Re: filmscanners: HP pigmented inks

[Arthur Entlich]

OK, so you are going to make me work, eh?

the url for Jon Cone's site:

http://www.inkjetmall.com

Gordon Tassi wrote:

> Is there a web site for them or a brand name?
> 
> Gordon
> 
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
> 
> 
>> Wilhelm does have some discussion of HP's wide carriage inks on his charts.
>> 
>> Jon Cone makes a medium range "archival" set which uses a mixture of
>> dyes and pigments as well, which is supposed to have a wide gamut, and
>> which are available for Epson printers.
>> 
>> Art

Re: filmscanners: Windows XP, the good, the bad, the ugh!

[Arthur Entlich]

Windows XP is getting the best overall reviews I've seen since Win 95, 
which might be a bad omen ;-)

Seems it has cleaned itself up quite a bit, while basically stealing a 
lot of look and feel from the Mac OS.  I believe it is based upon WIN 
2000. I also understand one big problem is that it requires registration 
on line, and that it "records" which computer it has been placed on. 
There is a problem if you change motherboards or other major components 
because the registration process is designed to prevent the OS from 
being installed on numerous computers.  You then have to go to 
Microsoft, hat in hand, and ask for permission to reinstall on a 
"revamped" system.

They are suggesting people who do a lot of work on their systems should 
try to get a OEM version which can be installed on numerous computers, 
since it is used by computer builders.

Dave King wrote:


> 
> Vat is dis vindows XP?
> 
> Dave

filmscanners: Adobe Elements

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

For those interested, per CNET:

"Adobe recently released Photoshop Elements, a new image editor that
combines power with simplicity into a single, low-cost graphics package. Try
it out here:

http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10077-108-75428.html

Maris

Re: filmscanners: 7.0.6 Great !

[Rob Geraghty]

John wrote:
>But it doesn't with mine for some reason.  
>It scans a very small part of the top of the page and then stops.  The
>scanner (SCSI connection) works fine with the included HP software.  Ed
>- any suggestions as to the problem?  I'm running NT4 sp6 (it did this
>with all previous versions of VS using NT4 sp3 also).

Perhaps this is an ASPI issue?  Have you tried installing the ASPI drivers
for your SCSI card?  You'll need to email Ed directly for feedback as he
is no longer subscribed to this list.

Vuescan works fine with my HP Scanjet IIIc in Win98SE.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)

[JimD]

I'm going to give it about 2 years to disgorge its bugs and
then it may be fit for use. Microsoft's releases are akin to
good wine, generally they benefit by being aged.
-JimD


At 11:17 PM 3/27/01 -0600, James L. Sims wrote:


>Dave King wrote:
>
> >
> > Vat is dis vindows XP?
>
>I'm a little slow on the uptake, Dave but XP is what has been call
>"Windows Whistler" in its beta form. It will be released sometime in the
>latter half of this year.  Microsoft says it's the first major development
>since Windows 95 and is based on the Win 2K kernel.
>
>It has a few innovations that I believe will make life a great deal better
>for a good many of us.  Peer to peer communications, improved device
>interface, and better memory management, to name a few.  Just hope it's
>not all Internet user friendly with frills for sending the kid's photos to
>grandma.  I think getting away from the old VXD drivers and using the WDM
>(Windows Drive Managed) architecture is a definite plus
>
>Microsoft's Windows XP home page is at:
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/default.asp
>
>Jim
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Dave

Re: filmscanners: New Version of Epson PGPP and a Special Handling Notice from inkjetart.com

[Bud]

FYI the latest paper has a sticker that says "manufactured 2001" in the
right corner. The lot number is quite different BOLL51641 vs. BOCC00240-

- Original Message -
From: "John Hayward at Hopco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 4:23 PM
Subject: filmscanners: New Version of Epson PGPP and a Special Handling
Notice from inkjetart.com


>
> I found the following on the inkjetart.com website. This vendor
> indicates that it has received only 8.5x11 in. paper in the 3rd
> version thus far.
>
>
>
> 
> >Special Handling Notice When Using
> >Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper
> >
> >UPDATE January 7, 2001: The 3rd Version of PGPP has arrived.
> >We have it available in letter size only at this time. It can be
> >identified with a white sticker-label in the top-right corner that
> >says: "Manufactured December 2000". Currently, our larger sizes of
> >PGPP do not have this label, and appear to still be the 1st version.
> >
> >CONTINUED PRECAUTIONS: Despite this new and improved 3rd Version,
> >Epson still suggests that for best results and longer fade
> >resistance, users follow the advice below:
>
> > The Following is from Epson's "Taking Care of Your Photographs"
> > >   As with traditional photos, proper care will minimize color
> > >   changes and maximize display life. For indoor display, Epson
> > >   recommends that prints be framed under glass or placed in a
> > >   plastic sleeve to protect the prints from atmospheric contaminants
> > >   like humidity, cigarette smoke, and high levels of ozone.
> > >   And, as with all photographs, the prints should be kept out
> > >   of direct sunlight. For proper storage, Epson recommends that
> > >   your prints be stored in a photo album (or plastic photo storage
> > >   box) in acid free, archival sleeves commonly available from most
> > >   camera shops and other retailers.
>
> 
> John Hayward  Hopkins & Company
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  41 10.7N 073 23.2W
>
>

Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)

[James L. Sims]

Dave King wrote:

>
> Vat is dis vindows XP?

I'm a little slow on the uptake, Dave but XP is what has been call
"Windows Whistler" in its beta form. It will be released sometime in the
latter half of this year.  Microsoft says it's the first major development
since Windows 95 and is based on the Win 2K kernel.

It has a few innovations that I believe will make life a great deal better
for a good many of us.  Peer to peer communications, improved device
interface, and better memory management, to name a few.  Just hope it's
not all Internet user friendly with frills for sending the kid's photos to
grandma.  I think getting away from the old VXD drivers and using the WDM
(Windows Drive Managed) architecture is a definite plus

Microsoft's Windows XP home page is at:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/default.asp

Jim



>
>
> Dave

Re: filmscanners: 7.0.6 Great !

[John Hinkey]

But it doesn't with mine for some reason.  

It scans a very small part of the top of the page and then stops.  The
scanner (SCSI connection) works fine with the included HP software.  Ed
- any suggestions as to the problem?  I'm running NT4 sp6 (it did this
with all previous versions of VS using NT4 sp3 also).

Otherwise, my SS4000 is thrilled to have VS running it.

Ezio wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ed !. 7.0.6 works GREAT ... with my flatbed HP 6200c
> 
> Sincerely.
> 
> Ezio

-- 
John Hinkey
Seattle, Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..

[Chris Hargens]

Thanks everyone for the quick and specific replies.

Chris Hargens
-Original Message-
From: Frank Paris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:51 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..


>With 50 messages still in my queue from filmscanners, I'm sure someone has
>already answered this, but just in case not:
>
>A3: 297x420 mm (11.7"x16.5")
>A4: 210x297 mm
>Super A3/Super B: 329x483 mm (13"x19")
>
>Frank Paris
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris Hargens
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:44 AM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: Chris Hargens
>> Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
>>
>>
>> Just what size is are A4 and A3 prints? Also, I should note that
>> I've often
>> heard/read people remark that they can print off scanned images up to
such
>> and such size (e.g., 11"x14"), but I'm not always clear about
>> just what size
>> the image is that is placed on the paper. What, for example, is the usual
>> image size for a print on A4 paper? Does it vary much?
>>
>> Chris Hargens
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)

[Arthur Entlich]

Laurie Solomon wrote:


>> (Something you Brits can certainly relate to.) ;-)
> 
> 
> Senior moment Art?  You are responding to my post not Tony's; and I am not
> British.  I am an "ugly American" by birth and nature, who does not use
> teacups even for coffee. :-)
> 

No, no, not a senior's moment (not that I don't have some) but I do 
recognize that public list postings are read by most people here (other 
than by those who have long ago filtered me out) and we do have a lot of 
those "uks" here (as opposed to "Can-ucks").;-), so although I was 
responding to your public posting, I was addressing all who are willing 
to listen. ;-)

Art

Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers

[Arthur Entlich]

Another quick comment on how papers respond to Epson inks.  I have 
discovered that how the paper is stored, and the humidity level of the 
location where the printing is done alter the paper response to the ink. 
  This is probably less an issue with thermal inkjet printers than 
piezo, since the ink is not heated with Epson printers.

Art

Colin Maddock wrote:

> Mark T wrote:
> 
>> I've tried Celcast glossy *once* on an Epson 640, and it was useless - the
>> inks 'beaded' on the surface.  Maybe it's just the 640's inks, but I won't
>> use the stuff.
> 
> 
> Maybe it is the ink. On my 600 there is no detectable difference in the behaviour of 
>the ink - the prints look fine. The paper (IJ90) is a colder white, but that is 
>nothing that can't be adjusted for. 
> 
> I have had long term colour shift with Epson Photo paper, but so far the Celcast is 
>quite stable.
> 
> Colin Maddock

Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)

[Arthur Entlich]

Tony Sleep wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:13:14 -0800  Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> 
>> No, seriously, you might be running low on one ink,
> 
> 
> Yup, the low ink warning light came on eventually.
> 

Of course, that was after 10 off color prints, right?  Epson does well 
this way, especially if you use their consumable media. ;-)

Art

Re: filmscanners: Color negative Film test strips

[Arthur Entlich]

Michael Wilkinson wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> (although test strips are available for C-41, I don't
> : believe any of the manufacturers offer to read them)
> 

Interesting.  Even the one hour lab I ran had it's own densitometer, and 
all lab personnel were trained in reading the test strips.

