White balance is always an issue in any type of photography. When scanning its just as much of an issue as any other type, its just handled differently. When you use raw, it can be dealt with in post processing. With film its done with filters and different films. Scanning it can be a combination. The closer you get at capture, the less work you have to do later.
The Raw file is a big advantage. Once heard a well known speaker (I think it was Scott Kelby) that said that in Raw only ASA and bad photography can not be adjusted in photoshop. Everything else is adjustable.
What I find with scanning is two different problems. One is a scan for an archive for which I have no idea of how an image might be used later. Another is one where the scan is done for the purpose of a specific image. The later is much easier.
--- On Sat, 9/6/08, Laurenz Bobke <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Laurenz Bobke <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Trying to resucitate old scanner
> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday, September 6, 2008, 1:30 PM
> Dear Karl,
>
> I think I'll give it a try - I still have my old PC,
> but scanning slides
> with good resolution never was "fun" on this
> single core 3.5 GHz Machine.
> The new PC is much stronger (4 GB RAM...) and I would not
> have to transfer
> files all the time.
> Now, the main decision is whether to immediately buy the
> pro edition or play
> it safe and first buy standard and upgrade to pro if
> everything works as
> expected.
> How big is the difference between the two versions anyway?
> Is the "raw" file
> I can generate much superior to a tif?
> I know the importance of shooting raw with a camera, but
> it would appear to
> me that conditions are much more controlled when scanning
> (for example white
> balance should not be a problem?) and all in all I just
> want to replicate
> most of the slides I've taken and not be overly
> creative now.
> After all I wouldn't scan the non-keepers in the first
> place...
>
> Laurenz
>
>
> 2008/9/6 karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Laurenz Bobke"
> <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators -
> Professionals - Students" <
> > photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 11:45 PM
> > Subject: Trying to resucitate old scanner
> >
> >
> > : I'm trying to make Windows Vista (64 Bit!)
> cooperate with my Minolta
> > Dimage
> > : Scan Dual IV scanner.
> > : All attempts to do this with the driver CD failed.
> Updating to a newer
> > : driver is no option: Minolta has sold the complete
> photo business and
> > Sony
> > : obviously is not interested in supporting old
> Minolta products.
> > : I succeded in getting a few test scans done using
> the trial version of
> > : Vuescan, but the programme crashed a couple of
> times, so I'm somewhat
> > : reluctant to actually buy it.
> > : The trial version watermarks all scans, so it's
> not real fun to do scans
> > : that I'll have to throw away anyway.
> > : What are other people's experiences here? Is
> Vuescan worth the money, are
> > : there any known problems (or even better: solutions)
> with Vista?
> > : Do you know of any good alternatives (apart from
> buying a new scanner, of
> > : course).
> >
> > best bet is write to Hamrick himself, explain your
> problems and ask for his
> > suggestions - he's very a very helpful person..
> >
> > Vuescan is the ultimate scanning software and has been
> well worth the money
> > for a lot of people
> >
> > alternatively you may dedicate an old computer to
> scanning as many do and
> > use a KVM to minimise its footprint on your desktop
> >
> > karl
> >
> >
