I don't understand yet if could be a routine workflow for scans or not
I don't understand yet if could be a routine workflow for scans or not
It depends on if you want a routine scanning workflow or not, or better said when you want it or not.
IMHO when you want to make an extensive Photoshop edition/optimization for the image best is making a routine scanning workflow, taking all, and adjusting tonality and etc in Ps.
Also IMHO if one wants to just do some clicks in Lightroom then we can adjust the image with scanner software because we don't plan complex adjustments than may need all information in the negative.
The Stouffer Transmission Step Wedge has 21 steps in "increments of .15". Each step is a half f/stop.
If my math is correct, 21 steps amounts to a density range of 10.5 f/stops. 2 exp(10.5) = 1448, which in log (10) terms is 3.16. If a scanner can clearly separate all steps on this target, it can handle a dMax of 3.16
When I tested the Epson scanner using Epson software a number of years back with my usual method of adjusting the histogram, I found that the scanner could separate "16 steps, or 8 stops, which is 256 levels, or in log 10 terms, 2.4".
Can either of the "raw" scans I made yesterday properly separate all 21 steps, or for that matter, significantly more than 16 steps ? By properly, I mean in a linear manner where each step is equidistant from the next.
Yes you are right, the 21 model is 1/2 stops steps, the 31 model is 1/3...
...but 21 steps are 20 difference, this is 10 stops, so 21 step is 1/(2^10) the 1st step, this is 1/1024. A range of near exactly 3.0D difference, the stouffer info says 3.05D (http://www.stouffer.net/Photo.htm), but the .05 may be because base density of the wedge.
This is just test, the negative has yet to be inverted. When it is, a tonal adjustment will occur. This adjustment will be dependant on the method used by software that performs this change.
The scanner can do at least 3.05D maybe it can even do 4D like the marketing suggests... But the tests seems to show how the noise seems to build up, and how a small adjustment to exposure can make a difference.
That may be true, ken made a 2.53X adjustment, which is probably about 1.3 stops (if the vuescan units are meaningful), "wiping" out the first three steps on the wedge.
Funny - My Epson V700 just died. I hadn't used it much lately until making these tests, but it now puts out a funny noise and the red lights flash.
No good deed goes unpunished I guess
I took my old 4990 of the basement shelf and fired it up. Works fine. I wonder if it will cost more to repair the 700 than the price of a new unit.
Thanks Pere. I checked and reset those switches several times.
I was making test scans all day: at a certain point the machine just stopped working.
I presume that some part needs replacement.
Ken, I bet you got plenty of mileage from that pile of plastic. You shoot way more than I. I bought a V700 and not the higher models on your website recommendation and tutorials. I have been very happy with mine. It even has survived two moves. That surprised me.
The only good thing about a new one is that the LED does not need a warmup. Or maybe that's a bad thing on second thought. Warmup is good for many things.
I reserve my V700 for only LF negs. Prints I use a scanner app on iPhone.
Bookmarks