I should mention that the E-6 test strips used for the premium services 
(such as Q lab, etc) are not standard test strips.  They measure things 
like pH, nitrate levels, etc, in the chemistry.

Art


> 
> Art, alll the chemistry manufacturers have reading services.
> 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 Files01952 618986

Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..

[Arthur Entlich]

Rob Geraghty wrote:

> "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> Glossy Photo Paper and Photo Glossy Paper.  Although the difference is
>> not huge, the glossy film did provide better detail and deeper, less
>> posterized, color.  (the samples were printed with Photo 700/750 models).
> 
> 
> I'll have to try it again on the 1160.  I wasn't impressed with it on the
> 700.
> My experience was that it lost shadow detail.
> 
> Rob
Getting the proper ink density on the glossy is critical.  It takes some 
careful tweaking to get it correct.  You need to slightly raise the 
black point while not changing mid-tones, or remove a small amount of 
black from shadow regions.  The whole thing with the glossy film is that 
the substrate cannot accept any ink, unlike most of the other papers. 
There is nowhere for excess ink to go, so all the ink is visible on the 
top of the film.  If it pools at all in the shadows it muddies up the 
whole area.  This is why the Epson drivers reduce dot size and ink 
density automatically.  Epson Glossy Film is a bit like photo 
transparency film, it is very unforgiving anything but perfect 
"exposure", but like transparency film, if you get it "right" it looks 
great.  Unfortunately, being one of Epson's most expensive media, it's 
had to play around with it.

Art

Re: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 vs Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II

[Arthur Entlich]

I'd also be interested in replies to this.  I noticed two things of 
interest in regard to the Minolta Dimage Dual Scan II.  One, here in 
Canada, its backordered for up to two months due to demand.

2) I saw a bunch of refurbed units for same recently on "ubid", which 
worried me, being that this model has only come out perhaps 6 months 
ago, if that.

Art

Roger Smith wrote:

> I've been using a Canon FS2710 for about 18 months. It works well, 
> but does tend to be noisy in the dark areas of slides. I've heard good 
> things about the Minolta Scan Dual II, and I am wondering if it is 
> noticeably superior to the Canon. At the moment they are the same price, 
> but the Minolta is a newer model, with some slightly better specs.
> I would appreciate any comments from people who have used the Scan 
> Dual II, especially anyone who has used both and can compare them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roger Smith

Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers

[Arthur Entlich]

Mark T. wrote:

> At 07:54 PM 27/03/01 +1200, Colin wrote:
> 
>> Rob, why aren't you using Celcast paper? We find it pretty good here,
> 
> albeit more expensive than Epson.
> I've tried Celcast glossy *once* on an Epson 640, and it was useless - the
> inks 'beaded' on the surface.  Maybe it's just the 640's inks, but I won't
> use the stuff.
> 

Epson changes their inks as often as most change underwear ;-), and it 
is a real problem.  Nearly every new model is a new ink formulation.  I 
appreciate they are working toward some sort of perfection, but it makes 
it nearly impossible for 3rd party companies to make papers that work 
with more or all Epson printers.

> And Art wrote:
> 
>> Wilhelm does have some discussion of HP's wide carriage inks on his charts.
> 
> Is there another Wilhelm?  I've visited www.wilhelm-research.com many times
> recently (and again just then) and there is still no 'update'..  they just
> keep changing the date!

Admittedly, haven't visited the sight recently.  I usually link through 
one of the graphics mags or tss (The stock source), and they may have 
somewhat different urls they use.  Then again, maybe Wilhelm is wanting 
to be paid for his research, so maybe he is no longer providing updates 
free to the public???

Art

> 
> Mark T.

Re: filmscanners: New Version of Epson PGPP and a Special Handling Notice frominkjetart.com

[Dave King]

In fact I think none of the larger format papers are labeled with the
sticker, and one must rely on the lot number to tell.  Apparently any
lot number ending in 1 is 3rd version.

Dave

- Original Message -
From: John Hayward at Hopco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 6:23 PM
Subject: filmscanners: New Version of Epson PGPP and a Special
Handling Notice frominkjetart.com


>
> I found the following on the inkjetart.com website. This vendor
> indicates that it has received only 8.5x11 in. paper in the 3rd
> version thus far.
>
>
>
> 
> >Special Handling Notice When Using
> >Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper
> >
> >UPDATE January 7, 2001: The 3rd Version of PGPP has arrived.
> >We have it available in letter size only at this time. It can be
> >identified with a white sticker-label in the top-right corner that
> >says: "Manufactured December 2000". Currently, our larger sizes of
> >PGPP do not have this label, and appear to still be the 1st
version.
> >
> >CONTINUED PRECAUTIONS: Despite this new and improved 3rd Version,
> >Epson still suggests that for best results and longer fade
> >resistance, users follow the advice below:
>
> > The Following is from Epson's "Taking Care of Your Photographs"
> > >   As with traditional photos, proper care will minimize color
> > >   changes and maximize display life. For indoor display, Epson
> > >   recommends that prints be framed under glass or placed in a
> > >   plastic sleeve to protect the prints from atmospheric
contaminants
> > >   like humidity, cigarette smoke, and high levels of ozone.
> > >   And, as with all photographs, the prints should be kept out
> > >   of direct sunlight. For proper storage, Epson recommends that
> > >   your prints be stored in a photo album (or plastic photo
storage
> > >   box) in acid free, archival sleeves commonly available from
most
> > >   camera shops and other retailers.
>
> 
> John Hayward  Hopkins & Company
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  41 10.7N 073 23.2W

Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan

[Jon]

Well, Margulis is a can of worms, in my opinion, unless you have a CMYK
workflow. One thing that might help is to set your output to sRGB in
Vuescan. sRGB seems to give more saturated image than AdobeRGB when
scanning with Vuescan, although I don't know why. Also make sure your
scanner is warmed up properly.

Jon

--- Jim Sharp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who replied to this!
> 
> I downloaded the Margulis .pdf files suggested and will study them
> closely. I'm hoping that will help. I also intent to try a few of the
> adjustments in Vuescan that I've yet to experiment with. 
> 
> I'll let you all know how I fare...
> 
> --
> Jim


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"

[shAf]

Goerf writes ...

> shAf wrote:
>
> >  Has anyone figured out how to use this color space option??  ...

>  I'm the one who has requested for this space.
> Choosing this device space will disable all color space>
> conversions in Vuescan (like raw) but allows you to
> perform the light/heavy/medium filtering on it,
> which is not possible on the raw output.
> ...

I see ... but it is a strange implimentation ... especially when
it is in the context of color profiles, leading to possible confusion.
If the option were labeled 'none' it would be better.

Ed has been not necessily close-mouthed about his implimentation
of color spaces, but he hasn't been clear either.  I belive he doesn't
impliment the characteristics of each scanner he supports.  Vuescan
can control them, but there is no recognition of the "color" the
scanner is capable of.  For example, I believe Rob's recent post of
colormatchRGB into AdobeRGB seemingly being accurate is an example of
this ... that is, it is an work-around interpretation of his scanner's
color space into his working space which seems to work.  The proper
implimentation would be a proper characterization of the scanner's
color space into working space.

(Rob ... if you are reading this, instead of Colormatch, you might
want to try EktaspaceRGB into your working space, which I determined
to be very close to the device profile provided by Nikon.
Alternatively, you might try the "device RGB" option, and then convert
from "%_NKWide_CPS.icm" to your working space when you open the file
in Photoshop.  I won't claim it will be the subjectively perfect scan
you're looking for, but I might suggest it'll cure the
overly-saturated reds you're experiencing.)

I also admit I need to play with the above suggestion and with VS
v.7 ... I am unfortunately in the middle of selling a house and moving
across north america ... and it just so happens my scanner has taken a
back seat and has been put away ...~sigh~...

In any case, I imagine Vuescan will continue to get good marks for
controlling the scan acquisition, but VS will also continue to cause
confusion in the arena of serious Photoshop users who want to strictly
adhere to proper implimentation of device profiles and working color
spaces.  As you say ... Ed claims this would be a difficult
implimemntation ... but while we all recognize with kudos the
advantages of VS, we need to also recognize its weakness and lack of
scanner characterization.

my US$0.02 ... shAf  :o)

RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..

[Frank Paris]

With 50 messages still in my queue from filmscanners, I'm sure someone has
already answered this, but just in case not:

A3: 297x420 mm (11.7"x16.5")
A4: 210x297 mm
Super A3/Super B: 329x483 mm (13"x19")

Frank Paris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris Hargens
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:44 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Chris Hargens
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
>
>
> Just what size is are A4 and A3 prints? Also, I should note that
> I've often
> heard/read people remark that they can print off scanned images up to such
> and such size (e.g., 11"x14"), but I'm not always clear about
> just what size
> the image is that is placed on the paper. What, for example, is the usual
> image size for a print on A4 paper? Does it vary much?
>
> Chris Hargens

Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)

[Jim Snyder]

on 3/27/01 7:23 PM, Dave King at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: James L. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>> Very good points Paul, and with the higher resolution scanners
> coming on line
>> the computer resources will be required to meet the tasks.  From the
> information
>> I've seen about Microsoft's new OS, Windows XP, better management is
> in the
>> future - I just hope all the CPU and device manufacturers are on
> board with the
>> new system.  Drivers were a major issue with ME.
>> 
>> Jim Sims
> 
> Vat is dis vindows XP?
> 
It shands fer Windows Xbox Plus. It air the latest and greatest operating
system from Microsoft.

