K
Kennedy McEwen
Don said:
Including you?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Including you?
K
Kennedy McEwen
Which is, of course, why you decided to qualify your statement with yetDon said:Anyway, let's get my *full* original statement in here for
recalibration:
another false statement about cars in Holland when I queried the error.
Don, you are so full of caveats... after the fact!
D
Don
Which is, of course, why you decided to qualify your statement with yet
another false statement about cars in Holland when I queried the error.
Don, you are so full of caveats... after the fact!
What do you mean "after the fact"?
That quote was the *original* statement and it says so quite clearly
Don.
D
Don
Yes you are talking about analogue gain if you are discussing "changes
in your scanner software (regardless of bit depth)". You might not be
thinking that, but its real hard to work out what you are thinking from
what you are saying!
We are not talking *only* about:
"changes in your scanner software (regardless of bit depth)"
We are talking about:
"changes in your scanner software (regardless of bit depth)"
*** vs. *** <=== !!!
raw.
And then Analog Gain is of no consequence. Whether Analog Gain is used
in both cases or not, doesn't matter. Either way it is (or isn't) on
*both* sides of the equation and contributes absolutely nothing to the
comparison.
You keep ignoring the original statement which caused this sub-thread:
I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
You lose a lot of quality this way.
What does that have to do with Analog Gain?
Don.
D
Don
Including you?
Absolutely!!!
Indeed, since I'm the one giving advice it is primarily aimed at me
and only then at anybody else.
Isn't that self-evident from the above statement?
Don.
K
Kennedy McEwen
Don, your statement stands and falls by the words you type and yourDon said:We are not talking *only* about:
"changes in your scanner software (regardless of bit depth)"
We are talking about:
"changes in your scanner software (regardless of bit depth)"
*** vs. *** <=== !!!
raw.
paragraph above is quoted in full. You make the point that your
absolute statement is "regardless of bit depth" but you have *never*
clarified that you are making a conditional statement in regards to one
particular issue until several posts later.
Nothing, however your absolute statement made in response to this thatYou keep ignoring the original statement which caused this sub-thread:
You lose a lot of quality this way.
What does that have to do with Analog Gain?
"*exactly* the opposite is true" has *everything* to do with analogue
gain and any other non-Photoshop edit/control because that is what
exactly opposite means!
You keep ignoring the fact that my objection to your statement was the
precise use of the word "exactly", because it is generally true but not
universally so.
K
Kennedy McEwen
No, and this is emphasised by your previous tirade of posts specificallyDon said:Absolutely!!!
Indeed, since I'm the one giving advice it is primarily aimed at me
and only then at anybody else.
Isn't that self-evident from the above statement?
to the effect that his workflow is wrong or inadequate.
K
Kennedy McEwen
Specifically that your original statement did not stand in its own rightDon said:What do you mean "after the fact"?
but required further caveats that you did not mean "most cars in
Europe", but "most cars in Holland" and then finally that you had
erroneously been led to believe that most cars in Holland... Only after
the third qualification was your statement actually correct, by which
time it was meaningless.
A
Anoni Moose
(e-mail address removed) (Don) wrote in message
It's curious that of all the European brands of cars sold in the
U.S., none of them are hybrid cars AFAIK. And the biggest maker
of mini-vans in the U.S. is a German company.
Mike
P.S. - There are trucks and busses which run off of natural gas,
as well as diesel cars that run off of vegetable oil that's
starting to make ripples in the news. But they don't dominate
(nor do SUVs, most cars are mundane sedans even if SUV's are
indeed popular). Sedans cost less.
Which leads to only one conclusion: The cars in Europe pollute (at
least) an order of magnitude less than cars in North America. Or as I
originally put it: "certainly far less than 4WD monsters common in
North America".
It's curious that of all the European brands of cars sold in the
U.S., none of them are hybrid cars AFAIK. And the biggest maker
of mini-vans in the U.S. is a German company.
Mike
P.S. - There are trucks and busses which run off of natural gas,
as well as diesel cars that run off of vegetable oil that's
starting to make ripples in the news. But they don't dominate
(nor do SUVs, most cars are mundane sedans even if SUV's are
indeed popular). Sedans cost less.
B
Bruce Graham
Don, your statement stands and falls by the words you type and your
paragraph above is quoted in full. You make the point that your
absolute statement is "regardless of bit depth" but you have *never*
clarified that you are making a conditional statement in regards to one
particular issue until several posts later.
come on guys. you both have useful things to say, but they are not in
this thread anymore!
Bruce Graham
D
Don
Specifically that your original statement did not stand in its own right
but required further caveats that you did not mean "most cars in
Europe", but "most cars in Holland" and then finally that you had
erroneously been led to believe that most cars in Holland... Only after
the third qualification was your statement actually correct, by which
time it was meaningless.
You conveniently deleted the relevant part so here it is again:
... certainly far less than 4WD monsters
common in North America.
Since that was my *original* message, that was "before the fact".
Don.
D
Don
(e-mail address removed) (Don) wrote in message
It's curious that of all the European brands of cars sold in the
U.S., none of them are hybrid cars AFAIK. And the biggest maker
of mini-vans in the U.S. is a German company.
I think it's probably because natural gas vehicles do not have as much
"kick" as the gasoline powered cars. And, unlike Europeans who pay
thought the nose, the North Americans pay considerably less for
gasoline so why give up this power when there's no apparent benefit -
aside from environmental benefits but that's apparently not on the top
of the list, if it is on the list at all... There are exceptions,
though, like California.
P.S. - There are trucks and busses which run off of natural gas,
as well as diesel cars that run off of vegetable oil that's
starting to make ripples in the news. But they don't dominate
(nor do SUVs, most cars are mundane sedans even if SUV's are
indeed popular). Sedans cost less.
I believe that the Post Office vans are also switching to electric. It
actually makes a lot of sense: there's no need for speed, they only
travel limited distances and are very quiet to boot, so electric power
seems to fit the bill perfectly.
Don.
D
Don
Don, your statement stands and falls by the words you type and your
paragraph above is quoted in full. You make the point that your
absolute statement is "regardless of bit depth" but you have *never*
clarified that you are making a conditional statement in regards to one
particular issue until several posts later.
Because it was implicit (and common sense!) from the start (see below
for explanation) and repeated explicitly several times afterwards when
you brought it up as a side issue.
You keep trying to change the subject and digressing with Analog Gain
and bit depth, etc. all of which have nothing to do with *comparison*
of "raw" vs. "cooked" scans.
What does bit depth have to do with the *comparison* of "raw" vs.
"cooked" scans? You either use 8-bit for *both*, or 16-bit for *both*
but which depth you chose has nothing to do with the comparison of raw
vs. cooked.
Surely, you are not suggesting comparing a "raw 8-bit scan" with a
"cooked 16-bit scan". That would make no sense whatsoever and there is
absolutely no need to exclude such a case explicitly because that's
self-evident and implicit!
I mean, what's next? According to you, should I also have explicitly
stated that the resolution of raw and cooked must be the same? Or that
we should use the same scanner for both? Or that we should do the
scans immediately one after the other? Etc. Etc. Etc.
If you want to parse the original statement to such an absurd degree,
no discussion is possible. There's a common sense context which is
always implied and the same bit-depth, same Analog Gain, same
resolution etc of both scans being compared in the above case are such
a common sense context.
Nothing, however your absolute statement made in response to this that
"*exactly* the opposite is true" has *everything* to do with analogue
gain and any other non-Photoshop edit/control because that is what
exactly opposite means!
But Analog Gain applies (or doesn't) *equally* to both (just like
bit-depth)! So how can Analog Gain make any difference to the
*comparison* if it affects (or doesn't) both sides equally?
You keep ignoring the fact that my objection to your statement was the
precise use of the word "exactly", because it is generally true but not
universally so.
It is universally true within the given (and simple) context of
comparing raw vs. cooked.
A raw scan gives you the purest data, any changes related to color
balance or contrast in scanner software "corrupts" this data.
Therefore, stating that "raw corrupts" is exactly the opposite of the
truth.
If you *unilaterally* start applying Analog Gain to raw, you have
changed the subject because you are no longer comparing raw to cooked,
but "raw + Analog Gain" to "cooked - Analog Gain". And that
"comparison" is senseless. That's both self-evident and implicit.
Don.
D
Don
come on guys. you both have useful things to say, but they are not in
this thread anymore!
I didn't realize anyone else still read this, I thought you guys tuned
out ages ago... ;o)
Killfile us until this blows over and Kennedy and I become the best of
friends again... ;o)
Don.
D
Don
No, and this is emphasised by your previous tirade of posts specifically
to the effect that his workflow is wrong or inadequate.
I never said such a thing! Quotes please (*in context*).
