| Author |
Message |
Alan Smithee
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:03 am Post subject:
Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
How important is it to profile the scanner? If the image is ultimately going
into Photoshop for final editing and color corrections (on a calibrated
monitor) does the scanner profile really matter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:39 am Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
Alan Smithee wrote:
| Quote: | How important is it to profile the scanner? If the image is ultimately going
into Photoshop for final editing and color corrections (on a calibrated
monitor) does the scanner profile really matter?
|
Quite a subjective question you're asking.
My view: a color profile of the scanner will give you scans that are
"perfect" as color is concerned, and within the limitations of the
scanner and the profiling technique.
So, profiling is certainly important if you want to reproduce faithfully
whatever you've put in the scanner.
If, however, you're going to edit colors later in Photoshop, then you
aren't going to want "perfect" colors: you want the colors you like. In
theory, this would imply that you shouldn't care about profiling.
In practice, personally, I'd still like to have a "perfect-colors" image
saved even if I plan to make edits, simply because my eye isn't skillful
enough to say "ok, these are the colors I wanted", but rather needs
something to compare to -- and the more faithful to the original picture
is that something, the better.
If you've got a calibrated monitor, and only care about getting the
colors *you* like, and are skilled enough to maintain consistent color
judgement, than I think you'll be fine with no scanner profiling.
Also, remember that color correction is a destructive operation, and
with 8-bit images this fact is important in practice. So, depending on
the way your software works, you may *not* want to perform *two* color
corrections (one by the scanner driver, based on profiling, and one by
yourself, based on your judgement).
by LjL
ljlbox@tiscali.it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:50 am Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
"Alan Smithee" <AlanSmithee@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Zff0f.62041$oW2.49119@pd7tw1no...
| Quote: | How important is it to profile the scanner? If the image is ultimately
going
into Photoshop for final editing and color corrections (on a calibrated
monitor) does the scanner profile really matter?
You always use a profile with a scanner. That is the means to associate |
colors with sensor readings.
Sometimes, you use the one that the manufacturer supplies. Other times, you
use the one that you create.
The profile that you create can be more accurate for your particular scanner
that the one that comes with the unit.
Yes, the scanner profile matters unless you really have too much hair on
your head.
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:29 pm Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:03:21 GMT, "Alan Smithee"
<AlanSmithee@nowhere.com> wrote:
| Quote: | How important is it to profile the scanner? If the image is ultimately going
into Photoshop for final editing and color corrections (on a calibrated
monitor) does the scanner profile really matter?
|
It depends on what you're after.
In theory (!) a scanner profile is supposed to eliminate scanner bias
and produce an image identical to what's on the media.
However, it does that by changing data which comes from the scanner.
Now, most people would probably say "Good! That's what I want!". But,
others would say: "Not so fast, Skippy!"... ;o)
For one, in some cases a scanner profile can actually do a lot of
damage e.g. when the unprofiled biased scan is closer to the desired
output so in editing you have to undo what scanner profile has done.
Also, there are contrarians aka the "raw scan sect" ;o) who believe
that any "corruption" no matter how well meaning is still corruption.
Put another way, you *can't* remove the scanner profile without losing
some data, but you *can* apply the scanner profile to a raw scan and
be largely none the wiser, i.e. a scan with the scanner profile on is
comparable to a raw scan with the scanner profile applied afterwards.
And since the end product is rarely identical to what's on the film
this added flexibility is certainly something to consider. In other
words, the scanned image (whether scanner profiled or not) will be
edited. And the prime directive of image processing to limit the
number of edits.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy Spragg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:50:37 GMT, "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Yes, the scanner profile matters unless you really have too much hair on
your head.
|
A figure of speech evidently - but not one I'm familiar with. Can you
explain? Is it some sort of allusion to being simian in nature? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bmoag
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
The manufacturer supplies a profile that is automatically installed with the
driver.
You can buy test transparency images for profiling but if you think about it
all you have profiled is that particular emulsion exposed and processed
under those particular conditions. That profile will not necessarily be any
more accurate than the generic profile provided by the scanner manufacturer
for any other transparency, particularly one made on a different emulsion
processed differently.
Negative materials for profiling are even more complex and not readily
avaiable, although you can make your own as you can for transparencies.
In truth monitor profiling in a color managed environment is accurate enough
for most uses but you have to be careful about your work habits and
recalibrate your monitor regularly.