Jim Snyder

OT Windows versions was Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)

[Rob Geraghty]

Dave wrote:
>Vat is dis vindows XP?

The next incarnation of Windoze.  Check out http://www.microsoft.com and
you'll be able to real all the marketing hype.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)

[Dave King]

- Original Message -
From: James L. Sims <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Very good points Paul, and with the higher resolution scanners
coming on line
> the computer resources will be required to meet the tasks.  From the
information
> I've seen about Microsoft's new OS, Windows XP, better management is
in the
> future - I just hope all the CPU and device manufacturers are on
board with the
> new system.  Drivers were a major issue with ME.
>
> Jim Sims

Vat is dis vindows XP?

Dave

Re: filmscanners: vuescan feature request

[Bob Shomler]

>I'd like an option for it to go BING when it finishes an operation, like
>Photoshop or Toast. This is because it works very nicely (unlike any other
>scanner software) in the background on my Mac and I'd like it to tell me
>when it finishes something.

Coming up sometime?  Vuescan has this option for windows and linux (in prefs tab).  
The help file says that it isn't yet implemented on the Mac.  (See 
.)

--
Bob Shomler
http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm

filmscanners: New Version of Epson PGPP and a Special Handling Notice frominkjetart.com

[John Hayward at Hopco]

I found the following on the inkjetart.com website. This vendor 
indicates that it has received only 8.5x11 in. paper in the 3rd 
version thus far.




>Special Handling Notice When Using
>Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper 
>
>UPDATE January 7, 2001: The 3rd Version of PGPP has arrived. 
>We have it available in letter size only at this time. It can be 
>identified with a white sticker-label in the top-right corner that 
>says: "Manufactured December 2000". Currently, our larger sizes of 
>PGPP do not have this label, and appear to still be the 1st version.
>
>CONTINUED PRECAUTIONS: Despite this new and improved 3rd Version, 
>Epson still suggests that for best results and longer fade 
>resistance, users follow the advice below:

> The Following is from Epson's "Taking Care of Your Photographs" 
> >   As with traditional photos, proper care will minimize color 
> >   changes and maximize display life. For indoor display, Epson 
> >   recommends that prints be framed under glass or placed in a 
> >   plastic sleeve to protect the prints from atmospheric contaminants 
> >   like humidity, cigarette smoke, and high levels of ozone. 
> >   And, as with all photographs, the prints should be kept out 
> >   of direct sunlight. For proper storage, Epson recommends that 
> >   your prints be stored in a photo album (or plastic photo storage 
> >   box) in acid free, archival sleeves commonly available from most 
> >   camera shops and other retailers.


John Hayward  Hopkins & Company
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 41 10.7N 073 23.2W

Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270

[Rob Geraghty]

Bob wrote:
>Most desktop printers do not print to the edge; they require some margin
>space.  For example Epson 1200 margins are listed as
>
>  top  .12 in  3mm
>  bottom   .55 "  14mm  using standard printable area 
>  left .12 "   3mm
>  right.35 "   9mm  for letter & legal
>  right.12 "   3mm  for other paper sizes

Thanks for mentioning this, Bob - I was going to post it otherwise.  The
reason for my followup is simply to mention that in Epson metric paper sizings
there are oversize papers so that prints can be made that are "full bleed"
A3 - in other words the entire size of an A3 page.  I think these oversize
papers work in all the A3 Epson printers and are described as "A3+" or "Super
A3" in the catalogue.  I don't know if there are oversize imperial equivalents.

Hopefully this completes the answer for the original poster.

Rob


Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color

[Derek Clarke]

I've been a bit slow answering this as I was meaning to do some tests of 
my own, but as I haven't had the time...

As I understand it, one major factor is that a lot of motherboards only 
cache a portion of the memory address space. Windows 95/98/ME have their 
memory managed in such a way that if you put in more RAM than the cached 
area code runs in uncached RAM.

This has the effect that applications slow down if you have too much RAM!

Of course this is offset by the increase in disc buffers and those apps 
like Photoshop that need lots of RAM for data.

Windows NT and 2000 have a different layout of managed memory and tend to 
keep code in low RAM.

Another non-intuitive situation is that increasing the RAM in W95/98/ME 
doesn't have the slightest effect on the amount of resource space. So the 
number of things you can run at the same time is unchanged no matter how 
much RAM you have.

This is another limitation that doesn't exist in NT and Windows 2000. Each 
process has its own resource space, so the number of concurrent processes 
you can run depends upon the RAM size as well as the CPU power instead of 
hitting a hard resource limit.

