Assign v. convert in CS2 for files with no embed?

[Tim_Lookingbill]

If you want to use a profile to assign to your Vuescan RAW's, you might create a simplified matrix profile in PS's Color Settings/CustomRGB dialog box. Andrew Rodney came up with a similar approach as a quick and dirty way of creating profiles for digicams. It requires the RAW neg scan to be already inverted to positive upon assigning this profile.

There are three legs of a matrix profile you have to set in PS's CustomRGB...gamma, white point and phosphor xy numbers. You'll need to experiment with different combinations to get a reasonable accurate rendering on screen.

•Open your untagged RAW file from Vuescan without assigning a profile.

•Go into Color Settings and change the RGB working space to sRGB or you can download off the web Joseph Holmes Ektaspace RGB (JoeRGB) or any wider/narrower space just as a basis to start from. Try out different canned monitor profiles just to see what it does to the preview.

•Then scroll up to CustomRGB within the same Working Space dropdown menu.

•Once in CustomRGB you'll see the current 3 leg matrix combo numbers reflecting what was loaded as Working Space.

•Change the gamma number to lighten or darken your RAW file.

•The white point and phosphor sets will control hue and saturation.

•If the current loaded Working Space in CustomRGB doesn't give you the hue/saturation as desired, load a different profile in the Working Space menu in Color Settings and then reselect CustomRGB within the Working Space dropdown menu to get the new set of numbers.

•You can even dial in your own set of white point and phosphor numbers and watch the image preview update, but this can be a tedious and hit and miss ordeal I wouldn't recommend. I've tried it. It might make the current image look OK, but colors can go wacky when assigning to other images.

•Once you've decided on a matrix combo that makes the image look correct, name the profile in CustomRGB dialog box and hit OK.

•The new name will show up in the Working Space dropdown menu. Scroll up to Save As ICC or ICM profile (not sure how it's named on Window's) and name it again and save to the proper directory where other profiles are saved in Windows.

•This new profile will show up in the Assign dialog box and you can then assign it to your RAW file and convert to your working space. There you can reset neutrality and other tonal parameters not fixed by the custom profile if needed.

[DanHonemann]

Very helpful, Tim. Thank you!

The participants in this forum are amazing. I very much appreciate all of the thoughtful and detailed replies to my post.

Best regards,
Dan

[BoboBauer]

Dan,

I know what process you're going through trying to find out the ultimate way for each kind of material. I've spent way to much time of my life on that part. The thing is that one tries more and more of exotic ways and concept. I've got so many notes and descriptions from my experimenting that I've got a hard time to sort it out today when digging into them.....

The conclusions I can make today is that one should avoid to much of complex flows. If anything changes in scanneroptions or drivers you're out in the cold starting allover again to find a new substitute for what's gone. But a decent straight path with some specials takes that makes the Photoshop part easier to zero in, is very good. I belive in some "treatment" for the pure RAWs if it can be found without to much swinging around. I also belive very much in your attituide to scan once and keep a useful ground for future needs. It's very much OK to polish this up a bit if done carefully. Both the dustcleaning and "preparing". Actually the Silverfast dustcleaning with Nikons ICE or even Silverfasts own method is nice. I'm using the RAW outputs treated with the ICE. The negative mode is called Negative Direct, (which uses the same part of the driver that Nikonscan uses). I find this combo exacly what I want even though it's not a real pure RAW in a classic meaning.

As for Greyscale negs, actually I have been through this RGB scanning thing of BW negs and I also used some simple stuff of the auto features of Vuescan to clean up to neutrality directly. Then switching over to Greyscale in Photoshop. It was a quick middle of the road concept. Three channels to BW with auto-neutrality. However, the discussions about what's the gain or not, has always been longrunners. Today, I output the BW negs as RAW from Silverfast, in greyscale highbit mode . I've done the perfectionists crazy comparing rituals time after time, but actually I can't see the quality difference from a three channels route and the highbit pure greyscale gamma corrected RAW from Silverfast. I'm not taking into count what can be achived in Colormixer, but that is also a tool for slowdog flows plus a lot of frustration. Colormixer can be useful when going from Colorfiles to Greyscale. But There are many methods for that. How much that can be gained from a BW neg in a threechannel scan I don't know. I've been through all of the special Silverfast "Negafix" stuff and compared with a normal Photoshop tools ; endpoints settings, gammafinetune and S-curve. I get the same result in the end and the Photoshop tools are the most straight path for the Greyscales. Sometimes one can feel that the scannersoftware "destroys" BW when outputted directly as finished tiffs in Greyscale. This is very much so with Nikonscan. The lightsource is sometimes blamed for its harsh style. It has always been possible to scan as "slides" (positive threchannels) and get it wider without dropping along the road. This was also a thing to try with certain negs....

