Add a simple mirror/flip to the rotate/crop mode?


Posting rules: It shouldn't need saying, but... play nice. Please keep your discussions civil. You can disagree, just don't be disagreeable. And, of course, all of the usual stuff like no spamming. Tex adds: I'll be rigorously enforcing this as we go along. We're probably going to be a small community in a little lifeboat, so we can't have members at each others' throats. This is for the sake of the project as a whole. So when you post, pretend you're speaking in person with your very wealthy auntie who has always treated you wonderfully and currently lists you prominently in her will. I won't be tossing anyone out of the forums because we are all in this together (except spammers: immediate membership cancelation), but I'll delete suspect posts right away.


10 posts / 0 new
Last post
scoobysnacker
Add a simple mirror/flip to the rotate/crop mode?

Recently, I was able to snap off a nice portrait of someone via a mirror. It's not a commonly used technique I know, but in this case I got a very natural pose, and the image is striking. The problem, of course, is that the person is reversed, and in this case, he's wearing a suit- so the breast pocket is over the wrong side. 

If LightZone has a mirror/flip option anywhere, it's hidden where I can't find it. I have other software that has this ability, but I'm really liking the way LightZone is developing this shot. It was done indoors without a flash, and the B&W options in particular are coming very nicely. 

I realize I can simply flip the final output afterwards, but it's be nice to be able to do it early in the workflow. Thanks, Dave

tex
we don't have that yet----but

we don't have that yet----but it seems like it might be do-able, so it's a good suggestion!

Malcolm M
Any news on the mirror/flip?

 

Hi all. Newbie here.

 

First, thanks to all of you who resurrected and put this impressive programme together - and made it avaliable to those of us without piles of cash to spend!

 

So any progress on the mirror/flip tool?  It'd be a very useful thing for folks scanning film emulsion-down with Epson equipment - produces a mirrored image which, as far as I know, can only be corrected by previewing in thumbnail mode, which I don't like to do. I rely on an editing programme to flip the image. Seems a shame to have to open my file in another programme first and then import into LZ. I'm then in 8-bit and losing quality before I start (aren't I?).

 

I only signed up yesterday - perhaps it's somewhere and I haven't found it yet?

SFA
Nothing that I know of yet

Nothing that I know of yet and there are other things that may be more readily available to be implemented first I suspect.

 

Now for clarity here are you talking about flipping the image or converting a negative to a positive? Or both?

 

I am assuming flipping the image. In which case why not process in LZ as it is and then flip the output file?

 

If you are aiming for a print (or even a screen display for general use) the end result will be 8bit anyway in almost all cases so you will have nothing to loose by generating a jpg output. Some Photoshop-like programs will be able to flip the image for that final step. Or you could use something like Faststone Image Viewer (Free) which offers a JPG Lossless flip option for both vertical and horizontal flipping. Also a 'Negative' option.

 

 

HTH.

 

 

Grant

 

 

Malcolm M
Yep - flipping

Seems like a basic function to me. I haven't come across another free programme that doesn't have it. There again, I know nothing about creating these tools and the work involved. And LZ must have other priorities - point taken. Still, as I have to flip all my scanned negatives, it'd be convenient to be able to do it in LZ; I'be less tempted to open another programme and stay in it (my needs are modest but I'd still like to take advantage of the best available). And I like to do it first in the flow; it's very easy to adjust to a mirror image and forget!

 

On the 16/8-bit thing (off-topic, I know) -

 

I've only got back into photography after almost 40 years away from cameras. I'm still trying to get my head round the digital-photo world.

 

I thought one of the big attractions of LZ was it's lossless, 16-bit editing capability. I don't fully understand how it all works, but it sounds like something I should be doing. Yet I know - as you say - that anything displayed on the web ends up 8-bit (I don't print hard copies from digital scans, so don't know about  printing). I'm trying to understand the advantage of lossless/16-bit (and massive RAW/TIFF files) if things only end up viewable as 8-bit jpg...

grubernd
hint: scan-software can

hint: scan-software can usually flip, but i guess that's too late for the images already scanned.

 

but since you are not using raw-files from a digicam (or are you?) you could flip them in a destructive imageviewer / editor like xnview, acdsee, gThumb, gimp, photoshop in some batch mode. before editing them in LZ.