 Add to that the ability to use multiple processors, each of which can 
use an extra chunk of RAM, and NT and W2000 are inherently more powerful 
when you start using lots of RAM.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Shomler) wrote:

> >2) It will use as much RAM as you can pack on a board. Windows 98 and 
> ME >can't really use more RAM than about 256M effectively, but W2K can 
> go all >the way :-)  
> 
> Can you elaborate on win98's inability to use larger RAM (or refer me 
> to some discussion on this)?
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> Bob Shomler
> http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
> 
> 

Re: filmscanners: Color Calibration

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

No, you're not going to *have* to buy one.  You can fly without shifting
gears.  What I see is what I get and all I did to get was calibrate the
monitor and watch the numbers and pick the right printer profile from
several stock.

Maris

- Original Message -
From: "Michael Wilkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Color Calibration


| I whack a kodak Grey card in a scede,soot it ,remove it ,shoot again
| then when photoshoping do the colour balence with the grey card shot
| then transfer the settings to the cardless shot.
| But the bottom line is to calibrate your monitor so that what you see is
| what you get
| wysiwyg.
| More expense I know but you are going to have to buy calibration kit at
| some stage.
| check out
| http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/09/03/0906colormgt.html
| then follow all the links ,its time to engage second gear !
|
| Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ
|   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  www.infocus-photography.co.uk
| For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files01952 618986
|
|

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

My understanding is that, though without embedding it, this option uses the
scanner profile as selected in your graphics program in transferring the
image to the graphics program, and the graphics program would than embed
it's default/preferred color space in the image if it embeds such spaces as
Photoshop does.

I use it as I do not need an embedded profile since I use Corel PhotoPaint.

Maris

- Original Message -
From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Filmscanners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 2:22 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"


|
| Has anyone figured out how to use this color space option??  VS's
| help file implies the resulting color space will be that of the
| "device", BUT the profile is not embedded.  How would you convert to a
| Photoshop editing work space if the 'from' device space is not known
| or embedded??
| I was hoping this option would have allowed me to select an actual
| ICM which came with the scanner, or had been empirically created.  It
| would seem to be the best color space for archiving the original scan.
| Actually, the Vuescan 'raw' scan is always the best choice for
| archiving ... but not necessarily for everyone.  The use of this
| option is a mystery.
|
| shAf  :o)
|

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"

[Dale & Gail]

Too bad Ed isn't on the list as he could enlighten us.

Dale

From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> 
> Has anyone figured out how to use this color space option??  VS's
> help file implies the resulting color space will be that of the
> "device", BUT the profile is not embedded.  How would you convert to a
> Photoshop editing work space if the 'from' device space is not known
> or embedded??

filmscanners: 7.0.6 Great !

[Ezio]

Thanks Ed !. 7.0.6 works GREAT ... with my flatbed HP 6200c

Sincerely.

Ezio 

Re: filmscanners: HP pigmented inks

[Gordon Tassi]

Is there a web site for them or a brand name?

Gordon

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Wilhelm does have some discussion of HP's wide carriage inks on his charts.
>
> Jon Cone makes a medium range "archival" set which uses a mixture of
> dyes and pigments as well, which is supposed to have a wide gamut, and
> which are available for Epson printers.
>
> Art

Re: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED question

[Gordon Tassi]

I would guess that Ed will have it out before too long, if he fasn't already
done so.

Gordon

Mikael Risedal wrote:

> VueScan 7.0 does not today support  Nikon ED4000. I have been testing the ED
> 4000 scanner now for 2 weeks, and the only software today who support the
> scanner is Nikon Scan 3.0.
> Mikael Risedal
> Photographer
> Sweden
>
> >From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED question
> >Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:06:57 -0600
> >
> >Vuescan does support it:
> >
> >"12-bit data from LS-40, 14-bit data from LS-4000"
> >
> >  The URL is http://www.hamrick.com/
> >
> >I haven't seen or heard of any reviews yet except Ed Hamrick's short but
> >positive note - I don't think it's been in shipment long enough yet.
> >
> >Maris
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Tom Scales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 1:33 PM
> >Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED question
> >
> >
> >| I am sure this has been asked a hundred times, but I have been offlist
> >for
> >| awhile.  Starting back up again and about to run buy a Nikon 4000 ED.
> >Just
> >| wanted to ask the lists' opinion.
> >|
> >| Also, does anyone know if Vuescan supports it, or will soon?  I couldn't
> >| find an email address on the site.
> >|
> >| Thanks to all!  I'm sure I'll be a more frequent contributor now.
> >|
> >| Tom
> >|
> >
> _
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)

[Gordon Tassi]

Based on the information I have gained from this list, I will scan it at Max
(2700) and then bring it to Print dpi level.  The reason is that I archive at
maximum and so the file for print has to be reduced.

If I am scanning for someone else, I scvan for the use they will have.  E.g. A
Power Point presentation gets jpg at 1350 then reduced to 150 at 5 in. x 5 in.,
for web I will do a jpg at 1350 or 675 and then reduce it to 72 in PS after
tweaking and cleaning.  Tweaking for both consists of getting rid of dust. etc.
that the clean function may have missed and maybe cropping and rotating if
needed..

