Re: filmscanners: orange mask
This matter of excess blue in a landscape image goes all the way back to early BW photography in the 19th Century when the films and glass plates would respond only to blue light, hence the always "white" skies in old photos. The sky was virtually all blue light and would overexpose the negative in that area. The fact that an image was recorded, and often extremely well, illustrates how pervasive blue light is in a landscape scene but not so pervasive that the subjects on the ground were overexposed. I trick I learned years ago, when using medium format cameras in BW, came from the late Ansel Adams. His favorite BW filter was a no. 12 "Minus Blue" which filtered out *only* visible blue light to a large degree. This often was a starting point for determining exposure (he used large view cameras) and depending upon what you had visualized, you could use an orange or even a red filter; or you could go the other way using green, light yellow or even (rarely!) a blue filter. Or none at all. In the Colorado Rockies, I often used a green filter -- it would still darken the sky and increase contrast slightly but would lighten the foliage (of evergreen trees particularly) sufficiently so the trees would not print black in the final image. Foliage usually has blue light scattered all through it, particularly at altitude -- I very often was at altitudes between 10,000 and 14,000 feet. Blue light has the shortest wave length of all visible light and therefore "scatters" throughout a scene much more readily than the longer wave lengths at the red end of the spectrum. Wave lengths shorter than blue start getting into the invisible ultra violet range and much longer than the red end of the spectrum gets into infra reds, also invisible to the eye except through special films. The judicious use (by the photographer's subjective judgement) of filters carries over into the world of color. I have found a lot of blue in the Sierra Nevada mountains here in California; in the high desert region east of those mountains [it may be desert but it's still 6,000 to 8,000 feet above sea level, hence there's a lot of blue light scattering around]; in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and Canada; and in Norway [particularly as one gets further north -- the light at North Cape, the "top of Europe" can be very hard to deal with] in the land of the midnight sun. If you're shooting in early morning or late afternoon light, either different filtering or no filtering is called for but that depends on the latitude you're in and the time of year. The San Francisco Bay Area, where I live, is located at about the same latitude as Gibraltar; Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, is located at about at the same latitude as Paris. I usually do my photography in places such as those mentioned above and have found that an 81A filter on the camera helps a lot in dealing with a lot of excessive blue light. Occasionally, I use a stronger 81B but not often. I feel it's better to deal right at the camera with the light falling on a landscape before retiring to a darkroom or digital treatment to produce a print. The light in Greece was a different story, for the most part, particularly in landscapes in the Greek Islands. Greece was almost always slightly hazy for the 7 weeks I was there in '97, so judicious polarizing was called for. It's a nice trick to clear the haze without introducing a lot of blue tint where you don't want it. Hawaii is another difficult place for landscape lighting; Ansel Adams used to say he never did master it. A friend of mine, who was an assistant to Adams and who lives 4,000 feet up on the side of Mauna Kea volcano at a place called (naturally) Volcano, Hawaii, has mastered the light but he has lived there for many years. Often, in all of these locations and depending upon the subject matter, no filter at all was called for. I usually shoot transparencies, not color neg film, and I've been told that color neg film reacts differently to color filters such as an 81A than reversal film does. Anyone who uses filtering in any way (color -- reversal or neg -- or BW) should do at least some empirical testing to see what filter causes what changes to one's choice of film and one's choice of method for creating the final print. BTW, I made my first photo (BW) in 1946. Kodachrome was ASA 10 and Ektachrome didn't exist, to my knowledge. Hart Corbett -- From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: orange mask Date: Wed, Jan 17, 2001, 9:25 PM The experience I've had with Provia 100F in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, where it is overcast 9 months out of the year, is that it is actually best when overcast. If I take pictures of a forested scene that is hundreds of feet away (e.g. a waterfalls with surrounding moss-covered cliffs) with a blue sky (but no direct sunlight), there is a discouraging blue cast to the whole scene. (I can fix most of this in the scanning
Re: OT: wedding photography was RE: filmscanners: Color Profile conversions and high-bit/low bit conversions. In w
Photographing a wedding probably is a bit OT. Yes, it's stressfull. I've only done 3 weddings (landscapes are my forte): one for my cousin in 1969, one for my former college roommate in 1974 and one for my son in 1988. All 3 turned out fine with lots of reprints, etc., but I'll never do another one, that's for sure! The printing and distribution logistics are much too time consuming! Hart Corbett -- From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: wedding photography was RE: filmscanners: Color Profile conversions and high-bit/low bit conversions. In w Date: Thu, Jan 18, 2001, 9:59 PM Jerry wrote re weddings: We are lately wrestling with mixed feelings: we like to take pictures, esp. of such family occasions, we do it for free (only cost of albums, film and processing) [snip] but it is still a lot, I mean a LOT of pressure and we make such a lot of mistakes again and again As it happens, today I was talking about an awful experiecne I had doing this for a friend of a friend. I was very reluctant, but they assured me that they "just wanted some photos which were bit better than average snapshots" and agreed to take them for the cost of the materials. At the end I thought I got some really nice photos; especially the BW photos, but the wife didn't like *any* of them. After that I decided I didn't ever want to photograph a wedding again, because I could do without the stress. I suspect you really need a mentor who has been taking wedding photos for a long time, and practice, practice, practice... Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
I don't want to knock this thread. I've enjoyed the discussion, even though some of it started out to be over my head. However, for most of us, the ultimate product is usually a print that we can show to others, and have them accept that the colors make sense to them, as being representative of 'reality' (where that is the artistic objective). The observers are not likely to care much whether the blue is a perfect 0-0-255. If it is the sky, then it should elicit the response that it is what a sky looks like... Oil Painters will take a couple (or several) tubes and mix up a color that 'looks good' to the artist. Good painters are not ignorant of color theory, but I doubt they would get involved in a discussion like this thread. And, in general, an original oil painting is unique, and the artist would probably be hard put to duplicate it if asked to do so. Hersch At 10:05 PM 01/19/2001 +0100, you wrote: shAf wrote: I'd love to learn more from discussing this subject with my peers ... I need some understanding as much as anyone else, but I do believe my observations and questions are valid, and that I'll be able to contribute as well as learn. Absolutely the same for me ! Thanks to all the contributors ... reading and understanding is learning ... for me . Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "shAf" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:49 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners Tony writes ... I think this debate does belong here. Very few people, including me, understand all this stuff fully, yet it inescapably goes with the territory of film scanning. OK then ... but let's back up a bit, and agree on some concepts. Color exists, and devices cannot capture all of it. For example, we might begin with ignoring the quality of our lenses, and skip to something we have day-to-day control over, and realize that certain films are more-or-less sensitive to certain wavelengths. Do we want to understand this as the film's gamut?? (Andrew feel free to jump in ... please!). At this point in the discussion, I am at a loss to define the fixed point around which all other definitions of color (color spaces, device gamuts) are relative. I would love to believe this is the CIELAB color space, but I've read there are different versions of Lab color space. This is aggravating to me ... we need to first find that "fixed" reference point. It also seems to me RGB must somehow be "fixed", but there exists an anchor by which we define PS color spaces. From here we'll be able to understand to what degree film can capture nature ... a scanner can capture film ... the appropriatness of our Photoshop working spaces. I entered into this thread only to express an observation regarding understanding RGB color space and the gamut associated with it (assume any color space, but it began with the color spaces associated with Photoshop ... e.g., AdobeRGB). My point was one of curiosity ... not only are there colors (as defined by a RGB value) which are outside the working space, there also exists colors as defined by RGB values which do not exist at all. A question to ask here would be if anyone believes, that when they defined the RGB editing color space, if they didn't define it as such that the endpoints (the "pure" R,G B values) would never be actually found. That is, don't we define these editing color spaces to ^enclose^ anything we may encounter??? I'd love to learn more from discussing this subject with my peers ... I need some understanding as much as anyone else, but I do believe my observations and questions are valid, and that I'll be able to contribute as well as learn. Comments in the context of your post follow ... On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:42:09 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Some values are so useless, they are even outside Lab ... and not only can you not bringthem into gamut, they should even be there in the first place ... especially if we're talking about photography. Right, now I understand better what you are getting at and have no argument with most of it (apart from the philosophical one that RGB is device dependent so the purity and intensity of an eg pure blue depends on the device, not the RGB value - I'll agree a device is capable of only some colors. With regard to monitors, there is much of the working space's gamut we simply have to accept on faith. We should be happy Photoshop's "monitor compensation" at least removes the display's bias (influence) on the perceived colors vs the RGB values. There is of course usefulness in out-of-gamut colors ... for, as you say, headroom, and because they can be brought into gamut. But surely you'll agree some RGB values are so far out of gamut (relative to some
filmscanners: VS 6.4.12 Great! But I still have a suggestion
On Friday 19 January 2001 01:30, you wrote: Hi! I tried out VS 6.4.12 with a slide having significant tonal range, and the 8x times exposure option gives wonders. What I was doing was essentially increasing gamma in the two scans, and compare the dark areas. The difference was striking! What I'd suggest that you change the algorithm so that 1x and 8x scans are done before forwarding the film. I presume that with the present solution where you do to scans in sequence sharpness may be affected, although this was in no way apparent in my simple test. Regards Erik Ps. I'm impressed that a great program got even greater. -- Erik Kaffehr[EMAIL PROTECTED] alt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mariebergsvägen 53 +46 155 219338 (home) S-611 66 Nyköping +46 155 263515 (office) Sweden -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons --
Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
"Hersch Nitikman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perfect 0-0-255. If it is the sky, then it should elicit the response that it is what a sky looks like... Ultimately, if we're able to scan and print the pictures and we like the results, that's what really matters. :) in general, an original oil painting is unique, and the artist would probably be hard put to duplicate it if asked to do so. Not just oils. I know my mother had tried to make duplicates of some of her paintings, but they are seldom good enough for her satisfaction. Rob
filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS
The California Power crisis has reminded me that I need and UPS, and I'm looking the APC brand. Some more expensive models seem to offer more for voltage regulation than other models. Any suggestions? If the UPS has 3 battery backup connectors, I was planning to connect the computer, monitor, and the SS4000 scanner. If four connectors, I would add the laser printer, but not the Epson 1200 across the room. Thanks Bill Twieg
re: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS
There was some discussion a few months back that perhaps a UPS could help with noise in scans, my experiement with a ScanWit and a APC UPS showed no difference what so ever. We've used the APC brand at work for years, and other than a couple of batteries that I think should have been warranty failures, they have been great. The California Power crisis has reminded me that I need and UPS, and I'm looking the APC brand. Some more expensive models seem to offer more for voltage regulation than other models. Any suggestions? If the UPS has 3 battery backup connectors, I was planning to connect the computer, monitor, and the SS4000 scanner. If four connectors, I would add the laser printer, but not the Epson 1200 across the room.
filmscanners: new problem from scanner newbie
Hi - I queried various scanners on this list several months ago and yesterday bought myslef a Minolta Scan Slite. I use Photoshop on a Mac powerbook G3, downloaded the newest updates and scanned my first slide using the navigation/automatic so that I could at least see what the scanner will do. All went well and the image is appearing on my monitor BUT in Photoshop (in a Photoshop file), I am unable to manipulate the slide... it won't allow me to make new layers, won't truly select, and I am unable to print. I know this is a silly basic question but what am I doing wrong or what haven't I done? Is it in in the scanner or something I need to change in Photoshop? I have used Photoshop before and cannot figure out what this is won't work? Any thougts or where I should look? The Minolta site isn't helpful and so far, neighter are the photoshop books nor thehelp. Thanks for any information.. I'm raring to go and getting frustrated here. -- Sara Jane Boyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.teenpowerpolitics.com TEEN POWER POLITICS: MAKE YOURSELF HEARD A Millbrook Press/Twenty-First Century Book ISBN: 0-7613-1391-5, paper $9.95/ISBN 0-7613-1307-9 hardcover, $24.90 Email me if you'd like to be on my newsletter update list! LIFE DOESN'T FRIGHTEN ME Stewart, Tabori Chang A Publisher's Weekly "Best Book" of the Year, NYPL "Best Books for Teens", ALA "Book for Reluctant Readers", AIGA "50 Best Designed Books" O BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES Chronicle Books
Re: filmscanners: new problem from scanner newbie
Sara Jane: Welcome to the group. Your problem may be related to the bit level of the scan if you are not using PS 6. The earlier versions will not allow some of the PS tools, like layers, wand, etc., to work in anything other than the 8 bit mode. With the image opened in PS, open the image menu and click Mode. At the bottom of the new menu there will be a check mark next to the either 8 bit or 16 bit. If 16 bit is checked check click 8 bit. That should allow you to use all PS tools. If 8 bit is checked when you open the menu, someone else in the group will have to help you. It is best to use as many PS tools as you can with 16 bit checked, then go to 8 bit. It is also better to go back to 16 bit mode when you save your final image as some quality is lost when going from 16 bit to 8 bit. The larger 16 bit saved file size will use more disk space. I hope this helps. Gordon Sara Jane Boyers wrote: BUT in Photoshop (in a Photoshop file), I am unable to manipulate the slide... it won't allow me to make new layers, won't truly select, and I am unable to print.Any thougts or where I should look? Sara Jane Boyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.teenpowerpolitics.com TEEN POWER POLITICS: MAKE YOURSELF HEARD A Millbrook Press/Twenty-First Century Book ISBN: 0-7613-1391-5, paper $9.95/ISBN 0-7613-1307-9 hardcover, $24.90 Email me if you'd like to be on my newsletter update list! LIFE DOESN'T FRIGHTEN ME Stewart, Tabori Chang A Publisher's Weekly "Best Book" of the Year, NYPL "Best Books for Teens", ALA "Book for Reluctant Readers", AIGA "50 Best Designed Books" O BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES Chronicle Books
RE: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS
Thanks Edwin That is the model I was looking at. Do you know if the voltage regulator feature applies to the surge plugs-ins and the battery plug-ins or just the latter? Most of these models only seem to have 3 or 4 of the battery back-up plug-ins. Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Edwin Eleazer Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 6:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS I use a APC Back Ups Pro 500, and could not be more pleased with it. It gives me about 26 minutes maximum time in the event of power failure when using my LCD screen. Naturally, this falls considerably with the Trinitron to about 15 minutes. I also noticed less noise in some of my scans, LS-30, when I started using it. Not a lot, but perceptible. Here in Georgia we don't have big power problems, but we do get voltage fluctuation like everyone else. I have the computer, monitor(s), LS-30, external modem USB hub power supplys, and a cordless phone (which doesn't have built in power backup) all connected. Edwin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Twieg Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 8:34 AM To: Filmscanners Subject: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS The California Power crisis has reminded me that I need and UPS, and I'm looking the APC brand. Some more expensive models seem to offer more for voltage regulation than other models. Any suggestions? If the UPS has 3 battery backup connectors, I was planning to connect the computer, monitor, and the SS4000 scanner. If four connectors, I would add the laser printer, but not the Epson 1200 across the room. Thanks Bill Twieg
RE: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS
I recently bought an APC 650 VA model for about $200. The very next day after hooking it up, we had the worst power outage I've ever seen in the Portland area. The lights flickered on and off for about ten minutes before being permanently shut down. That kind of power outage can wreck havoc with electronic equipment, but I just sat there in front of my computer, calmly finishing what I was doing and then shut the system down. The only trouble with that model is that it only has 3 UPS outlets and I'd like to put the Epson 2000p on the circuit also. This is because it takes about 10 minutes to make a print and they are expensive and I'd hate to lose one right in the middle of it. It does have 3 other outlets that are spike-protected, however. Most of us on this list will need a fairly hefty UPS, because our machines are fat and our monitors huge. My 650 is on the large side of consumer UPS units, but now I wish I'd have bought an even larger one. Four UPS outlets would have been better, and supposedly the 650 will only let me run for 12 minutes with everything powered up. However, I have my monitor running in power-saving mode, so it automatically turns down to very low power after 2 hours. A couple weeks after that really bad outage, we had another one that lasted 12 minutes, but it happened in the middle of the day, the monitor had self-powered down, and when I came home, the machine was still up and happy. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Twieg Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 5:34 AM To: Filmscanners Subject: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS The California Power crisis has reminded me that I need and UPS, and I'm looking the APC brand. Some more expensive models seem to offer more for voltage regulation than other models. Any suggestions? If the UPS has 3 battery backup connectors, I was planning to connect the computer, monitor, and the SS4000 scanner. If four connectors, I would add the laser printer, but not the Epson 1200 across the room. Thanks Bill Twieg
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
ViewScan has improved tremendously for me over the past couple months, and I too have pretty much abandoned Insight. It also helps that I'm getting better at using Photoshop and am actually getting the hang of curves. Sometimes I'm surprised to find that when a scan gets into Photoshop from ViewScan I don't have to do a thing to it. I look at it and say, "Hey, there's nothing I can do to make it better!" I still have occasional problems with ViewScan. Just the other day, scans started coming out dark near the end of a scanning session of several hours. May that was the SS4000's fault. I haven't gone back and tried to rescan those slides yet. Maybe I'll try that today. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of jimhayes Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? Vuescan works better than Insight for me. snip Frank Paris wrote: any case, I'm sticking with the SS4000, since in my naivety I can't imagine what could be improved. Software of course...
