Re: filmscanners: SCSI card not recognized by Win2K
Chuck Skinner wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 6:13 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: filmscanners: SCSI card not recognized by Win2K > > > > > > I found that I couldn't get the SCSI card that came with my SS4000 to be > > recognized by Win2K. It's an AdVanSys card and I downloaded the Win2K > > updated drivers but they wouldn't install because the computer didn't see > > the card at all. > > Windows 2000 doesn't come with ASPI. Download it from Adaptec: > > ftp://ftp.adaptec.digisle.net/software_pc/aspi/aspi32.exe > > There is also a utility to see if you have it already: > > ftp://ftp.adaptec.digisle.net/software_pc/aspi/aspichk.exe > > Chuck Skinner Is it Win2K that can not detect it or is it the BIOS of your mainboard can not? In either case the ASPI driver is not the problem. The card needs to be known to the OS before the ASPI layer comes to play a role. Is your SCSI cable properly terminated if it is longer than 2 feet? Some low end SCSI controllers may disappear as if not exist if no SCSI device is detected. If your SCSI cable is not properly terminated then your scanner may not be seen and so is the controller. Try to terminate the cable if it is not already so. Try a different PCI slot. Some BIOS have problems supporting PCI cards in certain slots. Quoton
Re: filmscanners: SCSI card not recognized by Win2K
Chuck Skinner wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman > > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 6:13 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: filmscanners: SCSI card not recognized by Win2K > > > > > > I found that I couldn't get the SCSI card that came with my SS4000 to be > > recognized by Win2K. It's an AdVanSys card and I downloaded the Win2K > > updated drivers but they wouldn't install because the computer didn't see > > the card at all. > > Windows 2000 doesn't come with ASPI. Download it from Adaptec: > > ftp://ftp.adaptec.digisle.net/software_pc/aspi/aspi32.exe > > There is also a utility to see if you have it already: > > ftp://ftp.adaptec.digisle.net/software_pc/aspi/aspichk.exe > > Chuck Skinner Is it Win2K that can not detect it or is it the BIOS of your mainboard can not? In either case the ASPI driver is not the problem. The card needs to be known to the OS before the ASPI layer comes to play a role. Is your SCSI cable properly terminated if it is longer than 2 feet? Some low end SCSI controllers may disappear as if not exist if no SCSI device is detected. If your SCSI cable is not properly terminated then your scanner may not be seen and so is the controller. Try to terminate the cable if it is not already so. Try a different PCI slot. Some BIOS have problems supporting PCI cards in certain slots. Quoton
filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
there's one thing that's really perplexing to me. why is analog gain adjustement of the nikon ls-2000 not available for negative film (both vuescan and nikonscan seem to ignore it when scanning negative film)? what i've started doing when i needed to turn it up or down, is scanning the negative as a *positive* and then inversing it in photoshop. painful, because you can't preview the final accurately. and i'm not sure what other assumptions the scanner/software makes when i do that. all i know is it's worked for black and white film at least. any ideas why analog gain seems to be unhooked for negative film? ~j -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
Re: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
In a message dated 3/12/2001 2:43:26 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > there's one thing that's really perplexing to me. why is analog gain > adjustement of the nikon ls-2000 not available for negative film (both > vuescan and nikonscan seem to ignore it when scanning negative film)? It works fine with VueScan, and I'm pretty sure it works fine with NikonScan as well. In VueScan, just turn off "Auto exposure" and set the "RGB exposure" manually. You'll see the raw scan get brighter or dimmer when you change this option, regardless of whether you're using negative film or slides. Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: does this list have an archive? [eom]
eom = end of message :) -- j u l e s @ p o p m o n k e y . c o m http://www.popmonkey.com/jules
Re: filmscanners: OT: burning CDs/easy cd creator
The problems you are reporting have nothing to do with the application writing/burning the CDs . Please, let continue the discussion off the list (cause OT) . Write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You will receive my comments anyhow off-line Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Eli Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 1:38 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT: burning CDs/easy cd creator > It's hard for me to believe that anyone gets "flawless" performance > from Adaptect Easy CD Creator Version 4.03a. I haven't used it for image > files yet, but my experience with burning music CDs has not been good and > has made me want to find an alternative both for music and for archiving > scanned photos. Maybe it will be fine for images, but the performance with > music has not inspired any confidence in me. The CDs often have errors that > are not reported by Easy CD Creator; I only find out later when the disk > stops playing halfway through a song or starts "dropping" chunks of music or > starts making noises that shouldn't be there. I get this even when playing > the CD back on the same machine on which it was recorded and even on CDs > burned at 1X speed. > Anyone else have this experience? > Can anyone else recommend a more reliable piece of software? > I'm very reluctant to upgrade to a Version 5 if this basic and very > serious problem has not been fixed. > For burning, I'm using a Matsushita UJDA310 drive in a Dell Inspiron > 7500 laptop that has a 600 MHz Pentium III and 256 MB RAM running Win 2K. > > -Original Message- > From: Larry Berman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 9:00 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: burning cd's/easy cd creator > > > The company that's putting out EZ CD Creator is Roxio: > http://www.roxio.com/ > > I'm using 4.0 flawlessly and can't imagine what a $79 upgrade could be > worth. > > Larry >