Gordon
Rob Geraghty wrote:

> Art wrote:
> > When I mentioned to the Epson rep at Comdex that the names
> > of the papers were ridiculously confusing, he looked at me
> > like I was from another planet
>
> What's worse is that the price lists don't include the gsm or thickness
> of the paper.  That would at least help to separate the "photo weight" papers
> from the "photo quality" but lightweight papers.  Most of the photographers
> aren't at all interested in lightweight papers, I expect.
>
> Obscanning: What dpi do people scan at?  I scan on the LS30 at 2700dpi then
> change the dpi in the file without resampling before I print.  Do others
> scan at 300dpi (say) for the print output resolution?  This isn't possible
> AFAIK with Vuescan, but it is with Nikonscan.
>
> Rob
>
> PS No arguments abuot dpi vs ppi please - I'm talking about the labels used
> in the software not what is "technically correct".
>
> Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wordweb.com

Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers

[Colin Maddock]

Mark T wrote:
>I've tried Celcast glossy *once* on an Epson 640, and it was useless - the
>inks 'beaded' on the surface.  Maybe it's just the 640's inks, but I won't
>use the stuff.

Maybe it is the ink. On my 600 there is no detectable difference in the behaviour of 
the ink - the prints look fine. The paper (IJ90) is a colder white, but that is 
nothing that can't be adjusted for. 

I have had long term colour shift with Epson Photo paper, but so far the Celcast is 
quite stable.

Colin Maddock

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"

[Goerf]

shAf wrote:

> Has anyone figured out how to use this color space option??  VS's
> help file implies the resulting color space will be that of the
> "device", BUT the profile is not embedded.  How would you convert to a
> Photoshop editing work space if the 'from' device space is not known
> or embedded??

 I'm the one who has requested for this space.
Choosing this device space will disable all color space conversions in Vuescan

(like raw) but allows you to perform the light/heavy/medium filtering on it,
which
is not possible on the raw output.
The 'from' device space in P2P will still have to be your scanner profile (as
with the raw output)

>
> I was hoping this option would have allowed me to select an actual
> ICM which came with the scanner, or had been empirically created.  It

This would be very nive to have, I agree, but according to Ed, not very
trivial to implement.

>
> would seem to be the best color space for archiving the original scan.
> Actually, the Vuescan 'raw' scan is always the best choice for
> archiving ... but not necessarily for everyone.  The use of this
> option is a mystery.
>
> shAf  :o)

filmscanners: vuescan feature request

[Johnny Deadman]

I'd like an option for it to go BING when it finishes an operation, like
Photoshop or Toast. This is because it works very nicely (unlike any other
scanner software) in the background on my Mac and I'd like it to tell me
when it finishes something.
-- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

Re: filmscanners: Color negative Film test strips

[Michael Wilkinson]

- Original Message -
From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(although test strips are available for C-41, I don't
: believe any of the manufacturers offer to read them)


Art, alll the chemistry manufacturers have reading services.
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 Files01952 618986

Re: filmscanners: Color Calibration

[Michael Wilkinson]

Do any of you use a colour temperature meter when shooting interiors ?
Dont foget that reciprocity failure is also influential in altering both
colour and exposures.
If youve got poorly lit rooms use a fast film,800 asa fuji works a
treat, and if you have someone to help get them to hold the shutter open
whilst you rush round with a couple of flash guns  shooting them off
like billy the kid and paint the room with light,works a treat .
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 Files01952 618986

Re: filmscanners: Digital Film Output

[Michael Wilkinson]

- Original Message -
From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: TBH the biggest problem with this route is that I have enough trouble
getting
: clients to pay for scans. Asking them to cough for 5x4 film output +
processing
: will be a blood-from-stone proposition - this is editorial.

Tony ,
If you have a particular regular client who does not trust you digital
files why not make just one tranny for them and provide that along with
all the others on the CD.
they can then spend their own dosh on getting a scan from the film of
the scan which was a photo of the book that was typed from the hand
written manuscript,HOLD IT ! im getting carried away here.
Anyway ,they can see what the difference is . and consider the cost
implications.
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 Files01952 618986

Re: filmscanners: Color Calibration

[Michael Wilkinson]

I whack a kodak Grey card in a scede,soot it ,remove it ,shoot again
then when photoshoping do the colour balence with the grey card shot
then transfer the settings to the cardless shot.
But the bottom line is to calibrate your monitor so that what you see is
what you get
wysiwyg.
More expense I know but you are going to have to buy calibration kit at
some stage.
check out
http://macweek.zdnet.com/2000/09/03/0906colormgt.html
then follow all the links ,its time to engage second gear !

Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  www.infocus-photography.co.uk
For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files01952 618986

Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan

[Michael Moore]

I have had no problem with the orange mask... I guess either the minolta software
strips it it when making the scan (as a 16 bit linear negative scan) or PShop does
it on invert...

