From: peter@...

Well, I'll get to see if it does any good. Kodak is shipping me a
Kodachrome IT8 target, Cat.# 1575141 for $40.00.

Cool -- keep us posted on what (if anything) that does for you. I assume that you'll be using it with the proper calibration file, which should compensate for its "Kodachromeness?" :-)

Digitally, I find Kodachrome more difficult to scan with my
LS-2000 than E-6 films.

Yea, and they warn you that ICE doesn't work with KR, although I find it does SOMETHING useful -- just not as effective as with other films.

--
: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@...>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068, 503.635.3229

From: Andrew Rodney <andrew@...>

My question to them
is, what stock is the Kodak target on? There are numerous flavors of
Ektachrome. And any decent photographer knows that each emulsion batch of
any kind of E6 film varies.

At least with Monoco, you match up some magic numbers on the IT8 to a calibration file, downloaded from Kodak. So it seems to me that your profiling software compensates for differences in film batches.

Unless you edit a profile for a certain effect, it always fingerprints a
device. The TDF file if accurate should reflect the color measured in the
target.

So, aren't we talking about the same thing? IT8 + calibration file = film-neutral profiling.

Like Andrew said, you profile devices, NOT film.

--
: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@...>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068, 503.635.3229

--- In colortheory@y..., Dan Margulis <76270.1033@c...> wrote:

This whole topic has caused so many people so much

difficulty that I've

devoted my current (October) Makeready column to it, where I

spend five

pages discussing an image of a black cat.

Dan, thanks for the reminder - I had not checked the EP site
since the dust settled on the whole false profile thread.

Great article too - just at the right time. Cheers.

Now some comments...

Taken from your article for reference:

"Furthermore, although the image itself is full of noise (look at

what's happening in the yellow channel) the black isn't especially
bad, and even if it were it wouldn't be a tragedy. We can still apply
unsharp masking. With the black covered up by so much
amorphous cyan, magenta, and yellow, we can afford to have it
bloodcurdlingly harsh.

After applying the curve at top left and a touch of unsharp
masking, the final black, right, seems too harsh. The formless
CMY plates, however, soften it. Bottom left, a selective color
move reduces the quantity of CMY inks in black areas." <

When using a prosumer Umax Powerlook scanner with bundled
Binuscan automated 'colour enhancement' - I first came across
this harsh black plate issue.

It seems that some separation software vendors approach to
general separation is to separate with a short black then
enhance and oversharpen it - knowing that the CMY plates will
disguise the fact but still gaining from the exercise.

For example, Binuscan used this as a key quality feature for it's
separation method in their software.

Not just in the case of black objects of primary importance - but
as a general rule for all seps. Perhaps this is some 'Euro'
approach?

-->

"Noise in scans, speckling in shadow areas, vertical streaking
in images: We often receive comments that the separations
produced by Binuscan often appear on film to be extremely
noisy, especially on the black plate in shadow areas - this is
typical of a Binuscan separation, and is very rarely visible when
the image is actually printed [this type of separation gives far
superior shadow detail and print contrast].

Binuscan deliberately searches for and emphasises areas of
highlight and shadow detail that will normally be lost separating
an image "conventionally", and it adjusts these areas using
contrast and sharpening so that they are more clearly visible in
the final image. One minor problem is that "detail" can include
dust, reflections, marks on the glass or tranny and faint scanner
noise that is normally invisible"

http://support.umax.co.uk/binuscan/technotes/iq02.htm

<--

From experimentation - if using a UCR or Lt GCR approach with
good dot gain settings etc, this approach seems to work more
often than not. Although it may not be safe to use as a default
method, one can trot it out more often than not.

======

Here is a link to some basic advice on UCR and GCR from
Binuscan, with some diagrams to help:

http://support.umax.co.uk/binuscan/technotes/nbi02.htm

======

Binuscan also use a method of histogram smoothing 'RECO' -
where missing original data is interpolated.

Some form of 'mung & blur' perhaps?

Any thoughts?

support.umax.co.uk/binuscan/whitepapers/nb01.htm#RECO%2
0Technology%20-%20Lossless%20Correction

======

Dan has quoted from Ogden Rood many times:

"We forgive, then, a partial denial of the truths of colour more
easily than those of light and shade, which probably is a result of
the nature of the optical education of the race. For the human
race, thus far, light and shade has been the all-important
element in the recognition of external objects; colour has played
only a subordinate part, and has been rather a source of
leasure than of positive utility. Ogden Rood"

To see what Ogden is talking about - take some common
images, go to LAB and remove the data from the L channel via
curves or whatever.

Then imagine attempting to drive or walk around with only
chroma and hue data, with no luminosity. I would guess that the
role of colour played little or no part in the evolution/creation of
the eagles eye, for example.

