Vuescan Review at Photo-i

[Don]

LOL. If you say so Don.

It doesn't matter what I say. It's a simple, self-evident *fact*.

Question: Where does the profile get all this missing data the scanner
itself was unable to retrieve?

Bear in mind that the vast, overwhelming majority of the pro world
(photographers, labs, printers, magazines, printer manufacturers,
scanner manufacturers, camera makers, etc) rely on color calibration
charts and the profiles they produce because they
(1) work
(2) make our jobs easier
(3) produce better images
(4) don't "damage" the images.

If any of these were not true, people would not use calibration.

You're - once again - completely misunderstanding what I say, and then
going off on a wild tangent based on your misunderstanding -
attributing things to me I have never said!

Can you point in the above paragraph where do I say that calibration
in the workflow after scanning is bad?

Indeed, where in the above paragraph do I even *mention* calibration
regarding the rest of the workflow?

I really don't know how much clearly to put this:

This is *not* about calibration but about *data integrity*!

Now, which part of that statement is causing you such great
difficulty?

Don.

 

[Don]

J is scanning very recently exposed (by himself) and processed (by well
trusted labs) film. It strikes me that in this situation calibration at
every level is the way to go, in fact it is plain common sense.

Don however is (I think...apologies if I've got this wrong) scanning
older material for the purpose of archiving. If my experience is
anything to go by fading and colour shifting will be present and to
very varying degrees. In this situation scanner calibration / profiling
will be of very little if any benifit at all.

That is correct but the workflow should not affect the understanding
of what I'm saying. For J it apparently does and that's the problem.

Namely, even with freshly processed film, *scanner/film* calibration -
as opposed to monitor/printer calibration (!) in the rest of the
workflow - is of limited use because, normally, the result of
scanner/film calibration will be changed by editing.

In other words, what's on the film is not what's in the finished
product. Therefore, attempting to replicate what's on the film through
profiling (although appealing) is really of limited use. Furthermore,
by changing the raw scanner data, scanner/film profiling may actually
limit editing options by reducing the amount of available raw data.

That's what J has problems grasping, as well as the distinction
between scanner/film calibration and calibration in the rest of the
workflow.

Now, if one doesn't edit, but goes straight from scanning to display
or print, then scanner/film calibration makes perfect sense.

But once any editing takes place, scanner/film calibration becomes
virtually irrelevant. The proof is that we can successfully
incorporate images from an unknown and/or uncalibrated source into a
calibrated workflow.

Don.

 

[Don]

Just because you change mediums does not mean colors
lose their relationships to each other - or to physical examples of
those color in the non digital world.

And where did I say they do?

Of course, that has also nothing to do with the subject matter.

If a color exists in all the color spaces we pass through, why is there
any reason to expect it to be rendered as anything but the original value?

Except when the original value is wrong and will be changed in
editing!

So, whether this *wrong* value exist in any color space or not, is
totally beside the point. Indeed, color space is beside the point.

Again, all that has nothing to do with the subject matter.

An "in gamut" red of a flower should be the same RGB value from the
flower to the print.

Except when the flower in the end product is pink.

And if the scanner scans it as pink, the scanner profile will "do us a
favor" and change it to red. And then we will import it into PS and
change it back to pink.

Now, how has the scanner profile helped us, exactly?

Now if I want to change the red for creative reasons, fine.

For *whatever* reasons! That is not the point.

But unless actively choose to edit that color, the production chain
should be neutral with respect to that "in-gamut" color. That is to say,
it should not shift it blue or green or change the luminance in any
representation of the image from file to monitor to printer.

And how many times have I already repeated that monitor and printer
calibration are essential?

Again:

This has *nothing* to do with monitor/printer calibration!

It's about how *scanner* calibration.

It's like a ruler. When I measure an meter using a ruler, I don't want
my ruler to give me a longer or shorter meter depending on which day I
use it.