Re: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS
I would not be without my UPS,s Buy one that runs ALL your computer and peripherals . Its very good insurance Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files
Re: filmscanners: Nikon scanner selection
on 1/17/01 9:00 PM, Tony Sleep at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:17:25 -0800 (PST) tom ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am just wondering which of the new scanners (IV or 4000) is a best buy (hobby purpose). Of course 4000 is superior but the specification of IV seems to be better than LS2000 which is a decent scanner. I am interested in your opinion what is a better solution ? Wait and see. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons The LS-2000 does have one feature that the IV ED (LS-40) does not mention in the specs: multiscanning. You apparently have to go to the 4000 for that. -Berry
Re: filmscanners: new problem from scanner newbie
It sounds like the format of the scanned result may be wrong somehow. Try changing the format first either in your scanning software or in Photoshop and maybe some clue will develop. Maris - Original Message - From: "Sara Jane Boyers" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 9:24 AM Subject: filmscanners: new problem from scanner newbie | Hi - I queried various scanners on this list several months ago and | yesterday bought myslef a Minolta Scan Slite. I use Photoshop on a | Mac powerbook G3, downloaded the newest updates and scanned my first | slide using the navigation/automatic so that I could at least see | what the scanner will do. | | All went well and the image is appearing on my monitor BUT in | Photoshop (in a Photoshop file), I am unable to manipulate the | slide... it won't allow me to make new layers, won't truly select, | and I am unable to print. I know this is a silly basic question but | what am I doing wrong or what haven't I done? Is it in in the | scanner or something I need to change in Photoshop? I have used | Photoshop before and cannot figure out what this is won't work? Any | thougts or where I should look? | | The Minolta site isn't helpful and so far, neighter are the photoshop | books nor thehelp. | | Thanks for any information.. I'm raring to go and getting frustrated here. | | -- | Sara Jane Boyers | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.teenpowerpolitics.com | TEEN POWER POLITICS: MAKE YOURSELF HEARD | A Millbrook Press/Twenty-First Century Book | ISBN: 0-7613-1391-5, paper $9.95/ISBN 0-7613-1307-9 hardcover, $24.90 | Email me if you'd like to be on my newsletter update list! | LIFE DOESN'T FRIGHTEN ME Stewart, Tabori Chang | A Publisher's Weekly "Best Book" of the Year, NYPL "Best Books for | Teens", ALA "Book for Reluctant Readers", AIGA "50 Best Designed | Books" | O BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES Chronicle Books
Re: filmscanners: new problem from scanner newbie
Hi - I queried various scanners on this list several months ago and yesterday bought myslef a Minolta Scan Slite. I use Photoshop on a Mac powerbook G3, downloaded the newest updates and scanned my first slide using the navigation/automatic so that I could at least see what the scanner will do. All went well and the image is appearing on my monitor BUT in Photoshop (in a Photoshop file), I am unable to manipulate the slide... it won't allow me to make new layers, won't truly select, and I am unable to print. I know this is a silly basic question but what am I doing wrong or what haven't I done? Is it in in the scanner or something I need to change in Photoshop? I have used Photoshop before and cannot figure out what this is won't work? Any thougts or where I should look? The Minolta site isn't helpful and so far, neighter are the photoshop books nor thehelp. Hi Sara At a guess I would say the you have scanned the image at 16bit/channel (48bit) which is the correct method to get the best from the scanner and will allow for greater latitude when adjusting Levels, Saturation etc in PS. To convert the image to 8bit/channel, from the Image menu go Mode/8bit/channel. But before you do, make any adjustments you feel necessary such Levels, Curves, Saturation, Crop, UnsharpMask (PS6 only). When in 16bit only certain functions are available. Hope this helps. Richard
Re: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS
Unless you have a fairly hefty UPS you may find that the laser printer presents a larger instantaneous load than your UPS is happy with. Try it but don't be surprised if you have to remove it. Phil Alan Womack wrote: There was some discussion a few months back that perhaps a UPS could help with noise in scans, my experiement with a ScanWit and a APC UPS showed no difference what so ever. We've used the APC brand at work for years, and other than a couple of batteries that I think should have been warranty failures, they have been great. The California Power crisis has reminded me that I need and UPS, and I'm looking the APC brand. Some more expensive models seem to offer more for voltage regulation than other models. Any suggestions? If the UPS has 3 battery backup connectors, I was planning to connect the computer, monitor, and the SS4000 scanner. If four connectors, I would add the laser printer, but not the Epson 1200 across the room.
RE: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS
Hi Bill! That is the model I was looking at. Do you know if the voltage regulator feature applies to the surge plugs-ins and the battery plug-ins or just the latter? Most of these models only seem to have 3 or 4 of the battery back-up plug-ins. I'm using a Vircton online UPS (a NetPro 2000) and this unit has two (2) battery back-up plug-ins. So I'm using a multiple plug to distribute the power to ten (10) devices (two scanners, various external SCSI devices, to computers, a monitor and a laser printer). Works fine. cu Flo
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
The pathetically flimsy plastic film/slide holders on my SS4000 are a major reason that I'm real interested in a new Nikon scanner. I'm praying that Polaroid will improve the film/slide holders as they attempt to compete with Nikon. -JimD At 09:09 AM 1/20/01 -0700, jimhayes wrote: snip Improvements? The plastic film holders are flimsy. I thought I heard that with the new Polaroid 120, metal holders are supplied, ones that will work in the SS 4000 as well(?). snip
Re: filmscanners: new problem from scanner newbie
I don't have any comments except to say that the Minolta site has been acting as though it has a virus. I've tried it a couple of times over the last few weeks and only get the home page. It ties up my computer for 10 to 15 minutes before one can even sign off. It's not downloading anything on my Mac but I can't get to any of the other pages of the site, either. No other site of any kind has ever acted like this. I recommend staying away from it. It's been like this for a long time; if Minolta can't even repair its own Web site, how trustworthy can any of its electronic products really be? Hart Corbett -- From: Sara Jane Boyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: new problem from scanner newbie Date: Sat, Jan 20, 2001, 7:24 AM Hi - I queried various scanners on this list several months ago and yesterday bought myslef a Minolta Scan Slite. I use Photoshop on a Mac powerbook G3, downloaded the newest updates and scanned my first slide using the navigation/automatic so that I could at least see what the scanner will do. All went well and the image is appearing on my monitor BUT in Photoshop (in a Photoshop file), I am unable to manipulate the slide... it won't allow me to make new layers, won't truly select, and I am unable to print. I know this is a silly basic question but what am I doing wrong or what haven't I done? Is it in in the scanner or something I need to change in Photoshop? I have used Photoshop before and cannot figure out what this is won't work? Any thougts or where I should look? The Minolta site isn't helpful and so far, neighter are the photoshop books nor thehelp. Thanks for any information.. I'm raring to go and getting frustrated here. -- Sara Jane Boyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.teenpowerpolitics.com TEEN POWER POLITICS: MAKE YOURSELF HEARD A Millbrook Press/Twenty-First Century Book ISBN: 0-7613-1391-5, paper $9.95/ISBN 0-7613-1307-9 hardcover, $24.90 Email me if you'd like to be on my newsletter update list! LIFE DOESN'T FRIGHTEN ME Stewart, Tabori Chang A Publisher's Weekly "Best Book" of the Year, NYPL "Best Books for Teens", ALA "Book for Reluctant Readers", AIGA "50 Best Designed Books" O BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES Chronicle Books
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:49:53 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Color exists, and devices cannot capture all of it. For example, we might begin with ignoring the quality of our lenses, and skip to something we have day-to-day control over, and realize that certain films are more-or-less sensitive to certain wavelengths. Do we want to understand this as the film's gamut?? (Andrew feel free to jump in ... please!). Unfortunately I just spotted in the listserver logs that Andrew has unsubscribed. fixed point around which all other definitions of color (color spaces, device gamuts) are relative. The colourspace of your vision is that fixed point, nothing else. CIELAB describes all the colours available in additive colour systems like computer screens. The reason it's useful for us is that it maps the eye's non-linear sensitivity to HSL. It's a working assumption about most peoples' vision, barring colour blindness or individual divergence from the norm. When you say 'different versions of CIELAB', maybe you are thinking of CIELUV, a different space which AFAICR does likewise for all the colours we can see in a subtractive system, ie where the illuminant is white light. I think CIELUV is supposed to describe our perception of the real world, where what our eyes get is what has not been subtractively absorbed by reflection. I'm guessing now, but perhaps the foregoing argument about real vs. non-real colours lays with CIELUV and CIELAB not overlapping perfectly. CIELAB is the wider space, I believe. Which means not that we cannot see some colours but that there are colours available within an additive system which don't occur subtractively. AFAICS all RGB spaces should fit within CIELAB as there is little merit in making output devices which work outside our visual gamut. It could be done, eg printing in infra-red reflective inks, but we'd have a hard time exhibiting them ;) If we are dealing with film, CIELAB is the relevant description because it's an additive system, and CIELAB describes how we see the film image. Each film imposes its own gamut. What we get on film is a remapping of scene values from the original colours to the colours and densities of which the film is capable. This is relative and 'device dependent' - the emulsion sensitivities and dye intensities comprise the 'device'. So far the process has been analogue, uncomplicated by RGB values or profiles - but it is the same qualitatively. The film's 'device characteristics' can be described as a profile. Then we scan it. The scanner has its own foibles and non-linearities in the manner in which it attempts to translate dye colours and densities to RGB values. We are now in the realms of colour managed workflow, requiring an input profile (film colorspace description), a working space profile (scanner colourspace description), and output profile (target colourspace description, eg Adobe 1998 or sRGB). Only if all three are available and accurate can we move from film image to RGB values in a file which are the most accurate possible mapping of the original scene. To view the file as accurately as possible, we require an input profile (description of the colourspace to which the RGB values relate, which was the output profile above, Adobe 1998 or whatever), a working space profile (profile of the software's RGB space - in PS, Adobe RGB), and an output profile (the monitor profile, a