• alarmclockscreams 3 months ago

    I'm using a Samsung Xpress M2875FD scanner. I took a new scan of a CD release's cover art and compared it to a scan of the same artwork that I made using a different scanner in the past. I noticed that the older scan's brightness/colors/etc were much more accurate to the source. Any tips for how to make my scanner's settings more accurate?
  • edovan 3 months ago

    From what I can tell Samsung Xpress M2875FD is a multifunction printer for office usage (please correct med if I'm wrong). The amount of configuration is probably a bit limited compared to a dedicated scanner. M2875FD is most likely more built for speed and text rather than photo accuracy.

    Do you use a one-click scanning button on the machine itself, or do you have a more advanced image editing tool (eg Photoshop or similar) that connects through Twain?
  • alarmclockscreams 2 months ago

    Sorry, Discogs never notified me of this reply.

    Yes, my scanner is also a printer and a fax machine. However, the older scanner I used to use at my parents' house, which gave much better image quality, was also a multifunction printer and I think it was an Epson but I'm not sure.

    I open the scanning software, choose the area of the scanning tray to scan, and then click the scan button. There are limited Image Correction option to choose from: Brightness, Tint, Temperature, and Saturation

    Also I just did another scan for a different CD's cover art, and the artwork was supposed to be yellow but almost looks white. My scans are usually not this far off, but this one stood out to me more than any other scan I've done has before. If you look at the images on this submission and click Edit Images, you can compare my newer scan with the scan that was previously uploaded (but now disabled). The previously-uploaded scan/picture, while obviously cropped way too much, actually has much more accurate colors: Evolution
  • edovan 2 months ago

    Looking at the Evolution image it seems to be an issue of contrast and brightness being wrong.

    Does your scanner allow you to save color settings/profiles and change the default one? If not you need to do it every time, which seems a bit of a time waster.

    Get yourself a color reference sheet and start tinkering with the color settings until your happy.
    https://www.lifewire.com/calibrating-your-scanner-2769175
    If done properly, you shouldn't have to do it ever again.
  • alarmclockscreams 2 months ago

    I'm not sure if the settings will save. So maybe I should get an IT8 target, scan it, and then go from there?
  • alarmclockscreams 2 months ago

    So I just noticed that scanning things in 600ppi makes the colors way too bright, compared to 300ppi which looks fine enough. Good thing I only just started scanning things in 600ppi, and only the cover art. But that's really weird...
  • edovan 2 months ago

    I haven't had to use and IT8 myself, so I can't give much more advice on that.

    For Discogs you wouldn't need 600 ppi, unless rare occasions where you need to catch some tiny printing or pressing details. But in those cases I guess a few manual adjustments are acceptable.
  • alarmclockscreams 2 months ago

    I just scanned, edited, and uploaded the cover art for this CD release, and there are red horozontal lines that are not present on the real artwork and the lines are also consequently giving the artwork a reddish tinge.

    We Are The Union - Keep It Down
  • edovan 2 months ago

    Those lines could be a moiré effect, or in other words: "undesired patterns that appear due to the print raster". :-)
    Advanced scanning software has normally a "descreen" option to prevent that from happening.

    Have you tried VueScan? It's a very advanced stand-alone scanning tool with loads of settings and supports most scanners. You can use the free version (it adds water-marks) to see what limits your scanner has.

    https://www.hamrick.com
  • alarmclockscreams 2 months ago

    I'd like to download it, but if it adds a watermark then it's pretty much useless for Discogs right?
  • loukash 2 months ago

    alarmclockscreams
    scanning things in 600ppi

    … is a pointless waste of time, storage and resources in general unless you want to print a counterfeit.

    The highest resolution I'm scanning for Discogs is 200 ppi which gives a "nice" size of 800×800 px for vinyl labels.
    Also, with 200 ppi I get precise results when auto-stitching four LP sleeve parts in Photoshop. However, when scanning LP sleeves for sale in my studio where I've only got a relatively slow 20 (!) years old Epson Perfection 1240 scanner, I go as low as 96 ppi to proceed faster – which is still good enough for Discogs. See my recent image uploads.

    alarmclockscreams
    there are red horozontal lines that are not present on the real artwork
    edovan
    a moiré effect

    Exactly.

