Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Silverfast colour management and PS  (Read 2162 times)

paullantz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
    • http://www.lantz.ca OR http://paullantz.com
Silverfast colour management and PS
« on: May 08, 2008, 11:49:33 am »

I have just started using Silverfast with a Microtek Artixscan M1.
I used the supplied targets to calibrate the scanner and scanning slides. I know that there is no calibration for negatives.
Does anyone have a reference to how I should set up to ensure that PS CS3 picks up the calibrated colour profile (I have noticed a few times that the same image looks different in Silverfast than in PS).
thanks for your help.
In Silverfast I am using the calibrated profile. Should I tell Silverfast to embed the profile?
Logged

TylerB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 446
    • my photography
Silverfast colour management and PS
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2008, 12:30:38 pm »

yes, and if you want you can have silverfast convert to your working space on the fly, still wise to embed though. Also, the color management settings are very strange, so getting it display using your monitor profile can be confusing.
Somewhere on line there was a good tutorial for the settings, maybe by Ian Lyons. Google his name and Silverfast and perhaps it will come up. Written long ago for previous versions but the settings are the same.
Tyler
Logged

paullantz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 54
    • http://www.lantz.ca OR http://paullantz.com
Silverfast colour management and PS
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2008, 11:58:11 pm »

thanks, found that article
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/sf5-negafix/sf5_cms_2.htm
when I checked again I was embedding profile
one thing I noticed is that some of the options shown were grayed out on mine (e.g. automatic for monitor)
where i really noticed a problem was with one slide
it seemed as though the colour cast removal was not being applied to the file that PS was displaying.
Note that the slide was quite underexposed, nothing in the original scan was over 127 so there is a lot of exposure increase being done which probably makes for some issues.
I posted a screenshot showing the same scan in SF and in PS so I must have some setting messed up somewhere. Not sure what it could be.

http://paullantz.smugmug.com/gallery/14592...292912701_MVHKj
« Last Edit: May 10, 2008, 06:41:07 pm by paullantz »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up