 

the difference between working in 16bit and outputting to 8bit is like trying to prepare the whole meal on the plate it is going to be served on. eventually things will fall off the plate during preperation, onto the ground and getting wasted. that's why a kitchen has a big table to chop things. the dish will still be served on a regular plate. makes sense?

Malcolm M
Flip first...

True, grubernd - images can be flipped in scanning software. But I use Epson scan which only allows flipping in thumbnail preview, which I don't like. I may have to learn to like it...cos I want to see and edit the 'proper' image before I adjust to the mirrored one (and maybe forget to flip it)* And no, I'm not using Raw files, nor a digicam - only scanning from 35mm negatives.

 

16 bit: Love the dinner analogy! Erm... Do you mean that more damage is done while editing in 8-bit than by just saving as 8-bit? If so, why didn't you say so! ;)

 

*I was addding this as an edit to my last post before I saw your reply.

SFA
16 bit and 8 bit ...

Malcolm,

 

There is potentially a lot of ground to cover and I am no expert but the basic reality is that there will, in an photographic image, be a lot more information stored for a 16 bit image than an 8 bit image IF that information was originally available. Much of the information will related to nuances of colour on a pixel by pixel basis but that is not the whole story since there are other factors that come into play that may mean the some of that additional information is discarded (or unreacheable) long before it get to you via your editor and your screen (where some of it may not be visible anyway.)

 

If you are scanning colour negatives or slide frames the first level of limitation is how much details was burned into the film stock during exposure and processing. This is a variable but I suspect that, bearing in mind the very different file sizes produced by scans at 8 bit vs 16 bit - especially at resolutions that are likely to be able to capture the level of detail that gives the subtleties - you may not find there are any benefits from a practical point of view. Very large film based images (Plate camera style) may have the level of nuance but then you are into specialised scanning and most likely some huge files that most editors are unlikely to be able to deal with. In my experience with 35mm source material there is unlikely to be anything to be gained unless you have an exceptionally fine negative and a perfect scan from it. (Something I have yet to find!)

 

I was once asked if I could provide a file to make a super large print (wall size) from one of my old 2 1/4 in square B&W negatives. Or rather from  a very small part of it. Using my Epson scanner I got to the point where I was scanning grain detail so I took it to a Pro lab, chatted to the scanner operator, discussed what I needed to do and paid quite a lot of money for a large and detailed file that, from memory, is over 100Mb.  Viewing the image on screen showed much the same result as I had already obtained from my scanner. Drilling and and studying the grain (in effect) showed some very very slight differences, but not enough to justify the time and effort I had expended.

 

I cannot image that any of my 35mm film based images, B&W or colour, would offer a higher level of usable source detail. So I rather suspect that 16bit for 35mm is not worth the time and effort. Of course your results may be different.

 

I don't think it matters that your scanner software only allows you to see the effects of a flip in thumbnail mode. It's only a flip and no other processing should be performed as part of that specific action.

 

Some thoughts for what they are worth.

 

 

Grant

 

 

Malcolm M
Confirmation

Thanks Grant. That all makes a lot of sense. All you say confirms what I've so far discovered from a brief couple of months experimenting with large and small files of 35mm scans at various resolutions (mostly B&W - an old archive - and now some colour).

 

I don't think it matters that your scanner software only allows you to see the effects of a flip in thumbnail mode. It's only a flip and no other processing should be performed as part of that specific action.

 

That makes sense too :)

 

 

simono
Mirror flip

Why on earth isn't there a flip put in? This is really one of the easier functions to program. I am just digitalising 2000 slides and now and again there is one back-to-front, i.e. came in as seen through a mirror and needs flipping. It is really inconvenient to have to leave this really excellent tool just to do something as simple as a horizontal flip. Actually, up to now, I have never encounterd a photo editor that cannot flip. I would expect such a function to be in the "rotate" menu. Afterall, it is a type of rotate.

 

I guess in the very beginning the original development team simply forgot to put a flip in. And you new guys are too enthralled by high-end photo image retouching algorithms to bump in something so uninteresting as a flip transformation. Could that possibly be the case? ;-) You would have my sympathy.

 

However, as Shakespeare once wrote - "A flip, a flip, my kingdom for a flip!" - although I must admit that I do not have that much kingdom to offer.

So ple-e-e-e-e-ease do put in a flip.