Yep, I'm linear, guess I came out.
Yep, I'm linear, guess I came out.
I was referring to which spot heal or spot clone in Lightroom when getting dust spots off of scans of film. Which then is better?
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
neither. The healing brush is the best tool out there. Then clone tool with low flow like 5% or less and then spot healing last.
That's why the healing layer should be right above the background layer.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
>> I use the healing brush on the actual image itself, never on a separate layer
I would keep using it that way
Why would anyone want to keep dust in the file and pay for storage ?
Flickr Home Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums
I use a 4990 with silverfish ai doesn't matter what film I scan I tell the scanner it's pan F 50. It gives a tone range like Brett Weston or Azo. If you like Ansel pick a profile that gives you less range suit to your preference.
You guys know better than I do. If you will, I've used Nikon Coolscan LS8000 for tons of scans. Switching to Nikon D750 since Negative Supply came out with their equipment (negative holders) in 2019 and not really looking back. Scanning 300 MF C41 negatives from a trip to France near broke me. HOURS of grinding away gets old. So these days and to my way of thinking , the most important thing is a look at the negative. I hope I'm "done" with aging scanners.... though I have a great Nikon repair source nearby. I bring the image into Negative Lab Pro for B&W conversion. Very few tweaks... basically just get it into LR. From LR, I've done some clean-up: Crop, Curves, Sliders, etc. but most of this work is done in camera and all you're doing here is trying to get the most out of the negative.... not "make" the photo. Spot or Heal work. At that point, I can export a TIFF or DNG which I'll bring into Capture One for color space Gama2.2 'cause I still know that program better. Then it's export to wherever. I've used Piezography printing on a SC600, but have the ambition to go to an SC800 when I get back to printing.
If there's a negative where it might be worth a drum scan or a stitched DSLR scan... that's worth considering. I've not bothered with stitching to date 'cause the single shot scans have been pretty good. Most? Not worth the bother and the difference is increasingly marginal IMHO. Maybe if I were Ansel Adams and never had a discard? Sure. Not going to argue that it's real, but I imagine there's more that can be done with toning an image in post through layers (I've seen this, but not done it myself) than I've gotten from overworking the scanning process. High res scans from a qualified lab? There can be problem with outsourcing stuff in relying on an operator... who frankly has a time limit on his investment in my image? Seems like it. My perspective may not be yours... i.e. YMMV in all fairness, but a scan you do with whatever equip you have on hand will tend to outperform what someone else does - even with better equipment. You'll redo it until you've maxed out. The other guy? You got his attention maybe until the phone rings. Not true of all....I'm sure there are much better than I've seen locally. But I'd imagine not far off either. After all, they're running a biz as well and usually have default instructions, and some of those will conflict with what you ask them to do. Again... it's your image. Nobody else loves it like you do. Neither does the Imacon or Howtek or whatever they've got.
Will I stick with this process? Hmmm. I am Mr. Hybrid, but since moving the printers aren't up yet. Once I check that out and compare, I'll know for sure. Hope its good enough.
Bookmarks