ICC Scanner Profile for B&W Scans

During the discusion in this thread a point was made that an ICC profiled scanner is of no use when scanning B&W or color negs, that it's only a benefit when scanning color transparencies.

So now I'm curious. At what point does a photographer apply a color profile to their workflow if they're scanning B&W negs?

The point I make is that it is incorrect to assign a color profile in Photoshop to a raw scan regardless of the film type. IOW, if someone assigns the color profile Adobe '98 to a scan of a Fujicolor NPS color negative, they are in essence saying that the colorspace of the film+scanner is Adobe '98. I know this isn't correct.

In another example, a scan of Tri-X which has been assgned the Adobe '98 ICC profile is saying that's the colorspace?

Any thoughts on this?

I dunno if this makes much sense, but I learned to apply the printer's ICC profile to my image... This way, I supposedly see, more exactly, what the printer is going to poop out.


Shrug...I find with our set-up at school, the custom profiles I made, and converting the image to the paper profile I'm 95% there. (At least, on semi-matte---I haven't tried Matte yet)

Any thoughts on this process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris_Brown

The point I make is that it is incorrect to assign a color profile in Photoshop to a raw scan regardless of the film type. IOW, if someone assigns the color profile Adobe '98 to a scan of a Fujicolor NPS color negative, they are in essence saying that the colorspace of the film+scanner is Adobe '98. I know this isn't correct.

In another example, a scan of Tri-X which has been assgned the Adobe '98 ICC profile is saying that's the colorspace?

Any thoughts on this?

---

Every device in the image processing chain has to have a profile. That's what makes the workflow color managed. So, no, you are not assigning anything to film, but you are characterizing the image that results from the process of capture by assigning it a colorspace.

A 16-bit image provides 65536 discrete levels of information that can be altered by processing. That's what you would be able to use if you scan as grayscale. If you scan as RGB, you are getting 16 bits per channel, or a 48-bit image with billions of discrete levels of information. And in order to handle all this information, you need to assign it a colorspace so it can be managed properly.

Even though you will use only a fraction of all that information for printing, you lose some of it with every operation you apply, and the more information you start with, the more you will be left with after all is done. So it makes sense to work in the widest available colorspace and let the color management system handle the translation. That's the purpose of color management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marko

A 16-bit image provides 65536 discrete levels of information that can be altered by processing. That's what you would be able to use if you scan as grayscale. If you scan as RGB, you are getting 16 bits per channel, or a 48-bit image with billions of discrete levels of information. And in order to handle all this information, you need to assign it a colorspace so it can be managed properly.

Even though you will use only a fraction of all that information for printing, you lose some of it with every operation you apply, and the more information you start with, the more you will be left with after all is done. So it makes sense to work in the widest available colorspace and let the color management system handle the translation. That's the purpose of color management.

---

Perhaps you missed my point. I'm aware of what you describe here - a color managed workflow - I've been using it successfully for over ten years. (I'm not bragging, it just means I've had my fair share of problems and conundrums).

There seems to be a divide between those who profile their scanner and tag all scans with that profile regardless of film type, and those who apply that profile to only scans of transparencies.

If you don't tag your images (from a scanned film negative) with the scanner profile, what do you tag it with, and why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris_Brown

Perhaps you missed my point. I'm aware of what you describe here - a color managed workflow - I've been using it successfully for over ten years. (I'm not bragging, it just means I've had my fair share of problems and conundrums).

There seems to be a divide between those who profile their scanner and tag all scans with that profile regardless of film type, and those who apply that profile to only scans of transparencies.

If you don't tag your images (from a scanned film negative) with the scanner profile, what do you tag it with, and why?

---

Sorry, I had no intention to sound patronizing, but you did not state your level of experience either.

So let me rephrase my answer in fewer words:

If you are scanning and processing your images using RGB and if you are doing it in a color-managed environment, then you should naturally assign a profile to all of them.

The negative gets converted into positive at some stage and then gets imported into the editing application. From the editing application's standpoint, there is no difference between that image and the one that resulted from scanning a transparency.

This is, of course, just my opinion and I tried my best to explain why I think so. There are obviously different opinions out there and it would be interesting to hear both schools of thought.

Quote:

---

If you are scanning and processing your images using RGB and if you are doing it in a color-managed environment, then you should naturally assign a profile to all of them.