    If your scanner cannot descreen, use a blur effect in an image editor.
    Also, scanning at, say, 150 ppi or lower while turning off any sharpeners (unsharp mask etc.) actually might kinda descreen all by itself. You can still sharpen later in your image editor.

    That's what I do on the said old Epson 1240 as well: it's got a pretty good built in descreen function but it's painfully slow. Scanning and descreening a full color page at 200 ppi might take a few minutes. (Hey, and that was considered pretty "fast" back in 2001!) So no descreening and no sharpener at 96 ppi and a page is scanned in a matter of seconds.

    edovan
    VueScan?
    alarmclockscreams
    Samsung Xpress M2875FD

    https://hamrick.com/vuescan/samsung.html#scanner-drivers

    edovan
    use the free version (it adds water-marks) to see what limits your scanner has.
    alarmclockscreams
    but if it adds a watermark then it's pretty much useless for Discogs right?

    The point of the "free" version is to check out if it works with your scanner before you buy the software.
  • loukash 2 months ago

    [offtopic]
    alarmclockscreams
    We Are The Union - Keep It Down

    "Other [Originally Performed By] – Green Day" belongs in the release notes.
    [/offtopic]
  • edovan about 1 month ago

    alarmclockscreams
    I'd like to download it, but if it adds a watermark then it's pretty much useless for Discogs right?


    Mostly, yes, but these 7" center labels are actually scanned with the free version:
    https://www.discogs.com/Etos-Den-Nakna-Sanningen/release/3804336

    How? I positioned the vinyl on the scanner surface so that it didn't overlap the watermark. Not very efficient though, as I had to scan the whole scanner surface (A4) just for a center label (the watermark is diagonally applied to the whole output image). :-)
  • ElectricRabbit about 1 month ago

    loukash

    Exactly.

    If your scanner cannot descreen, use a blur effect in an image editor.
    Also, scanning at, say, 150 ppi or lower while turning off any sharpeners (unsharp mask etc.) actually might kinda descreen all by itself. You can still sharpen later in your image editor.


    A 600dpi scan will usually capture the print raster perfectly, so there will not be any additional moire. Descreening will work best with such a high resolution.

    As discogs images are so small, descreening with blur will usually do the trick. If you also need to export a higher resoltion image (for tagging your digital audio files etc), this plugin produces incredible results: http://www.descreen.net/eng/soft/descreen/descreen.htm

    Images descreened with this are much, much sharper than images descreened with blur.

    edovan
    Have you tried VueScan? It's a very advanced stand-alone scanning tool with loads of settings and supports most scanners. You can use the free version (it adds water-marks) to see what limits your scanner has.

    https://www.hamrick.com


    It also has tools for profiling with an IT8 target: https://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc17.htm
  • alarmclockscreams 17 days ago

    So I'm not sure if this is a good thing to do, but I've found that adjusting the Lightness setting in GIMP (under Colors>Hu-Saturation) by -18.8 makes my scans seem not so light and more accurate to their real colors. What do y'all think?

    Before: https://img.discogs.com/XceKuLPvgVqRHwhiliW5dX0tNRw=/fit-in/600x957/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602364609-1273.bmp.jpg

    After: https://img.discogs.com/sc3mVQnfiRQdWrdq7Ms3KhsjE6g=/fit-in/600x957/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602365556-8780.bmp.jpg

    ------------------------------------------------------

    However, what doesn't really make sense since I'm not really adjusting colors (just lightness), for this one it seems the pure-white area of the J-fold got a little more reddish (see the far right side):

    Before: https://img.discogs.com/_PWC6VVA5_v3cXtHaLm9BT2ejmY=/fit-in/600x278/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602364825-1622.bmp.jpg

    After: https://img.discogs.com/jzjiJzY4HoEO80DXF8fmWRerrzk=/fit-in/600x278/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602365554-1479.bmp.jpg

    link to submission: Less Than Jake - Pezcore
  • loukash 17 days ago

    alarmclockscreams
    the pure-white area of the J-fold got a little more reddish

