[HUG ] Re: IMG: Triptych

Austin,
I had read that the good thing about RAW scans is that you only need scan an 
image once and then archive the original... any other adjustments  can be made 
from the RAW data....

> From: austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [HUG ] Re: IMG: Triptych
> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:18:15 -0500
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> Raw files being the latest advancement?  What on earth are you talking
> about?  Raw files were typically what was output from scanners (and digital
> cameras) since the inception of digital imaging.  Of course they are no big
> secret.  Perhaps from lower end and P&S digicams, OK...but the raw file has
> been around for the three decades I've been designing digital imaging
> equipment.
> 
> You're also talking about scanning technique.  If your scans are lacking and
> you are finding that you get more usable information from your raw scans,
> then you are doing something wrong.  It's been proven time and time again
> (and many bets and challenges have been lost claiming otherwise...read
> Margulis), when scanning film, that if you get your setpoints and tonal
> curves correct in the first place, you do not need to use/save raw scans.
> It does take some skill, but the bottom line is, raw scans are useless in
> and of them selves, and you need to do setpoints and tonal curves to them to
> make them useful.  Those setpoints and tonal curves can only be just so
> good...you run out of information that can be had after a certain point.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:hasselblad-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Mark Rabiner
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:52 PM
> > To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [HUG ] Re: IMG: Triptych
> >
> >
> > They is people doing photography over the last years Raw is known be the
> > latest advancement in the way people do photography. Its not a big secret.
> >
> > When you open a raw scanned file in Photoshop its a whole new ballgame its
> > evident immediately. Its quite a trill.
> > Its like watching your first print come out from sheet film
> > instead of 35mm.
> >
> > I had to go back and re scan images I'd done the old way as I
> > realized that
> > this is what was needed and in comparison at least these old scans were
> > "bad" scans. Especially in a wide range tonality image.
> > http://rabinergroup.com/ImagePages/Laterellefallspage.html
> >
> > The older scans I made of this neg never held everything. I'd get lacking
> > detail in the dark side of the rocks or highlighted side of the water.
> >
> > The raw scan which a result you are looking at easily did.
> > From shadow to highlight. All very much their and easily to tweak like you
> > want in Photoshop.
> >
> > Raw scans are more meaty.
> > More succulent.
> >
> > But you shouldn't need steak knives they're quite tender.
> >
> >
> > Mark William Rabiner
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: Austin Franklin <austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Reply-To: "hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:57:38 -0500
> > > To: <hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: [HUG ] Re: IMG: Triptych
> > >
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > >> I don't have names for the data but I do have the experience of
> > >> shooting and
> > >> scanning in raw and then dealing with the info and the info is
> > >> all there...
> > >
> > > Certainly, that is what raw data should be...
> > >
> > >> ...to
> > >> deal with an a much more non clipped manner it sure feels and
> > looks like.
> > >
> > > For JPG, no doubt.  For TIFF, that is, as I am trying to say,
> > implementation
> > > dependant.  There is nothing preventing a TIFF file from
> > containing exactly
> > > the same data as a raw file.
> > >
> > >> And this is what they're telling everybody and everybody seems to be
> > >> believing it.
> > >
> > > Who is the "they"?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Austin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ==================================================================
> > ============
> > > ===============================
> > > To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> > > account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when
> > you subscribed,)
> > > and unsubscribe from there.
> >
> >
> >
> > ==================================================================
> > ===========================================
> > To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon
> > to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up
> > when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> =============================================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you 
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>

Other related posts: