Some images just don't translate well.. (aka - bad p-p technique?)

This slide looks great when projected (if I say so myself!) but when
scanned or printed, it just dies..

http://www.marktphoto.com/stormfront.jpg

I've tried HDR-ish type techniques, even b&w, but somehow it just
doesn't work for me as a digital image. Is it my lousy p-p? - if
anyone wants to have at it, please do. I guess I could even supply a
raw scan file, but there is a fair bit of high and low detail to work
with in the jpg, and I'm really just after suggestions or opinions.

FWIW, *I* think that the extra dynamic range afforded by (real
optical) projection can be a breaking point for *some* images. I
think I am wasting my time trying to somehow digitally capture the
impact of this, when projected in a dark room on my dear old Rollei +
Leitz SuperColorplan lens..

Or can I somehow do better without making it look fake? (which is what
seems to happen if I try to lift the darker areas significantly..)


The original was taken on a Minolta X700, Tamron 28-50 (yes, really!),
exposure unrecorded (but I can remember agonising over getting it
right quickly before some elements of the scene vanished..). K64 I
think - I'm too lazy to find the slide again from the pile in front of
me.

All comments welcome, kind or unkind. (O:

wrote:
This slide looks great when projected (if I say so myself!) but when
scanned or printed, it just dies..

http://www.marktphoto.com/stormfront.jpg

snip

All comments welcome, kind or unkind. (O:

You project in a dark room. White brightly illuminated areas in dark
room glow with brightness, white areas on paper (monitor) are... just
paper (monitor) white. Darker areas still look great when projected in
a dark room, on paper it's just dark or darker. Paper isn't a good
medium for such pictures.

wrote in message
oups.com...
This slide looks great when projected (if I say so myself!) but when
scanned or printed, it just dies..

http://www.marktphoto.com/stormfront.jpg



do you have Vuescan?

http://www.hamrick.com/



1. it accesses the hardware directly so you don't have clipping issues
present in some scanner software. try it - you may be *very* surprised at
how much clipping goes on inside the scanner!

2. you can scan in RAW and go from there.


I mucked around with a blocked up piece of film using a Canon FS4000US
scanner and the Nikon equivalent for hours one day in the shop.. The Canon
was clearly sharper but there was *nothing* I could do to drag out the
detail .. (no probs with optical repro's though

The Nikon handled the density far better but couldn't get the sharpness at
all..



Loaded Vuescan, fired up the Canon and Vuescan punched straight through the
densest regions and produced the superior results

I bought the Canon scanner and the shop staff were downloading licensed
versions of Vuescan as I left


k

wrote:
This slide looks great when projected (if I say so myself!) but when
scanned or printed, it just dies..

http://www.marktphoto.com/stormfront.jpg

I've tried HDR-ish type techniques, even b&w, but somehow it just
doesn't work for me as a digital image. Is it my lousy p-p? - if
anyone wants to have at it, please do. I guess I could even supply a
raw scan file, but there is a fair bit of high and low detail to work
with in the jpg, and I'm really just after suggestions or opinions.

I did this:
http://i9.tinypic.com/549duzs.jpg
Using layer mask on adjusted layer and radial gradient fill.
Using a simple ND filter type effect doesn't work in some cases as
shadows create depth so lightening foregrounds can remove depth.
I think it needed a little cropping too.
YMMV

On Jun 27, 4:31 am, wrote:
This slide looks great when projected (if I say so myself!) but when
scanned or printed, it just dies..

http://www.marktphoto.com/stormfront.jpg

I've tried HDR-ish type techniques, even b&w, but somehow it just
doesn't work for me as a digital image. Is it my lousy p-p? - if
anyone wants to have at it, please do. I guess I could even supply a
raw scan file, but there is a fair bit of high and low detail to work
with in the jpg, and I'm really just after suggestions or opinions.

FWIW, *I* think that the extra dynamic range afforded by (real
optical) projection can be a breaking point for *some* images. I
think I am wasting my time trying to somehow digitally capture the
impact of this, when projected in a dark room on my dear old Rollei +
Leitz SuperColorplan lens..

Or can I somehow do better without making it look fake? (which is what
seems to happen if I try to lift the darker areas significantly..)

The original was taken on a Minolta X700, Tamron 28-50 (yes, really!),
exposure unrecorded (but I can remember agonising over getting it
right quickly before some elements of the scene vanished..). K64 I
think - I'm too lazy to find the slide again from the pile in front of
me.

All comments welcome, kind or unkind. (O:

Hi Mark,

I've often been frustrated by the same issue. Part of it I think is
that film has more dynamic range and a wider color gamut than does
digital. I've shot many images on Velvia and E100VS that just leap off
the light table but I can't get a good scan to save my life. Let alone
projection...

That said, I took a crack at your image. I did a levels layer to
brighten it somewhat while keeping the high values and low values the
same. Then I hit it with a curves layer to increase the overall
contrast. I dodged the lower left shadows to keep them dark and also
to keep them from getting too colorful. I cropped the image a bit. I
added another curves layer with a mask to just increase the contrast
and brightness of the kids. Then I applied an overall saturation
boost. This was a quick treatment and may be a bit too extreme, but I
tried to get back into the spirit of a high-contrast image with some
color that pops a little bit.

http://www.karlwinkler.com/stormfront_kw.jpg

-Karl Winkler

Karl Winkler wrote:
Part of it I think is
that film has more dynamic range and a wider color gamut than does
digital.
I don't think that it does.
Having shot transparency for 30 years or so, I think that the gamut is
far wider for digital, colour far more accurate, dynamic range similar.

On Jun 27, 4:49 pm, frederick wrote:
Karl Winkler wrote:
Part of it I think is
that film has more dynamic range and a wider color gamut than does
digital.

I don't think that it does.
Having shot transparency for 30 years or so, I think that the gamut is
far wider for digital, colour far more accurate, dynamic range similar.

Maybe I was being too general. I probably should have said that many
*scanners* do not have the dynamic range of film. True - digital, 16
bit per color channel, that is, definitely provides a wide dynamic
range and plenty of gamut if you are using a wide-gamut RGB color
space.

I have seen scans of transparencies that do look amazing, and they
were often done with drum scanners at high bit rates. Unfortunately,
most consumer-grade scanners do not offer the kind of color accuracy
and dyanmic range of film. I recently was interested in a multi-
purpose scanner that was well-reviewed in Shutterbug. But I wasn't
able to find the DMax spec in any of their listings or on their web
site. I sent an email to the manufacturer and they replied that the
DMax for that particular model was 2.9, which is not nearly enough
IMO. The Nikon Coolscan 5000 and 9000 do 4.2 I think, and drum
scanners reach 4.9. This is a world of difference in terms of
highlight and particularly shadow detail.

Karl Winkler
http://www.karlwinkler.com
http://www.giovanniquartet.com

In article .com,
wrote:

This slide looks great when projected (if I say so myself!) but when
scanned or printed, it just dies..

http://www.marktphoto.com/stormfront.jpg

I've tried HDR-ish type techniques, even b&w, but somehow it just
doesn't work for me as a digital image. Is it my lousy p-p? - if
anyone wants to have at it, please do. I guess I could even supply a
raw scan file, but there is a fair bit of high and low detail to work
with in the jpg, and I'm really just after suggestions or opinions.

FWIW, *I* think that the extra dynamic range afforded by (real
optical) projection can be a breaking point for *some* images. I
think I am wasting my time trying to somehow digitally capture the
impact of this, when projected in a dark room on my dear old Rollei +
Leitz SuperColorplan lens..

Or can I somehow do better without making it look fake? (which is what
seems to happen if I try to lift the darker areas significantly..)


The original was taken on a Minolta X700, Tamron 28-50 (yes, really!),
exposure unrecorded (but I can remember agonising over getting it
right quickly before some elements of the scene vanished..). K64 I
think - I'm too lazy to find the slide again from the pile in front of
me.

All comments welcome, kind or unkind. (O:

There's nothing that can be done about that JPEG. The details are lost.
Use a scanner with at least 36 bits per pixel and adjust the gamma in
the driver. I'd even crank up the red midpoint a bit.

wrote in message
oups.com...
This slide looks great when projected (if I say so myself!) but when
scanned or printed, it just dies..

http://www.marktphoto.com/stormfront.jpg

I've tried HDR-ish type techniques, even b&w, but somehow it just
doesn't work for me as a digital image. Is it my lousy p-p? - if
anyone wants to have at it, please do. I guess I could even supply a
raw scan file, but there is a fair bit of high and low detail to work
with in the jpg, and I'm really just after suggestions or opinions.

FWIW, *I* think that the extra dynamic range afforded by (real
optical) projection can be a breaking point for *some* images. I
think I am wasting my time trying to somehow digitally capture the
impact of this, when projected in a dark room on my dear old Rollei +
Leitz SuperColorplan lens..

Or can I somehow do better without making it look fake? (which is what
seems to happen if I try to lift the darker areas significantly..)


The original was taken on a Minolta X700, Tamron 28-50 (yes, really!),
exposure unrecorded (but I can remember agonising over getting it
right quickly before some elements of the scene vanished..). K64 I
think - I'm too lazy to find the slide again from the pile in front of
me.

All comments welcome, kind or unkind. (O:


The image is off colour, even though it doesn't "look" like it is. Try
working the cloud up a bit and it turns an ugly blue. There is no detail at
all in the deep shadows. Even shifting the exposure offset in Photoshop will
not improve the image. These sort of slides really need to be "wet scanned".
Even at 8 bit, a wet scan will look exceptionally good. At 16 or 32 bit it
will look almost as dynamic as the projected image.
Here's the tough bit.
The only bloke I know in Brisbane with a wetbed scanner who doesn't charge
like a wounded bull is the bloke you get stuck into all the time about his
canvas prints! Not much chance of getting him to scan it for you, I'd say
(O:
Good luck with the scanning project.

JJ



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jewelspics wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
This slide looks great when projected (if I say so myself!) but when
scanned or printed, it just dies..

http://www.marktphoto.com/stormfront.jpg

Here's my attempt at fixing it up:

http://www.pbase.com/petolino/image/81298873

I did this:

1) Fix the colors: a curves layer with black eyedropper sampling the
shadows on the water and grey eyedropper sampling the left child's
pants. I set the black eyedropper to leave the luminosity alone
but make the color neutral.

2) Fix the tone of the water and dock: a curves layer to increase the
brightness and contrast. Blend mode = Luminosity, to avoid oversaturating.
Use a layer mask so the sky and clouds are not affected.

3) A Curves layer to increase the brightness and contrast of the dark
clouds. Not as big a change as the Curves layer in (2).
Use a layer mask.

4) A Hue/Saturation layer, with the same layer mask as (3), to desaturate
the dark clouds.

5) Fix some big dust spots (or JPG artifacts?) in the sky and clouds,
using the Healing Brush.

It still ends up looking a little fake. Maybe you'd have better luck
combining two scans, one exposed for the bright clouds and the other
exposed for the children. Or maybe you've already tried that.

-Joe