Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory
Scanner Software vs. Photoshop
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 19:01:47 -0700
From: Stephen Ray
Subject: Scanner Software Tools vs Photoshop
Question. . .
Is it fair (or accurate) to say scanner software tools
are no more powerful than any tool available in Photoshop? I'm referring to
practically any common tool regarding light/dark, hue, saturation, etc.
It's understood the various tools may be more or less
easy to use in a scanner or Photoshop interface but it seems to me the
underlying code technology would be virtually the same.
-Stephen Ray
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:36:45 -0600
From:Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Scanner Software Tools vs Photoshop
on 4/16/04 8:01 PM, CitizenRay wrote:
Is it fair (or accurate) to say scanner software tools
are no more powerful
than any tool available in Photoshop? I'm referring to
practically any
common tool regarding light/dark, hue, saturation, etc.
None that I1ve yet to see. Different. I did like some
of the tools in LinoColor (saturation curves and LCH corrections) that are
not available in Photoshop. But when the rubber hits the road, I can get
Photoshop to pretty much what I need and unlike a scanner, it1s very useful
to be able to work at a pixel level. Nearly all scanner software is working
on a low rez preview. Doing stuff like complex sharpening based on full rez
masks are impossible to do until you1ve actually scanned the image and have
the pixels to work with.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:24:25 -0700
From: Peter Figen
Subject: Re: Scanner Software Tools vs Photoshop
CitizenRay wrote:
It's understood the various tools may be more or less
easy to use in a
scanner or Photoshop interface but it seems to me the
underlying code
technology would be virtually the same.
In general that is probably correct, but there are some
scanning apps that provide things not available in Photoshop. Linocolor has
a Saturation Curve that is very cool as well as much more comprehensive
Selective Color controls than Photoshop. Trident has a great automated and
adjustable specular highlight control, allowing you to tonally correct the
image independent of the speculars and a far more sophisticated USM for
people doing production and wanting to sharpen at the scanning stage. I can
only speak to the applications I've used extensively, but I'm sure others
can comment on their own experiences. Of course, if your scanner isn't
supported by a particular app, then you're either out of luck or are in the
market for a new scanner.
Peter
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:06:19 +0100
From: Richard Kenward
Subject: Re: Scanner Software Tools vs Photoshop
In message Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Andrew Rodney writes
None that I1ve yet to see. Different. I did like some
of the tools in
LinoColor (saturation curves and LCH corrections) that
are not available in
Photoshop. But when the rubber hits the road, I can get
Photoshop to pretty
much what I need and unlike a scanner, it1s very useful
to be able to work
at a pixel level. Nearly all scanner software is
working on a low rez
preview. Doing stuff like complex sharpening based on
full rez masks are
impossible to do until you1ve actually scanned the
image and have the pixels
to work with.
Dear Andrew
Sorry but I have to correct you there. Trident
drum scanner software allows you to scan a small pre-selected section of a
scan preview at the final scanning rez. Allows for the critical
analysis you seek.....not that I am recommending doing sharpening at the
scan stage, however it does allow for critical checking for other aspects
before committing to a full blown scan.
Cheers
Richard
--
Richard Kenward
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:08:45 -0700
From: Jan Steinman
Subject: Re: Scanner Software Tools vs Photoshop
CitizenRay needs to define "powerful" better,
and what software he's talking about. In general, Photoshop's controls are
more general, but scanner software can be more specific to hardware
features of that scanner.
I think it depends on the scanner price range. For
example, many drums perform many processes in hardware, like USM or
dithering from 16 bits to 8 bits, which may be "better," or at
least faster, than doing the same thing in Photoshop.
Specifically, you're probably better off using the
scanner interface to produce 8 bits, rather than scanning at 16 bits and
doing the conversion in Photoshop, at least on high-end scanners. Why?
Because a drum scanner has logarithmic amplifiers that are programmed
according to the preview settings. You'll get less noise and more accuracy
if you correct the signals coming off the PMT, than if you blindly digitize
the entire Drange and dither it down to 8 bits in Photoshop. One should
generally prefer 8 bit scans from drums, rather than 16 bit. The earlier in
the signal path that you can make this conversion, the better off you are.
