I have a customer interested in a large format print that will require I send out for a drum scan. On my scanner, I'm having some difficulty scanning Astia, but Provia has been pretty easy for me. I'd like some feedback here before I present samples.
With this shot, I took a version with Provia and a version with Astia. On the light table, both seem pretty similar as far as the detail in the trees is concerned. The Astia looks natural, just less saturated than the Provia version.
With both of these shots, I wished that I'd used a warming filter in the field, but I think I've worked around this issue in photoshop very well through the use of some complex masks.
This is the Provia version, worked to get it ready to show. I expect that I'll be able to get more shadow detail with a drum scan of this shot.
This is the Astia version. Here I've had some issues with certain areas in the trees. I may be able to fix these now though. In general, I'm just not able to get as much detail from the trees in the scanner. I'm not sure why I'm having this trouble as the Provia and Astia slides look very similar on the light table.
This is the 35mm version the customer has seen, but he is interested in a large format shot. Obviously on the digital shot I could set white balance for the shade and work from there pretty easily. The two 4X5 shots take quite a bit more work.
If you have some ideas about which I should present and any changes that need to be addressed, please let me know.
Your customer is interested in the one they saw and not all of the technical nonsense that we tend to get caught up with...they only want a pretty picture.
Pick whichever scan is easier to work with and make it look like your digital shot, since that's what they're expecting. I'd probably try the Astia version since the light matches your digital most closely (light, meaning "how much of the mountain is lit"). A contrast mask should help reveal tree detail you're missing in the shot. But just blend the problem areas, not the whole image.
I would suggest showing him the Astia shot first. Those clouds really add impact, and he'll have a better apples-to-apples idea of what the end result will be. I could see warming it up a bit, too.
Mel,
The last astia version looks pretty good. Compared to the digital shot, the trees on the right could still use a little 'opening up'. Have you tried a scan with the exposure increased to see what more you can get out of the shadows?
If there is already detail there, have you tried a screen layer with a mask to lighten the trees?
The shadow color in your digital version is also warmer than the last astia version. I like the warmer version better myself coupled with the lighter trees.
I have some great tools for color balancing and adjustments (PhotoKit Color 2.0). If you'd like to come over and see what we can do give me a call.
Should definitely be possible with a more powerful scanner. There is detail in the slide.
Posted by Craig Schultz on July 10, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Mel, before going through the drum scanning trouble I would show your potential customer the film version for a general overview. The clouds are significantly different in your digital shot as is the color temp and detail in the shadows. From what you have posted here - the digital shot looks much better than the film versions.
You know what will solve your problem? That new 50Mpix Hasselblad back
Discussion
10 repliesWith this shot, I took a version with Provia and a version with Astia. On the light table, both seem pretty similar as far as the detail in the trees is concerned. The Astia looks natural, just less saturated than the Provia version.
With both of these shots, I wished that I'd used a warming filter in the field, but I think I've worked around this issue in photoshop very well through the use of some complex masks.
This is the Provia version, worked to get it ready to show. I expect that I'll be able to get more shadow detail with a drum scan of this shot.
If you have some ideas about which I should present and any changes that need to be addressed, please let me know.
Pick whichever scan is easier to work with and make it look like your digital shot, since that's what they're expecting. I'd probably try the Astia version since the light matches your digital most closely (light, meaning "how much of the mountain is lit"). A contrast mask should help reveal tree detail you're missing in the shot. But just blend the problem areas, not the whole image.
HTH,
-D
The last astia version looks pretty good. Compared to the digital shot, the trees on the right could still use a little 'opening up'. Have you tried a scan with the exposure increased to see what more you can get out of the shadows?
If there is already detail there, have you tried a screen layer with a mask to lighten the trees?
The shadow color in your digital version is also warmer than the last astia version. I like the warmer version better myself coupled with the lighter trees.
I have some great tools for color balancing and adjustments (PhotoKit Color 2.0). If you'd like to come over and see what we can do give me a call.
If you can get some detail back in the trees, this will be excellent.
You know what will solve your problem? That new 50Mpix Hasselblad back
I'll pick one of those up while I'm out this evening. Right after I pick up the winning powerball ticket...