Scanned Slide ? This is a hypothetical question. My scanner converts a slide to a TIF file. How much post processing capability have I lost by not having shot the original in a RAW or...

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

This is a hypothetical question. My scanner converts a slide to a TIF file. How much post processing capability have I lost by not having shot the original in a RAW or NEF which, when converted to TIF, equaled that of the scanned slide?

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

RWR wrote:

This is a hypothetical question. My scanner converts a slide to a TIF file. How much post processing capability have I lost by not having shot the original in a RAW or NEF which, when converted to TIF, equaled that of the scanned slide?

Your scanner should give you a choice of several formats to save the scan as. As far as "not having shot the original in RAW or NEF", if you are referring to the slide itself, it can't be shot as a digital format because it is not digital. The image only becomes digital after you scan it. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

LFingar wrote:

Your scanner should give you a choice of several formats to save the scan as. As far as "not having shot the original in RAW or NEF", if you are referring to the slide itself, it can't be shot as a digital format because it is not digital. The image only becomes digital after you scan it. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

The original scene.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

RWR wrote:

The original scene.

Are you asking what the difference is in post processing ability if a scene is shot on slide film and then scanned into a digital format, versus using a digital camera to create a digital photo of the same scene?

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Most things that you can adjust on a raw file can also be adjusted on a TIFF file in post processing, it just takes a bit more trouble depending on what software you use. In some cases you actually gain something, especially if the original was shot on low ISO film. My scanner produces 30 MB files from old chodochrome slides that are actually pretty good, even if a bit too contrasty.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

RWR wrote:

This is a hypothetical question. My scanner converts a slide to a TIF file. How much post processing capability have I lost by not having shot the original in a RAW or NEF which, when converted to TIF, equaled that of the scanned slide?

You can certainly do quite a decent amount of post processing on a TIF file, certainly all the basic adjustments of saturation, brightness, contrast, etc. An important factor is how well your scanner does the scanning - how much resolution and digital noise for file output. Not all scanners are equal.

Another option is to use a digital camera with RAW output and a light box, and shoot the slides with it. Then you will have RAW files to work from.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

LFingar wrote:

Are you asking what the difference is in post processing ability if a scene is shot on slide film and then scanned into a digital format, versus using a digital camera to create a digital photo of the same scene?

Yes, that's correct.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

rook2c4 wrote:

Another option is to use a digital camera with RAW output and a light box, and shoot the slides with it. Then you will have RAW files to work from.

I appreciate the reply. This is precisely what I am considering. My scanner will only produce a 14mb file, which seems rather puny. :)

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

mcveed wrote:

Most things that you can adjust on a raw file can also be adjusted on a TIFF file in post processing, it just takes a bit more trouble depending on what software you use. In some cases you actually gain something, especially if the original was shot on low ISO film. My scanner produces 30 MB files from old chodochrome slides that are actually pretty good, even if a bit too contrasty.

Most of my slides are Kodachrome-25s, Velvia-50 since Koadachrome-25 was discontinued. I didn't like Kodachrome-64. Thanks for responding. :)

lightchime Loc: Somewhere Over The Rainbow

This may answer your question:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2011/09/26/are-tiffs-and-raws-really-the-same-thing/#.U4qZICignpU

There is much more information if you direct your browser to TIFF vs raw.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

lightchime wrote:

This may answer your question:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2011/09/26/are-tiffs-and-raws-really-the-same-thing/#.U4qZICignpU

There is much more information if you direct your browser to TIFF vs raw.

This pretty well answers my query. Thanks. :)

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

RWR wrote:

I appreciate the reply. This is precisely what I am considering. My scanner will only produce a 14mb file, which seems rather puny. :)

For years, I used only Kodachrome 25 film, which was very very good in detail. When I started thinking of moving to digital, I sent some slides to a professional scanner, who returned 6mb files. I set up my projector and my computer so that I could compare each scan to each slide. One of the slides was taken at the home of a friend, who happens to be a librarian, and not surprisingly, a fair amount of printed material was in the picture. I could find no detail in the slide that was not also in the scan. Based on that experiment, I really doubt if your 14mb scans are a problem; even at that level, they probably contain more detail than the slides actually have.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

rehess wrote:

For years, I used only Kodachrome 25 film, which w... (show quote)

Welcome to the forum. Haven't been in South Bend since 2000.
Perhaps my files will be adequate, after all. So far I've only practiced on a few family pictures, which look quite good, but with several thousand 35mm and 6x7 slides of serious work to go, I want to get it right and figured the larger the file, the more information I'd have to work with in PS. The less time I have to spend post processing, the better.
Much obliged for your comment. :)