RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Color (Hue) - A little help, please (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17315)

Decapod401 12-04-2014 07:35 PM

Color (Hue) - A little help, please
 
This got rejected for color being off. I'm not sure which way to go. Any adjustments that I make seem to kill the whites. Any suggestions? Thanks.

[photoid=1336920]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...20&key=3009506

Decapod401 12-04-2014 07:36 PM

I would also appreciate a tip on how to properly post a rejection. Thanks,

JRMDC 12-04-2014 10:25 PM

In reverse order:

you properly posted the link. The thumbnail is not possible for a rejection.

I don't have a good monitor for color. But this one is so bad, so oversaturated, that even on this monitor, it is an easy call. As for color balance, that is harder to read given the over saturation, but I am guessing that you will find the blues and reds still overdone. And it's too dark - brightening it will also affect the perception of color to some extent. So my suggesting is to brighten and desaturate and then think about what you are seeing. For one, the roadbed and track should not look like they are on a taconite line.

Also, you have a slide dust speck upper right near the edge. You also have a variety of small black dots in the middle of the sky which seem unlikely to be birds but rather more slide dust specks. The sky is also rather pixellated, which on a clear blue sky is actually a pretty easy fix, just select the sky and blur - don't select the bit of cloud in the middle.

Decapod401 12-04-2014 10:51 PM

Unfortunately, my monitor isn't the best either. I had cleaned the dust, but it looks like some appeared after a few days and rescans. At this point, I don't have any good post-processing software, so I will try to make the adjustments in Silverlight, there is no good brightness adjustment that I have found, nor is there selective blurring.

Looks like I may have to invest in Photoshop and a good monitor. It was so much easier when all the you needed to do was properly expose the film.

Thanks for your reply.

miningcamper1 12-04-2014 11:28 PM

1 Attachment(s)
I wouldn't even bother with this scan- everything is way off. Look at the sky. I'd do a new scan with better settings.

JRMDC 12-05-2014 12:53 AM

To be successful at putting images on RP, you really have to have some post-processing software. Try one of the freebies if budget is an issue, such as Picasa.

miningcamper1 12-05-2014 02:47 AM

Anyone have a theory as to why a sky would block up like that?

Chris Z 12-05-2014 03:12 AM

1 Attachment(s)
I don't know why it blocked up like that. I played around with that photo and had a different result. I think with a little work from the original scan and he can probably get it on RP.

http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/...ps59f31c8f.jpg

Chris Z

miningcamper1 12-05-2014 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Z (Post 182579)
I don't why it blocked up like that. I played around with that photo and had a different result. I think with a little work from the original scan and he can probably get it on RP.

http://i1142.photobucket.com/albums/...ps59f31c8f.jpg

Chris Z

Ouch. Still looks like RRPA material.

BTW, the attachment I posted wasn't a result, just enhancement to show how bad the sky was.

Isn't it easier to rescan than rescue an awful scan?

Decapod401 12-05-2014 12:04 PM

I never intended to try to rescue that scan, I was just looking for guidance on what to fix in the scan settings. I significantly reduced the saturation in SilverFast, and cranked up the mid-tones. The result looks much better, and is in the queue. I'll post the results, good or bad, after it is screened.

Janusz, I had previously tried SilverFast's dust removal utility, and found that it conflicted with the unsharp masking. Last night, I chose the infrared option, and while it doubled the scan time, it worked quite well. I'll make this part of my standard settings, for all future scans.

Decapod401 12-05-2014 04:22 PM

Got rejected on both underexposure and hue. Back to the scanner tonight!

BobE 12-05-2014 05:23 PM

If your original is properly exposed, it appears your scanner is underexposing by almost 2 f-stops. I have Silverfast, and I have the same problem. Suggest you pre-scan, make eyeball adjustments (does it look OK on your monitor?), then save as a TIF. If you get the right exposure, I suspect the saturation and color issues will be significantly reduced. If you have Photoshop, open the file in Camera RAW and continue adjustments.

BobE 12-05-2014 05:36 PM

lynda.com offers a 5-hour online video course in Silverfast scanning. It might be worth checking into. I've taken lynda's Photoshop courses, and they're pretty good. Silverfast's own tutorials leave much to be desired, so this might be a good alternative.

You have to subscribe to lynda.com, $25 per month gives you access to courses and supplementary material, or $19 course only. (PS watch your subscription expiration date, make sure to cancel or they will automatically renew.)

Decapod401 12-05-2014 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobE (Post 182586)
If your original is properly exposed, it appears your scanner is underexposing by almost 2 f-stops. I have Silverfast, and I have the same problem. Suggest you pre-scan, make eyeball adjustments (does it look OK on your monitor?), then save as a TIF. If you get the right exposure, I suspect the saturation and color issues will be significantly reduced. If you have Photoshop, open the file in Camera RAW and continue adjustments.

Bob,

This is a properly exposed Kodachrome. I've been saving as jpeg, and I have used the Kodachrome vs. transparency setting. Will saving as a TIF produce a better exposure than jpeg? Is the so-called Kodachrome setting working against me?