    Then Lightness is likely not the right tool for what you want to do.
    I don't use Gimp, so I'm assuming it works about the same as any other standard image editor.
    If the overall color balance is more or less okay, then Adjust Color Curves is what you want to use here.
  • loukash 15 days ago

    alarmclockscreams
    it looks a ton better

    Definitely.
    The color balance is still not optimal though. Use the Color Balance function > Highlights and try to find the balance between Cyan/Red or Yellow/Blue until the redish tint in the white disapears. Usually it doesn't need much. Using your last image, in Photoshop I get quite nice balance by setting Cyan/Red to -10 (out of -100/+100)
  • alarmclockscreams 13 days ago

    Okay so I applied a color balance correction in Gimp of -5 for cyan:

    original scan: https://img.discogs.com/XceKuLPvgVqRHwhiliW5dX0tNRw=/fit-in/600x957/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602364609-1273.bmp.jpg
    lightness adjusted: https://img.discogs.com/sc3mVQnfiRQdWrdq7Ms3KhsjE6g=/fit-in/600x957/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602365556-8780.bmp.jpg
    color curves adjusted instead: https://img.discogs.com/B-fcvlK3m-1A3aAqMPc0n_25yLU=/fit-in/600x957/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602552953-4946.bmp.jpg
    color curves + cyan adjustment: https://img.discogs.com/SrQ7wintCia5xDSkezdgD1fsee8=/fit-in/600x957/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602724760-9236.bmp.jpg

    original scan: https://img.discogs.com/_PWC6VVA5_v3cXtHaLm9BT2ejmY=/fit-in/600x278/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602364825-1622.bmp.jpg
    lightness adjusted: https://img.discogs.com/jzjiJzY4HoEO80DXF8fmWRerrzk=/fit-in/600x278/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602365554-1479.bmp.jpg
    color curves adjusted instead: https://img.discogs.com/HxwUaTBbltKcZUBfliaJamAeY7M=/fit-in/600x278/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602552952-9429.bmp.jpg
    color curves + cyan adjustment: https://img.discogs.com/fND7JJJqWFa8xBjwdjhGLtLEcfo=/fit-in/600x278/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-4751800-1602724760-5680.bmp.jpg

    There is still a slight amount of red present in the white, but using a lower cyan adjustment seemed like too much.
  • loukash 13 days ago

    Usually an accurate ICC profile should actually take care of that. But usually that doesn't work very well with consumer devices. For what it's worth, the bundled ICC profiles of my Epson scanners (2001 and 2006) are next to useless.

    So a few years back I've ordered a reference test print of https://cleverprinting.de/die-cleverprinting-testform which I have then scanned, compared to its respective downloadable reference PDF, and manually created a Photoshop Action (i.e. a macro) which adjusts a scan based on the values I needed to match that reference print with the reference PDF. Each of my scanners has a slightly different color shift, so each scanner needed its own macro.

    It's not a "pro solution" by any means, but the Good Thing™ is that this method is display agnostic because regardless of your display color settings, you're still comparing "apples with apples". I.e. even though your display may discolor the reference PDF, it will discolor the scan of the reference print by the same values. Then you just need to adjust the scan to match the PDF visually.
    Hope that makes sense… :)
  • ElectricRabbit 12 days ago

    alarmclockscreams

    There is still a slight amount of red present in the white, but using a lower cyan adjustment seemed like too much.


    Have you tried setting your scanner to a more neutral setting? Maybe the color shift is caused by some automatic adjustment.

    If not, maybe just set the white background to white and solid black (needs to be printed directly on white, not printed over other colors) to a neutral color (not black, as pure black is not the darkest color that can be achieved in a print) with the eyedroppers in the levels tool. Quick and easy fix. not the most accurate and rather heavy handed, but it does the trick.

    To be honest, the quality of your scans leaves a lot to be desired. Parts of them are very blurry (I guess because you use a scanner with a CIS sensor and the cover is not perfectly flat on the scan bed.)
    The darkest part of the image is clipping quite a bit more than I'd be comfortable with. Accurate color is rather low on the list I'd be worried about here.

    loukash
    Usually an accurate ICC profile should actually take care of that. But usually that doesn't work very well with consumer devices. For what it's worth, the bundled ICC profiles of my Epson scanners (2001 and 2006) are next to useless.


    The profile that came with my Epson perfection V37 worked well enough to make some decent scans, but the results I'm getting with a custom ICC profile are clearly more accurate. I stopped worrying about color and usually don't do any color adjustments at all.
  • loukash 12 days ago

    ElectricRabbit
    Have you tried setting your scanner to a more neutral setting?

    Ahem, it's:
    alarmclockscreams
    Samsung Xpress M2875FD scanner

    That's a cheap low fidelity consumer device assembled by underaged slaves.
  • alarmclockscreams 12 days ago

    Would you be able to recommend any good scanners that are also printers? Or to get a good scanner would I have to get a standalone scanner?
  • loukash 12 days ago

    alarmclockscreams
    to get a good scanner would I have to get a standalone scanner?

    If you want a good scanner, it should have a CCD sensor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_scanner#CCD_scanner
    Cheap scanners come with CIS sensors which have no depth of focus. 1 mm above the glass and everything's blurry.
    Whereas with a CCD sensor you can make quite sharp scans of boxes several cm deep like this:
    https://discogs.com/release/2598840#images/49215060
    And that's with my "antique" Epson Perfection 1240 from 2001.
    Of course, it had to be post-processed in Photoshop to compensate for lack of lightness, but the focus is still intact at that distance.
  • ElectricRabbit 11 days ago

    loukash
    ElectricRabbitHave you tried setting your scanner to a more neutral setting?
    Ahem, it's:
    alarmclockscreamsSamsung Xpress M2875FD scanner
    That's a cheap low fidelity consumer device assembled by underaged slaves.


    I'd still expect it to be able to make better scans. The CIS in my Epson XP-900 doesn't have anywhere near the dynamic range that the V37 has and the output looks overly sharpened, but the blacks and whites are close enough to neutral. I could work with that. – I choose not to, but I could.

    It's still good to have a CIS scanner around for scanning CDs. The narrow depth of field is a huge advantage when scanning a reflective surface.

    alarmclockscreams
    Would you be able to recommend any good scanners that are also printers? Or to get a good scanner would I have to get a standalone scanner?


    Better get a standalone scanner. But be careful. Most low end standalone scanners these days use CIS as well.

    If you spend a bit more, you may get a scanner with dual light source, which will eliminate any shadows caused by kinks in the paper or paper texture. I can't recommend anything at the moment, though, as I'm still trying to find a good one myself. :D
  • I3art 11 days ago

    As far as I know there are no consumer grade all-in-ones with a CCD-scanner left.
    And only Epson still makes "somewhat" affordable CCD-sensored stand-alone scanners.
    CIS is cheaper and works fine 99% of the time, so everyone switched to those.
  • alarmclockscreams 11 days ago

    So it sounds like I should save up and get a really good standalone scanner and also a standalone printer then, rather than my big all-in-one.
  • loukash 11 days ago

    alarmclockscreams
    a really good standalone scanner and also a standalone printer then, rather than my big all-in-one.

    "All-in-one" always sacrifices quality for convenience and ease of use.
    So if quality is your preference, then yes.

    Quality products also tend to "just work" even more than a decade later. That effectively saves costs.

    So, apart from the aforememtioned Epson Perfection 1240 which still "just works" since 2001 – albeit quite slow on descreened high resolutions, as well as with a few slight "discoloration bands" caused by the aging sensor – the other scanner is an Epson Perfection 3170 that I've inherited in 2007 from a late friend of mine. It's only 5 years younger but way faster. One is in my studio, the other in the living room. If scanning record covers, the old one does just fine. For scanning art, photos etc., I use the newer one. Driver support might be a but flaky on current operating systems but both work just all right with the default MacOS drivers on El Capitan. And if they wouldn't, there's still VueScan to the rescue.

    As for a printer, being a graphic designer I bought a solid networkable CMYK laser printer back in 2006, Oki 5450n. Officially unsupported as of El Capitan, it still "just works". Not that I'm actually using it that much these days.

