With increases or decreases in exposure the scan time can vary significantly. 

I know that you also own a Minolta 5400.  So I wondered why you’d make the false assertion about exposure adjustments.  How could anyone who used that scanner not notice the very prominent control and the very obvious change in scan times? 

Then it occurred to me that you mainly use SilverFast.  Perhaps SilverFast doesn’t implement the Minolta 5400’s exposure adjustment, so you weren’t aware that it existed? 

I’ve also used SilverFast with my scanner, but it has been a while.  I recall that SilverFast could not access my scanner’s manual focus controls, but I’m not sure about the hardware exposure control.

I found it a little frustrating that such expensive software that was a version specifically designed to operate my scanner couldn’t access the manual focus control. I could have put up with that flaw, however, had I otherwise liked the results I got with SilverFasts, but I didn’t.  As a result, I haven’t bothered to install it on my current system, so I can’t check now to see if it also failed to implement the hardware exposure control.  If so, however, it would explain why you weren’t aware that some scanners (including a scanner you own) have hardware exposure controls that control the scan time.

In any event, my point is that if a scanner has an actual hardware exposure control, it would be better to optimize the hardware exposure rather than just rely on software exposure adjustments.  The reason is the same reason that you’d want to optimize exposure in a camera rather than just rely on post processing.

Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 20, 2013, 02:31:54 pm
Mark, if assigning a profile to your linear scan didn’t make a dramatic difference, then you must have used the wrong profile or a very poor profile.  See Andrew’s and my examples above.  A proper linear profile should make your image look normal.


Neither, but there is a finer point in this I need to investigate and I shall revert on it when ready.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Fine_Art on January 20, 2013, 02:56:39 pm
Mark, you must live in a world different than mine.  ::)  Linear scans are not open and flat looking, not even close. Attached is a sample of a linear scan and the same scan, but with my linear profile assigned.  (Both versions were converted to sRGB for web viewing and saved as jpegs.) 

It’s incredible that you or anyone else would find it practical to use that linear version to make color and tone adjustments without first making a gamma adjustment.  It seems to defy belief, but if you say you do so, I’ll take your word on it. 


If I apply a gamma 2.2 to your bright red image I do not get your more normal looking photo. Vise versa. You must be changing something else.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 20, 2013, 02:57:22 pm
Mark, I didn’t reply this statement before because, although it’s wrong, it seemed to be irrelevant, and I didn’t see any reason to debate a point neither I nor Herbert raised.  But on reflection, maybe there is some use in discussing it.

My scanner and scanning software (Minolta 5400) has an exposure adjustment.  It works similar to camera exposure adjustment.  It controls the scan time.  The physical effect is very obvious.  With increases or decreases in exposure the scan time can vary significantly. 

I know that you also own a Minolta 5400.  So I wondered why you’d make the false assertion about exposure adjustments.  How could anyone who used that scanner not notice the very prominent control and the very obvious change in scan times? 

Then it occurred to me that you mainly use SilverFast.  Perhaps SilverFast doesn’t implement the Minolta 5400’s exposure adjustment, so you weren’t aware that it existed? 

I’ve also used SilverFast with my scanner, but it has been a while.  I recall that SilverFast could not access my scanner’s manual focus controls, but I’m not sure about the hardware exposure control.

I found it a little frustrating that such expensive software that was a version specifically designed to operate my scanner couldn’t access the manual focus control. I could have put up with that flaw, however, had I otherwise liked the results I got with SilverFasts, but I didn’t.  As a result, I haven’t bothered to install it on my current system, so I can’t check now to see if it also failed to implement the hardware exposure control.  If so, however, it would explain why you weren’t aware that some scanners (including a scanner you own) have hardware exposure controls that control the scan time.

In any event, my point is that if a scanner has an actual hardware exposure control, it would be better to optimize the hardware exposure rather than just rely on software exposure adjustments.  The reason is the same reason that you’d want to optimize exposure in a camera rather than just rely on post processing.



No, the statement isn't wrong and I'm well aware that some scanners provide for hardware-based exposure control and others don't. The fact is that unless the scanner provides for exposure control (a.k.a. "lamp control") in the hardware, all exposure adjustments are software-based - i.e. remapping pixels. Lamp control in the hardware can be managed in two ways depending on how the scanner was designed: either the media passes over the lamp or the lamp over the media slower/faster for increasing/decreasing exposure, or lamp brightness is actually changed, or a combination of two. More generally it would be speed controlled. This is a matter I have discussed with engineers who work with the designs of many of these scanners for purposes of developing control algorithms in the scanning application.

