Bobonli
Established
Please share with me your workflow for scans done by your commercial lab. Once you have the CD with the jpegs or tiffs on them, how do you ingest them into your computer?
For example, do you open them in Photoshop and save a tiff version and work on that version for color correction, noise reduction etc?
I've been operating on the jpegs from the CD, and I think I need to change my workflow for better results. I use Aperture and Photoshop. Thank you.
For example, do you open them in Photoshop and save a tiff version and work on that version for color correction, noise reduction etc?
I've been operating on the jpegs from the CD, and I think I need to change my workflow for better results. I use Aperture and Photoshop. Thank you.
Ranchu
Veteran
Your workflow as is sounds fine to me, resaving a tif from the jpegs and working on that doesn't really gain you anything. You might try switching to 16 bit mode directly after you open, if aperture does that, and then do your edits. Photoshop does, there's some debate whether it makes any difference.
Bobonli
Established
My concern is that by opening and closing the jpeg, I'm losing some data each time since jpeg is a lossy format.
Ranchu
Veteran
Hmm, my thought was open-edit-save-done, that won't make a difference, but if you open-edit-save-open-edit-save-done then you're right, save a tif. Or better, save a psd with the layers.
Ranchu
Veteran
Just opening and closing the jpeg won't harm it, it's the edit and then resave that does that...
Brian Puccio
Well-known
As I understand it, all Aperture adjustments are made in a 16-bit color space. I don't use lab scans, I scan myself, but I scan as TIFF, I have a script to manually apply the EXIF, then I bring it into Aperture where it lives forever.
aad
Not so new now.
I've heard this business about JPG edit-save causing image degradation, but if you set your spec to least-compressed,I suggest you try doing 100 small edit/save cycles.
Nothing happens. It doesn't degrade the image.
now, if you set the compression to maximum, that may be a different story.
Nothing happens. It doesn't degrade the image.
now, if you set the compression to maximum, that may be a different story.
Ranchu
Veteran
This guy's all about the jpegs. Lots of info. http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-compression.html http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/
Bobonli
Established
Then I need some help understanding what's happening with my scans.
Here's an image that I took off a CD this afternoon. I haven't done any post on it. On my screen it looks rather rough, lots of grain/noise. It's Ilford HP 5 at 400 ASA, so I'm not sure if it's film grain I'm seeing or noise from scanning or something else. The guy at the shop kept asking me if I shot it at the correct ISO!
Should I run noise reduction, sharpen etc? I'd appreciate your guidance as I haven't needed to do much post with my dslr images.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertkerner/4906207714/
Here's an image that I took off a CD this afternoon. I haven't done any post on it. On my screen it looks rather rough, lots of grain/noise. It's Ilford HP 5 at 400 ASA, so I'm not sure if it's film grain I'm seeing or noise from scanning or something else. The guy at the shop kept asking me if I shot it at the correct ISO!
Should I run noise reduction, sharpen etc? I'd appreciate your guidance as I haven't needed to do much post with my dslr images.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertkerner/4906207714/
Last edited:
kzphoto
Well-known
I do all my editing in Lightroom unless I need really specific controls on certain parts of images. Then I'll roll into photoshop. Lightroom ports a 16-bit TIFF file so there's no loss of quality / detail.
Lab scans are great. If you're getting TIFF files, count yourself lucky. there aren't too many labs that will do them these days.
Lab scans are great. If you're getting TIFF files, count yourself lucky. there aren't too many labs that will do them these days.
Bobonli
Established
No, I'm getting jpegs. The guy at the shop suggested opening them in PS and saving them as TIFFS so I don't lose anything with repeated opening and closing.
And they say they scan on a film scanner, not a flatbed.
aad
Not so new now.
The size posted on flickr isn't very big, but I don't see any objectionable noise.
Keep in mind B&W film looks very different from a digital file, or even a color file converted to gray-scale. It has a texture to it, and the faster the film the more texture.
I suspect the operator is asking about ISO due to the low contrast-but also bear in mind that the scan is the starting point. What you have is a good starting point, because it is easy to add contrast, and near impossible to lower it.
Keep in mind B&W film looks very different from a digital file, or even a color file converted to gray-scale. It has a texture to it, and the faster the film the more texture.
I suspect the operator is asking about ISO due to the low contrast-but also bear in mind that the scan is the starting point. What you have is a good starting point, because it is easy to add contrast, and near impossible to lower it.
Luna
Well-known
Why worry if the image file degrades when the film is scanned?
I mean, I could see if you scanned it, then threw away the negative and solely relied on the file.
Else, you have the negative so you can always rescan/print from it.
What are you doing that you need to reopen the file again and again?
I mean, I could see if you scanned it, then threw away the negative and solely relied on the file.
Else, you have the negative so you can always rescan/print from it.
What are you doing that you need to reopen the file again and again?
Ranchu
Veteran
I can see *some* grain at that size, but mainly pixels. They've left the endpoints open, ie, they haven't set the black point and white points to almost but not clip. That's good, but makes it pretty low contrast. There is also a blue cast. Open it in PS, add a curves layer, hit options and then "enhance monochromatic contrast". That looks more normal as you've tightened up the endpoints, and removed the cast. You can add a levels layer and reduce the highlights a little with the highlight output levels, or do something else...
Again, I can't really see much at this resolution.