Custom paper/printer profiling can significantly improve the process if you
are willing to put the money, time and effort into the process but,
depending on what you are after, may not be worth the effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:49 pm Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:47:05 GMT, andy.spragg@rhm.com (Andy Spragg)
wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:50:37 GMT, "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote:
Yes, the scanner profile matters unless you really have too much hair on
your head.
A figure of speech evidently - but not one I'm familiar with. Can you
explain? Is it some sort of allusion to being simian in nature?
|
The premise is that not using a scanner profile would cause so much
frustration that it would lead to loss of hair.
There are two possible things he's alluding to:
One is referring to an expression often used to express one's
frustration i.e. "I'm pulling my hair out" indicating one has reached
such a stage of frustration as to become deranged (some deranged
people pull their hair out).
The other is that worry and frustration lead to loss of hair i.e.
boldness. Strictly speaking this is not correct because permanent
boldness is inherited (from one's maternal grandfather).
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy Spragg
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:49:56 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:47:05 GMT, andy.spragg@rhm.com (Andy Spragg)
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:50:37 GMT, "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote:
Yes, the scanner profile matters unless you really have too much hair on
your head.
A figure of speech evidently - but not one I'm familiar with. Can you
explain? Is it some sort of allusion to being simian in nature?
The premise is that not using a scanner profile would cause so much
frustration that it would lead to loss of hair.
|
Aha. Now I see. The only premise I could come up with was that for a
scanner profile not to matter, the user would have to be more ape than
man ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:03:24 GMT, andy.spragg@rhm.com (Andy Spragg)
wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:49:56 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:47:05 GMT, andy.spragg@rhm.com (Andy Spragg)
wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:50:37 GMT, "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote:
Yes, the scanner profile matters unless you really have too much hair on
your head.
A figure of speech evidently - but not one I'm familiar with. Can you
explain? Is it some sort of allusion to being simian in nature?
The premise is that not using a scanner profile would cause so much
frustration that it would lead to loss of hair.
Aha. Now I see. The only premise I could come up with was that for a
scanner profile not to matter, the user would have to be more ape than
man ...
|
That's another way of looking at it and maybe that's what he meant, in
which case (as someone who does not use a scanner profile) I would
fall on the simian side, especially with my full head of hair. ;o)
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 3:40 am Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
Alan Smithee wrote:
[quote]How important is it to profile the scanner? If the image is ultimately going
into Photoshop for final editing and color corrections (on a calibrated
monitor) does the scanner profile really matter?
[/quote]
Scanners are said to be less variable than monitors and printers. If
the scanner was shipped with good color performance, you might see only
minor inaccuracies in its output for most of its life.
I don't have the practical experience to say whether profiling works
properly in practice. It's used by quite a few people who know what
they're doing, though. In theory...once the image is in a known color
environment such as color-managed Photoshop, it's as good or bad as it
appears. If you can correct it to your satisfaction, the lack of a
profile only "matters" as much as the time you spend on corrections and
your insistence on absolute fidelity to the original colors.
However, if you can scan a reflective or slide-based target under the
exact conditions and (non-adaptive!) settings you'll be using to scan
the image, then use it to create your profile, the profile *should*
allow your final image to come closer to the original colors than you
can accomplish by hand. Contrary to Don's assertion, practically
speaking it's no more "destructive" to apply a profile than to make
your own corrections, particularly if you're working with a 16-bit
file. Rather, you're allowing the software to perform the equivalent
of your own color corrections, only based on accurate measurements
rather than your subjective judgment. *If* the profile does its job,
it's a better way of getting colors on your screen that match the
original media. Whether you want the colors from the original media is
another question. :)
All of this depends on high-quality profile targets, consistent
hardware performance, and software that does what it's supposed to. If
what comes out on the screen looks nothing like what went into the
scanner, theory falls apart. :)
false_dmitrii |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 5:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2005 15:40:07 -0700, false_dmitrii@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote]Contrary to Don's assertion, practically
speaking it's no more "destructive" to apply a profile than to make
your own corrections, particularly if you're working with a 16-bit
file.
[/quote]
Actually it is! This is why:
When you make your own corrections you can always go back to your
backup/archive and start again.
Once the scanner has *applied* (not assigned!) the profile there's no
way to get the original information back! Yes, in theory you can
reverse the profile but then you end up with an image twice removed
from the original.
Hence "corruption".
Now, as I always say, how much of it is visible with our 8-bit eyes -
or whether we even care - is another story, but there's corruption,
all right.