    On the other hand, as already noted, the benefit of an all-in-one would be ease of use, i.e. integration of all of its components, e.g. stuff like "direct scan-to-print". My late father who died earlier this year had two recent Canon all-in-one models in his apartment. Neither appeared to work when I installed them on my MacBook so I've recycled them. Whereas his older standalone scanner seemed to work just fine (forgot which model: it's still buried in storage boxes at the moment).
  • alarmclockscreams 10 days ago

    Here is a brand new Epson 3170 for $100, should I get it?
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/264900914373

    Also will this scanner be able to scan a full 12" record jacket? Or are there even any consumer scanners that do that without having to stitch together two scans?
  • loukash 10 days ago

    alarmclockscreams
    a brand new Epson 3170 for $100, should I get it?

    Hm, I don't know. Keep in mind that it's about 15 years old. A used one for a few bucks? Yes.
    But if you want compability with future operating systems, I'd go with a new one. Something like https://epson.co.uk/products/scanners/consumer-scanners/perfection-v370-photo should be under $200 and likely just as good if not better than the old 3170.

    alarmclockscreams
    will this scanner be able to scan a full 12" record jacket?

    If I'd ever buy a new scanner, I'd get an "oversize" or an A3 CCD. There not much affordable choice though, at the moment I'd likely go with https://plustek.com/us/products/flatbed-scanners/opticpro-a320l/spec.php

    alarmclockscreams
    are there even any consumer scanners that do that without having to stitch together two scans?

    Nope.
    https://plustek.com/us/products/flatbed-scanners/opticslim-1180/spec.php is likely the most affordable A3 scanner, but CIS.
  • loukash 10 days ago

    loukash
    There not much affordable choice though, at the moment I'd likely go with https://plustek.com/us/products/flatbed-scanners/opticpro-a320l/spec.php

    Hm, just noticed that the affordability comes with a "price", after all:
    It has 48-bit input, but only 24-bit output.
    For me – i.e. for professional image scanning and editing – 16-bit per channel is a must.
    Even my Epson 1240 from 2 decades ago can do 48-bit I/O.

    But it's not a big deal for "casual" scanning like LP sleeves for Discogs… :)
  • alarmclockscreams 10 days ago

    So even A3 scanners with a 12" width scannable area only scan about 11" in reality right? Maybe I'll go with the Epson V370 then.
  • loukash 10 days ago

    Average LP cover size is 312×312 mm, so there will always be a few mm missing on one pass with the A320L.
  • ElectricRabbit 10 days ago

    Maybe you can still find a V37 somewhere. It's the same as the V370, but lacks the negative/slide scanning capabilities and should be considerably cheaper than a V370.
    I had considered getting an A3 scanner for LPs, but as the only affordable option was a CIS, I went for the V37.

    Keep in mind that it's still a low end model. It only has one directional light source, which makes paper texture and kinks visible. Other than that it's very nice.

    An A3 sized scanner will only require stitching one seam instead of four, but stitching is not that hard, really. I can do it quite quickly manually, so I consider an A4 sized scanner fine for LPs.

    Here's a comparison of scans made with the V37 (CCD, calibrated) and the XP-900 (CIS):
    https://imgur.com/a/UA3U9Dk
    These use the Adobe RGB color space, so you better check them in Photoshop or GIMP instead of browser.

    I once tried upgrading to a V600 with a dual light source, which should light out everything flat and evenly, but it turned out that didn't work in dark parts of the image. Uneven spots were discolored in teal and orange:

    https://imgur.com/a/zXaoiSZ

    This is a general problem with this model (or at least it was two years ago, when I tried two of them).
    Someone on another forum is going to try out for me if older versions of the V600 suffer from the same issue.

    Turning on "paper texture mode" (i.e. switching off one of the light sources) gave me only orange discolorations.

    Discolorations are not an issue with the V37, so until I can get a better scanner, I even out 45 picture sleeves by using a second scan, like this: https://fanart.tv/tutorials/remove-wrinkles-kinks-and-paper-texture-from-scanned-cover-art/
  • alarmclockscreams 9 days ago

    ElectricRabbit
    Here's a comparison of scans made with the V37 (CCD, calibrated) and the XP-900 (CIS):
    https://imgur.com/a/UA3U9Dk

    The top image (XP-900) looks insanely better than the bottom (V37), but earlier it seemed you were making the V37 out to be better?
  • loukash 9 days ago

    alarmclockscreams
    The top image (XP-900) looks insanely better than the bottom (V37)

    It's more vivid.
    For some reason, people tend to percieve vivid images as "insanely better".
    Not unsimilar to the old Loudness War trick where "louder" is also supposed to be "insanely better". ;)

    Whether the scan is actually accurately representing the CMYK print is a different issue.