Re: filmscanners: Mirage II ?'s
My Imapro Flatbed has a moving Platen,and the Full sized A3 transparency hood is hinged so that a thick book or even one side of a large box can be scanned. The extra space needed is a small price to pay for the high quality results It also has one each R G B tube as the light source for more accurate colour. it also weighs a great deal and has a steel chassis and body. Don't associate the moving glass with older designs and equate them as inferior.I suspect space saving rather than improved quality was a prerequisite for current designs ! regards 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 ### - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : : I'm not sure what this means. All flatbed scanners I've used have a : "moving head", under the glass. Do you mean that this one has a moving : top platform (or platen) and that the sensor remains fixed, while the : top of the scanner/glass move, like older (or cheaper) photocopiers? : That would mean you need a LOT more space to work with this unit! And : yes, it would be a disaster making sure your oversized prints or negs : don't get dragged or crushed while it is moving the scanning surface. : : Art
Re: filmscanners: OT: burning CDs/easy cd creator
Bill, If you are using the Plextor 12X writer, it has "Burnproof" built into the hardware, which gives it capabilities most other drives do not have. Burnproof, a Sanyo design, allows for the drive to prevent buffer underruns by being able to relocate the point where the disk stopped writing, due to lack of data, and then hook back to it and continue. This ability also allows for you to surf the web or do other activities while you are burning. I have a Plextor 8X, which does not have burnproofing, and I find Easy CD fragile but usable. I have not found I am able to write directly from my 44x CD-ROM drive even though it does support audio extraction and is, by test, fast enough for 8X copying. There have been some complaints about Easy CD from others who have found other products more reliable for their needs. I suspect there are so many variables that we may never know if success or failure is due to a specific software package or just the particular system setup. Art william storm wrote: > I have the same software and have excellent results. Most often you will find > that the hardware and bufferin are the major problems. I am using a TEAC on one > computer and a Plexstor on another - no problems. I use a DVD/CD player for the > source in each case. What can cause problems is the inability of the source > drive to extract audio. Audio extraction of both devices need to be at least at > the factor you wish to copy at. For example in my case the Player drive extracts > at 16x and the burner can record at 13x (really 12x). With these tested (the > Adaptec Software provides this system test) numbers I have no problem burning > audio at 12x. Images are actually easier to deal with. > > Bill S. > > Eli Bowen wrote: > > >> It's hard for me to believe that anyone gets "flawless" performance >> from Adaptect Easy CD Creator Version 4.03a. I haven't used it for image >> files yet, but my experience with burning music CDs has not been good and >> has made me want to find an alternative both for music and for archiving >> scanned photos. Maybe it will be fine for images, but the performance with >> music has not inspired any confidence in me. The CDs often have errors that >> are not reported by Easy CD Creator; I only find out later when the disk >> stops playing halfway through a song or starts "dropping" chunks of music or >> starts making noises that shouldn't be there. I get this even when playing >> the CD back on the same machine on which it was recorded and even on CDs >> burned at 1X speed. >> Anyone else have this experience? >> Can anyone else recommend a more reliable piece of software? >> I'm very reluctant to upgrade to a Version 5 if this basic and very >> serious problem has not been fixed. >> For burning, I'm using a Matsushita UJDA310 drive in a Dell Inspiron >> 7500 laptop that has a 600 MHz Pentium III and 256 MB RAM running Win 2K. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Larry Berman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 9:00 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: burning cd's/easy cd creator >> >> The company that's putting out EZ CD Creator is Roxio: >> http://www.roxio.com/ >> >> I'm using 4.0 flawlessly and can't imagine what a $79 upgrade could be >> worth. >> >> Larry
Re: filmscanners: Keeping messages On Topic
At 15:30 11/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Similarly, people who have support questions about VueScan should
>e-mail me directly, not post the questions to the whole group. A lot of
>the traffic on this newsgroup related to VueScan shouldn't really
>be sent to the whole group, but to me directly.
I disagree. As long as we stay away from Ed Hamrick Fan Club, I welcome
questions and answers related to your product. It is a part of learning
process. It may not directly involve me, but I am interested in learning,
what other groupies do with Vuescan, what the problems are, etc.
>Lastly, messages that simply say "I agree" or that quote
>200 lines and add one line of throwaway comment shouldn't
>really be sent to this mailing list.
Agreed, I would prefer people to respond from the top, so I do not have to
scroll to find that pearl of wisdom 200 lines below.
>It's Tony's list, and he's certainly been quite tolerant of off-
>topic messages, but keeping things on-topic is something
>we all (myself included) should keep in mind.
Tony is working hard for his place in Heavens. ;-{)
Roman
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
in Australia".
filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
I have recently bought a Nikon LS2000 for the purpose of scanning my old negatives and archiving them on CD's. Could anyone guide me on the following issues: 1- What resolution should I use for scanning? 2- What file Format should I use to save? 3- Any ideas on how to create a database like index to help search the archived negatives. 4- Is CD-R a good medium to archive on? Possibly this info is already available somewhere, in which case I would appreciate if you can point me to this information. Any Tips will be welcome Thanks Khalid Javed
Re: filmscanners: OT: burning cd's/easy cd creator
No, Roxio, rebadged Adaptec is BUYING good programmes, like WinOnCD, which is my favourite for CD burning, followed by Nero. I had good experience with most of current Gear stuff. For direct disk copying try DiskJuggler. ECDC is a royal pain and should be avoided like a plague. The upgrade is USD50, so yes, upgrade and let us know, what's your opinion. Roman At 11:34 11/03/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Hi, > >What programs do you all use to 'burn' cd's? (make photo and/or music >disks, backups , etc.) > >Has 'Easy CD Creator' been taken over by another company? I thought it was >done by adaptek (sp?) but I got an offer from roxio for the new version 5 >that is coming out (or is already out). > >Thanks, Jules_C >ps. I have NTI cd maker pro that came with my very old cdrw drive, and I >have cd creator 4Do you think I should upgrade? "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: does this list have an archive? [eom]
Robert Logan maintains one: Just for any newbies etc. I keep a list archive (searchable) online for my own personal use - and its available to all. No adverts or profit - and nothing to do with Tony - except its his list. Its been archived since Jan 2000 - there are roughly 11000 messages in a nicely organised web setup - viewable by date/ thread/ author etc. http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ bert http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~rl/
Re: filmscanners: Keeping messages On Topic
Roman Kielich® wrote:
>
> At 15:30 11/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Similarly, people who have support questions about VueScan should
> >e-mail me directly, not post the questions to the whole group. A lot of
> >the traffic on this newsgroup related to VueScan shouldn't really
> >be sent to the whole group, but to me directly.
>
> I disagree. As long as we stay away from Ed Hamrick Fan Club, I welcome
> questions and answers related to your product. It is a part of learning
> process. It may not directly involve me, but I am interested in learning,
> what other groupies do with Vuescan, what the problems are, etc.
I agree completely. I've certainly learned a lot from this.
> >Lastly, messages that simply say "I agree" or that quote
> >200 lines and add one line of throwaway comment shouldn't
> >really be sent to this mailing list.
>
> Agreed, I would prefer people to respond from the top, so I do not have to
> scroll to find that pearl of wisdom 200 lines below.
No, no, and no. Answering on top is evil and wrong.
>
> >It's Tony's list, and he's certainly been quite tolerant of off-
> >topic messages, but keeping things on-topic is something
> >we all (myself included) should keep in mind.
>
> Tony is working hard for his place in Heavens. ;-{)
>
If there is such a place he is assured already.
Haakon
(optimistic agnostic: if there is a god,
I hope she has a sense of humor)
Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
There was a thread on CDs here in early February - you might check at http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ Maris - Original Message - From: "Khalid Javed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 4:03 AM Subject: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving | I have recently bought a Nikon LS2000 for the purpose of scanning my old | negatives and archiving them on CD's. Could anyone guide me on the | following issues: | | 1- What resolution should I use for scanning? | 2- What file Format should I use to save? | 3- Any ideas on how to create a database like index to help search the | archived negatives. | 4- Is CD-R a good medium to archive on? | | Possibly this info is already available somewhere, in which case I would | appreciate if you can point me to this information. Any Tips will be welcome | | Thanks | | Khalid Javed |
RE: filmscanners: analog gain and negative film
Jules wrote: > what i've started doing when i needed to turn it up or down, is scanning the negative as a *positive* and then inversing it in photoshop. > painful, because you can't preview the final accurately. and i'm not sure what other assumptions the scanner/software makes when i do that. >all i know is it's worked for black and white film at least. It works for color, too, Jules--at least on a Scanwit, and with Vuescan as well the native driver. The "boost" is relatively small (there's no exposure control at all on a Scanwit), but sometimes that's all you need. It's more "painful" than b/w, of course, but the detail *is* perceptibly better. I was amazed that once the negative image was inverted in Photoshop and processed through Auto Levels, it was reasonable close to the mark--or at least within correctable range. Not something I'd recommend for a regular workflow, but it does work for some problems. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Keeping messages On Topic
HI, All! The following are just my opinions and feelings on the matter: I can't think of anything MORE on topic than discussions regarding Vuescan! Considering that it is software designed explicitly for scanning, and isn't particularly useful for anything else BUT scanning, discussions about it are absolutely ON topic. Let us not ignore the fact that we are exceptionally lucky in that we have the "ear" as it were, of a top notch software developer who is actively soliciting our opinions and needs for use in his software. This is almost UNHEARD of in any other field! Now that I've grown accustomed to Vuescan's user interface, I just can't imagine abandoning it for any other scanning software that I am aware of. Let us also continue to post our experiences with new versions of Vuescan as well as other software. I'd like to know ASAP if I am the only person experiencing a problem (is it me, or is it the new version?) This could save me hours of wasted time, if I know in advance that I may have a particular problem. Discussions such as those on CD burning are (or can be) very on topic as well, as I archive my scans on CDs. Yes, I also produce music CDs as well, so these discussions are of double interest to me. Flame wars, of course are not welcome, but the topic that has been branded a flame war, recently, has about alll the heat of a discussion with bad breath ;-) I've seen some really unholy jihads on other fora (forums), and this is mild in comparison!! Just my two cents... Guy Clark
RE: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
Jules writes ... > there's one thing that's really perplexing to me. > why is analog gain adjustement of the nikon > ls-2000 not available for negative film (both > vuescan and nikonscan seem to ignore it when > scanning negative film)? > ... It has been a long time since I quit using NS and switched to VS, but it seems to me you are correct regarding NS. However, it seems to be "analog gain" was offered only if you used a certain feeder. Leastwize, I remember options being different if you used the "film strip feeder" versus the "film strip holder" ... and I've forgotten which was what. I'd certainly suggest using the more versatile VS, but if you're curious about the NS options and which holder is being used ... check it out and get back to us ... altho why certain options disappear shall remain a mystery (... altho, one reason may be because altering the alalog gain may affect the subtraction of the orange mask(?) ...) shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: RE: Photo quality printers: Hewlett-Packard vs. Epson
Being in the repair biz, I can only say we see lots more HP inkjets, then all the other brands combined (granted there are more HP's in circulation, but the numbers still seem disproportionate). HP does great lasers, but I'd never recommend an HP inkjet to a Customer. There's a lot of cheap plastic in them, at least on the lower end. Plus, there aren't any Continuous Inking Systems available for HP. One distinction between HP & Epson & others is the fact that the print head is built into the cartridge.I'd guess the theory is that you get a fresh head with each new cartridge, but I have to wonder about the head quality & ongoing cost. (I believe there's a class action suit going on over this issue.) If you do some surfing of folks who are seriously into the digital darkroom, you never see a mention of HP: mostly Epson. Regards, Ken Jaskot - Original Message - From: "patton paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I was wondering if anybody could comment on the relative quality of > Hewlett-Packard vs. Epson photo quality printers.
Re: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In a message dated 3/12/2001 2:43:26 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > there's one thing that's really perplexing to me. why is analog gain > > adjustement of the nikon ls-2000 not available for negative film (both > > vuescan and nikonscan seem to ignore it when scanning negative film)? > > It works fine with VueScan, and I'm pretty sure it works fine > with NikonScan as well. In VueScan, just turn off "Auto exposure" > and set the "RGB exposure" manually. You'll see the raw scan > get brighter or dimmer when you change this option, regardless of > whether you're using negative film or slides. definitely not the case here. unless the preview doesn't show the results for some reason (it does for positives). i tried previews with 0, 1, 5, even 20 for the RGB exposure with no changes in the preview. i then ran nikonscan and tried doing previews at -2, 0, and 2. no change. i switched to positive and these huge changes started showing up. ~j
Re: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
> definitely not the case here. unless the preview doesn't show the results > for some reason (it does for positives). i tried previews with 0, 1, 5, > even 20 for the RGB exposure with no changes in the preview. i then ran > nikonscan and tried doing previews at -2, 0, and 2. no change. i switched > to positive and these huge changes started showing up. I have an LS-30, not a 2000, but I use the Analog Gain with negatives and it works very well. I will see big differences with even a +/- 0.3, so you should definitely see something with big numbers. There is a button in the main part of the NikonScan dialog that says "Apply A Gain". Is it possible that after setting the analog gain value you are turning that button off before scanning? regards, Jo Ann
Re: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
- Original Message - From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Jules writes ... > > > there's one thing that's really perplexing to me. > > why is analog gain adjustement of the nikon > > ls-2000 not available for negative film (both > > vuescan and nikonscan seem to ignore it when > > scanning negative film)? > > ... > > It has been a long time since I quit using > NS and switched to VS, but it seems to me you are > correct regarding NS. i'm using vuescan exclusively now and i am definitely not seeing any difference in the preview. i also tried a fast scan (1 pass) to make sure it wasn't just some preview bug. > However, it seems to be > "analog gain" was offered only if you used a certain > feeder. Leastwize, I remember options being > different if you used the "film strip feeder" versus > the "film strip holder" ... and I've forgotten which > was what. interesting, but i always use the slide feeder because i have all my print film mounted in slide mounts (specifically to take advantage of the feeder). > I'd certainly suggest using the more versatile > VS i do. i only tried NS because it wasn't working with VS. > (... altho, one reason may > be because altering the alalog gain may affect the > subtraction of the orange mask(?) ...) yeah, i actually have read that somewhere (probably on the nikontech boards) but it was supposed to have been "fixed" in the 1.31 firmware. anyway, i'm hope i'm not crazy, but it's really not working for me :) ~j
filmscanners: Yo Tokyo
Mr. Sleep This is the second set of very nice Tony Sleep photographs that I have noticed in the Volvomagazine. What part did your desktop scanning and subsequent photoshop work play in the worklflow of the stories on Icleand and Tokyo. Thanks Harlee Little Shop online without a credit card http://www.rocketcash.com RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary
Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
. Khalid: I don't use a Nikon, I have a Minolta Elite, but the processes are the same... 1. Use the highest resolution of your scanner to make your original scan (that is the scan res, make the output res higher than the largest size print you plan to make ). Example: my minolta has scan resolutions of 2780, 1440, etc. that is the res that the scanner will make the actual scan... I will then choose an output res of 300 dpi, which will give me an approx. 13"x9" print size. This is all at the pre scan stage... I also use at least a 2pass multi-scan... depends on the image...I TWAIN import this into PShop as a 16 bit raw scan... so it shows up in PShop as a neg (I am talking color neg ) where I then Invert (Image>Adjust>Invert), after which I adjust Levels (I don't use AutoLevels, but that is a question of personal preference)... I then do whatever contrast, and other adjustments I can (saving my original neg file, 50 Mb, then my positive image after Levels and contrast adjust) and then I do Image>Mode>8bit to convert the 16 bit image to 8 bit for further tweaking with PShop's tools. I then save that image. As you can see, this stuff chews up hard drive space fast... that's why you need to offload it to CD.. Save all these files (your Master files) in PhotoShop PSD format... these are the ones you will keep and use like negs... 2. If you plan to distribute photos for publication, they should be at least 200 dpi resolution (240 dpi is better, some clients prefer 300 dpi). The preferred format for client distribution is TIFF, although I give my clients who know how to use PShop the PSD files... JPEG is best for Web publishing, altho some print publishers will use a 200 dpi high level JPEG. 3. There are several good image management programs... my personal choice is Extensis Portfolio 5 Destop Edition, which you can download for a 30 day trial from http://www.extensis.com/port_de/ There are other that other folks on this list like, such as ACDSee (?), Thumbsplus... One that is available in Europe is Armadillo Photo, which is used by a lot of museums... their web site is at http://www.armaphoto.com/ . 4.CD-R is the standard of the moment... DVD is on the horizon, and a lot of folks still use JAZ and ZIP drives... The consensus of the CD experts seems to be that Plextor makes the best CD writer, the best disks are the Kodak Gold Optima... I use an HP writer, with the bundled software, and use Sony or Fuji disks, but for archival stuff, I will use the Kodaks...My drive has a max write speed of 10x, but I use it at 2x to ensure the quality of the write session I hope this answers your questions. I am sure you will get some other points of view from the other folks on the list. Feel free to contact me if you have other questions. Michael Moore www.arcportal.com Javed wrote: > I have recently bought a Nikon LS2000 for the purpose of scanning my old > negatives and archiving them on CD's. Could anyone guide me on the > following issues: > > 1- What resolution should I use for scanning? > 2- What file Format should I use to save? > 3- Any ideas on how to create a database like index to help search the > archived negatives. > 4- Is CD-R a good medium to archive on? > > Possibly this info is already available somewhere, in which case I would > appreciate if you can point me to this information. Any Tips will be welcome > > Thanks > > Khalid Javed
RE: filmscanners: RE: Photo quality printers: Hewlett-Packard vs. Epson
Well- Let me offer my tidbit of experience. A few years ago, I had an Epson Stylus Color IIs- not a great printer by any stretch, but at the time it was all I could afford. I upgraded my computer to Windows 98, and the printer would not work right any longer- printed the pages funny, weird characters, etc, and no amount of reinstalling software would help. Finally I called Epson (a long distance toll call). My tech couldn't figure out what was wrong and put me on hold to do research. I waited on hold for 45 minutes (long distance), and when he finally came back, I was told "We can't figure out why it's not working. We'd recommend buying a new printer." I was furious. Their drivers didn't work (I had downloaded the Windows 98 updates from their site), so I should go buy a new printer? Ok fine. I bought an HP. I currently own an HP 952 C, and it has given me great photo quality prints. I know the prints won't last 200 years, but, well, neither will I... so I don't care. The prints I do get look great. Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Software City Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 12:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Photo quality printers: Hewlett-Packard vs. Epson Being in the repair biz, I can only say we see lots more HP inkjets, then all the other brands combined (granted there are more HP's in circulation, but the numbers still seem disproportionate). HP does great lasers, but I'd never recommend an HP inkjet to a Customer. There's a lot of cheap plastic in them, at least on the lower end. Plus, there aren't any Continuous Inking Systems available for HP. One distinction between HP & Epson & others is the fact that the print head is built into the cartridge.I'd guess the theory is that you get a fresh head with each new cartridge, but I have to wonder about the head quality & ongoing cost. (I believe there's a class action suit going on over this issue.) If you do some surfing of folks who are seriously into the digital darkroom, you never see a mention of HP: mostly Epson. Regards, Ken Jaskot - Original Message - From: "patton paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I was wondering if anybody could comment on the relative quality of > Hewlett-Packard vs. Epson photo quality printers.
Re: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
- Original Message - From: "Jo Ann Snover" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 10:19 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film > > definitely not the case here. unless the preview doesn't show the results > > for some reason (it does for positives). i tried previews with 0, 1, 5, > > even 20 for the RGB exposure with no changes in the preview. i then ran > > nikonscan and tried doing previews at -2, 0, and 2. no change. i switched > > to positive and these huge changes started showing up. > > I have an LS-30, not a 2000, but I use the Analog Gain with negatives > and it works very well. I will see big differences with even a +/- 0.3, > so you should definitely see something with big numbers. There is a > button in the main part of the NikonScan dialog that says "Apply A > Gain". Is it possible that after setting the analog gain value you are > turning that button off before scanning? hmm, no, i've definitely made sure it was filled in. the thing is, i've been using my ls-2000 for 2 years now, and am very familiar with nikonscan and i've never had analog gain work for negatives. ~j
filmscanners: RE: Photo quality printers: Hewlett-Packard
Anybody give me hint on why when I print form Photoshop to my Photosmart printer, I get a cross hatch pattern? Not in all photos. Thanks
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan
Would someone in London PLEASE get Ed a Kodak RFS 3600 to play with??? I'd love to try the program... Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jules Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - Original Message - From: "Rick Berk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:35 PM Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan > Hey Ed- > I just got the Kodak RFS 3600, and was interested in giving Vuescan a try, > but I went to the website and was hoping to see some screen shots or > something... any chance you could add some? you don't need screenshots, vuescan is just a dialog box with a bunch of tabs. it doesn't look pretty. but that's okay because the scans do and that's what matters. i have officially and exclusively switched to vuescan as of monday (after a week of playing with it and reading this list feverishly) (i was using nikon scan before, i have a nikon ls2000). the results i'm getting are simply astounding. ~j
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan
At 15:37 12-03-01 -0500, you wrote: >Would someone in London PLEASE get Ed a Kodak RFS 3600 to play with??? I'd >love to try the program... >Rick And a Black Widow flatbed please Stuart >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jules >Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:38 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan > > >- Original Message - >From: "Rick Berk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 10:35 PM >Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan > > > > Hey Ed- > > I just got the Kodak RFS 3600, and was interested in giving Vuescan a >try, > > but I went to the website and was hoping to see some screen shots or > > something... any chance you could add some? > >you don't need screenshots, vuescan is just a dialog box with a bunch of >tabs. it doesn't look pretty. but that's okay because the scans do and >that's what matters. > >i have officially and exclusively switched to vuescan as of monday >(after a week of playing with it and reading this list feverishly) (i >was using nikon scan before, i have a nikon ls2000). the results i'm >getting are simply astounding. > >~j
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan
In a message dated 3/12/2001 3:45:17 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Would someone in London PLEASE get Ed a Kodak RFS 3600 to play with? Someone in Hawaii loaned me one, and I should get it this week. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: analog gain (nikon ls-2000) and negative film
In a message dated 3/12/2001 12:51:14 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > definitely not the case here. unless the preview doesn't show the results > for some reason (it does for positives). i tried previews with 0, 1, 5, > even 20 for the RGB exposure with no changes in the preview. The preview doesn't use the RGB exposure (it's always 1.0 for the preview). It only uses RGB exposure for the scan. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan (for RFS 3600)
Great! I'll be looking forward to trying out whichever Vuescan version supports the scanner. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 4:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan In a message dated 3/12/2001 3:45:17 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Would someone in London PLEASE get Ed a Kodak RFS 3600 to play with? Someone in Hawaii loaned me one, and I should get it this week. Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: VueScan 7.0 Available
I just released VueScan 7.0 for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html The main thing I changed since beta 2 is the zooming now stays centered on the image. In the next few weeks I hope to add support for Firewire scanners (UMAX, Epson and Nikon LS-4000 and LS-8000). I also hope to add support for the Kodak 3600 and the Minolta QuickScan 35. I also tested the LS-40 on Mac OS, and it works nicely. What's new in version 7.0 * Added support for Nikon LS-40 * Significantly reorganized user interface * Added capability to zoom in and out of both the Preview and Scan images * Frames are now scanned in the order specified * Fixed problem with infrared cleaning * Fixed problem with "Auto exposure" option * Fixed problems with path names on Mac OS * Changed Clean/Scrub/Scour to Light/Medium/Heavy * Added "Device RGB" color space * Fixed problems with film corrections on some scanners Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
Khalid Javed wrote: > I have recently bought a Nikon LS2000 for the purpose of scanning my old > negatives and archiving them on CD's. Could anyone guide me on the > following issues: > > 1-What resolution should I use for scanning? The highest optical, in your case 2700 dpi. For archiving, you want the best you can get. > 2-What file Format should I use to save? TIFF or any other you think you will be able to read years from now, which is lossless. That precludes JPEG. > 3-Any ideas on how to create a database like index to help search > the archived negatives. Not offhand. > 4-Is CD-R a good medium to archive on? > Well, know that all media deteriorate in some manner, over time, and all are superseded by others over time. The big advantages of CD-R are: It is pretty much universal now, and will probably therefore take longer to fall into obscurity, it is a non-magnetic medium, so if kept cool, dry, out of the light (CD-R use dyes which are light sensitive) aren't played very often (and you buy quality CD-R blanks known for longevity) and you double archive using two different brands, it should remain relatively readable for years to come. Further, its very cheap, stores quite a lot, takes up little space, and the burners are cheap now. Regarding a burner... I strongly recommend you buy a IDE interfaced name brand (like Plextor) which has burnproofing, and/or a SCSI interfaced one, to allow for multi-tasking during writing. Art > Possibly this info is already available somewhere, in which case I would > appreciate if you can point me to this information. Any Tips will be > welcome > > Thanks > > Khalid Javed
RE: filmscanners: Kodak RFS 3600
Hey Tony- Just started noticing this- but things that were posted a week ago seem to be showing up on list again... server problems? Rick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rick Berk Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 12:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Kodak RFS 3600 Would the person who e-mailed me for my opinion of the Kodak RFS 3600 please e-mail me off list? I apologize- I had a system crash last week and lost everything, including your message asking about it. Thanks. Rick
Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
Mike wrote: >...I TWAIN import this into PShop as a 16 bit raw scan... so it shows up in PShop as a neg (I am talking color neg ) where I then Invert (Image>Adjust>Invert), after which I adjust Levels... Hold it right there, Miguel. :-) I don't use either a Minolta or a Nikon, but you sure turned on a light bulb, here! I've really never really known what to do with a Raw Scan (they always looked too dark to work with, so after the first time, I didn't), but you seem to handle them in ways I didn't know was possible. It sounds like you're doing most of the work that a tweakable scan-driver does, in Photoshop, and getting great and publishable results! I've considered that (in desperate moments), but haven't worked up the courage (or time) to try. I, for one, would really like to hear more about this technique and how it's done. And anybody who complains it's "off-topic" ... is playing with fire, bigtime. ;-) Best regards, and thanks for the idea--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: RE: Photo quality printers: Hewlett-Packard
Quick questions before a response. What dpi are you sending the image to the Photosmart printer in? Does this problem have anything to do with the size you print to the Photosmart printer (final print size)? Are these photos/slides/negs, or are some scans from magazines or other offset printed materials? What is your scanning device, or how are you getting the images into Photoshop to begin with? What dpi are you scanning at? If you zoom in within Photoshop, can you see any of this defect on images that show it in printing? I will be away for the week at Comdex West, and will not have access to this list. I will try to reply upon my return. Art shive7 wrote: > Anybody give me hint on why when I print form Photoshop to my Photosmart > printer, I get a cross hatch pattern? Not in all photos. > > Thanks
Re: filmscanners: Mirage II ?'s
>My Imapro Flatbed has a moving Platen,and the Full sized A3 transparency >hood is hinged so that a thick book or even one side of a large box can >be scanned. >The extra space needed is a small price to pay for the high quality >results >It also has one each R G B tube as the light source for more accurate >colour. >it also weighs a great deal and has a steel chassis and body. >Don't associate the moving glass with older designs and equate them as >inferior.I suspect space saving rather than improved quality was a >prerequisite for current designs ! >regards >Michael Wilkinson My concern with the moving platen was because of the specific types of work I'm scanning. I know this system is used on some high end scanners. I heard from Umax again today confirming that the Mirage II has a "moving bed" and that space consideration was indeed the reason for the redesign to the 2100XL. Nonetheless, I spoke to the owner of the used Mirage II I'm thinking of buying and he insists that it does not move. The pictures I've seen of it would certainly lead me to believe that. I think the guy at Umax is just confused. Kind of alarming though that it is so hard to find the answer to such a straightforward issue. Mark
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.0 Available
Ed, Now that you have the LS-40 working with Vuescan... What is your opinion of scanner? Dale > What's new in version 7.0 > > * Added support for Nikon LS-40
Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
Khalid said: > > 2-What file Format should I use to save? > Arthur said: > TIFF or any other you think you will be able to read years from now, > which is lossless. That precludes JPEG Alan T says: Arthur, Khalid didn't give us any clues on just how perfect an archive of his negs he wants. If he wants the best digital representation of his life's works, you're completely correct, of course. However, he might not be so fussy, and like me, might wish to save *all* his pictures, but only a *few* little gems to high standards. As a 3MB "90% quality" jpeg of a 2700dpi frame is visually indistinguishable from the tiff when viewed at "1:1", surely that standard will do for many purposes? He'll get 200 of them on one disk, instead of 2 disks per film as tiffs, and the data will be easier to transfer to a new medium in n years' time. I'm writing this because today I was taught a lesson about it. Our village in rural England has run a "millennium project", where all the properties have been photographed, with occupants outside where possible. Getting the output to the population at reasonable cost is problematical. When I got involved, the films had been exposed but not processed. I suggested PhotoCD, so that everyone who had, or might have a computer could have a copy of all the images for their grandchildren, at little cost. Through a series of misunderstandings, and the possible withdrawal of cheap high-street Kodak *PhotoCD* here due to lack of demand, we've finished up with Kodak *PictureCD* instead. Initially, I thought this a bit of a disaster. There are 7 CDs, each consisting almost entirely of Kodak's software. The data, as approx 1500x1000pixel 500KB jpegs at, I estimate, "95% quality" takes up 102MB altogether, complete with a freeware image viewer, when I transcribe it to a CD-R. On viewing the images on screen (only 17" 800x600, I fear), I realise that it's fine; everyone but critical photographers will think the results are wonderful. I think most of them would even be pleased with A4 prints from these images at only 100 dpi or so. So I still contend that jpeg archiving has its place among rough & ready filmscanners. Regards, Alan T - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 10:33 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
filmscanners: Vuescan: Incrementing TIFF file names
Is there a way to increment the numbering of TIFF output files from Vuescan. Unless I am missing something, they are always saved as crop001.tif (or something similar to that) and if a rescan again, the name is overwritten. I would like to perform several different type of scans and have them saved in different TIFF files without having to rename them after each scan. Thanks. Joel Nisson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
filmscanners: RE:Dust cover for SS4000
An extra large shoe box, with notches cut out for the cables in the back, is what I use as a dust cover for my SS4000. Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Matturri Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback ) I do have a dust problem. A piece of plastic wrap loosely placed over the front and back cover of my ss4000 helps a good deal, protecting the slides/negs on the holder and also blocking dust from getting in the mechanism. John M. > What about putting a "dust guard" over the > entrance area made out of cardboard or whatever, to protect the film > carrier from dust, which mainly falls from above? > > Art >
filmscanners: APS adapter in LS30/LS2000
Has anyone else tried the APS adapter for the LS30 or LS2000? Any comments? I just got one today and I'll be trying it out tonight. I sure hope it works with vuescan! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: RE: Photo quality printers: Hewlett-Packard vs. Epson
I have an HP 2000C (recently replaced in their product line with the 2200) and it does have separate print heads as well as 4 separate ink cartridges. This printer seems extremely robust and the ink cartridges seem to last forever! I do tons of printing on it and have never had to replace a print head. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Software City > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 9:29 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Photo quality printers: Hewlett-Packard > vs. Epson > > > Being in the repair biz, I can only say we see lots more HP inkjets, then > all the other brands combined (granted there are more HP's in circulation, > but the numbers still seem disproportionate). HP does great > lasers, but I'd > never recommend an HP inkjet to a Customer. There's a lot of cheap plastic > in them, at least on the lower end. Plus, there aren't any > Continuous Inking > Systems available for HP. One distinction between HP & Epson & > others is the > fact that the print head is built into the cartridge.I'd guess > the theory is > that you get a fresh head with each new cartridge, but I have to wonder > about the head quality & ongoing cost. (I believe there's a class action > suit going on over this issue.) If you do some surfing of folks who are > seriously into the digital darkroom, you never see a mention of HP: mostly > Epson. > Regards, > Ken Jaskot > - Original Message - > From: "patton paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I was wondering if anybody could comment on the relative quality of > > Hewlett-Packard vs. Epson photo quality printers. >
Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?