[quote]*If* the profile does its job,
it's a better way of getting colors on your screen that match the
original media. Whether you want the colors from the original media is
another question. :)
[/quote]
Exactly! :o)
Unfortunately, this is rarely the case and exactly the point why -
unlike (!) monitor or printer profiles - scanner profiles are of very
limited (if any?) use.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
Don wrote:
[quote]On 11 Oct 2005 15:40:07 -0700, false_dmitrii@yahoo.com wrote:
Contrary to Don's assertion, practically
speaking it's no more "destructive" to apply a profile than to make
your own corrections, particularly if you're working with a 16-bit
file.
Actually it is! This is why:
When you make your own corrections you can always go back to your
backup/archive and start again.
Once the scanner has *applied* (not assigned!) the profile there's no
way to get the original information back! Yes, in theory you can
reverse the profile but then you end up with an image twice removed
from the original.
Hence "corruption".
Now, as I always say, how much of it is visible with our 8-bit eyes -
or whether we even care - is another story, but there's corruption,
all right.
[/quote]
I realize that you're right in theory, but I'm not sure this is really
an issue in practice.
If you're scanning at 16-bit, well, there will certainly be corruption
due to multiple edits, but it won't have any real impact: you just have
a lot of "spare bits" to work with.
If you're scanning at 8-bit, then what you say holds. However, some or
many scanners (many flatbeds, at least, as I've said) *work at 16-bit
internally* even when outputting 8-bit.
This means that applying the profile *inside* the scanner will probably
be best.
Well, in theory this also means that you should apply *all* of your
edits inside the scanner (actually combining them into one edit), but
that's a bit impractical. Personally, I'd just scan at 16-bit in that
case (i.e. if I know I'm going to heavily edit afterwards, and want good
colors).
[quote][snip]
[/quote]
by LjL
ljlbox@tiscali.it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:03:00 +0200, "Lorenzo J. Lucchini"
<ljlbox@tiscali.it> wrote:
| Quote: | Once the scanner has *applied* (not assigned!) the profile there's no
way to get the original information back! Yes, in theory you can
reverse the profile but then you end up with an image twice removed
from the original.
Hence "corruption".
Now, as I always say, how much of it is visible with our 8-bit eyes -
or whether we even care - is another story, but there's corruption,
all right.
I realize that you're right in theory, but I'm not sure this is really
an issue in practice.
|
It is if one cares for maximum quality. If one doesn't, it's not! ;o)
| Quote: | If you're scanning at 16-bit, well, there will certainly be corruption
due to multiple edits, but it won't have any real impact: you just have
a lot of "spare bits" to work with.
|
And that's the key! By the time you reduce to 8-bit for
viewing/printing all of that "16-bit corruption" will disappear.
| Quote: | If you're scanning at 8-bit, then what you say holds. However, some or
many scanners (many flatbeds, at least, as I've said) *work at 16-bit
internally* even when outputting 8-bit.
|
It doesn't matter what internal bit depth is used. If you do
*anything* to the 8-bit image afterwards, image quality will suffer.
On the other hand, if you take this 8-bit output "as is" and do
*nothing* to it, then yes. The question is how realistic is that?
| Quote: | This means that applying the profile *inside* the scanner will probably
be best.
|
Not if you have to remove the damage the profile has done. Especially
not if that damage has to be removed in an 8-bit file!!
| Quote: | Well, in theory this also means that you should apply *all* of your
edits inside the scanner (actually combining them into one edit), but
that's a bit impractical.
|
Exactly! (Actually, a *lot* impractical!)
| Quote: | Personally, I'd just scan at 16-bit in that
case (i.e. if I know I'm going to heavily edit afterwards, and want good
colors).
|
Exactly #2! ;o)
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:45 pm Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
Don wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:03:00 +0200, "Lorenzo J. Lucchini"
ljlbox@tiscali.it> wrote:
|
<snipped some>
| Quote: | If you're scanning at 16-bit, well, there will certainly be corruption
due to multiple edits, but it won't have any real impact: you just have
a lot of "spare bits" to work with.
And that's the key! By the time you reduce to 8-bit for
viewing/printing all of that "16-bit corruption" will disappear.
If you're scanning at 8-bit, then what you say holds. However, some or
many scanners (many flatbeds, at least, as I've said) *work at 16-bit
internally* even when outputting 8-bit.
It doesn't matter what internal bit depth is used. If you do
*anything* to the 8-bit image afterwards, image quality will suffer.
On the other hand, if you take this 8-bit output "as is" and do
*nothing* to it, then yes. The question is how realistic is that?