But, nowdays I rely very much on Silverfast. Not for the reason one should do so for -- I don't use those fine tools. I just want the predictble and stable function for RAWs, good focusing of the scanner and a stable non fluctuating ICE function. Vuescan has been through the big VARIABLE for how the cleaning worked from version to version. I can't stand that unrelible dustcleaning stuff anylonger. Vuescan is exiting in the beginning beacuse one thinks that this is THE discovery. When Vuescan nails things on the spot - fine or very fine. When off or really off -- it's PITA to straighten up. Even for a skilled Vuescan user. The bugchecking is timeconsuming......There was a time when I felt that Vuescan was the only thing that could work with BW. I've done direct comparisons with BW RAWs from Silverfast and Silver wins without any doubts.

To add something to Tims excelent post; There is a nice little useful application that can work very well for ballancing up anything as INPUT. Digicams, or scanners. It's actually an autoflow program but it can be tuned from that autopoint. many adjustments can be left out while catching the goodies. Then it can create an ICC inputprofile instead of hitting the picturefile with the adjsutments. This profile can then be assigned and from that a conversion can be done into any workingspace. What's most unique is the option to greyballance along the greyramp from black up to white without moving the endpoints.....or you can also pull them too in if you like. You'll find a link below. One has to remember that it's not a good idea to profile a variable......a moving target.....it's like measureing with a rubber ruler as B.F. says. Anyway, this little application can be useful as it can adjust hue and saturation as well as contrasts etc. But the real thing is the clicking in the greyramp to fix crossovers. All then to be baked into an simple inputprofile that can be assigned. The adjustments will hit the picturefile within the conversion then. Since it's so easy and fast to use one can very fast build an "adjustmentprofile" for a certain temporary task. Or it can help to clean up/ballance something that is hard to do with normal tools.

To end this, I belive that one shoulden't get blinded by the wish to get the biggest & most. A simple and well ballanced mediumsized workingspace can many times be more gain in than an unballanced file in a huge but ugly looking state...... it must be workable in a decent simplicity. A scannerspace can be big, but I'm not that sure anylonger that widegamutspaces have to be the best way always.

Good luck.

// Bobo

Take a look at the "profiling" concept. It can be used for many things......

http://www.pictocolor.com/editlab/summary.htm
http://www.pictocolor.com/editlabpro.htm
http://www.pictocolor.com/UserGuides...rBalToolA.html

[DanHonemann]

Bobo,

Ah, you are tempting me to have another look at Silverfast. A free but very old version of it came with my scanner, and I have so far resisted checking what an upgrade price to the latest would be as I have spent so many hours learning Polacolor Insight (also came with the scanner) and Vuescan. But I continue to read many good things about Silverfast, especially when it comes to scanning b&w negatives (of which I have an abundance).

I am using a Polaroid SS4000 scanner which is said in some ways to be better at b/w neg scanning than Nikon scanners (more diffuse light with the Polaroid) but unfortunately lacks the infrared light that enables ICE for dust and scratch removal.

Your comments on keeping the workflow simple and finding a middle road are astute reminders; these are lessons I seem to have to learn over and over again, especially in this brave new digital world where perfectionists like myself can spend an eternity mulling options and never get a single image printed.

Thanks also for the pointer to Pictocolor's EditLab. I have been using their iCorrect Professional plug-in for PS for years now--it's one of those useful tools that manages to simplify workflow without sacrificing quality. But iCorrect does not allow the ICC profiling or greybalancing that you mention and so I'll take a look at Editlab.

I've been shooting direct digital with Canon DSLRs for several years now, so it's actually been a refreshing break to go back to all my old slides and negatives and re-introduce myself to the black art of scanning. I'm actually tempted to put some film back in my Leica M6 and start shooting again like we did in the old days. ;-)

All the best,
Dan

[BoboBauer]

Dan,

I'm an M-Leica freak myself......but I stayed with M4-P. So, the Minolta meter has to come with it. Added a brand new 28 mm a few years ago. Can't say that I use the M that much today, but it is special to me......nightshooting streetstuff is cool. It's ok in daylight too...

Who knows, we might see digibacks which works in the future. A problem will perhaps be the close distance rearlens<>sensor. But I'd love to see the backdoor switched out for a digiback some day. Just to keep the M alive. I'll take a little time off to visit their website some day. I haven't followed their progress like I used to do....

As you say, it's refreshing looking back from time to time. It's so muched involved in emotionally digging and scanning the old stuff. Even the old smell from the negs turns something on. Strange. Deep rooted.

Cool to hear that you already knew iCorrect so well. Take a look at the edit lab for the ICC stuff which I feel to be the big thing with it. As you already know how to handle the tools it would probably give you a lot for your current needs.

The ICE is only useful for dyebased BW stuff. Not the silverbased classic materials. I've been shooting a lot with the Kodak dyebased BW which I felt be much better than the Ilfords. Yes, the diffused lighsource of the Polaroids are much easier to deal with. On the other hand Vuescan (versions a few years ago) did not work well with the Sprintscan 35's. Also, Polaroids and slides can't compete with Nikons....sot it's a giving and taking. I'm not sure about Silverfast on the 4000, but try the free demo for the RAWs. And yes the RAW files are many times working on any app that can reprocess RAWs.

The problem with Silverfast is the priceltag and that it only supports a specific scanner. Much of the high pricelevel is thanks to the attitude from the company which tries to make it an complete editingtool more than a basic, but extrem class scannerdriver. (It looks like a toy on the PC but more sober on Macs, it's funny that they didn't change the interface of the PC version). I'm glad they still develop and want to expand the features for scanning. They may turn even more into RAW converters for digicamfiles in the near future.

Ok, take care.

/ Bobo

[DanHonemann]

Bobo,

Which version of Silverfast are you using? I ask because I hunted down the CD that came with my scanner (the Polaroid SS4000) and I have Silverfast AI v.5, along with HDR.

I checked out their website and noted that they are now on v.6, and that it would cost me $177 to upgrade to Ai, and more to upgrade to the "Studio" (which I take it includes HDR).

What do I need just to get the raw scans from Silverfast? Will Ai alone do it, or do I need to invest in HDR as well?

Finally, are there significant improvements in v6 to warrant the price in upgrading, as far as you know? I realize these are scanner specific modules, so probably you won't be able to answer the question. I do believe they have a demo version availabe, too, so I guess I can always d/l that and see for myself....

Best,
Dan

[BoboBauer]

Dan,

I'm using v.6.xxx for Nikon 4000, the previous highend model. I'm in the wrong location to check the exact version of Silverfast. Bit it's updated not that long ago.

I do have the HDR thing too, but I almost never use it as I do work on the RAW's directly in Photoshop. The HDR isn't needed then. Including the HDR would give the same concept like Vuescan. Save RAW scans as "negatives" and reprocess it when you need any other kind of output. And yes, you're very right -- it's scannerspecific. The features will vary depending on the scanner. On the other hand if the RAW output is what you're looking for, then it's very little of the wide arsenal of them you're using. What you're after is exposure, focusing and the basic stuff. Stable stuff without the need for chasing bugs hidden somewhere or something that get stuck in the middle of a session giving 1/3 of the job slightly out of focus or clippings in one end. I did spend a lot of time looking for much more signs of bad weather using Vuescan than I ever done with Silverfast. I've neever been in a situation where the prefs had to get trashed with Silverfast. I can't count the amount of times that happened with Vue. All the settings in the Vue window told me one thing but other stuff happened under the hood till the prefs were switched out for a new default. Things like that makes one unsecure.......I'm fed up with that.

The Silver Demos are full working if I recall correctly. A waterstamp pattern is layed out allover, but you will be able to judge if it's worth the upgrade for the RAWs. Watch out for how it deals with exposure, negatives characteristics and compare. Save out presets in the prefs and workflow dialogs so that you can get a fast rawflow. It would be interested to hear what kind of diffs you might find between the v5 vs v6 RAWs. I doubt that Vuescan is giving you better RAW files than v5, but that would also be interesting to hear about. Compare all the factors as well as handling.

I scan full frame, the only thing I do is checking focuspoint, edgesharpness on the finished RAW (Nikon is very narrow in regards of depth of field, so one has to look out for the corners). Then I clean upp the edgecropping in PS afterwards, if I feel a need to save some mb on these highbit 4000 ppi files.......but the scannerprocessing is a completely full catch and with very little fuzz around. It feels good to keep it as simple as possible at that stage. As little time as possible spent on manual moves in the interface. The main scan is taking so much time and I think that's enough. A good preset and then you go. This is the beauty of RAW flows.

Go grab the demo.

Bobo