In article <6h1uoj$la$1@garnet.mint.net>, barrym@somtel.com says...

>Does anyone have an accurate scanner????? One that picks up shadows =
>and subtle issues that see so easy for photo paper to catch. Are the =
>units I am using and hating just calibrated incorrectly, colors are =
>terrible, shading non existent. I just don't want to buy Photoshop for =
>$500 and spend the rest of my life learning it.=20
>
> I get conflicts, some people say that Flat scanners are better (I =
>haven't seen a good one) and some say film scanners are better (less =
>experience, but still haven't seen much posted from them that I would =
>say is great). Now we are looking at a lot of Electronics in between, =
>I am going to post an address and on my screen the group picture all in =
>black, second shot looks great yet people tell me that it looks all =
>black to them, I think its the only scan that looks good. I have a =
>Millenium II card and a 17" Princeton graphics monitor, now I guess the =
>question is, is any of this worth it, because when I look at what =
>people are seeing it is just crappy equipment that nothing will ever =
>look good on.
>
>Ok, big question, what scanner without a daily calibration routine that =
>would break my spirit will just do one thing, accurately scan either =
>film or printed photo?

There are several issues here - which I had to deal with when preparing
the photographs for my web page.
1) Monitors vary widely in image characteristics (and user-controlable
set-ups, and even between computer platform types). I went out on the
web and tried to adjust my monitor to look best with the majority of
high-quality sites, then I used this as a reference (gamma tests can
help, but often result in a set-up that has poor dark tones...).
2) Good scans are easier from slides than negatives, but good color scans
can also be made from prints (though these often require more
manipulation to look good).
3) A "good" scan is not generally one that looks good when first seen.
I always assume that considerable image manipulation will be
needed (Micrografx Picture Publisher has excellent controls that are
easy to learn and use, and the software is relatively cheap [and it
often comes along with cheap flat-bed scanners]). I scan flat (low contrast), so that I have the full range of tones recorded that were
in the original. I then adjust the tonal range and color to look good
(this can be done easily in both local tone and color areas and in
local places in the image - to make the image look on the screen
like the original, though it really isn't the same [an important realization!]). I then sharpen the image (a straight scan doesn't
look sharp), using "unsharp mask" and "sharpen" controls in various
ways, combined with local area masking (used both for local sharpening,
and for masking out areas not to be sharpened - or to be smoothed).
4) I then exaggerate the lowest tones to "read" well on light monitors
(I check the image both lightened and darkened to see if it "reads"
well enough on non-standard monitors [and MacIntoshes, in an
IBM-clone world...;-]).
5) I try not to get too frustrated by the lack of image standards (and
the lack of complete compatibility even between browsers - Netscape
seems poor with its handling of fancy "frames" and multi-media
compared with Explorer, but the Explorer crashing with Java applets
on some sites drove me nuts, so I switched...). (I also tried to
copy out your 2nd image to try manipulating it to ship back to
you, but even jpg standards are not consistent and I could not read
your jpg with my software....!)
Bottom line: some of your images are among the hardest to present well
on any one monitor, let alone on a range of monitors. And, no scan is
perfect unmanipulated - but with a little practice, preparing scans for
web use can be quick, easy, and down-right fun! ;-)
David Ruether
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether