Digital BW, The Print

Mark...uh...I think what you're trying to say is that RAW scanning
lets you confine all your processing to Photoshop, where you're
happiest working. Keep it simple, etc. Is that it? Or do you think RAW
inherently leads to better results than TIFF? 

Perhaps RAW isn't as useful in scanning as in digital photography? 

I've not seriously played with digital camera output (just a p&s) but
what I've read suggests camera RAW has little advantage over TIFF...
primarily just as a way to bypass the camera's own internal noise
reduction (Vs TIFF or JPEG)...but I don't think scanners have internal
noise reduction systems, though they are available in scanner
applications.

Scanners do (I think) have capabilities that Photoshop doesn't. Multi
pass is one, though I've never seen a convincing case for bothering. I
 also think (don't know) extreme film profiles would be harder to
impliment after scanning.  

Guess I'll have to scan RAW Vs TIFF and see for myself. 

Djon



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Rabiner
<mark@r...> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I was irritated at Vuescan a while back (a recent release was buggy,
> > now it's fine), was prepared to buy Silverfast (I liked the way SE
> > worked) but I couldn't figure out their marketing info...
> > 
> > Djon
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> Well part of the logic is you get all excited about the whole Raw
thing in
> shooting ³capturing² and then when you see it as an option in
scanning its
> deja vu all over again. No you can¹t rebalance your whitepoint from
scratch
> but the idea of all the information getting to you with no filtering
appeals
> to me and has worked for me a bit so far.
> Plus the aspect of Photoshop I KNOW: All these scanning software
coming and
> going with these mystical interfaces WHO KNOWS.
> Photoshop I was in at at square one on and I¹m totally on top of it
I feel.
> 
> I notice they try to make ³Photoshop² versions of the scanning software
> because you use IT instead of Photoshop as you supposedly get real
> comfortable with THAT interface.
> I¹m talking about image editing version of scanning software that
you¹d use
> instead of Photoshop for tweaking, not scanning.
> The Opposite seems more logical to me.
> Skip it. Skip the scanning interface.
> 
> 
> Raw Raw Raw
> 
> There's hamburger all over the highway in sector 8.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]