On 22 Feb 2006 04:50:34 -0800, "Djon" <jtk (AT) channelsynergy (DOT) com> wrote:

I guess I'd have to disagree here. I've now scanned over 30,000
negatives and slides. The only difference I see between scanning them
and scanning prints is the way I feed the scanner(s).
Beyond that I see nothing different except telling the scanner program
you are scanning negatives. They come up as positives on the screen
and you can't tell the difference between those scans and the ones
from prints. Some scanning programs make the change from positive to
negative on their own.

I still have my complete color darkroom setup and I just don't see the
connection made here particularly to the references made to dodging
and burning. When you get your prints from the photoshop or processor
they do not do any dodging or burning. If a print is in such shape
that dodging and or burning is needed I think it will require using
the negative any way as the process is the same for either and there
is more information to work with in the negative making it easier in
digital processing.

We are also looking at the difference between "acceptable" prints and
the "salon print" the purist strives for with each.

It does take a *good* printer, but generally for the average user they
scan, select the image, crop if they wish and hit <print>. Most will
not bother profiling the monitor and the scanning program will
probably make its own adjustments. The purist would do both. Most
don't.

With the common image manipulation programs such as Paint Shop Pro,
PhotoShop, and Photoshop Elements, Density adjustments can be selected
from menus with the option of *automatic* saturation, contrast,
brightness and even an option for automatic "touch up" of the entire
image. If you don't like the results you can always quit, or back up
after the "preview", or if you've already made the changes you have
the option of <undo>. These programs also have a <step back> function
which allows you go back *through* the steps undoing them as you go
which generally allows you to get back to where you started. This
would undo all changes, but it's kink of the long route. OTOH it is
some times necessary.

As a start the *original* image should be always be set to <read only>
and any changes saved under a new name even if it's only a letter
prefix or suffix which is what I use.

However, "I find" the true equivalents of dodging and burning to be
far easier in the dark room than in image processing. OTOH I find them
to be far less necessary in digital image processing. These are
really advanced darkroom techniques and rarely used. For example, in
college I did a B&W image of the moon. It took hours of dodging and
burning to get what I wanted. Of course part of that was due to a
sloppy freshman on the other side of the table splashing chemicals.
With digital, all it took is a properly exposed negative along with
the manipulation of brightness and contrast.

Few of us work from prints if the negatives are available and in good
shape.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Joseph Meehan wrote:
Yeah, same advice here. Try them both and compare. Negative
theoretically will be better, but it depends on physical condition and
how easily you can correct the colors (only an issue if your scanning
software isn't doing its job). They also respond much better to
hardware defect removal (ICE). One particular advantage I saw from
scanned negatives over equivalent consumer prints was recovery of
highlights--there was a lot of detail available in the negative that
the print had blown out. It's also easier to line them up with the
scanner's edges, but harder to keep them perfectly flat in their
holder. They have more resolution available, but that only counts if
your original photos were sharp to begin with. One major downside of
negatives can be grain aliasing and amplification; depends on film
type, scanner design, how tightly the scanner focuses, and resolution
used. Again, you'll have to compare.

By all means explore the benefits of negatives, but don't expect
someone else's experiences and expectations to match your own material.


false_dmitrii