description of the monitor's working space). If all the above works properly, we get on screen, within the limitations of the monitor, the best possible representation of what the original scene looks like - minus the stuff irretrievably lost by the film, scanner, etc, and plus artifacts introduced by film grain, scanner defects such as noise and aliasing. It also seems to me RGB must somehow be "fixed", but there exists an anchor by which we define PS color spaces. Only by the process of successive profile-profile translations can RGB be linked back to CIELAB, or rather what we saw of the original scene. Any break in the chain - lack of, or inaccuracy in a profile - removes the automatic optimisation of the process. This is inherent with colour negative because film profiles are unavailable, and we have to rely on software tools and judgement to reconstitute a plausible set of RGB values. From here we'll be able to understand to what degree film can capture nature ... a scanner can capture film ... the appropriatness of our Photoshop working spaces. Choice depends wholly on what we intend doing with the image, how we intend outputting it. Different colourspaces relate better or worse to different output devices, we may lose more or less accuracy when we re-map to the output device's profiled space. ... not only are there colors (as defined by a RGB value) which are outside the working space AFAICS this really shouldn't be the case there also exists colors as defined by RGB
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:11:54 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Which would imply RGB space is fixed by the display, and Adobe gamma provides relative compensation. Which would imply RGB space is fixed by the display, and Adobe gamma provides relative compensation. Of course, that is what Adobe gamma does. The intention is to ensure a given triplet of RGB values looks as similar as possible on any monitor - to compensate for device gamut variation as much as it can. But that doesn't mean RGB is in any sense device-independent. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:30:46 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I am claiming you'll never be able to photograph an equivelent of RGB=255-0-0. If you do surely let the color community know :o) I'll avoid photographing my monitor display then. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
An upside down shoe box with strategically located cutouts for the cables is just perfect for this. A dust cover would be nice. It's actually mandatory I think. I had one custom made for about $15; most people just make one out of foam-core or the like. I think throwing in a $15 dollar cover wouldn't eat into the profits too much.
Re: filmscanners: new problem from scanner newbie
Sara: I have a Minolta Scan Elite... It is a great scanner, easy to use, etc. I use mine on a Compaq desktop Windows system with Photoshop 6... A couple of things you might want to try 1. Check your preferences on the scanner to see what mode you have it set to, that is 8 bit, 16 bit, or 16 bit linear... 16 bit linear will appear as a positive in Minolta's preview, but will scan as a neg into Photoshop (if you are using neg film)... This is the way I use it, and then invert in Photoshop, after which I adjust levels, etc. I assume you are using a direct import via TWAIN or whatever Macs use to import the scan directly into PShop... 2. Once the scan is complete and you see the image in the Photoshop window, as well as the ScanElite window, close the scan elite window... close the program, don't just minimize, or you will not be able to do anything with the PS image because the Scan software is still in control 3. If you have a neg image, then go to the Image pulldown, then the Adjust pulldown and look 3/4 of the way down that menu to Invert... this will get you from a neg to a pos I used to fight to get a full tonal range when I let Minolta software do the inversion when it made the scan... this gives me a full tonal range and I don't seem to have any lingering orange mask... 4. If you scan for a pos image and you are in 16 mode, or you have inverted you are in 16 bit mode, you can do a number of adjustments (more with PS6 than 5.5)... the magic wand won't work, though... once you have adjusted levels or curves and color, brightness, crop, etc. in 16 bit, then you can go to 8 bit mode (Image pulldown, Mode from there, 3/4 down to set to 8 bit). By the way, A GREAT PS book for photogs (and I have a bunch of them) is Photoshop 5 5.5 Artistry by Barry Haynes and Wendy Crumpler, published by New Riders... list is about US$55... written by a photographer for photographers... well illustrated with an accompanying CD so you can walk through the exercises... gives oe of the best explanations with practical advice on Color Control and Color Space I've read... as well as advice on scanning negs Hope this helps. Mike Moore Sara Jane Boyers wrote: Hi - I queried various scanners on this list several months ago and yesterday bought myslef a Minolta Scan Slite. I use Photoshop on a Mac powerbook G3, downloaded the newest updates and scanned my first slide using the navigation/automatic so that I could at least see what the scanner will do. All went well and the image is appearing on my monitor BUT in Photoshop (in a Photoshop file), I am unable to manipulate the slide... it won't allow me to make new layers, won't truly select, and I am unable to print. I know this is a silly basic question but what am I doing wrong or what haven't I done? Is it in in the scanner or something I need to change in Photoshop? I have used Photoshop before and cannot figure out what this is won't work? Any thougts or where I should look? The Minolta site isn't helpful and so far, neighter are the photoshop books nor thehelp. Thanks for any information.. I'm raring to go and getting frustrated here. -- Sara Jane Boyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.teenpowerpolitics.com TEEN POWER POLITICS: MAKE YOURSELF HEARD A Millbrook Press/Twenty-First Century Book ISBN: 0-7613-1391-5, paper $9.95/ISBN 0-7613-1307-9 hardcover, $24.90 Email me if you'd like to be on my newsletter update list! LIFE DOESN'T FRIGHTEN ME Stewart, Tabori Chang A Publisher's Weekly "Best Book" of the Year, NYPL "Best Books for Teens", ALA "Book for Reluctant Readers", AIGA "50 Best Designed Books" O BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES Chronicle Books
filmscanners: removing dust from SS4000
The discussion of dustcovers lead me to check inside my SS4000. I do have visible dust on what appears to be the lens. Is it safe to use Dust-off on this? The can warns about not using it on camera mirrors. Stan Schwartz http://home.swbell.net/snsok
filmscanners: Re: OT:wedding photography
- Original Message - From: "Alan Womack" [EMAIL PROTECTED] : other people's flashes during formals did present a background shadow issue on a number of images. ~~~ Just think of the timing here. to synchronise your exposure with other peoples flashes going off takes some doing, I have problems trying to get my own all synching together !! Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files
Re: filmscanners: Fw: Color Profiles for Scanners
Right on. Hersch At 11:06 PM 01/20/2001 +1000, you wrote: "Hersch Nitikman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perfect 0-0-255. If it is the sky, then it should elicit the response that it is what a sky looks like... Ultimately, if we're able to scan and print the pictures and we like the results, that's what really matters. :) in general, an original oil painting is unique, and the artist would probably be hard put to duplicate it if asked to do so. Not just oils. I know my mother had tried to make duplicates of some of her paintings, but they are seldom good enough for her satisfaction. Rob
RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
I have no problem with the slide holder. What possible difference would it make if it were made out of metal? The problem with the negative holder isn't that it is made out of plastic. It's simply badly designed. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of JimD Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 11:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? The pathetically flimsy plastic film/slide holders on my SS4000 are a major reason that I'm real interested in a new Nikon scanner. I'm praying that Polaroid will improve the film/slide holders as they attempt to compete with Nikon. -JimD At 09:09 AM 1/20/01 -0700, jimhayes wrote: snip Improvements? The plastic film holders are flimsy. I thought I heard that with the new Polaroid 120, metal holders are supplied, ones that will work in the SS 4000 as well(?). snip
RE: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS
As everyone knows, you can buy a plug-in outlet array that would have 3 sockets in exchange for the one it is plugged into. Would using one of those to get the extra outlet to convert a 3-outlet unit to a 4 or 5-outlet one cause big problems? I assume it would cut down on the time available after the power failure for graceful shutdown, but this doesn't happen every day, and might reduce the pain of having bought a non-optimum UPS. Hersch (The Frugal Pragmatist) At 08:59 AM 01/20/2001 -0800, you wrote: I recently bought an APC 650 VA model for about $200. The very next day after hooking it up, we had the worst power outage I've ever seen in the Portland area. The lights flickered on and off for about ten minutes before being permanently shut down. That kind of power outage can wreck havoc with electronic equipment, but I just sat there in front of my computer, calmly finishing what I was doing and then shut the system down. The only trouble with that model is that it only has 3 UPS outlets and I'd like to put the Epson 2000p on the circuit also. This is because it takes about 10 minutes to make a print and they are expensive and I'd hate to lose one right in the middle of it. It does have 3 other outlets that are spike-protected, however. Most of us on this list will need a fairly hefty UPS, because our machines are fat and our monitors huge. My 650 is on the large side of consumer UPS units, but now I wish I'd have bought an even larger one. Four UPS outlets would have been better, and supposedly the 650 will only let me run for 12 minutes with everything powered up. However, I have my monitor running in power-saving mode, so it automatically turns down to very low power after 2 hours. A couple weeks after that really bad outage, we had another one that lasted 12 minutes, but it happened in the middle of the day, the monitor had self-powered down, and when I came home, the machine was still up and happy. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Twieg Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 5:34 AM To: Filmscanners Subject: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS The California Power crisis has reminded me that I need and UPS, and I'm looking the APC brand. Some more expensive models seem to offer more for voltage regulation than other models. Any suggestions? If the UPS has 3 battery backup connectors, I was planning to connect the computer, monitor, and the SS4000 scanner. If four connectors, I would add the laser printer, but not the Epson 1200 across the room. Thanks Bill Twieg
Re: filmscanners: VS 6.4.12 Great! But I still have a suggestion
Hi! Yes, indeed. What I mean is that each line should be scanned twice, once with 1x exposure and the second time with 8x exposure. After that the film should be stepped to the next position. Most scanner should be able to do this Regards Erik On Saturday 20 January 2001 14:10, you wrote: "Erik Kaffehr" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'd suggest that you change the algorithm so that 1x and 8x scans are done before forwarding the film. I presume what you mean Erik is to do sinle pas multiscanning at different integration times? AFAIK the only scanner which does single pass multiscanning is the LS2000. I don't know if you can use different integration times on different passes (I doubt it). Would be nice though (even nicer if I *had* an LS200 ;). BTW I tried the 8X feature on a frame of Provia 100F and it seems to have made some of the shadow areas turn bright blue. Rob -- Erik Kaffehr[EMAIL PROTECTED] alt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mariebergsvgen 53 +46 155 219338 (home) S-611 66 Nykping +46 155 263515 (office) Sweden -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons --
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.12 Available
- Original Message - From: "bjs" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 11:33 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.12 Available - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 12:38 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.12 Available In a message dated 1/19/2001 1:01:20 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Canon FS2710 supports up to 5x exposure AFAIK. It supports 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, and 6x. Stated like a fact so I assume you know... On one quick test, my eyes told me 5x not 6x FWIW. A slow rainy day so I did a test on this. The Vuescan raw scan file does follow the 12346 sequence. But the crop file is closer to a 12345 sequence. At least for slides. I couldn't get anything useful when trying negatives. Despite the scanner taking progressively longer to scan, it never seemed to overexpose at all (in either the raw scan file or crop file). I compared this to Canoscan and found Canoscan works completely differently. It allows both under and overexposure, has smaller step sizes in exposure and doesn't allow as much overexposure as Vuescan. Both slides and negatives worked similarly and as expected. What all this means I'm not sure...probably that Vuescan still has bugs in the manual exposure mode for negatives.Other than that, I suspect the very different looking behaviour is more user interface design than actual scanner behaviour. I didn't pursue this though so it's only a guess. By the way, 6.4.12 seems to have fixed the gross errors when scanning negatives that were present in the last few versions. It's back to working as well as it did 11 versions ago... Byron
Re: filmscanners: VS 6.4.12 Great! But I still have a suggestion
"Henry Richardson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Minolta Scan Elite, Scan Dual I, and Scan Speed also have single pass multi-scanning. Oops. This is mentioned in the Vuescan help file. My mistake. Anyway, a lot of scanners *can't* do it. :) Rob
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 12:37 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? I have no problem with the slide holder. What possible difference would it make if it were made out of metal? The problem with the negative holder isn't that it is made out of plastic. It's simply badly designed. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 True enough...I've seen people knock the Canon holder because it is plastic and not metal. But I've sat on it, rolled over it with a chair and otherwise done horrible things to it without a problem. A metal version wouldn't have survived as well in fact. How it is designed is the important factor. Good plastic works as well or better than metal from a materials viewpoint. Byron
Re: filmscanners: Power Crisis and UPS
"Hersch Nitikman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As everyone knows, you can buy a plug-in outlet array that would have 3 sockets in exchange for the one it is plugged into. Would using one of those to get the extra outlet to convert a 3-outlet unit to a 4 or 5-outlet one cause big problems? I don't see why not, but you'd want to check that the total power consumption of the devices connected to the power board was similar to or less than the VA rating of the UPS. The monitor probably draws the most power in general setups, but with all the SCSI hard drives etc that folks on the list have... ;) Rob
Re: filmscanners: VS 6.4.12 Great! But I still have a suggestion
"Erik Kaffehr" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, indeed. What I mean is that each line should be scanned twice, once with 1x exposure and the second time with 8x exposure. After that the film should be stepped to the next position. Most scanner should be able to do this In theory but not in practice. Unless I can solder an LS2000 BIOS chip into my LS30... ;) Rob
Re: filmscanners: new problem from scanner newbie
on 20/1/01 8:04 pm, Hart or Mary Jo Corbett at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have any comments except to say that the Minolta site has been acting as though it has a virus. I've tried it a couple of times over the last few weeks and only get the home page. It ties up my computer for 10 to 15 minutes before one can even sign off. It's not downloading anything on my Mac but I can't get to any of the other pages of the site, either. No other site of any kind has ever acted like this. I recommend staying away from it. It's been like this for a long time; if Minolta can't even repair its own Web site, how trustworthy can any of its electronic products really be? Hart Corbett Er...I think it may be you who has a virus. The site functions perfectly on both Mac and PC. Richard
Re: filmscanners: new problem from scanner newbie
Thank you so many for such clear and prompt replies to my query! It was easy as mentioned and I did change from 16 bit to 8 bit in "Mode" and the problem - at least this one - was resolved! I am on Photoshop 5 and realize that perhaps I better upgrade although this was not a PS problem but one of ignorance for me. Think I'll try to stay here a while and see what I can learn and... perhaps contribute from time to time from my own learning curve. Well... I'm off to print my first scan.. then I'll get into the real work of seeing what the scanner really does... already it's just wonderful to see a sharp image on my monitor (my flatbed never did could do it, even with a transparency adapter) and be able to do it myself! There's a lot of my slides waiting here for possible projects! Thanks again... although you may be hearing from me soon I get into the process! This was my birthday present to the dismay of friends who said they would have preferred new earrings for their birthday . But I'll happily spend the rest of my birthday evening scanning away! And... I apologize for all the typos. I spell wonderfully but am a way too quick typist and depending upon editors and such for final revision and there is no spell checker in my email program. BTW, I hadn't any problem on my MAC getting on the Minolta site. -- Sara Jane Boyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.teenpowerpolitics.com TEEN POWER POLITICS: MAKE YOURSELF HEARD A Millbrook Press/Twenty-First Century Book ISBN: 0-7613-1391-5, paper $9.95/ISBN 0-7613-1307-9 hardcover, $24.90 Email me if you'd like to be on my newsletter update list! LIFE DOESN'T FRIGHTEN ME Stewart, Tabori Chang A Publisher's Weekly "Best Book" of the Year, NYPL "Best Books for Teens", ALA "Book for Reluctant Readers", AIGA "50 Best Designed Books" O BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES Chronicle Books
Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message - From: bjs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 5:11 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 12:37 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value? I have no problem with the slide holder. What possible difference would it make if it were made out of metal? The problem with the negative holder isn't that it is made out of plastic. It's simply badly designed. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 True enough...I've seen people knock the Canon holder because it is plastic and not metal. But I've sat on it, rolled over it with a chair and otherwise done horrible things to it without a problem. A metal version wouldn't have survived as well in fact. How it is designed is the important factor. Good plastic works as well or better than metal from a materials viewpoint. Byron Plastic vs. metal isn't even the question for me. The Nikon needs NO film holder. Not plastic. Not metal. You just feed the filmstrip in. I've just finished scanning about a thousand frames on my LS-2000 without a hiccup. Hassle free. My SS-4000 really slows me down. Time IS money. Quick and easy. That's what matters! Bob Kehl