    Also:
    ElectricRabbit
    These use the Adobe RGB color space

    … and will appear miscolored if viewed without applying the corresponding ICC profile.
    (Speaking of which: you should have converted them to sRGB before uploading.)

    ElectricRabbit
    you better check them in Photoshop or GIMP instead of browser.

    Photoshop CS5.5 can't read them.
    On MacOS, GraphicConverter and Affinity Photo can. The latter may crash if assigning Adobe RGB profile. Duh.

    The V37 scan looks good to me with Adobe RGB profile applied.
  • ElectricRabbit 9 days ago

    alarmclockscreams
    ElectricRabbitHere's a comparison of scans made with the V37 (CCD, calibrated) and the XP-900 (CIS):
    https://imgur.com/a/UA3U9Dk
    The top image (XP-900) looks insanely better than the bottom (V37), but earlier it seemed you were making the V37 out to be better?


    The V37 is much better. It allows to capture much more details in the shadows and highlights whereas the XP-900 just clips them.
    Because the XP-900 clips the shadows and highlights so much, the resulting image has more contrast, so it looks closer to what a processed image will look like.

    Here is how I processed the V37 scan: https://ia800407.us.archive.org/16/items/mbid-1790b656-7194-4df6-ae9c-cbee39208da8/mbid-1790b656-7194-4df6-ae9c-cbee39208da8-27535251441.jpg

    loukash
    Also:

    ElectricRabbit
    These use the Adobe RGB color space

    … and will appear miscolored if viewed without applying the corresponding ICC profile.
    (Speaking of which: you should have converted them to sRGB before uploading.)


    When preparing something for end users, I always use sRGB. As converting to sRGB may clip the shadows and highlights (converting with perceptive rendering intent is not possible with the sRGB IEC61966-2.1 profile), using the working colour space to show the difference between scanners was the obvious choice. :)

    The ICC profile is included, but not all browsers will display the images correctly.

    loukash
    Photoshop CS5.5 can't read them.
    On MacOS, GraphicConverter and Affinity Photo can. The latter may crash if assigning Adobe RGB profile. Duh.


    That's interesting. No idea why CS5.5 woudn't be able to read these..
  • alarmclockscreams 9 days ago

    loukash
    Whether the scan is actually accurately representing the CMYK print is a different issue.

    That is true that I don't have the actual LP jacket for reference. If the jacket is more greyish in real life then the bottom image would be doing a better job at representing it, but I cannot know that for myself. When making image adjustments I always try to replicate how the real thing actually looks rather than making it look how I "think" it should look.
    loukash
    (Speaking of which: you should have converted them to sRGB before uploading.)

    So all images should be in sRGB before uploading to Discogs?
    ElectricRabbit
    The V37 is much better. It allows to capture much more details in the shadows and highlights whereas the XP-900 just clips them.
    Because the XP-900 clips the shadows and highlights so much, the resulting image has more contrast, so it looks closer to what a processed image will look like.

    I compared both images back and forth several times and there was no additional shadow detail to be seen in the V37 image, and I am aware of the concept of shadow detail. (But I will confess that I was using my Firefox browser on my iMac and did not download the images.)
    ElectricRabbit
    Here is how I processed the V37 scan: https://ia800407.us.archive.org/16/items/mbid-1790b656-7194-4df6-ae9c-cbee39208da8/mbid-1790b656-7194-4df6-ae9c-cbee39208da8-27535251441.jpg

    You processed it to look more like the XP-900 scan it seems to me. So therefore the XP-900 scan was natively more accurate than the X37 scan, but since you did the processing on the X37 scan yourself that will ensure that no shadow detail etc is lost in the raw scanning from the XP-900? (even though in this specific case I didn't notice any shadow detail lost anyway)
  • ElectricRabbit 9 days ago

    ElectricRabbit edited 9 days ago
    With the V37 I can choose where to set the black point and white point and how much clipping (if any) will be ok. Or I can darken the shadows and brighten the highlights gently by using the curves tool, retaining some gradation instead of clipping them hard.

