Re: PSP and 48 bit was Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
"Alan Tyson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So JASC could alter their import routine, but PSP still wouldn't be able to write a 48-bit image, so there's not a lot of point in it. I have quite enough trouble with 24-bit myself, so I'm happy with PSP7. At least you could read the file. Of course it would be easier to set the output from Vuescan to 24bit. :) I don't think that resolves the predictor issue if you set for compression though. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems(photoshop compression)
Yes, I noticed same thing with photoshop 5.0. Though I don't remember whether it was 24 or 48 bit file. Regards. --- "Brian D. Buck" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the topic of file compressionHas anyone else noticed that Photoshop 5.5's compression of 48-bit LZW TIFFs actually makes the file bigger than the uncompressed version? Not to mention it is achingly slow to open them up! On my machine it takes about a minute to open a 100MB LZW TIFF vs. about 10 seconds for an uncompressed TIFF. As such, I pretty much stopped using LZW compression. One interesting thing to note is that Vuescan's 48-bit LZW TIFFs are smaller than the uncompressed version, so this isn't something inherent to 48-bit files, just Adobe's way of saving them. Question: does anyone know if PS 6.0 does a better job with 48-bit LZW TIFFs? Does the new JPEG compression option for TIFFs work with 48-bit files? That would be nice. Brian. = --- NOTE: EMAIL HAS CHANGED !!! - Slava Zilberfayn| Home +1(416)7838430 | Work +1(416)5931122x2486 EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] ADDRESS: appt 1219, 377 Ridelle ave, M6B1K2, Toronto, ON, CANADA ___ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca
RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
The lab specified a 50MB scan in their brochure. To me that means a scan that is a physical size of 50MB. I didn't realise it was common to compress to jpeg and would have liked to have been told that/given the option. I haven't looked at the new scan, a quick look at the jpeg scan showed it was good quality. They did clean my trannie which got a condensation mark (probably after leaving the lab). Their E6 processing was fine. Not sure if I would leave any other digital work to them though. If I could justify a medium format scanner I would prefer to do the job properly myself :-) Julie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 06 February 2001 13:11 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:03:00 -0800 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: For example, Julie may want to sell her work to a "stock photography" library, who sometimes insist on 50Mb files. She would not be able to (honestly) sell an image which had been JPEG compressed at any time. Oh I don't know - I've met more than one photographer who has covertly duped 35mm to 5x4 to meet a client requirement for sheet film ;) Seems to me this is all a matter of intention. If later manipulation is intended, high bit TIFF output should be specified. If it's going more or less straight to press or other output, people will often prefer JPEG. Apart from much shorter wiring time of JPEG, TIFF format is mutable enough to cause occasional 'aargh I can't read this!' problems which are not wanted where deadlines are involved (BTDT). I have to agree with Ed that JPEG at high quality settings is close to TIFF, close enough that you'd never see any difference in printed output. The smaller files are much more manageable, so favoured for transmission. I can see it both ways, and it seems the answer is to know what you want and specify it clearly. And for the lab to ask, rather than assume. Both preferably before they do the job:) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: EZ Prints monitor calibration
Since I didn't get much response, let me simplify the question: When trying to calibrate my monitor to Ezprints' test prints, should I: a) try to use ColorSync's color controls to adjust the display b) use the monitor's brightness, contrast, and RGB controls Any suggested procedures for either method would be appreciated. Thanks, Collin On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Collin Ong wrote: After looking at several of the online print makers, ezprints.com seems to cater most to photo enthusiasts by providing large print sizes (wallet to 20x30), matte paper, unlimited file sizes, etc. However, they are lacking in the technical data they provide so that us customers can prepare their files properly and have the control we nitpickers require. They should provide more data on: ColorSync Profile (ideal), colorspace format (e.g. BruceRGB, sRGB, AdobeRGB, etc), gamma (e.g. 1.8, 2.2, etc), red, green, blue x,y calibration, exact pixel dimensions and/or aspect ratios for each print size to prevent scaling/distortion/empty space. I've sent them an email requesting that they post this data. I urge others on this list interested in using their service to do so as well, so that our squeaking wheel gets greased. I recently sent in an order for wallet size prints which were processed with a few problems: 1) The image was skewed on the page, leaving a blank wedge on one side and cutting off the image on the other. 2) Blank image area between the 4-per-page wallet prints due to incorrect aspect ratio on my uploaded files (due to their not providing exact info). 3) Image rather dark and colors were off. Ezprints provides calibration prints that you are supposed to adjust your monitor to. There are two prints, one color and one BW. The color one is an image of a bunch of houses with lots of different colors on it. The BW is an image of a couple kissing, and a grayscale gradient on one side. http://www.ezprints.com/help/CalibrationHelp.asp I played around last night trying to get my monitor to look like the prints, but could not achieve it to my satisfaction. However, I'm not sure what the best way to do it is: via the ColorSync software on my Mac, or the monitor RGB, brightness, and contrast controls. 1) ColorSync: the calibration assistant takes you through these steps: - Set contrast to Max - Adjust brightness down til Light/Dark halves of box merge, and grey oval is barely visible - Adjust individual R, G, B sliders - Set whitepoint kelvin - Set gamma Using this method, I was able to get many portions of the image to match, but I could not match several sections. Some colors seemed too bright, and other colors I could not get to match, like the purple house. My feeling is that I may be able to get closer if I could set the gamma or whitepoint first, but ColorSync doesn't seem to allow this. Also, when the screen image was close to the print, everything else on the GUI was really off in color. The grey background in Photoshop was brownish. 2) Monitor: I can adjust brightness, contrast, and R, G, B via the monitor. Again, I could get somewhat close to the print, but not in all areas, and 'normal' apps are totally off color once this is done. I recall somebody on this list mentioning using the EZprints calibration prints successfully. I would like suggestions from the list on the best method of doing this. I would prefer the ColorSync or a software method since it is more easily switchable for use between normal apps and Ezprints image prep. Thanks for any help. Collin Ong
Re: filmscanners: EZ Prints monitor calibration
Collin: If you can you may want to switch the photo program and the files to a CMYK color space. The difference may be in the way EZPrint did produced the print and CMYK will produce different results than RGB during the printing process. Gordon Collin Ong wrote: Since I didn't get much response, let me simplify the question: When trying to calibrate my monitor to Ezprints' test prints, should I: a) try to use ColorSync's color controls to adjust the display b) use the monitor's brightness, contrast, and RGB controls Any suggested procedures for either method would be appreciated. Thanks, Collin On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Collin Ong wrote: After looking at several of the online print makers, ezprints.com seems to cater most to photo enthusiasts by providing large print sizes (wallet to 20x30), matte paper, unlimited file sizes, etc. However, they are lacking in the technical data they provide so that us customers can prepare their files properly and have the control we nitpickers require. They should provide more data on: ColorSync Profile (ideal), colorspace format (e.g. BruceRGB, sRGB, AdobeRGB, etc), gamma (e.g. 1.8, 2.2, etc), red, green, blue x,y calibration, exact pixel dimensions and/or aspect ratios for each print size to prevent scaling/distortion/empty space. I've sent them an email requesting that they post this data. I urge others on this list interested in using their service to do so as well, so that our squeaking wheel gets greased. I recently sent in an order for wallet size prints which were processed with a few problems: 1) The image was skewed on the page, leaving a blank wedge on one side and cutting off the image on the other. 2) Blank image area between the 4-per-page wallet prints due to incorrect aspect ratio on my uploaded files (due to their not providing exact info). 3) Image rather dark and colors were off. Ezprints provides calibration prints that you are supposed to adjust your monitor to. There are two prints, one color and one BW. The color one is an image of a bunch of houses with lots of different colors on it. The BW is an image of a couple kissing, and a grayscale gradient on one side. http://www.ezprints.com/help/CalibrationHelp.asp I played around last night trying to get my monitor to look like the prints, but could not achieve it to my satisfaction. However, I'm not sure what the best way to do it is: via the ColorSync software on my Mac, or the monitor RGB, brightness, and contrast controls. 1) ColorSync: the calibration assistant takes you through these steps: - Set contrast to Max - Adjust brightness down til Light/Dark halves of box merge, and grey oval is barely visible - Adjust individual R, G, B sliders - Set whitepoint kelvin - Set gamma Using this method, I was able to get many portions of the image to match, but I could not match several sections. Some colors seemed too bright, and other colors I could not get to match, like the purple house. My feeling is that I may be able to get closer if I could set the gamma or whitepoint first, but ColorSync doesn't seem to allow this. Also, when the screen image was close to the print, everything else on the GUI was really off in color. The grey background in Photoshop was brownish. 2) Monitor: I can adjust brightness, contrast, and R, G, B via the monitor. Again, I could get somewhat close to the print, but not in all areas, and 'normal' apps are totally off color once this is done. I recall somebody on this list mentioning using the EZprints calibration prints successfully. I would like suggestions from the list on the best method of doing this. I would prefer the ColorSync or a software method since it is more easily switchable for use between normal apps and Ezprints image prep. Thanks for any help. Collin Ong
filmscanners: Canon FS2710 - any good?
Looking at low cost film scanners and this Canon FS2710 seems like it might be nice. Anybody have strong feelings for or against it? I know there have been new 4000ppi scanners announced, but will there be anything better in the Canon's price range out soon? Thanks, Todd
Re: filmscanners: EZ Prints monitor calibration
I agree that EZPrints seems to be the only mass-production place which is making much effort to work with more serious folks in terms of color calibration - most if not all the others "help" you by making color etc. adjustments, and EZPrints promises not to do that. I agree that they could / should step up their technical information by a big notch, and I have corresponded with them several times about that. I think at least part of the problem is that they are, apparently, the "front end" for several labs, with differing techniques and equipment. The results do seem to be consistent, even if not particularly well documented - trial and error is a royal pain, but at least it works since they've been consistent. And I've had trouble getting them to print (with respect to size) exactly what I send them. I send some 11x14's with a 1/4" border and got them back as 10.5x13.5's without border. I sent them a batch of 4x6's with a caption at the bottom and got 1/2 the caption back. They apologized and offered to reprint, but it is annoying that they can't make a print to size! And I agree that they're the only game in town with respect to big prints. Having said all that, I've gotten some really wonderful stuff from them, and from what I've seen they're well worth working with to get things right. I managed to adjust my system to match their calibration prints pretty accurately; I'm on a PC with a Matrox G200 graphics card, and Matrox provides a zillion adjustments through its driver, so I used that. I'm sorry, I don't know how that translates to a Mac. I do have a problem sometimes with brightness / darkness of prints - maybe it's inexperience, but I find it very difficult to compare a (reflected light) print to an (illuminated) screen and get brightness to match. That has been done so far by trial and error, but I'm reasonably satisfied with my current results. Incidentally, I haven't figured out how to get one set of settings for both EZPrints and my (quite limited) HP 722c printer. I now work with the EZPrints settings as "default" and ha've made an adjustment layer which I turn on in Photoshop when I want to use the HP - crude but it seems to work. Regards, Tim On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 13:08:19 -0800 (PST), Collin Ong wrote: After looking at several of the online print makers, ezprints.com seems to cater most to photo enthusiasts by providing large print sizes (wallet to 20x30), matte paper, unlimited file sizes, etc. However, they are lacking in the technical data they provide so that us customers can prepare their files properly and have the control we nitpickers require. They should provide more data on: ColorSync Profile (ideal), colorspace format (e.g. BruceRGB, sRGB, AdobeRGB, etc), gamma (e.g. 1.8, 2.2, etc), red, green, blue x,y calibration, exact pixel dimensions and/or aspect ratios for each print size to prevent scaling/distortion/empty space. I've sent them an email requesting that they post this data. I urge others on this list interested in using their service to do so as well, so that our squeaking wheel gets greased. snip I recall somebody on this list mentioning using the EZprints calibration prints successfully. I would like suggestions from the list on the best method of doing this. I would prefer the ColorSync or a software method since it is more easily switchable for use between normal apps and Ezprints image prep. Thanks for any help. Collin Ong _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 - any good?