I said that his *statement* was wrong, but any workflow he chooses is
his own business.
Indeed, you challenged me about this very thing in another sub-thread
and I provided the quotes after which you went silent. Should I repeat
them again here?
fx: Everybody else, all together now: Nooooo, please don't... ;o)
Don.
K
Kennedy McEwen
On the contrary Don, you have focussed on one specific sentence ofDon said:Because it was implicit (and common sense!) from the start (see below
for explanation) and repeated explicitly several times afterwards when
you brought it up as a side issue.
You keep trying to change the subject and digressing with Analog Gain
and bit depth, etc. all of which have nothing to do with *comparison*
of "raw" vs. "cooked" scans.
Toby's comment, ignoring the remainder of the paragraph in which he
explained why he believed that to be true. Strangely, you seen to have
a problem when others focus on one particular sentence of yours, which
was much more absolute in its coverage.
K
Kennedy McEwen
Well, you don't need to look far for evidence to refute that, your firstDon said:I never said such a thing! Quotes please (*in context*).
I said that his *statement* was wrong, but any workflow he chooses is
his own business.
input on the thread was:
Toby wrote:
"> I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
You lose a lot of quality this way."
Don wrote:
"Forgive me, but that is just plain nonsense. Exactly the opposite is
true.
By doing image editing at the scanning stage you irreparably *corrupt*
the image at the earliest possible stage and with the crudest possible
"tools".
If, instead, you scan as faithfully as possible you will have the
equivalent of a "digital negative". After that you can edit as much as
you want and still have the original untainted - should you change your
mind.
By "adjusting" the image at the scanning stage using the Preview
"keyhole" you are just irretrievably damaging data coming from the
scanner. Something which is often impossible to correct later and
certainly not without additional loss of quality. "
At no point in this, or in most of your subsequent posts have you even
suggested that "any workflow he chooses is his own business. "
K
Kennedy McEwen
Don said:You conveniently deleted the relevant part so here it is again:
No I did not delete *the* relevant part of your statement. I deleted *a
part* which was irrelevant to the point I disagreed with. Furthermore,
I suspect that even that part is erroneous, though I chose not to
respond to it because the evidence to contradict your initial statement
was much more readily to hand. However, many vehicles sold and run in
Europe simply cannot even appear on the US market because of the
*tougher* emission regulations there.
H
Harald.
Very, very interesting talk going on here - thank you very much
everybody for sharing your knowledge.
There is one thing that isn't yet clear to me: What actually is a RAW
scan? The definition seems to vary between users. And more
importantly, how do actually get a raw scan from a coolscan (V or
4000)? As most of you will know, the manuals aren't of any help.
Can someone here please enlighten me with the actual settings (incl.
preferences) needed in NikonScan 4 to get the most raw scans.
Many thanks, Harald
everybody for sharing your knowledge.
There is one thing that isn't yet clear to me: What actually is a RAW
scan? The definition seems to vary between users. And more
importantly, how do actually get a raw scan from a coolscan (V or
4000)? As most of you will know, the manuals aren't of any help.
Can someone here please enlighten me with the actual settings (incl.
preferences) needed in NikonScan 4 to get the most raw scans.
Many thanks, Harald
W
WD
RAW scan simply means capturing all the data delivered by the A/D
converter in the scanner with no massaging or truncation.
For example, if you are scanning negatives and had true RAW scan
data and viewed
a histogram of such, you would find that most of the data range was
approx. 0 and the useful data from the negative would occupy a
relatively
small portion of a histogram since the dynamic range of a good scanner
exceeds the dynamic
range of the negative itself.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that Nikonscan can generate a true RAW
file.
It is claimed that the NEF is a RAW format, but I believe that only
applies
to the NEF format for Nikon's digital cameras.
Nikonscan has several important shortcomings and not generating a true
RAW data file
is one of them.
W
converter in the scanner with no massaging or truncation.
For example, if you are scanning negatives and had true RAW scan
data and viewed
a histogram of such, you would find that most of the data range was
approx. 0 and the useful data from the negative would occupy a
relatively
small portion of a histogram since the dynamic range of a good scanner
exceeds the dynamic
range of the negative itself.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that Nikonscan can generate a true RAW
file.
It is claimed that the NEF is a RAW format, but I believe that only
applies
to the NEF format for Nikon's digital cameras.
Nikonscan has several important shortcomings and not generating a true
RAW data file
is one of them.
W