You find this out when you start exploring LAB retouching.

I recently helped a user of another list with stitching three
outdoor shots taken with auto exposure into a 'panorama' (an
exercise in futility given the outdoor conditions and auto
exposure). LAB seems the best correction/retouching option, if
this 'less than ideal' panoramic task is to be attempted.

The AB are pretty much easy for correction - in attempting to
match the sky and ground, it's the L channel and careful toning
which makes or breaks the task.

Regards,

Stephen Marsh.

In a message dated 9/23/01 2:25:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
colortheory@... writes:


In Photoshop, using Adobe gamma, set your target gamma to 1.8 if you use
a Mac. Set it to 2.2 if you use Windows. In your RGB setup, set the RGB
to Colormatch, gamma 1.8. Photoshop will now simulate the D50 standard.
In other words, images viewed in Photoshop on your 6500k monitor <will
have a white point of 5000k> and .

Regarding setting to Colormatch RGB: Isn't this if you're going to press? If
you're going to photographic output aren't you better off with AdobeRGB? This
seems to be our "standard" if there is one being implemented in the US.
Joe Butts
Joe Butts Photography
San Diego, CA
Professional photographer for only 30+ years verses your 40.

on 10/19/01 8:57 AM, ron.scratch@... at ron.scratch@... wrote:

I have a some digital images from a Kodak DCS ProBack from an outside
Photo studio. They have supplied DCR native files. I need to export
Photoshop RGB Tiffs to get these processed. Is anyone familair with
the
Capture Studio Software. The images that I have opened up look
Grossly
underexposed. The studio asures me that they did not look that way
when
they took the shots. Can someone guide me to the light?

You are going to need the Capture Studio software. I¹ll bet you just have
small, low rez files (if the newer back operates like the older DCS files).
The DCS files are proprietary but Kodak places a small tiff header in them
so you can at least view them without special software. Are you getting full
48mb images or just smaller (a few megs) of Tiffs? If the latter, I suspect
you will have to have the Capture Studio software to ³develop² or process
the full data. You¹ll have control over how you map the raw files (curves,
ICC profiles, sharpening, and so forth).

Andrew Rodney


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Strange!!! I can't imagine why a photographer working with that many dollars
worth of gear would simply hand over what amounts to a digital negative and
expect you to process it.

I don't work with the Pro Back, I use a DCS 760 (also DCR files) and have
worked briefly with Capture Studio. If someone is willing to deliver DCR
files, that tells me that either they aren't very digital savvy or they're
doing something for little or no payment and don't care to take the job to
proper completion. If the former, then they may well have seriously
underexposed the images and are not aware of it. Its quite possible for
someone not fully familiar with the system to have on image that looks fine
on the camera's LCD screen that may in fact be seriously underexposed when
viewed more critically in Photo Desk or Capture Studio.

The good news is that images can easily be adjusted to plus or minus about a
full stop of exposure with very minimal if any ill effects. You can go
almost two stops and still get decent results. Simply use the exposure
compensation tools within Capture Studio. You may find Photo Desk simpler
and faster to use. It has a much more sparse feature set, but will get DCR
files into Photoshop reasonably efficiently. I'm fairly certain that the
latest version handles Pro Back files. You'll have to register with Kodak,
but its freely downloadable from their site.

Bob Smith

ron.scratch@... wrote:

on 10/19/01 9:56 AM, Kenji at kenji@... wrote:

It's ColorCal, Spyder announcement that they can now calibrate an LCD monitor.

The results would still be just pleasing color and not accurate color, right?

Accurate sure, just as long as you don¹t shift your head to many degrees
from center!

Andrew Rodney


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

All:

I've recently come to that odious time of year when I need to rewrite job
descriptions for myself and my staff. Does anyone on the list have a couple
of good paragraphs I could crib that describe what it is we do?

I'm especially interested in anything that makes color correction and
retouching sound so unduly complicated that its practitioners should be
extremely well compensated.

Thanks,

Ted.

_________
/ _ _/ (/__) _ /_ .
/ (_(_/ / (_/ (/ (_//&#92;//(__________________

:: Ted Perkins
:: Production Manager
:: Portland Tribune
:: tperkins@...

Found this today:

<http://www.colorcal.com/display_GeneralInfo.html?&page=display_GeneralInfo&InfoID=117&query_table=GeneralInfo&function=list_all§ion=news&header_gfx=news_header.gif>

It's ColorCal, Spyder announcement that they can now calibrate an LCD monitor.

The results would still be just pleasing color and not accurate color, right?