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, tflash wrote: Looking at low cost film scanners and this Canon FS2710 seems like it might be nice. Anybody have strong feelings for or against it? I know there have been new 4000ppi scanners announced, but will there be anything better in the Canon's price range out soon? I bought one at the end of November last year and have been quite impressed with it. I'm using it exclusively with VueScan under Linux with an Epson 1270 printer for output. I put myself in the "bumbling amateur" category, but in-general I'm quite happy with the combination. Gordon
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 - any good?
If you don't require SCSI interfacing and have a USB port, you may wish to consider the Minolta Dimage Dual Scan II. Most people are quite impressed with it, especially when used with VueScan, a third party product selling for $40 US., and the price is lower than the Canon. The Canon is considered a reasonable produce by those who use it, but the Minolta seems to be better value. I haven't used either scanner, and going on reports I have read over numerous months through many sources. Art tflash wrote: Looking at low cost film scanners and this Canon FS2710 seems like it might be nice. Anybody have strong feelings for or against it? I know there have been new 4000ppi scanners announced, but will there be anything better in the Canon's price range out soon? Thanks, Todd
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 - any good?
At 2:12 PM -0500 2/7/01, tflash wrote: Looking at low cost film scanners and this Canon FS2710 seems like it might be nice. Anybody have strong feelings for or against it? I know there have been new 4000ppi scanners announced, but will there be anything better in the Canon's price range out soon? I've had mine for about 18 months now and it works very well, especially with VueScan. The model is getting pretty long in the tooth, though, but I haven't heard of anything new coming from Canon. The new Nikons will be more expensive, but many are eagerly awaiting their arrival. Should be some good deals on the older models like the LS30. Some of the various Minolta models have their supporters, including Ed Hamrick. Regards, Roger Smith
RE: filmscanners: Tweaking images in PS6
Thank you Michael and Rob for your advices. shAf :o) writes... ... Regarding editing 16bit (or highbits) versus 8bits and using adjustment layers (available in 8bit mode only) ... it is a toss-up. If you were editing 12bits or true 16bits, I might go with individual highbit adjustments. However, adjustment layers, if combined only do one calculation, and are so darn handy and elegant, especially when using masks. Each image, highbits vs 8bits, and the adjustments needed, would need individual attention ... but given only 10bits, I'd have a hard time NOT using adjustment layers and 8bits. If I understood you right, saving highbit files doesent make to much sense with an scanner like the LS30. It is more or less just a waste of disk space. thanks, Andreas
filmscanners: Tweaking images in PS6
Hello, I'm not very experienced in digital imaging and have a question which probably has been discussed before. I use an Nikon LS30 scanner to produce 48 bit tiffs with vuescan. Then I tweak the images in PS6. Is it better to do all possible tweaking in 48 bit mode, one after the other, which needs rendering the picture each time, or is it better to convert the image to 8 bit and use adjustment layers which renders the image just once. Another question about vuescan: The LS30 internally uses 10 bit, the output is just an 8 bit file. Vuescan produces images in 16 bit mode by rerendering the file if I understood right. Has this file really more information than the 8 bit file the scanner itself outputs? Thanks, Andreas
RE: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 - any good?