I know what the Minolta 5400 does because I own one, but I wasn't referencing any particular scanner in my comment. It was a general point in relation to something you said above about exposure control; maybe I misunderstood you. Anyhow, turning to the Minolta 5400, it's now history at least as far as SilverFast is concerned. As you know, Minolta vacated this market segment some years ago and sold it (to Sony I think). There have been no driver upgrades from Minolta or Sony. Whereas LaserSoft Imaging developed a totally up-dated driver for the Nikon scanners (also no longer being made, but that is more recent), they have not done so for the Minolta scanner; in the SilverFast world you can use this Minolta scanner with version 6.6. up to Windows 2000 or Mac OSX 10.3; Vuescan supports it on current operating systems. While the Minolta 5400 produces excellent results, it is very slow. The results are at least as good from the Nikon 5000 and it is a much more efficient device. I am now on Mac OSX 10.6.8 and SilverFast 8, so the Minolta scanner is packed away. The two scanner's I'm using are the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000-ED for 35mm, and the Epson V-750 Pro for other stuff. The Nikon scanner does have lamp control and SilverFast 8 provides for it. The Nikon scanner does also have focusing control, and SilverFast 8 provides extensive control over it either automatically or manually, including the selection of focal points.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 20, 2013, 05:34:33 pm
If I apply a gamma 2.2 to your bright red image I do not get your more normal looking photo. Vise versa. You must be changing something else.

All I did was assign my linear profile. No other differences whatever.  As you rightly point out, assigning a profile is not the same as a gamma adjustment. 

Andrew in his post with his example gave a short explanation of what's happening.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 20, 2013, 06:01:40 pm
Well, Mark, in the immortal words of Steve Martin, excuse me for not realizing that when you said “lamp control” you meant to include a scanner where there is no user control over the lamp at all.  Nil, nada, zip, none!  The lamp is stationary and its brightness is not changeable, but since of course the film has to move (we wouldn’t call it a scanner otherwise, would we, we’d just call it a camera) you call that “lamp control”.  You also got a bridge in Brooklyn you’d like to sell me?  ::)
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 20, 2013, 06:05:56 pm
Well, Mark, in the immortal words of Steve Martin, excuse me for not realizing that when you said “lamp control” you meant to include a scanner where there is no user control over the lamp at all.  Nil, nada, zip, none!  The lamp is stationary and its brightness is not changeable, but since of course the film has to move (we wouldn’t call it a scanner otherwise, would we, we’d just call it a camera) you call that “lamp control”.  You also got a bridge in Brooklyn you’d like to sell me?  ::)

"Lamp control" happens to be a term used in the industry for hardware-controlled exposure, whether the lamp moves, or the media moves, or the lamp brightness changes, as I said.

Dean, I wouldn't want to try to sell you ANYTHING, let alone the Brooklyn Bridge. :-)
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 20, 2013, 06:12:44 pm
Well you're sure trying to sell me a load of something!  :-*
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 20, 2013, 06:24:02 pm
I have neither the time nor the interest. You want to keep the discussion objective, I'm in; you want to start imputing motives and introducing malarkey I'm out.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 29, 2013, 02:37:13 pm
… the Minolta 5400, it's now history at least as far as SilverFast is concerned. …  in the SilverFast world you can use this Minolta scanner with version 6.6. up to Windows 2000 or Mac OSX 10.3 … .

Not correct.  SilverFast 6.6 works fine with the Minolta 5400 and Windows XP (32-bit).  It also appears that it’s possible to make virtually any Minolta scanner work in Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8, both 32-bit and 64-bit, allowing the scanners to work with SilverFast or the Minolta scanning software.  I’ve used the instructions below to use my Minolta 5400 with Vista 64-bit.  Here is a quote from a post in the SilverFast forum:

Re: Silverfast 8 for Minolta 5400 and 5400II

 by kainanderson » Fri May 04, 2012 8:35 pm

The drivers supplied by Minolta work just fine with Silverfast and do not need to be replaced or rewritten. Below you will find the procedure to make virtually any Minolta scanner work in Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8 both 32-bit and 64-bit allowing the scanners to work with Silverfast:

1) Find the name of the driver file the Minolta software installed that isn't working. This is usually in the folder c:\windows\inf and is named DSXXXX.inf where the X's are numbers. For the Dimage 5400 gen 1 it is DS2890.inf. Copy this file to your desktop for editing.
2) Open the file and search for [Manufacturer]. Add ,ntamd64 at the end of the %Mfg% line so %Mfg%=Models becomes %Mfg%=Models,ntamd64.
3) Copy the entire [Models] section and paste it underneath itself renaming the tag to [Models.ntamd64]. Now you should have both a [Models] and [Models.ntamd64] section that are identical.
4) Save the driver file.
5) Now point the scanner in device manager to your new driver file (it may be in other devices and just need to update driver and manually choose driver location as your new driver inf).

This process not only allows all scanners to work with Silverfast, but also allows the original Minolta software to work in Windows 7 (32 and 64) as well. This process works for old Nikons that don't have Windows 7 drivers as well once you locate the actual driver file in c:\windows\inf.

Hope that helps.

http://forum.silverfast.com/silverfast-8-for-minolta-5400-and-5400ii-t8678.html#p32921
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 29, 2013, 02:43:55 pm
Hi Dean,

Good research and will be useful for people on Windows system to know. I took my information from what LSI says on their website, which seems to be overtaken by what is in their Forum. I wonder whether similar kinds of workarounds could be conjured-up for Mac OSX. I can't get into that just now - up to my eyeballs on other stuff, but just a thought - those who need it may have an incentive to try something similar for OSX.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 29, 2013, 03:30:37 pm
I took my information from what LSI says on their website, which seems to be overtaken by what is in their Forum.