Also, if your time is worth anything, would you rather
make corrections in the same time it takes to scan, or would you rather
HAVE TO work on it in Photoshop afterward?
unlike a scanner, [Photoshop is] very useful to be able
to work
at a pixel level. Nearly all scanner software is
working on a low rez
preview.
Not so! Nearly all drum scanner software gives you
multiple options for doing pixel-level preview and comparison. ColorRight
Pro (for example) will allow multiple pixel-level previews that you can
compare to each other.
I agree with Andrew when it comes to the software that
comes with a scanner with a retail price under $5k or so, but depending on
what you mean by "powerful," the software that comes with
five-figure drum scanners is usually MUCH more sophisticated, accurate, and
speedy than what you can do in Photoshop.
For 95% of scanning needs, it's not going to matter too
much. But for the 5% of "difficult" scans performed on a
five-figure drum scanner, I'd do as much work as possible on the scanner.
: Jan Steinman <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:26:01 -0600
From:Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Scanner Software Tools vs Photoshop
on 4/17/04 7:06 PM, Richard Kenward wrote:
Sorry but I have to correct you there. Trident
drum scanner software
allows you to scan a small pre-selected section of a
scan preview at the
final scanning rez.
So does my Imacon software. Fine for viewing a small
section of an image for perhaps applying USM (which I1d never do) because I
need the FULL rez file in which to build a total image mask to run my USM
through. So no, you can1t do this with anything until the entire image is
scanned so might as well use Photoshop which has better tools anyway.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:00:38 -0700
From: Stephen Ray
Subject: Re: Re: Scanner Software Tools vs Photoshop
Jan's right, I should explain what I meant by
"powerful."
At the time of my post, I was thinking of any tool in
the scanner software toolbox using a technology (code, algorithm) that
simply was not achievable by using any Photoshop tool or any combination of
Photoshop tools, especially regarding light/dark, hue, saturation. I'm
reminded when Quantel had video effects processing where
"transparency" was a unique feature. It took Photoshop a few
years to develop (some say "copy") the same function. Same goes
with layers.
1) I don't know that LS Curves is not achievable by
using a combination of already-available PS tools. If true, LS Curves would
be more powerful but probably only to the extent of saving time, which is
of course, important but I'm concerned more about the fact one result being
possible or not using PS.
2) It's interesting to learn from Jan's post and I'm
surprised that USM could actually be tied to hardware. (I was aware of
scanner software methods of using discrete channels, again, maybe
achievable in PS.) I'll divert my questions concerning hardware to another
post so I don't stray off on a tangent.
I understand how scanner software could make calls to
control hardware voltage, timing, etc., which affects quality. I'm more
interested in the tools available in the interface for the time being.
Sincerely,
-Stephen Ray
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 06:52:17 -0600
From:Andrew Rodney
Subject: Re: Re: Scanner Software Tools vs Photoshop
on 4/18/04 4:00 PM, CitizenRay wrote:
It's interesting to learn from Jan's post and I'm
surprised that USM
could actually be tied to hardware.
That in now way guarantee's it1s any better (and I
would submit compared to techniques you can do on a real file not). Faster
certainly. Better? I1m not at all convinced.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:05:03 -0400
From: Lee Clawson
Subject: Re: Re: Scanner Software Tools vs Photoshop
Stephen,
Almost all our scans today capture as wide a density
range as possible. For me having Photoshop display a full size hi-res image
with a real-time preview (visual and numerical) makes up for what I miss.
Here's 3 things:
(1)--USM with sharpening and smoothing in one set-up.
(That is, one filter with no need for masks. I still want to be able to
define when and how quickly sharpening occurs. For example a setting for
portraits had no effect in the highlights and gradually was ramped in after
that.
(2)--Control of pastels. Especially being able to
"boast" them in hi-key images.
(3)--Neutralizing color casts were much easier and/or
more effective on our drum scanner.
Lee
___________________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:04:19 -0400
From: Lee Clawson
Subject: Re: Re: Scanner Software Tools vs Photoshop
It's interesting to learn from Jan's post and I'm
surprised that USM
could actually be tied to hardware.
Stephen,
Regarding USM and hardware. From my experience the
greatest hardware gain was the optics. Less USM needed because the image
was captured and enlarged with superior optics. I don't think the actual
USM was better. More efficient and more options, yes.
Lee
Adobe Photoshop training classes are taught in the US by Sterling Ledet & Associates, Inc.