Except, you're trying to measure volume using a ruler!!!

Asked and answered.

*Not* answered!

Which proves that scanner calibration is irrelevant to the *rest* of
the calibrated workflow.

Besides, the "unknown image" is a straw argument. It has no bearing on
whether calibration works under *known* conditions, which *is* what we
are talking about.

No, it's what you (want to) talk about.

Unknown image is essential because it exposes the irrelevance of
scanner calibration.

If scanner calibration were necessary for the *rest* of the
calibration process, you'd be unable to handle an image from an
unknown source.

I'll agree that you can make a good print that looks nothing like the
slide. But that's not how I work and not what I'm trying to do.

And that's the crux... And probably the (or at least "a") reason for
all the misunderstanding.

This is not about how you or I work. This is about *objective fact*.

A print showing a bowl of blue apples may look great.

But if I shot green apples, and my film shows green apples, then I want
green and only green apples in that bowl when I print it.

My scanner has no business telling me those are blue apples! And I will
correct its output with a profile.

Which is why I keep repeating: If you don't edit, then scanner
calibration makes perfect sense.

What we're talking about is when your film shows blue apples, your
scanner scans them green, but your profile "does you a favor" and
changes them to blue!

.... repetitions omitted ...

That's specious argument.
(1) You and I both know the emulsion and scanner used when we scan our
images.
(2) It has nothing to do with whether calibration works on known images.

It's unknown. You do the best you can.

And the result is just as good as from a scan with a scanner profile.

Therefore, a scanner profile has no influence on the final product.

Monitor/printer calibration does, but scanner profile does not.

Um, no.
(1) I use far less correction or most of the time none if its calibrated
(2) I don't have to tweak dozens of colors to get them in the right place.

It doesn't matter!

The point is if you were give two images, one from a calibrated source
and the other one from an uncalibrated source. Without knowing which
is which, you would proceed to edit them both in *exactly* the same
way!!

Therefore, whether the scan was calibrated or not is totally
irrelevant to the rest of the workflow!

No you haven't shown me, but I guess you know that already.

Yes I have!

How do you explain that your workflow is exactly the same *after* you
get the image into PS?

You don't know if the image comes from a calibrated or uncalibrated
source. How do you proceed?

Exactly the same, in both cases!

Therefore, scanner calibration is irrelevant to the rest of the
process.

Don.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

And where did I say they do?

Of course, that has also nothing to do with the subject matter.

My mistake then. I thought that in talking about how an image changed
when you go from a shiny transparent film to a matte inkjet print was
what you meant when you said the output does not look like the input. If
that is not what you meant then I am mistaken.

Except when the original value is wrong and will be changed in
editing!

So, whether this *wrong* value exist in any color space or not, is
totally beside the point. Indeed, color space is beside the point.

Again, all that has nothing to do with the subject matter.

My point is that a red flower in the physical world is a red flower, and
as such is "right" as a red flower on a print. If you choose to
represent it s purple, that is a creative decision, but its "right"
color is red.

And how many times have I already repeated that monitor and printer
calibration are essential?

Again:

This has *nothing* to do with monitor/printer calibration!

See above.

Except, you're trying to measure volume using a ruler!!!

Not at all. See above.

*Not* answered!

I have repeatedly stated that
(1) a photo from an "unknown source" is not subject to calibration and
is therefore outside of the discussion of calibration - it neither
supports nor detracts from the value or calibration

(2) the image that you and I shoot are know to us, as is the scanner, so
there is not an "unknown image" in this context

(3) if we do take an image from a "unknown source" we do the best we can.

The "unknown image from and unknown source" is (as I have said in the
past ) as straw argument. It sets up a false counter thesis - that
calibration workflow cannot deal with an image from an unknown source. -
when in fact it is outside the context of the discussion. Calibration
worklflows depend upon know sources - film and scanner - if you don't
know where is came from then you can't calibrate. That doesn't mean the
method is invalid - it just does not apply there.

So yes, asked and answered.

Which proves that scanner calibration is irrelevant to the *rest* of
the calibrated workflow.

Ummm, no.

No, it's what you (want to) talk about.

Unknown image is essential because it exposes the irrelevance of
scanner calibration.

If scanner calibration were necessary for the *rest* of the
calibration process, you'd be unable to handle an image from an
unknown source.

See above.

And that's the crux... And probably the (or at least "a") reason for
all the misunderstanding.

This is not about how you or I work. This is about *objective fact*.

ROFL. There you go again with this objective silliness. We work
differently - accept that.

It is not an objective fact that your methods/ideas are better. I have
tried them. They don't work for me - however I am willing to accept that
they work for you. There's nothing objective about them, other than your
vantage point.

Which is why I keep repeating: If you don't edit, then scanner
calibration makes perfect sense.

What we're talking about is when your film shows blue apples, your
scanner scans them green, but your profile "does you a favor" and
changes them to blue!

LOL. Ok. I'll accept such favors.

But seroiusly, if your film shows blue, and your scanne give you green,
don't you think there's a translation problem?

And in correcting that "green" to "blue" would it be prudent to use a
measurement of the difference so that you didn't overcorrect or under
correct??

(thus calibration...)

... repetitions omitted ...




And the result is just as good as from a scan with a scanner profile.

Actually, its not. And I have done many - prints of perhaps more than 80
images - that show that my corrections without the benefit of
calibration are inferior to correct made after calibration.

It doesn't matter!

The point is if you were give two images, one from a calibrated source
and the other one from an uncalibrated source. Without knowing which
is which, you would proceed to edit them both in *exactly* the same
way!!

That's not quite a relevant argument.

try this one:

If I were given two files of the same image, one calibrated and one not,
without knowing which was which, I would make fewer and smaller changes
to the calibrated one - because it does not need as much. I did such est
extensively when I was evalauting the value of calibration.

How do you explain that your workflow is exactly the same *after* you
get the image into PS?

Its not the same. As I have same again , and again, and again, I use far
fewer edits, that are far smaller if I work from a calibrated image. In
fact, most of the time I make no changes.

If I started from an uncalibrated image file, I would make many more
changes of greater magnitude - I've tested this repeatedly.


This is turning into "is not! Is too!"

Before it degenerates further, i will accede that that your
methods/ideas work for you and mine work for me. The rest of the world
can evaluate each and see what work for them.

Deal?

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

That is correct but the workflow should not affect the understanding
of what I'm saying. For J it apparently does and that's the problem.

Namely, even with freshly processed film, *scanner/film* calibration -
as opposed to monitor/printer calibration (!) in the rest of the
workflow - is of limited use because, normally, the result of
scanner/film calibration will be changed by editing.

In other words, what's on the film is not what's in the finished
product. Therefore, attempting to replicate what's on the film through
profiling (although appealing) is really of limited use. Furthermore,
by changing the raw scanner data, scanner/film profiling may actually
limit editing options by reducing the amount of available raw data.

That's what J has problems grasping, as well as the distinction
between scanner/film calibration and calibration in the rest of the
workflow.

Now, if one doesn't edit, but goes straight from scanning to display
or print, then scanner/film calibration makes perfect sense.

But once any editing takes place, scanner/film calibration becomes
virtually irrelevant. The proof is that we can successfully
incorporate images from an unknown and/or uncalibrated source into a
calibrated workflow.

Don, Don, Don....

His point is that recently made calibration slide are the cause of my
success with calibration and your failure. Calibration is useless in old
faded slides. If that's what you are starting with, then it makes
perfect sense that calibration is counter productive for you.

(However, I have used calibration with E-6 slides that are 18 years old
and not faded. Works just fine. As soon as I get the Kodachrome
calibration slide form B&H - tomorrow - I will try it with 18 yo
Kodachrome)

I don't have any trouble grasping what you are saying Don. really I
don't. It just doesn't work for me.

I understand perfectly well that when i edit an image I am changing
information.

You view changing a a scanned file as "damage" - objectively I might add
- and I don't. I see it as necessary correction. Again, we differ. Fine.

But you and I have different reference point and goals. I want my output
- monitor or print to look like my slide. You don't care as long as its
pleasing. We differ. Fine.

You want to do every edit manually. I want to start from what looks like
the slide. We differ. Fine.

It may be the source material we are working with (new FujiChrome vs old
Kodachrome) Or it may not.

You believe you can correct uncalibrated images to look as good as they
would had you started from a calibrated image.

I do not believe my corrections to uncalibrated images look nearly as
good as those I do to calibrated images. Nor do I believe it is worth
the effort involved to get close when an calibrated profile gets me
there much faster.

We differ.

I understand what you are saying Don, it just does not hold up in my
workflow. In the a past I have tried what you suggest - working from
uncalibrated images. Its does not produce good results. Nor does it
produce good results for the vast majority of other pros and
manufacturers. We differ.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

It doesn't matter what I say. It's a simple, self-evident *fact*.

Question: Where does the profile get all this missing data the scanner
itself was unable to retrieve?

Its not creating any missing data. The calibration profile it remapping
values in the scanned file so that they represent real world values. It
is not inserting or making up data. And it is only damage in *your* context.

You're - once again - completely misunderstanding what I say, and then
going off on a wild tangent based on your misunderstanding -
attributing things to me I have never said!

Can you point in the above paragraph where do I say that calibration
in the workflow after scanning is bad?

Yes. you have repeatedly characterized calibration as "damage" to the
integrity of the scanned data, and repeatedly said this kind of "damage"
was a bad thing. Furthermore you have repeatedly stated that calibration
"pretends" to correct colors and is a bad thing. So yes, you have said
that calibration is a bad thing.

Indeed, where in the above paragraph do I even *mention* calibration
regarding the rest of the workflow?

I really don't know how much clearly to put this:

This is *not* about calibration but about *data integrity*!

Now, which part of that statement is causing you such great
difficulty?

The nonsense about "data integrity" of the scan which you hold on to so
dearly, but in fact is just full of error created by the scanner. But
carry on. It works for you. And as others have suggested, your
methods/ideas work because of the condition of the slides you are
working with.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

"rafe bustin" <rafe b at speakeasy dot net> wrote in message
SNIP

Applying calibration or profiles to old,
faded slides seems like an exercise in
futility.

Although, if the profile is for the correct dye-set, the fading is
reduced to a color balancing issue. That may be easier (not easy) to
tackle if the scanner response to certain dyes is already taken out of
the equation ...

Ed Hamrick posted some useful links to the subject of fading
characteristics, before some VueScan bashers chased him away:
<http://www.mewi.unibas.ch/institut/gschwind/Habil_RG.pdf> is one of
the German language documents, the original English pages apparently
were relocated/deleted, but then VueScan has that functionality built
in, so I didn't bother to search any further for the English versions.

Bart

 

[Don]

Yes. you have repeatedly characterized calibration as "damage" to the
integrity of the scanned data, and repeatedly said this kind of "damage"
was a bad thing. Furthermore you have repeatedly stated that calibration
"pretends" to correct colors and is a bad thing. So yes, you have said
that calibration is a bad thing.

In the INPUT!!! Again: In the INPUT!!! In the SCANNER profile ONLY!!!
How many times does that need repeating?

The assertion does *not* address the *rest* of the process at all!

Please read the first line again: Where do I say that calibration
*AFTER* scanning is bad?

That has been the problem all along. You seem to have great difficulty
focusing on the subject matter but immediately go off on an irrelevant
tangent... If that weren't bad enough, you then spiral into an
undisciplined bunch of random "conclusions" all drawn on an ever more
distant set of irrational premises in a sort of a self-created
feedback loop!? Slow down. Take in one thing at a time.