The LSI website very clearly states that SilverFast 6.6 is compatible with the Minolta scanner and Windows XP 32-bit.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 29, 2013, 03:57:33 pm
Yes - I just removed my previous message - not relevant. Correct. Don't know what I was looking at when I wrote that, but you're right - version 6.6 with that scanner is compatible with XP-32 bit. It ceased being usable for me when I went to XP Professional 64-bit. Then in 2010 I switched to Mac and from 2011 my mind has been focused on SilverFast 8, so unless I read my legacy stuff REAL carefully, mix-ups can happen. All's well that end's well. Good to know that folks can up-date their drivers on more recent Windows systems - makes me wonder whether that fix could be designed commercially as a user-friendly easy driver replacement fix. The scanner is very good, albeit slow, and a shame to lose it to "technical progress".
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 29, 2013, 04:22:15 pm
- makes me wonder whether that fix could be designed commercially as a user-friendly easy driver replacement fix.

Probably not without permission from whoever currently owns the rights to the Minolta software.  (This probably explains why SilverFast doesn’t just use the hacked Minolta driver.)

It’s also important to note that this hack apparently can be used with Nikon scanners, too, as well as for the Minolta software and, maybe, Nikon Scan.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 29, 2013, 04:27:53 pm
Probably not without permission from whoever currently owns the rights to the Minolta software.  (This probably explains why SilverFast doesn’t just use the hacked Minolta driver.)

Crossed my mind as I was writing that, and makes sense. One would think it doable however, as there doesn't appear to be a commercial interest for whoever owns the rights - which I suspect may be Sony - unless they have something up their sleeves to keep it in reserve. Who knows. Of course a publicly available hack makes the value of those rights kind of evaporate, no?
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on January 29, 2013, 11:24:00 pm
I'm about to embark on a large 35mm slide scanning project (200 to 500+), but I don't think I want to deal with my SilverFast profiled Nikon Coolscan 5000 to do it. I have a friend at a lab that shoots 5D Mark II RAW files with his 100mm Macro IS. He's rigged up a 4x5 color head upside down and sat a negative slide carrier on top. This method is MUCH faster and gives me RAW data to work with in LR4. And it seems to be very sharp.

What do the experts here think of this workflow?

Thanks,
John
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 29, 2013, 11:26:56 pm
If it's sharp, fast, evenly lit and gives you all the megapixels you need, go for it.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on January 29, 2013, 11:56:35 pm
If it's sharp, fast, evenly lit and gives you all the megapixels you need, go for it.

Thanks Mark, that's exactly what I was thinking!  8)
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 29, 2013, 11:59:21 pm
John, a lot of people do something similar and report very good results.  There has been a fair amount of discussion in this forum about using a digital camera to digitize film. You may be able to locate some of those threads with a search.  If you're going to photograph slides, it's pretty straight forward:  flat film, camera parallel to the film, and good light.  Negatives are more difficult due to the orange mask, but there are ways to convert a negative to positive.

The few examples I've seen posted look great.  Some who have done comparisons say the camera produces better results than typical film scanners.  I guess you could do your own comparison pretty easily.  It'd be interesting to hear about your results. 
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on January 30, 2013, 12:06:45 am
Thanks Dean,

I've actually worked on a lot of the files he's shot in the lab while I was on his clock. The results look fine, but the source data (shitty exposed slides) was hard to judge. But the LR4 workflow was lovely! And the price he's offering looks much more appealing than spending months in front of the Coolscan, ha!

I'll let you know what transpires.

Thanks again!
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 30, 2013, 12:22:25 am
John, here is an example of photographing film with a Canon 5D MkII and 100mm macro.  Since you're using the same camera and lens, it should be interesting to see if your results are comparable.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49705.msg416821#msg416821
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 30, 2013, 12:37:50 am
the source data (shitty exposed slides)

If your shitty exposed slides are anything like the stuff on your web site, all I can say is I wish I had such shitty exposed slides, too.  ;)
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on January 30, 2013, 12:45:28 am
Ha thanks Dean! I appreciate the kind words!

No, the film was mostly dupes that the lab had gotten from an architectural firm for archiving purposes. My good friend and owner John Weldon shot them and I was the digital processor! http://www.weldoncolorlab.com/digitalcapture.php

I'm actually going to be selling my Nikon scanner on eBay soon. It's doing me no good at this point. I'd actually like to buy the lens and slide duplicator setup with the earnings.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 30, 2013, 07:51:49 am
Negatives are more difficult due to the orange mask, but there are ways to convert a negative to positive.


Yes, and I wrote a whole article about that on this website: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/scanning_colour_negatives_raw_or_not.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/scanning_colour_negatives_raw_or_not.shtml) From Step 11 onward would be relevant to your workflow from a camera. You can decide which of the options work better for you - and these are not exhaustive. Some of it can be automated creating an Action in Photoshop that will speed things up for you.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 30, 2013, 07:58:28 am
John, here is an example of photographing film with a Canon 5D MkII and 100mm macro.  Since you're using the same camera and lens, it should be interesting to see if your results are comparable.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=49705.msg416821#msg416821

Yes indeed - those images Clair shows are remarkable. I understand the Canon 100mm macro lens is excellent - don't have one so can't say first hand, but even if it produces a bit of barrel or pin-cushion distortion it's easily corrected in LR. In fact in LR 4.x there are two lens profiles for the Canon 100mm macro lenses.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: digitaldog on January 30, 2013, 10:34:19 am
What do the experts here think of this workflow?