---

I agree, but what do you recommend when scanning B&W negs? When do you tag your scans and what do you tag them with?

Hi Chris,

By no means am I a scanning expert. In fact, I've only been drum scanning myself for about a year now with a Howtek 4500. And on top of that, I'm using a profile that someone else made for me on his Howtek 4500. I tell you, it's made a huge difference in my scans, but I'd really like to make my own profile. I feel I could learn a ton more about scanning in general, but I simmply haven't spent the money on a target and software yet. Someday soon perhaps.

Anyway, I wanted to say two things.

1. If you're shooting with color transparency of a pure black and white subject in neutral lighting, wouldn't you still apply the color profile? I feel that this would still apply to a B&W negative. The fact that you're scanning into an RGB color space almost requires you to scan with a color profile(assuming you're following a color managed workflow), regardless of the fact that the film is B&W. So maybe the correct thing to do would be to create a new profile specifically with the same type of B&W negative film but in the RGB space. Of course I could be way off base due to my limited experience, but it's just a thought.

2. Have you ever asked your question to Hutch? He's got a reputation of being a scanning guru, so maybe he's got an opinion of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris_Brown

I agree, but what do you recommend when scanning B&W negs? When do you tag your scans and what do you tag them with?

---

Scan them in RGB and treat them just as you would treat color film.

Like I said in my previous post, it is a matter of simple binary math - if you scan in 16-bit grayscale, you get to work with 2^16 = 65536 discrete levels of information, or shades if you will. Scanning in 16-bit RGB, you effectively get 65536 levels per channel or 2^48 = 65536 x 65536 x 65536 levels of information to work with.

And if you treat them as RGB, then you also asign an appropriate profile <edit>in the same manner as you would for a color film</edit>.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Boden

I'm using a profile that someone else made for me on his Howtek 4500. I tell you, it's made a huge difference in my scans, but I'd really like to make my own profile. I feel I could learn a ton more about scanning in general, but I simmply haven't spent the money on a target and software yet. Someday soon perhaps.

---

I used HCT 4x5 & 35mm targets with BasICColor Scan to profile my scanner. It took me a several scanning rounds to make sure I was doing things correctly and was getting the results I wanted. The most difficult part was deciding how to set the input parameters of the scanning software.

If you have the time, money and a big reservoir of inclination, it will get you great results.

Quote:

---

1. If you're shooting with color transparency of a pure black and white subject in neutral lighting, wouldn't you still apply the color profile?

---

That is the question I am asking others here.

I apply my scanner profile to every scan no matter what the film is. IMO, the profile communicates what my scanner "sees" to the rest of the workflow, and it doesn't matter if the film is positive or negative.

Technically this is just as incorrect as not applying any profile, but I have found that once my images enter a color managed workflow it helps identify areas of good and bad color and tonal gradation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris_Brown

I apply my scanner profile to every scan no matter what the film is. IMO, the profile communicates what my scanner "sees" to the rest of the workflow, and it doesn't matter if the film is positive or negative.

Technically this is just as incorrect as not applying any profile, but I have found that once my images enter a color managed workflow it helps identify areas of good and bad color and tonal gradation.

---

You said it yourself: the purpose of the profile is to communicate to the rest of the workflow what your scanner "sees".

I don't see why would this be incorrect, as you state in the next paragraph, as long as you always use the same settings?

All the scanner really sees is a pixel matrix and conveys that information to the software. It does not differentiate between films because it doesn't even know what a film is, if you don't mind a figure of speech.

Ahhh......
I now see where the confusion exists.

When you scan your B&W negs as color you are working in COLOR not greyscale. So you do indeed want to apply color management so that later when you tone your photo that lovely olive you can be sure that your prints will match your lovely olive toning you saw on screen.

The thread referenced in your original post in this thread was a question about scanning B&W as greyscale and then wandered off the subject into color profiles.

So here goes:
When you scan a piece of film as color (or colorize in PS) then color management could apply. If your scanner embeds a profile into the scan than thats what governs its color.

When you are working in greyscale, color management does not apply. There are settings carried by the greyscale file about dot gain and gamma but there is no profile in greyscale. No color=no color profile.