Don.

 

[Don]

I have repeatedly stated that
(1) a photo from an "unknown source" is not subject to calibration and
is therefore outside of the discussion of calibration - it neither
supports nor detracts from the value or calibration

It's essential to evaluate the *effect* or *lack thereof* of scanner
calibration on the rest of the process.

(2) the image that you and I shoot are know to us, as is the scanner, so
there is not an "unknown image" in this context

Which in scientific terminology is known as "bias". And to get to the
*objective* truth we need to eliminate this bias. And to do that
science has developed objective methodologies.

(3) if we do take an image from a "unknown source" we do the best we can.

The "unknown image from and unknown source" is (as I have said in the
past ) as straw argument. It sets up a false counter thesis - that
calibration workflow cannot deal with an image from an unknown source. -

You're getting confused here. It proves exactly *the opposite*! That
*the rest* of the calibrated workflow *can* deal with an image from an
unknown source!

And if the rest of the workflow has no problem with it then whether we
start with a calibrated image or not is irrelevant!

That's not quite a relevant argument.

It's *essential* ! That's how science works. It's called a "blind
test" because the subject does not know whether the item being tested
is a placebo or not. Indeed, in a "double blind test" even the test
monitors are unaware of which subject receives a placebo.

Don.

 

[Don]

I don't have any trouble grasping what you are saying Don. really I
don't.

I'm afraid you do because you keep digressing by drawing "conclusions"
with no basis on what was said and going off on a tangent. So, since
you have so much trouble focusing, let's try a different approach...

A simple and straightforward question requiring an even simpler "Yes"
or "No" answer:

Q: Can an image from an unknown source and with unknown calibration
status be incorporated in the standard calibrated monitor/printer
workflow?

Yes or No?

Don't go off about color spaces, and your personal workflow, and
phases of the moon, and the Michael Jackson trial... and anything else
equally irrelevant. We'll get to all that in good time - except for
the last two, of course. ;o)

Just a simple: Yes or No?

That's not too much to ask. Just focus on this one simple question for
a moment. Don't go: But... but... but... Forget everything that has
gone on before and just answer this one simple question with a Yes or
No.

Can you do that?

Don.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

It's essential to evaluate the *effect* or *lack thereof* of scanner
calibration on the rest of the process.




Which in scientific terminology is known as "bias". And to get to the
*objective* truth we need to eliminate this bias. And to do that
science has developed objective methodologies.




You're getting confused here. It proves exactly *the opposite*! That
*the rest* of the calibrated workflow *can* deal with an image from an
unknown source!

And if the rest of the workflow has no problem with it then whether we
start with a calibrated image or not is irrelevant!




It's *essential* ! That's how science works. It's called a "blind
test" because the subject does not know whether the item being tested
is a placebo or not. Indeed, in a "double blind test" even the test
monitors are unaware of which subject receives a placebo.

Don.

Yes Don, i understand the concepts of double blind, etc, etc.

However, I have grown tired of talking in circles with you about the
value and impact of calibration on a color managed workflow. You want to
argue a single point (calibration at input) without considering the rest
of the image workflow, then simultaneously extrapolate erroneous
conclusions about that single point to the quality of the product at the
end workflow - which you previously excluded from the discussion.

You also seem to believe that whatever you observe is objective, while
whatever anyone else observes is subjective - regardless of the the
evidence supporting it.

Whatever your point is Don, I no longer care.

Peace

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

In the INPUT!!! Again: In the INPUT!!! In the SCANNER profile ONLY!!!
How many times does that need repeating?

The assertion does *not* address the *rest* of the process at all!

Please read the first line again: Where do I say that calibration
*AFTER* scanning is bad?