I haven't tried it with slides but with prints, it's (sorry for the over used phrase) a no brainer. I've used my 100mm Macro on a 5DMII to shoot almost postage sized originals, worked in the ACR engine (I used Lightroom) and I can't think of ever using a flatbed to do this kind of work again. The results were really very good.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on January 30, 2013, 01:38:10 pm
Yes the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM is incredible. According to DP Review's online test, it peaks about f6.3 - 7.1
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/4

Weldon Color Lab had a Contax/Zeiss 100mm f2 Makro with a Canon adapter at the same time and did a comparison. He quickly sold the Zeiss. It was total $hiT!

Here's some links I found when looking at duplication last year. I need to revisit and decide on a system.

http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html
http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html
http://www.scantips.com/es-1c.html
http://tinyurl.com/ebay-nikon-slide-copy
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: AFairley on January 30, 2013, 02:25:56 pm
What do the experts here think of this workflow?

I am far from being an expert, but after tearing my hair out trying to deal with sensor blooming in the Coolscan VI and V, I am using a D800E with bellows and macro lens to digitize Kodachromes.  Faster, better DR, pretty much equal resolution, true RAW files in LR/ACR, plus with a slide holder with movements I can stitch for larger files if I want to.  (I am currently using the D800E with Olympus bellows and 80mm macro, with the Olympus slide holder extension modified with a Konica 4-way slide holder.)  A no-brainer for me.  On the enlarger head/light box method, the critical issue is alignment, IMO.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on January 30, 2013, 02:31:38 pm
Yes with the enlarger head he's using one of these for alignment: http://www.versalab.com/server/photo/products/parallel.htm
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 30, 2013, 02:34:30 pm
true RAW files in LR/ACR,.......

 "raw" from the copying stage into LR, but the original you are copying is film with an embedded characteristic curve and fully processed; also resolving power is what the media delivers. So yes, your procedure is delivering what you can get from the film, but it isn't like scene-referred raw from an original digital capture.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on January 30, 2013, 02:44:32 pm
"raw" from the copying stage into LR, but the original you are copying is film with an embedded characteristic curve and fully processed; also resolving power is what the media delivers. So yes, your procedure is delivering what you can get from the film, but it isn't like scene-referred raw from an original digital capture.

Obviously, but compared to scanned data - it is much more RAW!
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 30, 2013, 02:57:41 pm
Obviously, but compared to scanned data - it is much more RAW!

What is necessarily "more raw" about it, John? I tend to think the main advantages of the camera route would be speed and the quality of the lens. In both cases sensor data needs to be converted to usable output. If you scan it happens at the scan stage (which you can do in linear gamma with no adjustments); if you use the camera it happens with raw conversion and further processing. I've often wondered about this raw vs raw when it comes to scanning with a camera versus with a scanner and always come back to the notion that the media is the real binding constraint. I can see implementation quality differing - perhaps a lot - depending on what hardware and software one is using in each case, but generically I'm not clear on the notion that the fundamentals are all that different.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on January 30, 2013, 05:09:57 pm
What is necessarily "more raw" about it, John? I tend to think the main advantages of the camera route would be speed and the quality of the lens. In both cases sensor data needs to be converted to usable output. If you scan it happens at the scan stage (which you can do in linear gamma with no adjustments); if you use the camera it happens with raw conversion and further processing. I've often wondered about this raw vs raw when it comes to scanning with a camera versus with a scanner and always come back to the notion that the media is the real binding constraint. I can see implementation quality differing - perhaps a lot - depending on what hardware and software one is using in each case, but generically I'm not clear on the notion that the fundamentals are all that different.

Mark, I have profiled SilverFast and the Nikon Coolscan 5000. I generally configure SF for no adjustments other than dust reduction (on chromes), and of course the custom ICC profile made with the Wolf Faust targets. I gave up trying to dial in the best scan preview by tweaking settings. Maybe (probably) I'm clueless, but it's just a P.I.T.A. to deal with. So my RAW vs. RAW comment has more to do with the workflow and the acquisition of the data, but also the flexibility of that data in post capture. I think I'd prefer to massage the CR2/DNG info in LR4, rather than working with a scanned TIF in LR4.

Your thoughts?
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: AFairley on January 30, 2013, 05:56:06 pm
"raw" from the copying stage into LR, but the original you are copying is film with an embedded characteristic curve and fully processed; also resolving power is what the media delivers. So yes, your procedure is delivering what you can get from the film, but it isn't like scene-referred raw from an original digital capture.