When scanning color negatives and the file is transferred into PS it will either have a profile that your scanning software put in it or it will have none. In the later case, you can embed a profile when you save. You can choose something else but, if for instance, you are using Adobe98 as a working space, it'd be what shows up as first choice when you go to save the file and it'd be a good choice to embed.

The only time I can see a reason to embed a printer color profile when saving a file is if you didn't think the printer you were sending to couldn't handle converting the file's profile. Really I don't think there'd ever be a reason to do this.

If you want to read up on all this stuff for free and get excellent, correct advice go to www.digitaldog.net/ there is loads of good info there. Click on "tips" to get to the articles. Andrew Rodney knows what he's writing about.

As far as embedding printer profiles, I do this all the time. I use A&I in Los Angeles to print on a Lightjet. They have an option at a cheaper price called Direct-to-Print. This requires me to make any necessary adjustments to the image before sending them the file. Once they get the file, they simply send the numbers to the printer with no profile conversion at all. This is because I've already done it for them. I've soft-proof the image at home using their printer profile, make any necessary corrections, and then finally convert to their profile. Easy and simple. This way, I know no one on their end is going to screw with my image.

Yep, thats a good reason.

Here my lab asks for Adobe98 files for the Durst Lambda under same conditions for what they call "Lambda-direct". I think they chose Adobe98 space since its pretty much ubiquitous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry Ambrose

Yep, thats a good reason.

Here my lab asks for Adobe98 files for the Durst Lambda under same conditions for what they call "Lambda-direct". I think they chose Adobe98 space since its pretty much ubiquitous.

---

So what you're saying is that they don't offer a printer profile for you to soft proof? If this is the case, that kinda sucks.

I remember a while back I tested out another lab in town that had a Lightjet. I heard great things about these guys so I wanted to try them out and compare them against A&I. The thing was that they were twice the price, so I wanted to find out why. Anyways, they kinda gave a big stink about giving me their printer profile and that it wasn't that big of a deal; they would take care of the conversion. But I basically said that if they didn't give it to me, then I wouldn't be printing with them. In the end, I sent the same image to both companies, using each respective profile, and I couldn't tell a difference to save my life. So...I'm still with A&I at half the price and happy for it. I've been using them for fifteen years and have become friends with many there. Why should I change at this point, right?

I'm not confused about any of this, I'm just probing for more information, seeing if there's another way, a better way to work. Others had posted that assigning input profiles to scans of negs was not their method, and I'm looking for their technical reasons as to why, and wanted to discuss their results.

Quote:

---

When scanning color negatives and the file is transferred into PS it will either have a profile that your scanning software put in it or it will have none. In the later case, you can embed a profile when you save. You can choose something else but, if for instance, you are using Adobe98 as a working space, it'd be what shows up as first choice when you go to save the file and it'd be a good choice to embed.

---

I think this is incorrect. The color profile of a sheet of color neg film, digitized through a scanner does not have a colorspace/gamut/white point equal to the Adobe '98 color space. I think the colorspace would have much different characteristics and correlate more closely to the characteristics of the film and scanner.

Apparently it's not possible to accurately profile a scanner for negative films. (I will include B&W films in this category if an RGB scan is made from that film.) Typically the process of converting a negative image (from a film negative) to a positive image requires the use of proprietary software algorithms. The elimination of the orange mask (or any other mask) apparently isn't just the removal of orange in an image. The improved separation of shadow detail (the toe of the film curve) might require special algorithms. It's not just a simple inversion of the L curve. (I'm not making any of this up, I'm simply re-stating what I've read over the years). So the digital conversion of a film negative is an "interpretation" not merely the mapping of electronic impulses in a PMT to an 8- or 16-bit value. Add to this variations in a film brands orange mask, or the lack of one with B&W films, and the process of getting a truly accurate input profile become muddy at best.

But still, I'd rather have some kind of input profile to tag a scan with, rather than assign an arbritrary profile in Photoshop. The conundrum is whether or not to assign an input profile made from an HCT transparency (he uses Fuji Velvia) to a scan of a Kodak color negative.

"So what you're saying is that they don't offer a printer profile for you to soft proof? If this is the case, that kinda sucks."

My lab also offers the -option- of a printer profile to download so it doesn't "suck" anymore.