That has been the problem all along. You seem to have great difficulty
focusing on the subject matter but immediately go off on an irrelevant
tangent... If that weren't bad enough, you then spiral into an
undisciplined bunch of random "conclusions" all drawn on an ever more
distant set of irrational premises in a sort of a self-created
feedback loop!? Slow down. Take in one thing at a time.

Don, you can't have it both ways:

On the one hand you want to argue a single point about calibration at
input without regard to the rest of the workflow, yet at the same time
you cite the quality of the final product and the steps involved in the
rest of the workflow as evidence to support your original argument.

Aside from the logical inconsistencies that presents, the rebuttal to
your argument demands as its premise an end to end color managed
workflow that includes calibration at input and only works as a complete
solution. If that is something you cannot or will not accept fine.

I no longer wish to take part in the discussion. We are going around in
circles, and the quality of the discussion is deteriorating.

Peace

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

I'm afraid you do because you keep digressing by drawing "conclusions"
with no basis on what was said and going off on a tangent. So, since
you have so much trouble focusing, let's try a different approach...

A simple and straightforward question requiring an even simpler "Yes"
or "No" answer:

Q: Can an image from an unknown source and with unknown calibration
status be incorporated in the standard calibrated monitor/printer
workflow?

Yes or No?

Yes. I have said yes many times, though you refuse to read it.

On the one hand you say you are only talking about input. Then you
immediately slide into questions of work flow - can this or that type of
image be precessed in a particular workflow. That is why I have expanded
our discussion to include the workflow.

Don't go off about color spaces, and your personal workflow, and
phases of the moon, and the Michael Jackson trial... and anything else
equally irrelevant. We'll get to all that in good time - except for
the last two, of course. ;o)

Just a simple: Yes or No?

That's not too much to ask. Just focus on this one simple question for
a moment. Don't go: But... but... but... Forget everything that has
gone on before and just answer this one simple question with a Yes or
No.

This discussion has degenerated, to the point where I am no longer
interested in continuing.

Peace and good luck Don.

 

[Don]

Ed Hamrick posted some useful links to the subject of fading
characteristics, before some VueScan bashers chased him away:

Aw... How dare those mean people chase your precious Ed away. fx:
quivering lip, fighting back tears. There, there...

But seriously, since you obviously can't stop pining after him why
don't you two meet at:

alt.comp.periphs.scanners.vuescan

where you can tell him how much you missed him and how much you love
VueScan.

Over here in reality-land, rational people know that he ran away from
hordes of angry users complaining about VusScan bugs.

He said so himself:

But you know all that, of course...

Don.

 

[Don]

Yes.

Question 2:

Given a competent image editing professional working with a calibrated
monitor/printer:

Is it possible to ascertain from the finished product alone whether it
originated on a calibrated device or an unknown and/or uncalibrated
device?

Again, a simple yes or no?

Don.

 

[Roger]

alt.comp.periphs.scanners.vues­can doesn't actually exist, does it? I
wasn't able to find it. If it did exist it might be useful.

 

[Don]

alt.comp.periphs.scanners.vues­can doesn't actually exist, does it? I
wasn't able to find it. If it did exist it might be useful.

Yes it does, but your provider may not be carrying it. (BTW, it's
"vuescan" not "vues-can"!). However, the reports posted here a while
back said there was virtually no activity in the group.

Get in touch with your provider and ask if they could add it to their
feed or use a public (open access) news server which carries it.

BTW, anybody can create any group in the "alt." hierarchy, so you can
create your own, if you want to (Google for instructions).

But, if we are to believe Mr. Ed ;o) there are enough VueScan users to
submit an RFC and create their own group in the official "comp."
hierarchy, if they really wanted to. Indeed, any reputable software
manufacturer would have already done so and created a support group!
And if any software ever needed support, it's the bug-ridden VueScan!

The trouble is - as Bart keeps demonstrating - most VueScan victims
prefer to loiter here and bellyache about how their "Ed, the God" was
chased away by "mean people"... :-/

Don.