I was thinking in terms of being able to extract additional DR by recovering highlights in PP that would have values burned in a scanned TIFF.  This is sort of theoretical since I haven't had a chance to really wring out what the D800 can do, my thought is that it would be able to blast light through the deep shadows of a Kodachrome without blowing the high highs - something that I could not do using the lamp adjustments in the Coolscans.  But both the D800 and the Coolscan V are 14-bit, so their theoretical D-range should be the same, no?  I confess to not having a really good handle on this yet -- one of the reasons I appreciate the time the more experienced scanners take to post in these threads.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on January 30, 2013, 06:06:48 pm
I was thinking in terms of being able to extract additional DR by recovering highlights in PP that would have values burned in a scanned TIFF.  This is sort of theoretical since I haven't had a chance to really wring out what the D800 can do, my thought is that it would be able to blast light through the deep shadows of a Kodachrome without blowing the high highs - something that I could not do using the lamp adjustments in the Coolscans.  But both the D800 and the Coolscan V are 14-bit, so their theoretical D-range should be the same, no?  I confess to not having a really good handle on this yet -- one of the reasons I appreciate the time the more experienced scanners take to post in these threads.

Kodachromes are a bitch in the Coolscan. No good dust reduction. Color issues, etc. And all chrome scanning had blooming issues in contrasting areas. Highlights would bleed into the shadows, and those would be bulletproof. I'm over it!
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 30, 2013, 06:58:35 pm
Mark, I have profiled SilverFast and the Nikon Coolscan 5000. I generally configure SF for no adjustments other than dust reduction (on chromes), and of course the custom ICC profile made with the Wolf Faust targets. I gave up trying to dial in the best scan preview by tweaking settings. Maybe (probably) I'm clueless, but it's just a P.I.T.A. to deal with. So my RAW vs. RAW comment has more to do with the workflow and the acquisition of the data, but also the flexibility of that data in post capture. I think I'd prefer to massage the CR2/DNG info in LR4, rather than working with a scanned TIF in LR4.

Your thoughts?


OK - no of course you are not clueless. If it's mainly workflow this is totally understandable. There are two factors at play here: the intrinsic quality/features of the software and the taste of the user. And the two may be related of course. I'm reasonably certain that both a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, or a Minolta 5400, for example, can capture every bit as much information as a Canon 5D MKx etc. would. I've worked scanned TIFFs in LR4 as well as a number of raw formats be it from Sony NEX, Canon 1DSMKx or Phase One backs for that matter. A real strength of LR4 is the sheer processing quality regardless of which of these formats you shove through it. In fact I recently received a 3 MB JPG from a friend's Samsung tablet and both of us were amazed at the transformation and IQ that emerged considering where it came from and what it looked like out of the box. Our devices are capturing huge amounts of often unseen data until it is teased out. I'm sure you've had lots of that experience. So where is it best to do the editing - that's the basic issue, and this is partly a matter of taste and partly a matter of application capability. SilverFast has good stuff going for it, LR I think is king of the crop for the things it is designed to do, and of course none of these applications have the full range of capabilities found in Photoshop. So my approach as I've said so often before is not to be dogmatic about this. Learn which applications are particularly useful at which tasks, use them accordingly and you end-up with the best of all worlds. I very much agree with Jeff Schewe's recommendation to bring an open fairly flat image into LR and adjust from there. But I would go further than that and recommend to bring a fairly well-adjusted image into LR and go from there too, making sure in the scan software, however, not to require undoing stuff thereafter. So much depends on the image. I have images where I need all the power I could drum out of both SilverFast and LR to get a usable output. I have others where either would do just as well, and I have others again, where for example, the treatment of shadow detail in LR can't be beat. And then for negatives, there is SilverFast's Negafix which is pretty darn good. So as usual, it depends..............
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 30, 2013, 07:18:44 pm
Kodachromes are a bitch in the Coolscan. No good dust reduction. Color issues, etc. And all chrome scanning had blooming issues in contrasting areas. Highlights would bleed into the shadows, and those would be bulletproof. I'm over it!

I've read about some of this - in fact there's a French publication (Chasseur d'Images - March 2010) that did a very useful review of quite a few scanners and they mentioned a Kodachrome dust reduction issue and grain accentuation (not particularly for Kodachrome) - due to the LED lighting in the Nikon 5000, but not the 9000. Personally, I have processed quite a number of Kodachromes dating from the 1950s upward in both the Minolta 5400 and Nikon 5000 and have not experienced these problems. SilverFast 8 does handle dust and scratch removal using iSRD on Kodachromes very well. Color issues gets back to the profiling question, and it definitely helps to have bespoke Kodachrome profiles made from Kodachrome targets, but it's not foolproof. I usually find some colour adjustment is needed, but not major.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 30, 2013, 07:34:15 pm
I was thinking in terms of being able to extract additional DR by recovering highlights in PP that would have values burned in a scanned TIFF.  This is sort of theoretical since I haven't had a chance to really wring out what the D800 can do, my thought is that it would be able to blast light through the deep shadows of a Kodachrome without blowing the high highs - something that I could not do using the lamp adjustments in the Coolscans.  But both the D800 and the Coolscan V are 14-bit, so their theoretical D-range should be the same, no?  I confess to not having a really good handle on this yet -- one of the reasons I appreciate the time the more experienced scanners take to post in these threads.