    With the XP-900 I have to accept what is there because it will not capture dark shadows and bright highlights in the first place.
    Here's the histogram of the scan before any color conversion and scaling:
    https://i.imgur.com/XLibKld.png

    And here are the clipped shadows and highlights from a small section at the bottom of the image (including the white border):
    https://i.imgur.com/mmR2GnH.png

    https://i.imgur.com/ONSKHHo.png

    As you can see, there is quite a bit of information lost here, because a lot of pixels have already reached their maximum brightness on one or more channels

    Here is the histogram of my processed image before any scaling and color conversion for comparison:
    https://i.imgur.com/VVne9KN.png

    The final image is clipping quite a bit because of the scaling and color conversion, though. With a scan from the XP-900 it would be even worse.

    alarmclockscreams
    So all images should be in sRGB before uploading to Discogs?


    Using sRGB is good practice for all images that are used on the web. It's a default color space for many devices. When in doubt, it's almost always ok to use sRGB.
  • loukash 9 days ago

    alarmclockscreams
    So all images should be in sRGB before uploading to Discogs?

    The new img.discogs.com server now strips all metadata incl. color profiles, so yes.
    The old pixogs.com server didn't.
  • alarmclockscreams 9 days ago

    So if the colorspace isn't converted to sRGB when I'm done editing my scans, and then I upload those scans to Discogs, information will be lost?
  • loukash 8 days ago

    alarmclockscreams
    So if the colorspace isn't converted to sRGB when I'm done editing my scans, and then I upload those scans to Discogs, information will be lost?

    Yep.
    Usually I work in sRGB from the start.
    Actually I've changed the default profiles for my scanners to sRGB globally to have them embeded right away.
    On Mac:
    /Applications/Utilities/ColorSync Utility.app > Devices tab > Scanners > Reflective RGB > Current Profile > Other… > navigate to /System/Library/ColorSync/Profiles/sRGB Profile.icc
    This change doesn't make any difference to the actual color values of the scan. I could still change the embeded profile to /System/Library/Frameworks/ICADevices.framework/Versions/A/Resources/Scanner RGB Profile.icc or to the EPSON Perfection1240/EPSON Perfection3170 profiles if needed. The Epson profiles are way to blueish to be of any use though. And the Scanner RGB Profile.icc is more or less identical to Apple RGB = gamma 1.8 which is nowadays obsolete.
  • alarmclockscreams 8 days ago

    Okay I just changed my scanner profile to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 :)
  • ElectricRabbit 8 days ago

    You're basically assigning a random profile to your images, which may or may not be an improvement over your scanner's default profile.

    If the default profile is any good, you would be better off converting to sRGB instead of assigning the profile.

    I scan at 16 bits per cannel in a custom profile for my scanner, convert to Adobe RGB, do all my editing in this color space and then reduce everything to one layer and convert down to sRGB, 8bit/channel.

    Working in 16 bit allows me to set levels in photoshop instead of the scanning software without sacrificing quality.
    I won't clip the shadows or highlights by accident and I can set the levels in an environment where I have much better control over what I'm doing. And I still end up with a smooth, gapless histogram when I'm done.

    I guess this is probably overkill for producing 8bit/channel srgb images for web use, though :D
  • alarmclockscreams 8 days ago

    So changing my scanner's profile to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 will mean I'll have to find my color curve etc. settings in Gimp all over again? So I should change it back to default and just do what I've been doing except convert to sRGB before uploading to Discogs?
  • loukash 8 days ago

    ElectricRabbit
    I guess this is probably overkill for producing 8bit/channel srgb images for web use, though :D

    Quite so. ;)
    I use 16-bit/channel only when scanning photos, negatives, slides or my own hand-made illustrations.

    alarmclockscreams
    So changing my scanner's profile to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 will mean I'll have to find my color curve etc. settings in Gimp all over again?

