Digital BW, The Print

On 5/24/05 7:01 AM, "Djon" <westsidemaurice@...> typed:

> 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


Try RAW and you¹ll never go back to charred animal flesh again!
Raw has huge advantages over tiff even 16 bit tiff. It¹s almost like a
second chance at getting the shot.
And makes for a much smaller file by the way than even 8 bit tiff.
I hear its been greatly expanded in the cs2 I¹m not there till maybe next
week.

Check this out
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture
.pdf
³When you shoot raw, the only on-camera settings that have an effect on the
captured pixels are the ISO speed, the shutter speed, and the aperture
setting. Everything else is under your control when you convert the raw
file‹you can reinterpret the white balance, the colorimetric rendering, the
tonal response, and the detail rendition (sharpening and noise reduction)
with a great deal of freedom. Within limits (which vary from one raw
converter to another), you can even reinterpret the exposure compensation.²

I¹d not get any digital camera again P&S or DSLR which did not support raw
and I doubt they¹ll try to tempt me too as its getting to be any digital
camera worth its digital salt at this point supports it.
I love that ³support² verb on this whole computer thing².

I don¹t as I said feel that RAW scanning is in the same league as RAW
capturing was would be logically obvious.
The metadata in a raw scan can be telling you what your global positioning
is and what the roses smelt like.
In the next update...
In a neg you¹ve already lost that information by a long shot.

 A scan is a copy.
I've not run into noise issues and am not understanding what you are talking
about in reference to them.
I love multipass and am glad it is not mutually exclusive thing from raw
scanning.

Speaking of multipass:
Heres this in a sense on the capturing end:

INCREASED DYNAMIC RANGE FROM RAW
http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Software/TipsTricks/IncreasedDynamic.aspx

³One of the major limitations of most DSLR's is the blowing out of highlight
details in high contrast situations. The solution to the problem in a film
workflow was to shoot two frames, one exposed for highlights and one for
shadows. By combining them after scanning, the best possible result could be
achieved although with the associated risks of image mis-registration.
RAW offers the ability to achieve the same result by simply outputting two
versions of the same file with exposure compensation or curves applied to
the second output to give a darker image. ³




Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





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