The bit depth is not necessarily determinative of DR. It depends mainly on what is the noise floor of the respective sensors. The recent advances of sensor technology have been so impressive that it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that DR from a Nikon D800 or a Sony NEX exceeds that of these older scanners, simply because of how very clean the deep tonal detail from these new cameras has become. That said, I have scanned what seemed like hopeless Kodachromes with very dense shadows, could hardly see anything in them, didn't touch lamp control in the scanner, but used "Multi-Exposure"; then I found it most effective to do the real heavy lifting of the shadow tones in Lightroom. The important point here is that even though the shadows can seem really dense, if you've implemented the scan properly with good scanning software and especially haven't clipped the shadow tones, it does capture the information regardless that you don't see much of it at first, which can be teased-out quite effectively in post-processing - often accompanied by noise - sometimes not so much, sometimes quite visible, depending.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on January 30, 2013, 07:58:02 pm
Color issues gets back to the profiling question, and it definitely helps to have bespoke Kodachrome profiles made from Kodachrome targets, but it's not foolproof. I usually find some colour adjustment is needed, but not major.

I only had the lame Kodachrome target slide from Kodak. You could see the Green/Magenta crossover right in the greyscale ramp! I didn't want to spend the extra cash on the SilverFast Kodachrome target. And I'm glad I didn't now that I'm going to sell the scanner.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 30, 2013, 09:28:08 pm
I only had the lame Kodachrome target slide from Kodak. You could see the Green/Magenta crossover right in the greyscale ramp! I didn't want to spend the extra cash on the SilverFast Kodachrome target. And I'm glad I didn't now that I'm going to sell the scanner.

Interesting observations. Firstly, Kodachrome targets are in very short supply. LaserSoft Imaging appears to have the last stock of them, and when those run out - that's it - finished - no more film and no more processing, anywhere. So they have become quite costly; hence, even if you had bought one, you could probably get your money back and - depending on when you bought it - more than. The one I have is quite neutral. I did have one with a uniform green cast, but they replaced it with a correct one. If you're selling the scanner of course its of no interest at this point - and BTW - that scanner, if it's in good shape, is worth A LOT of money. I've seen used units going for twice the original retail price. Because as much as we are bantering here about avoiding scanning with slide film adapters on cameras, there are still quite a few takers for quality dedicated film-scanners, of which there is precious little choice these days.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: davidh202 on January 30, 2013, 09:40:34 pm
  SilverFast 8 does handle dust and scratch removal using iSRD on Kodachromes very well. 

Mark,
 That is provided your scanner is equipped with the IR feature!
  Not to go OT here and hijack the OPs thread, but as of this date Silverfast8 is still not compatable with my Microtek i900 and probably never will be despite Lasersoft telling me to buy Silverfast 8 over a year ago!
I have put off digitising my slides too long now,I have been waiting patiently since they promised in a reply to my email  that it would be available with all features for my scanner.
Maybe when Hell freezes over;-)
   I cannot even get the scanner software to complete and save a calibration profile in Windows 7 64bit, and it is interesting hear it may not even be necessary (if I am reading this thread correctly).I may just scan and do my editing in ACR. Or go the macro lens and camera route at this point.
 I am so happy to hear Shewe say what he did about ACR, and being able to do both global and local adjustments ,because this is precisely how I go about doing color correction for clients art reproduction. ACRs adjustment brush even allows me to become an artist and paint in or enhance certain hues that are sometimes lacking in areas of the the cameras RAW capture files and scanned Tiffs ;-)
David
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 30, 2013, 09:53:00 pm
Yes you are correct - the scanner must be "infrared enabled" and they do list the models they support that are. Some Microtek models can use SF8, others cannot, so they may provide for the i900 one of these days - only they would know when and I too wouldn't buy SF8 if I knew my scanner isn't on the supported list. Meanwhile, if all you wish to do is drive the scanner and make most of your adjustments in LR/ACR, you could download Vuescan and see whether it works - the Vuescan website says it should.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 30, 2013, 11:34:42 pm
I generally configure SF for no adjustments other than dust reduction (on chromes), and of course the custom ICC profile made with the Wolf Faust targets. I gave up trying to dial in the best scan preview by tweaking settings. Maybe (probably) I'm clueless, but it's just a P.I.T.A. to deal with. So my RAW vs. RAW comment has more to do with the workflow and the acquisition of the data, but also the flexibility of that data in post capture. I think I'd prefer to massage the CR2/DNG info in LR4, rather than working with a scanned TIF in LR4.

John, your RAW scan is about as close to camera RAW as your scanner can output.  It would be very interesting to see a comparison between a good slide (not Kodachrome (hard to scan) and not one of your shitty slides ;)) scanned and processed in LR vs. photographed with the Canon and processed in LR. 
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on January 31, 2013, 05:48:19 pm
Mark, if assigning a profile to your linear scan didn’t make a dramatic difference, then you must have used the wrong profile or a very poor profile.  See Andrew’s and my examples above.  A proper linear profile should make your image look normal.
Neither, but there is a finer point in this I need to investigate and I shall revert on it when ready.

