> Hm. I'd prefer "comment" to "complain". Sorry if I sound like I'm > complaining. I may have inherited the trait from my family. Semantics for me. How about "critical comment"? > The suit was black > >but not as black as the velvet and it had reflected light too. In > >trying to capture it all I think it lost something. > > Burn and dodge. Especially, if the window actually was within range > in the original neg, dodge the window down. But I'll bet it wasn't > within the range of the film ;-) Try tweaking the curve, too. An image has to be worth working on to do that amount of work, or at least to do it seamlessly. For me the question is "is there detail on the neg". As I said earlier - the bow tie was film base for sure but the shadows were darker (on the neg). Out the window ... well, in the straight scan there was more detail. I suspect the problem is not that the scanner can't be made to record it - but with an 8-bit per channel scan - tweaking curves to record detail at both extremes inevitably seems to lead to loss. It's where a 16-bit per channel professional tool (as opposed to PhotoShop, the tool used by professionals) would come to its own. 8-bits is fine for the final output (web display) but has nasty cumulative side effects when used for high key or low key images (IMO). I won't hold my breath though. Looks like Adobe has followed Gates lead in versionitis - new button design, rename a few menu items but no really fundamental changes underneath. Bob