This means that applying the profile *inside* the scanner will probably
be best.
Not if you have to remove the damage the profile has done. Especially
not if that damage has to be removed in an 8-bit file!!
|
Maybe a different way to look at it is to consider the color shifts the
scanner introduces to the photo as "corruption" or "noise". Bart vdW
was describing in another thread how boosted exposure can decrease
"photon shot noise" with the drawback of additional, but less overall,
dark area noise. In the same sense, using a profile to alter the image
data can restore the original color data at the expense of discarding a
small portion of the bit depth of the scanner output. If the result
matches the original colors better than any subjective adjustment
could, there's a *decrease* in the "corruption" of the original colors
despite the slightly increased corruption of the intermediary scanner
data. In other words, it's an exchange of more one type of "noise" for
less of another...even for 8-bit images, under ordinary conditions.
That's all irrelevant if one considers the scanner data to be the
starting point for all future adjustments rather than an intermediate
point between an accurate transfer of the original image to onscreen or
printed output. You've made it very clear that you want your own
images to come through *exactly* as the scanner sees them at its
optimal hardware settings. :) Of course, if worried about future output
needs, one can always store the original scan without color adjustment
*and* apply a profile and color space conversion to a copy (provided
one has the right software :P). Ultimately, the profiling decisions
all come back to one's original scanning objectives.
false_dmitrii |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lorenzo J. Lucchini
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:27 pm Post subject:
Re: Scanner Profiling: Critical or Luxury? |
|
|
Don wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:03:00 +0200, "Lorenzo J. Lucchini"
ljlbox@tiscali.it> wrote:
Once the scanner has *applied* (not assigned!) the profile there's no
way to get the original information back! Yes, in theory you can
reverse the profile but then you end up with an image twice removed
from the original.
Hence "corruption".
Now, as I always say, how much of it is visible with our 8-bit eyes -
or whether we even care - is another story, but there's corruption,
all right.
I realize that you're right in theory, but I'm not sure this is really
an issue in practice.
It is if one cares for maximum quality. If one doesn't, it's not! ;o)
|
I didn't mean that...
| Quote: | [snip]
If you're scanning at 8-bit, then what you say holds. However, some or
many scanners (many flatbeds, at least, as I've said) *work at 16-bit
internally* even when outputting 8-bit.
It doesn't matter what internal bit depth is used. If you do
*anything* to the 8-bit image afterwards, image quality will suffer.
|
But then, that's a question of "using 8-bit instead of 16-bit", it has
nothing to do with using a profile or not.
| Quote: | On the other hand, if you take this 8-bit output "as is" and do
*nothing* to it, then yes. The question is how realistic is that?
|
I don't know. But, as far as the profile is concerned, *you don't do
anything* do the 8-bit output, as the color correction *is done to the
16-bit scan* that the scanner has access to internally.
If we want to discuss 16-bit vs 8-bit, we can, and we have, but that's a
separate issue from that of "can applying a color profile at scan time
cause corruption"?
The answer is: it can't, provided that you *either* work at 16-bit *or*
you work at 8-bit *but the scanner applies the profile internally*
(hence, on its own 16-bit data coming from the sensor).
| Quote: | This means that applying the profile *inside* the scanner will probably
be best.
Not if you have to remove the damage the profile has done. Especially
not if that damage has to be removed in an 8-bit file!!
|
How can you say it's "damage"?
In theory, a decent color profile should give decent colors.
In practice, there might be many reasons why this need not be true.
But it's unpredictable: with one scan (film type such, density such,
etc) the scan might be closer to "correct" without the color profile
applied, while with another scan (another film type, other densities,
etc) the scan might be closer to "correct" with the color profile applied.
So, your argument might be an argument in favor of scanning at 16-bit
(don't have to "risk" on whether or not to apply a profile), but it
isn't an argument against applying color profiles inside the scanner.
| Quote: | Well, in theory this also means that you should apply *all* of your
edits inside the scanner (actually combining them into one edit), but
that's a bit impractical.
Exactly! (Actually, a *lot* impractical!)
|
Granted. But even if you *don't* do all the edits inside the scanner
(since it's impractical), you still lose nothing by doing *color
correction alone* inside the scanner.
Rather -- you *might* lose something, but then you might also lose
something by *not* doing it.
I can really only see two solutions to this dilemma: either do
everything inside the scanner (impractical, we know), or scan at 16-bit.
But again, this doesn't have much to do with color profiles, in itself.
by LjL
ljlbox@tiscali.it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in