I’d be interested in your finer point, because what you’re saying doesn’t seem possible.  On a related subject, I still don’t understand why you believe that it’s practical to work with linear data directly in LR.  Rather than sidetrack this thread with this discussion, however, I’ve started a new thread.  I’m always open to learning something new, so I hope you can explain where I’m going wrong. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=74747.0
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on January 31, 2013, 06:15:46 pm
Interesting observations. Firstly, Kodachrome targets are in very short supply. LaserSoft Imaging appears to have the last stock of them, and when those run out - that's it - finished - no more film and no more processing, anywhere. So they have become quite costly; hence, even if you had bought one, you could probably get your money back and - depending on when you bought it - more than. The one I have is quite neutral. I did have one with a uniform green cast, but they replaced it with a correct one. If you're selling the scanner of course its of no interest at this point - and BTW - that scanner, if it's in good shape, is worth A LOT of money. I've seen used units going for twice the original retail price. Because as much as we are bantering here about avoiding scanning with slide film adapters on cameras, there are still quite a few takers for quality dedicated film-scanners, of which there is precious little choice these days.

Mark,

I just have the cheap Kodak brand target that I bought from B&H a while back - Kodachrome IT-8 target (http://www.scandig.com/media/images/kodak_kodachrome_it8_target-2.jpg).

And I know about the prices on the Coolscan. I was looking them up on eBay and I was shocked! Although with all the upgrades of SF I've gotten for it, I'd maybe break even if I sold it for $2k!
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 31, 2013, 06:28:05 pm
I’d be interested in your finer point, because what you’re saying doesn’t seem possible.  On a related subject, I still don’t understand why you believe that it’s practical to work with linear data directly in LR.  Rather than sidetrack this thread with this discussion, however, I’ve started a new thread.  I’m always open to learning something new, so I hope you can explain where I’m going wrong. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=74747.0


Dean, I saw the new thread and this message. I intend to address all this comprehensively, but I don't have time this week and probably not next week either. Please bear in mind that all this discussion is a voluntary use of time which is fine and enjoyable when time permits, but for me right now this is not the case. I'm up to my eyeballs and beyond in real priorities and what I want to do for addressing this will take time I don't have now. I shall revert to it in my own way when I can and no number of reminders will change the timetable. I know it's out there and it will get attended in due course.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Alan Klein on January 31, 2013, 10:37:52 pm
Here are 45 year old Kodachromes scanned with a flat bed Epson V600.  I believe I used ICE with Epson scan followed with some spotting in Elements or LR3.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/sets/72157626911395064/

Question I have about scan vs. camera RAW is that they both have CCD's.  IF you scan flat, wouldn't you be geting the same "raw" data in both cases?  Aren't you really limited by the film after all you can't get blood from a turnip.  What's there is there.  Unlike the original shot which has a wider DR than the CCD can handle, the film cannot be lighter than white or darker than black.  The film itself limits the DR.  No?
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on February 01, 2013, 11:53:29 am
Here are 45 year old Kodachromes scanned with a flat bed Epson V600.  I believe I used ICE with Epson scan followed with some spotting in Elements or LR3.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/sets/72157626911395064/

Question I have about scan vs. camera RAW is that they both have CCD's.  IF you scan flat, wouldn't you be geting the same "raw" data in both cases?  Aren't you really limited by the film after all you can't get blood from a turnip.  What's there is there.  Unlike the original shot which has a wider DR than the CCD can handle, the film cannot be lighter than white or darker than black.  The film itself limits the DR.  No?

Not sure about sensor quality improvements between the two capture devices but this thread:

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk

...explains why it's the glass the data has to go through on a flatbed scanner that can impede a lot of fine detail from making it to the sensor. And detail includes color just as well as density.

Nice captures of those Kodachrome slides. Wonder how they'ld look in sharpness and detail capturing with the method used in the linked thread.

Not sure why you saved and upload to flickr in AdobeRGB so I had to drag and drop and view in their embedded profile in Photoshop. Just FYI.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: digitaldog on February 01, 2013, 12:36:17 pm
Question I have about scan vs. camera RAW is that they both have CCD's.

The big difference in my mind is one produces try, trilinear color and the other doesn't.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on February 01, 2013, 02:02:16 pm
Not sure why you saved and upload to flickr in AdobeRGB so I had to drag and drop and view in their embedded profile in Photoshop. Just FYI.

Where do you see that info? I looked at the EXIF in Flickr and it's not showing.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on February 01, 2013, 04:12:28 pm
Question I have about scan vs. camera RAW is that they both have CCD's.  IF you scan flat, wouldn't you be geting the same "raw" data in both cases?

Scanner software and LR don’t let you do real RAW processing, but you can get close.  The less you do to your scanner’s CCD output, the closer to RAW.  For example, if you output aRGB, that is a step away from your scanner’s native color space and a step away from RAW.  (I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with outputting aRGB, it’s just an example of a difference from RAW.)
 
Aren't you really limited by the film after all you can't get blood from a turnip.  What's there is there.  Unlike the original shot which has a wider DR than the CCD can handle, the film cannot be lighter than white or darker than black.  The film itself limits the DR.  No?

No.  Depending on your scanner and film, it’s possible that you won’t be able to capture all the highlights and shadows without clipping.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on February 01, 2013, 04:20:35 pm
Scanner software and LR don’t let you do real RAW processing, but you can get close.

LR doesn't let you do real RAW processing? Please explain?
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on February 01, 2013, 04:29:03 pm
... with the tiff output from his scanner.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: John MacLean on February 01, 2013, 04:36:20 pm
... with the tiff output from his scanner.