I was hoping that Silverfast would give me the flexibility that I needed to pre-edit my scans, but I've resigned myself to needing Photoshop. Which version should I purchase?

I looked at the Lynda website before I purchased the scanner. I won't have time before the holidays, but I will seriously consider the Silverfast and Photoshop courses in January.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Doug Lilly

JRMDC 12-05-2014 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobE (Post 182586)
If you have Photoshop, open the file in Camera RAW and continue adjustments.

Bob, I only have PS Elements, but it is my understanding that Camera RAW is for processing of raw files only, not files generally. Am I wrong? Can you feed ACR a tiff?

Chris Z 12-05-2014 07:21 PM

Janusz, I can open TIFF files in camera RAW in Photoshop CC. It's a subscription deal for an introductory offer for $10.00 a month for the first year. That includes a lot of other software and constant updates.

Chris Z

bigbassloyd 12-05-2014 07:42 PM

You can 'open as' any photo file as a raw in photoshop. FWIW, I have no idea.

Loyd L.

miningcamper1 12-05-2014 07:50 PM

I hadn't heard until a couple days ago that Photoshop CS and CC were now rentals. The prospect of paying Adobe forever is less than thrilling.

Do alternatives do tasks such as these?
-reducing grain selectively
-fixing a pebbly sky
-selective sharpening

If not, I suppose I will grudgingly sign up for the rental.

jnohallman 12-05-2014 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 182594)
I hadn't heard until a couple days ago that Photoshop CS and CC were now rentals. The prospect of paying Adobe forever is less than thrilling.

Do alternatives do tasks such as these?
-reducing grain selectively
-fixing a pebbly sky
-selective sharpening

If not, I suppose I will grudgingly sign up for the rental.

You can still get individual copies of the Photoshop programs. PSE 13 has just been released. The question is whether, as a consumer, you want to go out and plunk down the money for one version of the software, and then go out and buy the next version when it is released, or pay for a subscription that continuously updates you. Microsoft is currently giving the same option - you can buy Office 2013, or you can subscribe to Office 365. The subscription thing also includes added cloud-based and remote access stuff that the software package doesn't. I see the subscription as aimed more at the power user, but that's just me. (And I bought PSE 12 but haven't bothered to switch over from PSE 8 yet).

Jon

JRMDC 12-05-2014 08:56 PM

Jon, is it true that you can get individual copies of the high end PS? PSE is a lower level product.

Looking ...

Amazon shows PSE and Lightroom available as an individual copy, but full PS in a current version is subscription only. They sell PS CS 6 still but that is no longer the current product.

JRMDC 12-05-2014 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 182594)
I hadn't heard until a couple days ago that Photoshop CS and CC were now rentals. The prospect of paying Adobe forever is less than thrilling.

Do alternatives do tasks such as these?
-reducing grain selectively
-fixing a pebbly sky
-selective sharpening

If not, I suppose I will grudgingly sign up for the rental.

PS Elements allows one to select areas of the image and treat them separately, so noise reduce, blur the sky, sharpen, and everything else (exposure, color, etc.) only the selected area. Selection can be done by means of a "magic wand" (similar color/tonal areas, to which one can add/delete as desired) or a "lasso" (outline an area manually).

ATSF666 12-05-2014 09:10 PM

You might look into Vuescan as your scanning software. http://www.hamrick.com/ It works well on many different scanners and is fairly easy to use. You can try before you buy as well.

JimThias 12-05-2014 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 182596)
Jon, is it true that you can get individual copies of the high end PS?

If you're in Tokyo, you can find bootleg CS5 discs from street venders for $5. :lol:

Not that I would know anything about that. http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs43/f/20...y_Broni123.gif

miningcamper1 12-05-2014 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 182597)
PS Elements allows one to select areas of the image and treat them separately, so noise reduce, blur the sky, sharpen, and everything else (exposure, color, etc.) only the selected area. Selection can be done by means of a "magic wand" (similar color/tonal areas, to which one can add/delete as desired) or a "lasso" (outline an area manually).

.....Thanks!

BobE 12-05-2014 11:07 PM

Quote:

Bob,
This is a properly exposed Kodachrome. I've been saving as jpeg, and I have used the Kodachrome vs. transparency setting. Will saving as a TIF produce a better exposure than jpeg? Is the so-called Kodachrome setting working against me?
Doug,

You're using the right setting. I haven't scanned slides for a couple of months, so I'd have to walk myself through a couple to suggest anything further. Maybe I didn't catch it earlier what scanner are you using?

Photoshop CS6 is on a DVD, the last one Adobe published before taking everybody kicking and screaming into The Cloud. You might be able to buy a used CS6 on ebay.

... or as Thias suggests, get on the next plane to Tokyo. :grin:

Any file format may be opened in Camera RAW, but you can't do as much with a jpeg because you don't have enough data to begin with. Scanning into a TIF gives you the most data you can extract from a transparency.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.