Art wrote: >Does Win 2K require a 133mHz motherboard bus? Can WIN 2K run on a >Celeron system CPU which uses a 66mHz bus? Does anyone know why a bunch of list messages have been resent? I've just seen several duplicates. :-7 BTW I just used a PC today which had 96MB of RAM and a Pentium 200MMX running Win2K. It was a little slow doing some things, but quite usable. I certainly wouldn't be editing large images with it though. So anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Win2K doesn't care what the front side (memory) bus speed is. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: Incrementing TIFF file names
It increments the number each time you do a new scan, whether it's the same image or not. You can chance the starting filename to anything you want, e.g. xy023. The first file will be xy023, the second xy024, etc. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joel Nisson > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 5:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan: Incrementing TIFF file names > > > Is there a way to increment the numbering of TIFF output files > from Vuescan. > Unless I am missing something, they are always saved as crop001.tif (or > something similar to that) and if a rescan again, the name is overwritten. > I would like to perform several different type of scans and have > them saved > in different TIFF files without having to rename them after each scan. > > Thanks. > > Joel Nisson > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: Incrementing TIFF file names
>Is there a way to increment the numbering of TIFF output files from Vuescan. >Unless I am missing something, they are always saved as crop001.tif (or >something similar to that) and if a rescan again, the name is overwritten. Put a "+" after the name and before the ".". ie. crop001+.tif Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: Incrementing TIFF file names
Just don't forget to put the plus sign after the "xy023" - so you type in "xy023+.tif" Maris - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 8:49 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: Incrementing TIFF file names | It increments the number each time you do a new scan, whether it's the same | image or not. You can chance the starting filename to anything you want, | e.g. xy023. The first file will be xy023, the second xy024, etc. | | Frank Paris | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 | | > -Original Message- | > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Joel Nisson | > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 5:56 PM | > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan: Incrementing TIFF file names | > | > | > Is there a way to increment the numbering of TIFF output files | > from Vuescan. | > Unless I am missing something, they are always saved as crop001.tif (or | > something similar to that) and if a rescan again, the name is overwritten. | > I would like to perform several different type of scans and have | > them saved | > in different TIFF files without having to rename them after each scan. | > | > Thanks. | > | > Joel Nisson | > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > |
Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
Lynn: I used the term Raw Scan to mean that I set my Minolta scan software to 16 bit linear for the color depth setting... this gives me a negative scan into PShop... is I set my scanner to a regular 8 or 16bit scan, then it imports a positive image into PShop... I find that working with the linear scan in PShop gives me the longest tonal range, etc. as opposed to letting the scanner software do the inversion I have not taken the time to work with Vuescan, so I can't comment on that product... My current climb up the learning curve is to experiment with the controls in the scanner software to see if they give me any control over the resulting curve of the neg... after that I will start doing scans of differently exposed negs of the same subject, with the end result to bring them into register to obtain an extremely long tonal range... but it all starts with that original scan of the neg... Mike M. Lynn Allen wrote: > Mike wrote: > > >...I TWAIN import this into PShop as a 16 bit raw scan... so it > shows up in PShop as a neg (I am talking color neg ) where I then Invert > (Image>Adjust>Invert), after which I adjust Levels... > > Hold it right there, Miguel. :-) I don't use either a Minolta or a Nikon, > but you sure turned on a light bulb, here! > > I've really never really known what to do with a Raw Scan (they always > looked too dark to work with, so after the first time, I didn't), but you > seem to handle them in ways I didn't know was possible. It sounds like > you're doing most of the work that a tweakable scan-driver does, in > Photoshop, and getting great and publishable results! I've considered that > (in desperate moments), but haven't worked up the courage (or time) to try. > > I, for one, would really like to hear more about this technique and how it's > done. > And anybody who complains it's "off-topic" ... is playing with fire, > bigtime. ;-) > > Best regards, and thanks for the idea--LRA > > --- > FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com > Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: Incrementing TIFF file names
Never noticed that. It must be there by default. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, > Sr. > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 8:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: Incrementing TIFF file names > > > Just don't forget to put the plus sign after the "xy023" - so you type in > "xy023+.tif" > > Maris > > - Original Message - > From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 8:49 PM > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan: Incrementing TIFF file names > > > | It increments the number each time you do a new scan, whether it's the > same > | image or not. You can chance the starting filename to anything you want, > | e.g. xy023. The first file will be xy023, the second xy024, etc.