Ah yes, but of course. Sorry I wasn't reading it closely enough. DOH!
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on February 01, 2013, 05:37:39 pm
Where do you see that info? I looked at the EXIF in Flickr and it's not showing.

My mistake. I was too quick when I opened it and didn't take the time to fully read the Photoshop CM policies dialog box stating there's no embedded profile and noticed the selected radio button was already set to choose AdobeRGB to assign to it. Sorry about that.

Still, the image doesn't have an embedded profile. Don't know if those viewing the Kodachrome on wide gamut display are going to see something different than intended. I'm viewing on sRGB-ish display so there's not much of a shift in color assigning sRGB in Photoshop.
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: Alan Klein on February 01, 2013, 06:50:29 pm
I don't know why there's limited EXIF data.  My medium format shots show a lot of info on the other hand.  The only thing I can guess is that i used another program to resize and the data was dropped.

Regarding clipping when scanning, I don;t see how that can happen.You would think that the scanner mfr adjusted the CCD circuits so that black slide would bottom out and clear film would provide data at the top of the histogram,  It's not as if in a real world situation the shutter/aperture limits the actual real world light at the time so you can clip.  The scanner knows the absolute maximum dark and light points.  Just set the circuit so you don;t clip.  I'll have to check back, but when I scan flat, the range seems to be in the middle, on the low end but not reaching clip points.
(edit:corrected spelling)  
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on February 02, 2013, 08:27:35 am
Scanner software and LR don’t let you do real RAW processing, but you can get close.  The less you do to your scanner’s CCD output, the closer to RAW.  For example, if you output aRGB, that is a step away from your scanner’s native color space and a step away from RAW.  (I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with outputting aRGB, it’s just an example of a difference from RAW.)

Just to be clear, so long as your output color space isn’t smaller than your scanner’s native color space, it probably makes no difference in LR whether you work with aRGB output from your scanner or the 16 bit linear output from your scanner’s CCD (as long as you properly color manage that linear output).   My scanner’s color space is larger than aRGB, so I use ProPhoto.  It’s likely that your Epson’s native color space is also larger then aRGB, but I don’t know if that difference would be significant.

With my scanner, I can take the same 16 bit linear file and make two versions of it.  With one I assign my scanner’s linear profile, but otherwise leave the file untouched.  It’s still in linear, which can be seen clearly from the histogram, even though the photo now looks normal.  For the other version, I go one step further in that I convert to ProPhoto.  In other words, I first assign my scanner’s linear profile and then convert to ProPhoto.  Now, the photo not only looks normal, so does the histogram. If I then process both versions in LR, using all the same settings, the results are identical. 

I haven’t done such a test using aRGB, so it’s possible that using aRGB could make a difference (over and above just a gamut difference between my scanner’s native color space and aRGB).
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: jaapb on February 03, 2013, 06:30:33 am
Just to come back at the scanning vs copying discussion. I have scanned many hundreds if not thousands of frames and it has been my experience that the major drawback of copying film is the lack of batch capabilities.
When copying you have to operate the setup continuously while with my Nikons 5000 and 9000 I can do other work while scanning (editing, writing this post) especially with the slide feeder.
I also have converted a sa-21 feeder for the 5000 to scan the whole roll of 35mm film (40 frames instead of 6) according to this (http://www.stockholmviews.com/coolscan-rollfeeder-mod.html) procedure.

Furthermore a large part of my scanned and yet to scan archive consists of color negatives which I find difficult to copy, and color negatives somehow carry many imperfections which are no issue when scanning with infrared cleaning but need additional clean up when copied.
I know that high end scanners are worth their weight in gold nowadays but you may want to hold on to them if you still have of lot of film to go through. Obviously YMV, just my 2 cents.

Jaap
Title: Re: Using ACR after scan stage
Post by: dmerger on February 04, 2013, 04:23:03 am
With my scanner, I can take the same 16 bit linear file and make two versions of it.  With one I assign my scanner’s linear profile, but otherwise leave the file untouched.  It’s still in linear, which can be seen clearly from the histogram, even though the photo now looks normal.  For the other version, I go one step further in that I convert to ProPhoto.  In other words, I first assign my scanner’s linear profile and then convert to ProPhoto.  Now, the photo not only looks normal, so does the histogram. If I then process both versions in LR, using all the same settings, the results are identical.

Perhaps my test also provides an interesting observation about how LR processes photos internally vs. PS.  As noted previously, in PS my photo with my scanner’s linear profile and as converted to ProPhoto look identical, but have very different histograms.  In LR, the photos not only look identical but also have identical histograms.  Both histograms look normal. Anyone care to say (or speculate) why this is so?  

EDIT:  Here’s another clue as to what’s going on.  If I do the same test, but with aRGB and sRGB, all four histograms look noticeably different in PS (Linear, ProPhoto, aRGB and sRGB).  In LR, the Linear and ProPhoto histograms look identical, but the aRGB histogram looks slightly different, and the sRGB histogram looks even more different.  Some of this difference with aRGB and sRGB is likely due to some clipping upon conversion to those smaller color spaces, which shows, particularly with sRGB, on the right end of the histogram. There are also some very small differences near the middle of the histograms, however, so maybe not all the differences are due to clipping. (This latest test was done with just one photo.  Perhaps other photos would show an even bigger difference.)