I see that Adobe are going ahead with their decision to charge a monthly subscription for new users of CS6 (or am I confused) according to Thom Hogan (& Nikon Magazine): http://www.bythom.com/index.htm
Is there an effective and affordable alternative to using colour profiles when scanning in transparencies to correct for scanner colour without using CS6?
CS6 subscriptions
- Thingy
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:13 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Orpington, Kent
CS6 subscriptions
Love is an Ebony mounted with a Cooke PS945.......
-
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:47 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Besançon, France
Digital image processing for the hobbyist
Is there an effective and affordable alternative to using colour profiles when scanning in transparencies to correct for scanner colour without using CS6?
Hello from France !
There are two on-going discussions on the US LF forum
"Alternatives to PS - what they can and can not do? "
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ ... can-not-do
"Any Reason To Now Buy CS6?"
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ ... ow-Buy-CS6
My understanding is that
1/ people using photoshop(TM) do not find any alternative to it
2/ strange people (like me) who have hardly ever used photoshop do not see where the problem is
Not kidding: I've used photoshop once in my life, to remove dust on a high-resolution scan of one of my 6x9 [off-limits here] and 6x12 colour and SCALA slides. But I did not prepare myself the final files sent for printing, so I do not know.
As far as I am concerned, my needs in digital image processing have slowly evolved together with what the GIMP can offer to me. And to date, the GIMP knows what a colour profile is.
For B&W since I have a 5x4" enlarger I do not see even the point about scanning my B&W LF negatives. I have an EPSON flatbed, a 3200, for kind of "digital contact proofs" only.
For colour prints, I have them printed by a lab, so I give the negative or the slide to the lab and get a print in return at a nominal cost; this would cost me an arm & leg if I had 100 large format prints to do each year. But for an annual expense of 2-3 large colour prints per year, to me it is more efficient to pay for the service than spending time & money in a high-end scanner and a professional digital image processing software.
But I'm an amateur and I have no customer to serve.
For all kinds of small imaging hobbyist's stuff, the GIMP under LINUX does, for me, everything I need.
And yes, I know that the GIMP cannot yet manipulate 16-bit images, and when the GIMP will be able to do it, I'll go for 16-bit if required.
But Ansel Adams never even used the GIMP nor any digital image processing software, so I'd better use my enlarger more.
Hello from France !
There are two on-going discussions on the US LF forum
"Alternatives to PS - what they can and can not do? "
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ ... can-not-do
"Any Reason To Now Buy CS6?"
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ ... ow-Buy-CS6
My understanding is that
1/ people using photoshop(TM) do not find any alternative to it
2/ strange people (like me) who have hardly ever used photoshop do not see where the problem is
Not kidding: I've used photoshop once in my life, to remove dust on a high-resolution scan of one of my 6x9 [off-limits here] and 6x12 colour and SCALA slides. But I did not prepare myself the final files sent for printing, so I do not know.
As far as I am concerned, my needs in digital image processing have slowly evolved together with what the GIMP can offer to me. And to date, the GIMP knows what a colour profile is.
For B&W since I have a 5x4" enlarger I do not see even the point about scanning my B&W LF negatives. I have an EPSON flatbed, a 3200, for kind of "digital contact proofs" only.
For colour prints, I have them printed by a lab, so I give the negative or the slide to the lab and get a print in return at a nominal cost; this would cost me an arm & leg if I had 100 large format prints to do each year. But for an annual expense of 2-3 large colour prints per year, to me it is more efficient to pay for the service than spending time & money in a high-end scanner and a professional digital image processing software.
But I'm an amateur and I have no customer to serve.
For all kinds of small imaging hobbyist's stuff, the GIMP under LINUX does, for me, everything I need.
And yes, I know that the GIMP cannot yet manipulate 16-bit images, and when the GIMP will be able to do it, I'll go for 16-bit if required.
But Ansel Adams never even used the GIMP nor any digital image processing software, so I'd better use my enlarger more.
-
- Forum Hero
- Posts: 614
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:36 am Etc/GMT-1+01:00
- Location: Sheffield
- Contact:
Re: CS6 subscriptions
If you use Vuescan for example you can (as I do) apply the colour profile for the scanner at the scanning stage automatically, then import your image to Lightroom/Aperture/Gimp/whatever and work on it as you would any other image.Thingy wrote:Is there an effective and affordable alternative to using colour profiles when scanning in transparencies to correct for scanner colour without using CS6?