    Could be.

    alarmclockscreams
    So I should change it back to default and just do what I've been doing except convert to sRGB before uploading to Discogs?

    What color profile is the default?

    What you can test right away is to open one of your earlier scans and assign (not convert) the sRGB profile to it. If it noticeably changes the colors, then you may need to adjust your curves differently.

    Also to consider: the display white point.
    Standard computer displays are too blueish. In worst case up to 9300 K. The sRGB standard is 6500 K, still way too blueish though unless you're actually sitting with your computer outside in bright daylight.

    I'm using the F.lux app since years:
    https://justgetflux.com
    It's all explained there.
    My settings: 5000 K during the day, 4200 K during sunset/sunrise, 3400 K at night.

    Also ultimately helpful:
    Set your desktop background image to 50% neutral gray.
    On Mac: System Preferences > Desktop & Screensaver > Desktop > Apple > Colors
  • alarmclockscreams 7 days ago

    The default profile for my scanner is "Scanner RGB Profile".

    Gimp is currently using its own built-in sRGB color profile so I think it's basically already in sRGB anyway.

    Why would I change my desktop background to something that's not a cool picture? :)

    I used to use Flux on my Windows PC but when I got my iMac I stopped using it because it made the colors inaccurate on my screen (when it changed to reddish at night) and it would inhibit me from doing Discogs work.
  • ElectricRabbit 7 days ago

    ElectricRabbit edited 7 days ago
    loukash
    ElectricRabbitI guess this is probably overkill for producing 8bit/channel srgb images for web use, though :D
    Quite so. ;)
    I use 16-bit/channel only when scanning photos, negatives, slides or my own hand-made illustrations.


    As it makes adjustments less problematic, using 16 bits may be good practice.
    The real waste is probably Adobe RGB. I suspect it has a larger gamut than I actually need. In theory it covers the entire gamut that can be expected from a CMYK print, but it's probably just a waste of bits in this case.
    Shouldn't be a problem, though, as I'm working in 16 bits. :D
  • loukash 7 days ago

    alarmclockscreams
    Why would I change my desktop background to something that's not a cool picture? :)

    I'll never get why people are wanting to stare at their desktop picture. :P
    When I'm at my computer, the cool stuff always happens in the respective app window(s) that's open.
    And if no windows are open, then usually I'm doing something else, without sitting in front of the computer and staring at it. ;)

    So: why?
    Because color, lightness and contrast perception is relative.
    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=relative+color+perception

    Alternatively, if Gimp supports full screen mode, you can work with neutral gray background instead.
    I, for one, hate full screen modes, hence neutral gray desktop.
    (To be precise, I'm using 4 virtual desktops on my Mac, and Desktop 2 is dedicated to graphic apps. So it's just Desktop 2 that has 50% gray. The other three desktop backgrounds are each slightly colored so I can tell at a glance which desktop is currently active.)

    alarmclockscreams
    I stopped using it because it made the colors inaccurate on my screen (when it changed to reddish at night)

    Make sure to disable the built-in "Night Shift" feature (Sierra and higher) when using F.lux. They don't work together. And F.lux is way better.

    Also, adjust the night temperature to match your room light. If I'm working at night I'm having only mellow ambient and indirect room light. Hence 3400 K is just right for me. It may appear "reddish" at first, but it matches the white point in my room. That's easy to test: make your screen full white – e.g. a blank full screen TextEdit window and put a blank sheet of white paper next to your main light source. The white point of both should appear roughly the same. You can adjust the value using the F.lux "Bedtime" tab.

    That said…
    alarmclockscreams
    it would inhibit me from doing Discogs work.

    … I don't do much image editing at night.
    The point of having warm display temperature is to make it easy on your eyes while not wanting to stay awake all night. Keyword: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melatonin#Regulation
  • loukash 7 days ago

    ElectricRabbit
    In theory it covers the entire gamut that can be expected from a CMYK print

    What I'm doing sometimes when I realize that some of the scanned colors of a record sleeve are suddenly "sticking outside" the original CMYK gamut, I'd temporarily convert the scan to CMYK and then back to RGB. A dirty but quick'n'effective little trick.

Log In You must be logged in to post.