I was agreeing with you about that being a good reason to save a file with a printer profile. But still I'd do this only for what I was sending to a specific printer, no the working or archive file. No reason to change what works for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry Ambrose

I was agreeing with you about that being a good reason to save a file with a printer profile. But still I'd do this only for what I was sending to a specific printer, no the working or archive file. No reason to change what works for you.

---

I think we're on the same page. I save a master final image that remains in my working color space. From there, I'll make any necessary changes and conversions based on the output, whether it's for a Lightjet, Epson, CMYK press, or whatever.

"I'm not confused about any of this, I'm just probing for more information, seeing if there's another way, a better way to work. Others had posted that assigning input profiles to scans of negs was not their method, and I'm looking for their technical reasons as to why, and wanted to discuss their results."

I never said you were confused. I wrote "confusion". We were not using the same terms, not even talking about the same thing.

So I sent you to an excellent source of information to read. Some of its basic and some of it is fully advanced. You can even write Andrew and ask him questions. But I bet if you go through some of the .pdfs there you'll figure it out on your own.

In the meantime here's something to ponder:

When your scanner sends a file to your computer does the file have a color profile or not?

If your file does have a profile then that profile (whatever it is) rules the numbers in that file. Your chosen working space controls how it looks on your monitor. The printer profile controls how it looks on that printer.

If the file has no profile, you can leave it alone (unmanaged color) or you can give it a profile. When you save the file PS will covert it and embed a profile if you tell it to. It will do this with the profile you tell it to use. Or you can leave it alone and guess about its color.

Anyway, colors from a color negative are "interpretive" not "literal" like a color positive. So you get to pick the colors.

If you are shooting color positives the piece of film in your hand is literally "the" color reference. Courtesy of a properly functioning color management system your scan can be made to closely mimic those reference colors in the film as can the view on your monitor and your prints.

Henry, thanks for your input, and here's some questions for you:

1. Do you profile your scanner?
2. Do you apply that input profile to any or all scans of color negatives?
3. Do you apply that input profile to scans of B&W negatives?
4. Are you aware that input profiles generated from transparencies do not correctly map the color gamut and tonal characteristics of negative films?

If you answered "yes" to these questions, please tell us how you expect to acquire accurate color and tonal values from scans of film negatives.

If you answered "yes" to these questions, please tell us how you expect to acquire accurate color and tonal values from scans of film negatives.

Thats the whole point of this. I don't expect "accurate" color from color negative film. Its not happening in the film and its not happening in the scan. I can, from a carefully calibrated monitor and color managed system, predict what the color will look like when printed. So I can take charge of color negative film color once I get it in the computer. Color management simply starts later in the process than with a color positive scanned and given a profile at scanning.

"Accurate" color is pretty nebulous. No color neg film does it. No color tranparency film gives "accurate" color. The closest would be Kodak EPN shot under very carefully controlled conditions in a studio. Typical landscape films like Kodak 100VS or Fuji Velvia are way off from "accurate" color. (not a knock on anyone's favorite film)

With a color transparency in your hand you can reproduce the colors in that piece of film through a functioning color managed system. (within the physical capabilites of the devices you use for reproduction) This can start at scanning a color transparency by using a color profile for your scanner and the film of choice. If you are using color negative you will interpret the colors and having made your decisions about them opt to manage them (or not) in your color managed workflow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry Ambrose

I don't expect "accurate" color from color negative film.

---

Geez, you never mentioned that before. Didn't mean to upset you, either.

Quote:

---

"Accurate" color is pretty nebulous. No color neg film does it.

---

I see you are an architectural photogarpher. Are you saying you can't reproduce the color and tone of a particular brick correctly, but just approximate them?

I wouldn't apply a color profile for black and white, nor to color negatives. And, in general, color profiles clip the image to the gamut of the target used to make the profile. So, it's worthwhile being aware about the origins of scanner profiles. (Best targets are made by HutchColor.) If one's making serious adjustments to image color anyway, why bother? (This goes squared for camera profiles.)

Silverfast has algorithms that optimize for different color negatives. (e.g. portra, nps, etc.) I don't know how they do this, though.

Chris,

I don't know if you mean them to be or not, but I find your posts argumentative and now becoming a little rude. The bold face type was to re-state again that color negative color isn't science. And you haven't really upset me until now. You asked for discussion about this and all you've supplied is arguments.

