frank_dzambic

Since this thread has slowly turned into a Coolscan cleaning thread, I figure I'd add my two cents. I've had my LS4000 for a couple of years now, having bought it shortly after it was introduced. I've never cleaned it, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't need cleaning. And that's with leaving the adapter in it all the time when it's not in use--in other words I don't take the negative adapter out and close the door when it's not in use. Of course, that's a very subjective opinion.

What I would have liked to see included with this scanner is a negative or slide with some sort of test pattern on it (like line art, or a resolution chart), that the user could scan and save on the scanner's first use. This scan could then be compared with later scans and possibly give a more objective indication if the performance is degrading over time, and by how much.

Or alternatively, make it an automatic check. Put some sort of a small laser, and a sensor that could measure how well focused the laser spot is on the mirror, with a certain level of diffusion triggering a "Scanner needs cleaning" notification. I have no idea how much that idea would cost to implement, but the first suggestion could be done for virtually nothing.

As I said, I don't see any problems, using subjective judgment, but with a more objective test pattern, maybe things would be more obvious. Just something I've been thinking about, as I've been wondering for a while whether the high cost of cleaning would be justified by seeing any noticeable improvements after cleaning.

Thanks for the help. As you say, if I don't re-edit the already saved files, then they should still print the same as before. I was worried that after a proper hardware calibration those images would look so grossly mis-adjusted that I'd have no choice but to re-edit them all. But, like you said, if the prints looked ok before, then the monitor was probably adjusted correctly previously as well.

I've decided to go with an OptiCal Spyder anyway, if for no other reason than to ensure consistency the next time I eventually upgrade to another system, as well as ensuring consistency over time with this one. Now I just have to wait 2-3 weeks for it to ship because they're back-ordered. (Told you it was a great price.)

Thanks again.

I thought the purpose of a monitor profile was so that Photoshop would know (or at least have a better idea) of how I was seeing the image on the screen, and therefore use that information to know how to translate that to a print? In other words, if what I see on the screen is supposed to represent the final print in a properly calibrated workflow, then doesn't the monitor profile become hugely important? For example if my monitor was malfunctioning and had a strong green cast to it, Photoshop would know that by the time I finished clicking on all the grey squares in Adobe Gamma to find the most neutral gray one.

That's why I thought if my old eyeball calibrated monitor profile was way off (say if I picked a yellowish square as the most neutral in Adobe Gamma on the old system instead of one that was truly grey) that I would have to re-edit all my existing saved images.

Either way, I've given up on trying to determine what the old profile was saved as. It's just not going to happen. Now I'm just trying to determine whether to run Adobe Gamma again, or get a Spyder. I think I had the monitor profiled pretty good by eye last time as my prints always matched what I saw on screen very closely. But before I get a Spyder I want to make sure I don't cause myself hours of re-editing.

By the way, this will probably cause this post to be deleted, but...If anyone is thinking about buying a Spyder with OptiCal, that's good for CRT/LCD, Adorama has an excellent price right now for way less than their next major competitor (I thought it was a typo since the two are usually almost identical in price, but I called and confirmed). Plus, there's a mail in rebate of $70 on top of that. It works out to about 1/2 price. Don't forget to click through Photo.net if you buy one though so they get something. (I tried hard not to make this sound like an ad, because I'm not affiliated with Adorama or anyone else, but it still came out sounding that way. It's just a great deal, that's all).

The first two paragraphs are what I need help with, the last one is just for everyone else's benefit.

Thanks for the help Walter. I'm running Windows XP, and the files are in the c:\windows\system32\spool\drivers\color\ directory like you said. Only problem is, but I'll be damned if I can figure out which one it is. The one with the profile name I think it should be has a date that matches the profile name on the new system. So, I guess I'll have to start from scratch and either eyeball everything again (and probably not set it to exactly how I had it before), or get one of those OptiCal Spyders (and at least be consistent from now on).

On a somewhat related question, let's say I do get an Optical Spyder, and calibrate with it. If I then go back and open an older file I've adjusted to my liking, and print it using the new Optical generated monitor profile, will it look exactly the same (on screen and on paper) as it did when I printed it on the old system? Or, if my eye was off by a gross amount when I used Adobe Gamma before, will the new print look completely different because Photoshop is using a new monitor profile? If the latter is the case, that would mean I'd have to re-edit hundreds of images I've already spent countless hours on, and that fear is what kept me from buying a Spyder some time ago.

Thanks

I've just finished setting up a new computer, including installing all

the software I was using on the old system. My question now is, what

is the name of the file that Photoshop/Adobe Gamma saves the Adobe

Gamma settings in? In other words, when you run Adobe Gamma, it must

save the result in a file, and I'd like to know the name of that file.

I'd like to simply copy that file from the old harddrive onto the new

one without having to run Adobe Gamma again, and possibly obtaining a

different result. (After all, we're talking eyeballs, not an Opti-cal

sensor). As my monitor and video card came from the old system this

seems to be the best option if I can do it in order to obtain the most

consistent results for editing and printing.

Thanks