2 cents,

Kenji Kerins
--
**************************************************
Kenji Kerins Photography kenji@...
http://www.kenjikerins.com
studio telephone: 312.642.0800

I have a client who wishes to have me make a chart showing which Pantone
Colors he can get on his Durst Epsilon printer. I have a map of his gamut as
part of profing his machine. Is there a data file which lists the Lab values
of Pantone colours which can be imported into Excel so I can grind out a
graph or will I have to make my own?

chers

Mike Mcnamee

I have a some digital images from a Kodak DCS ProBack from an outside
Photo studio. They have supplied DCR native files. I need to export
Photoshop RGB Tiffs to get these processed. Is anyone familair with
the
Capture Studio Software. The images that I have opened up look
Grossly
underexposed. The studio asures me that they did not look that way
when
they took the shots. Can someone guide me to the light?
Ron

Well, I'll get to see if it does any good. Kodak is shipping me a
Kodachrome IT8 target, Cat.# 1575141 for $40.00.

Kodachrome has always been a different animal. It requires
filter packs different from E-6 for I-negs, R-prints and dupes. I
beleive Kodak, at least for a time, produced a separate dupe film
for Kodachrome.

Digitally, I find Kodachrome more difficult to scan with my
LS-2000 than E-6 films. (more time in prescan and Photoshop
making corrections) Nikonscan 3.1 even has a separate channel
for Kodachrome film, but it only works with the new scanners.

My investment will be $40.00 and a couple of hours of testing. If I
get just a little bit better scan, it is worth it. If it does not
make a difference, well, I had fun.

Thanks,

Peter A. Calvin
http://www.petercalvin.com

Perhaps the Rochester Institute of Technology would have courses in scanning? Tara

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

on 10/17/01 7:22 PM, Dave Badger at dbadge@... wrote:

My profiling software came with just Kodak IT8 4x5 and 35mm trans (E1). If
the purpose of profiling is to fingerprint how the scanner "sees" color,
then why wouldn't that profile be good for all different film types?

In my opinion it would be. There are those that suggest you should have
multiple kinds of IT8 targets for different film stocks. My question to them
is, what stock is the Kodak target on? There are numerous flavors of
Ektachrome. And any decent photographer knows that each emulsion batch of
any kind of E6 film varies. So my take is that you fingerprint how the
scanner sees color and let the differences in films come through.

Also, I still confused as to whether a scanner profile just describes the
scanner color space or evaluates the difference between that and its
reference file and then makes a correction.

Unless you edit a profile for a certain effect, it always fingerprints a
device. The TDF file if accurate should reflect the color measured in the
target. That using a profile produces color that often appears "better"
doesn't in my mind suggestion a correction. But as I said, many people take
profiles and use editing software to produce a certain effect. I don't have
a problem with that (in fact, it's a rather cool way to edit a large number
of files as you convert and do so quickly). But a basic non edited profile
should simply reflect how a device behaves.

When I assign my newly created
profile to RGB images scanned on the drum scanner, there is a big shift
toward a neutral cast, but not necessarily a match to the trans.

Assigning a profile doesn't change the numbers in a file. But if what you
are saying as that the preview appears better, then yes, that's correct as
Photoshop 6 now knows how to properly preview the file thanks to that
assignment. Converting to a profile does change the numbers. But in order to
convert, you must always have a source (what you assigned). In this case,
both profiles can affect that eventual set of numbers.

Andrew Rodney

on 10/16/01 9:42 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:

on 10/16/01 7:27 PM, pcalvin1@... at pcalvin1@... wrote:

I am looking for a 35mm IT8 target for Kodachrome. Does
anyone know who might stock them?

No such beast. Besides, you don¹t really need one anyway. What you need (at
least for making a profile) is a transparency with good and accurate
spectral data file of all the patches (a TDF file) and you¹ll fingerprint
how the scanner ³sees² color. Even if you could get a target for Kodachrome,
which flavor (100, 25,)?

Andrew Rodney

My profiling software came with just Kodak IT8 4x5 and 35mm trans (E1). If
the purpose of profiling is to fingerprint how the scanner "sees" color,
then why wouldn't that profile be good for all different film types? Would
not the gamut of a Kodak trans also encompass one from Fuji or Agfa?

Also, I still confused as to whether a scanner profile just describes the
scanner color space or evaluates the difference between that and its
reference file and then makes a correction. When I assign my newly created
profile to RGB images scanned on the drum scanner, there is a big shift
toward a neutral cast, but not necessarily a match to the trans.


Dave Badger

This is a test to see whether there is still a problem with duped messages.

Due to the big problem with duplicated messages, I've just
disabled unmoderated posts.

Depending on whether this message gets duped, I'll approve
messages sent to the list.

All 20 apologies are accepted.

Maris Lidaka Sr

All 20 apologies are accepted.

Maris Lidaka Sr

All 20 apologies are accepted.

Maris Lidaka Sr