I did state earlier that color neg scanning is "interpretive", apparently you missed that. How could it not be when there's no way to profile it? You could increase your knowledge of this subject by reading some of the material I suggested. I don't think you know quite as much as you seem to think.

As to your question about matching brick colors, I'll let my clients decide if the colors I present them are satisfying or not. Your opinion really doesn't count unless you hire me. (And I don't have a problem with supplying the colors that I've interpreted -- its part of the art and craft. My client's checks validate this.)

I've been using color management systems since before they were part of the operating systems. Not only using but also working as a consultant in the early days of "desktop" color helping printers and designers nail their systems to give repeateable and accurate results. I've made and altered color profiles for those systems. I've trained people on the software and hardware. Same deal again for digital scanning cameras. Setting up studios for high vol. product photography that gave accurate color from desktop equipment when just a few years before the only way was to provide a chrome to the engraver, have it scanned on a $300,000 scanner and proofed on a $150,000 proofing system. This starting in 91 or 92. I've committed tens and tens of thousands of color managed images to print successfully. Many of them before Apple's colorsync was functioning. I've been round this block more than a few times.

All that's in the past now and color mangement is really pretty simple these days. Its part of the system that runs our machines. All we have to do is follow commonly available directions. Its not magic anymore and you don't have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to get the benefits.

I'm done with this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry Ambrose

I don't know if you mean them to be or not, but I find your posts argumentative and now becoming a little rude. The bold face type was to re-state again that color negative color isn't science. And you haven't really upset me until now. You asked for discussion about this and all you've supplied is arguments.

---

I never meant to upset this man. I merely wanted a good technical argument on how he achieved professional results (accurate, repeatable color with wide tonal range) by assigning the Adobe '98 profile to scans of color negatives. A reply in terms of "it just works" was not what I was looking for.

My apologies to anyone else I may have upset, too.

My issue with assigning a "working space" profile to a scanned image is that it does not represent the film gamut. It doesn't matter what the film type is. That workflow is wrong.

I know, I've been there. I did it before I profiled my scanners and it was virtually impossible to reproduce certain colors, or reproduce smooth gradations in flesh tones.

I have attached a file showing the comparison of Joseph Holmes' EktaSpace profile and the Adobe '98 profile. The EktaSpace is clearly a larger colorspace and more accurately reflects the range of Kodak Ektachrome film (E64 Daylight). If I assign the Adobe '98 colorspace to an Ektachrome image, I clip information, compress saturated colors (diminishing or losing the ability for tonal separation) and I have an incorrect white point embedded in the profile which skews colors when converting from one profile to another (e.g., converting to CMYK for printing).

As Neil Poulsen states in a previous post, tagging an image with a profile can clip information. This is the same opinion a John Panazzo, President of ColorByte Software, makers of Trident scanning software. He believes a good drum scanner and properly exposed film can produce colors and tonal gradation that exceed anything "allowed" in a color profile.

Things got worse when Adobe released Photoshop v5, which required the use of color profiles to transform an image between one device and another. Now an image needed an input profile if it was to be displayed correctly or printed from Photoshop correctly. Some of the most ardent and exceptional users of Photoshop became quite contentious over the "color managed workflow".

The problem is compounded when scanning negative films because there is no IT8 targets available. About six or seven years ago I inquired with FujiFilm about buying IT8 targets and according to Fujifilm Graphics Division the c-41 process and variations in exposure produce too wide of an exposure range for profiling use. IOW, the process is too sloppy.

So, we're left with the problem of how to correctly assign a color profile to a scan from negative films.

My solution is merely a workaround. I apply my scanner profile to the scan. When I set up each image for scanning, I evaluate colors using the sample tool (eyedropper) not the monitor and eliminate clipping of the endpoints. I also reduce color saturation by about 10&#37; across the board to eliminate tonal compression or expansion. My RGB curves are developed from a previous scan of test scene, which provides me with a starting point on neutral values. If I have any doubt about my settings, I scan in 16-bit color and butcher the image in Photoshop before final output.

Is it perfect? No, but at least I'm applying an input profile that reflects the input range of my scanner. The issue of white point accuracy (between the film/scene and the profile) is handled by the scanning software, not by the profile, so that's an area of concern that should be watched while preparing the scan.