Title: RE: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 - any good? Have the scanner, have had no problems with it. I love the results. Not having a need for 4000dpi this suites my needs perfectly. Some people have experienced problems with the included scsi card running under win2k. I think there is a workaround, I already had a separate scsi card so this was not an issue. Based on everyone's comments vuescan seems to be the software 'to use' rather than Canoscan. Regards, Jason -Original Message- From: tflash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 5:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 - any good? Looking at low cost film scanners and this Canon FS2710 seems like it might be nice. Anybody have strong feelings for or against it? I know there have been new 4000ppi scanners announced, but will there be anything better in the Canon's price range out soon? Thanks, Todd
RE: filmscanners: Tweaking images in PS6
Title: RE: filmscanners: Tweaking images in PS6 I think i read something about this in the Photoshop for Photographers book. Converting to 16bit colour and doing colour levels and curves and then converting back to 8bit produced a better looking histogram than if the adjustments were done purely in 8bit. I would try to do colour adjustments in 16bit in as few steps as possible. Since every adjustment/process would lead to some loss of information. Convert back to 8bit and then use adjustment layers for any other processes required. Regards, Jason -Original Message- From: Andreas Kurz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 8:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Tweaking images in PS6 Hello, I'm not very experienced in digital imaging and have a question which probably has been discussed before. I use an Nikon LS30 scanner to produce 48 bit tiffs with vuescan. Then I tweak the images in PS6. Is it better to do all possible tweaking in 48 bit mode, one after the other, which needs rendering the picture each time, or is it better to convert the image to 8 bit and use adjustment layers which renders the image just once. Another question about vuescan: The LS30 internally uses 10 bit, the output is just an 8 bit file. Vuescan produces images in 16 bit mode by rerendering the file if I understood right. Has this file really more information than the 8 bit file the scanner itself outputs? Thanks, Andreas
RE: Re: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value?)
on 2/6/01 11:13 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you shoot it at, and what do you develop it at? I routinely make 13x19 prints from scanned Plus-X (35mm that is, much less 120), and unless you take a 6x loupe to the print, you wouldn't see anything looking like grain. Austin, I forget, what scanner are you using? --Berry A Leafscan 45. 5080DPI for 35mm, and 2540 for 6cm wide film. Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at http://www.mail2web.com/ .
Re: filmscanners: Tweaking images in PS6
Andreas writes ... shAf :o) writes... ... ... Each image, highbits vs 8bits, and the adjustments needed, would need individual attention ... but given only 10bits, I'd have a hard time NOT using adjustment layers and 8bits. If I understood you right, saving highbit files doesent make to much sense with an scanner like the LS30. It is more or less just a waste of disk space. Generally speaking yes ... but I can imagine some images which may be important enough (considering the disk space it would use), which might also only need a single adjustment. If this is the case, then that adjustment would cause fewer "perceptual" problems if done with PS's 16bit tools. Even then, it would be a trade-off with how elegant the use of adjustment layers are. Make your decision at scan time. shAf :o)
Re: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value?)
on 2/6/01 11:13 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you shoot it at, and what do you develop it at? I routinely make 13x19 prints from scanned Plus-X (35mm that is, much less 120), and unless you take a 6x loupe to the print, you would see anything looking like grain. Austin, I forget, what scanner are you using? --Berry
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 - any good?
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote: If you don't require SCSI interfacing and have a USB port, you may wish to consider the Minolta Dimage Dual Scan II. Most people are quite impressed with it, especially when used with VueScan, a third party product selling for $40 US., and the price is lower than the Canon. The Canon is considered a reasonable produce by those who use it, but the Minolta seems to be better value. I haven't used either scanner, and going on reports I have read over numerous months through many sources. Does either the Minolta or the Canon scanner have an IR channel for ICE? -Paul Patton Art tflash wrote: Looking at low cost film scanners and this Canon FS2710 seems like it might be nice. Anybody have strong feelings for or against it? I know there have been new 4000ppi scanners announced, but will there be anything better in the Canon's price range out soon? Thanks, Todd
Re: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value?)
on 2/7/01 7:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 2/6/01 11:13 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What do you shoot it at, and what do you develop it at? I routinely make 13x19 prints from scanned Plus-X (35mm that is, much less 120), and unless you take a 6x loupe to the print, you wouldn't see anything looking like grain. Austin, I forget, what scanner are you using? --Berry A Leafscan 45. 5080DPI for 35mm, and 2540 for 6cm wide film. Mail2Web - Check your email from the web at http://www.mail2web.com/ . Sounds like a nice combination. Many years ago, I made some 16x20 color prints on an enlarger from 35mm 100 ISO (ASA then) color film (forget which) and I could easily see the "grain" or dye clouds. I made only a couple BW prints that size from fine grain 35mm BW Ilford film--forget whether it was 50 or 100 ISO--and they looked pretty good, grain not an issue unless you want large format quality. -Berry