Quote:

---

according to Fujifilm Graphics Division the c-41 process and variations in exposure produce too wide of an exposure range for profiling use. IOW, the process is too sloppy.

---

I have no doubt that this is true as I find it much more difficult to get consistent color negative batch scans vs. chromes. However..............

What I do not understand is this. For the 25 years prior to going digital, I did all my own C printing from negatives. In the later years, after Fuji became serious competition for Kodak in the pro film market and films got allot better, I had NO problem maintaining consistency with either color balance or density with prints from color negs. Meaning I could walk in cold with a new set of negas, dial in my standard filtration, and be pretty darn close on the first test everytime. Explain that if indeed "the c-41 process and variations in exposure produce too wide of an exposure range for profiling use."

Quote:

---

...after Fuji became serious competition for Kodak in the pro film market and films got allot better, I had NO problem maintaining consistency with either color balance or density with prints from color negs. Meaning I could walk in cold with a new set of negas, dial in my standard filtration, and be pretty darn close on the first test everytime.

---

Exactly my experience also. I don't remember verbatim my conversation with the Fuji rep, but I did point this out.

In my case, I used a (long gone) Jobo print processor and fresh chemicals were mixed for each printing session, so my assumption was that my "line" was straight although I never took pH or specific gravity readings. The only conclusion I can guess is that a few CC change in filtration is a radical change when profiling a scanner.

"I never meant to upset this man. I merely wanted a good technical argument on how he achieved professional results (accurate, repeatable color with wide tonal range) by assigning the Adobe '98 profile to scans of color negatives. A reply in terms of "it just works" was not what I was looking for."

Chris Brown, you are misrepresenting what I wrote. I don't know if you are confused or if you are a liar. I now suspect the later. Do not misrepresent what I wrote.

I did not answer "it just works" I gave you an exact recipe of how to do it:

"When scanning color negatives and the file is transferred into PS it will either have a profile that your scanning software put in it or it will have none. In the later case, you can embed a profile when you save. You can choose something else but, if for instance, you are using Adobe98 as a working space, it'd be what shows up as first choice when you go to save the file and it'd be a good choice to embed."

This is exactly what you now espouse but you supply the additional information of what profile you choose to embed. You set this up as if you were seeking information and help about how to handle color neg scanning. Its obvious now that you only wanted an "argument" (your own words). Your approach is disingenuous at the least.

And the part you've left out is that you've given no thought (not that you've told us) to the possibility that the space you are converting to might be bigger than the monitor can show and bigger than some printers can reproduce. Bigger color spaces are not always better. Your checking by the numbers when you do this is a good idea.

If you want to come here and show off, more power to you. But don't come under the guise of seeking knowledge when all you want is an argument and to grandstand your ideas after you've baited someone you think you can make wrong. I wasted my time trying to help you and answer your questions because you really had your answer all along. That you chose to hold back your information until you could start an argument is amazingly rude. I welcome genuine conversation but not your disingenuous argumentative baiting.

Quote:

---

But don't come under the guise of seeking knowledge when all you want is an argument and to grandstand your ideas after you've baited someone you think you can make wrong.

---

This was never my intention, and I apologize again for upsetting you.

In another thread the point was made that a profiled scanner is of no help when scanning negatives. I was seeking quantitative, emperical reasons why. Some of the opinions seemed pretty strong and I was hoping someone has solved the issue of things like mapping the white point of a negative scan's profile in the context of a color managed workflow.

I'm not a color management specialist, and I've made so many mistakes by blindly following someone's personal formula that now I prefer concrete reasons why something is done. When someone is adamant about their results, I want to find out why.

BTW, I've read most, if not all, of Andrew Rodney's materials on his web site and it has helped me. He has posted numerous times in other forums which has helped me and others. But, he also raved about Imacon Flextight II scanners as being just as good as a drum scanner and, after a few years of owning both, found his opinions patently wrong when scanning color transparencies - especially 35mm. So, after my little $17,000 learning experience, I ask questions and probe for facts that make sense to me.

Mr. Ambrose, you posted your response to my queries. I doubted your methods, probed for more information and ended up inflaming you. I'm sorry. I am (was) simply looking for a quantitatively descriptive, emperical method to scanning negs in a color managed workflow. If you sent me that information privately through email, it was buried in 5,703 spam emails I awoke to this morning and it was promptly deleted before I repaired my email server.