Mike M.

Jim Sharp wrote:

> Michael
>
> I will try this and see how it works for me. Is it much of a problem
> getting rid of the orange mask from the negative?
>
> It also appears I need to buy some books...
>
> --
> Jim
>
> Michael Moore wrote:
> >
> > Jim: I have a Minolta Scan Elite which I use for scanning color negs... I
> > don't use VueScan, just the Minolta software, but the way I take my scans
> > into PShop is the key to my success... I had the same problem with
> > apparently flat scans as well, until I started to scan the neg directly into
> > PShop as a linear file, this means that your scan software does not make the
> > reversal to give you a positive image... what you want is to have the full
> > blown neg with all its info come directly via TWAIN in PShop... you then do
> > an Image>Adjust>Invert, which will give you a positive image... the ones I
> > get at this stage are all too bright and apparently flat, but when I go to
> > Inage>Adjust>Levels and adjust the sliders, or as I recently discovered, use
> > the droppers to set my white, black and mid points, the picture pops almost
> > magically into adjustment... A good book on all this is Photoshop 5 & 5.5
> > for Photographers by Barry Haynes and Wendy Crumpler, published by New
> > Riders. Costs about $55 (less at Amazon) It explains from a photographers
> > point of view how to use PShop and has good coverage on color calibration
> > and scanning as well as using Levels and Curves. Good Luck, hope this helps.
> >
> > Mike M.

filmscanners: Vuescan: "device RGB"

[shAf]

Has anyone figured out how to use this color space option??  VS's
help file implies the resulting color space will be that of the
"device", BUT the profile is not embedded.  How would you convert to a
Photoshop editing work space if the 'from' device space is not known
or embedded??
I was hoping this option would have allowed me to select an actual
ICM which came with the scanner, or had been empirically created.  It
would seem to be the best color space for archiving the original scan.
Actually, the Vuescan 'raw' scan is always the best choice for
archiving ... but not necessarily for everyone.  The use of this
option is a mystery.

shAf  :o)

RE: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 vs Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II

[Tim Atherton]

I Have used the Canoscan with other scanners, but not the Minolta.

I have found using Vuescan with the Canoscan does wonders. Even basic scans
come out with less noise. Do a multi passes or the long exposure pass gives
me great scans - adding shadow detail and getting rid of shadow noise.

Tim A

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roger Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 1:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 vs Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II
>
>
>   I've been using a Canon FS2710 for about 18 months. It works
> well, but does tend to be noisy in the dark areas of slides. I've
> heard good things about the Minolta Scan Dual II, and I am wondering
> if it is noticeably superior to the Canon. At the moment they are the
> same price, but the Minolta is a newer model, with some slightly
> better specs.
>   I would appreciate any comments from people who have used the
> Scan Dual II, especially anyone who has used both and can compare
> them.
>
> Thanks,
> Roger Smith

filmscanners: Canon FS2710 vs Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II

[Roger Smith]

I've been using a Canon FS2710 for about 18 months. It works 
well, but does tend to be noisy in the dark areas of slides. I've 
heard good things about the Minolta Scan Dual II, and I am wondering 
if it is noticeably superior to the Canon. At the moment they are the 
same price, but the Minolta is a newer model, with some slightly 
better specs.
I would appreciate any comments from people who have used the 
Scan Dual II, especially anyone who has used both and can compare 
them.

Thanks,
Roger Smith

RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..

[Shough, Dean]

> A4 is 8.3" x 11.7"
> 
> A3 is 11.7" x 16.5"
>

For size (and weights) of paper in other sizes try
http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/weight.html  (also a good site for printer
info and output comparison).

Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270

[Bob Shomler]

>Just what size is are A4 and A3 prints? 

  A3 is 297 x 420 mm, 11.69 x 16.53 inches
  A4 is 210 x 297 mm,  8.26 x 11.69 

>Also, I should note that I've often
>heard/read people remark that they can print off scanned images up to such
>and such size (e.g., 11"x14"), but I'm not always clear about just what size
>the image is that is placed on the paper. What, for example, is the usual
>image size for a print on A4 paper? Does it vary much?

Most desktop printers do not print to the edge; they require some margin space.  For 
example Epson 1200 margins are listed as

  top  .12 in  3mm
  bottom   .55 "  14mm  using standard printable area 
  left .12 "   3mm
  right.35 "   9mm  for letter & legal
  right.12 "   3mm  for other paper sizes

I print 8x10 (inches image on US letter size paper 8.5x11 inches, then either trim it 
to 8x10 or trim to leave a small uniform white border.  

RE: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)

[Shough, Dean]

> > Basically the new 4000 dpi m/f scanners will output such large files
> that
> > handling them demands a new ball game in desktop systems: files of 500
> to
> > 700 Mb will be common at 4000 dpi, (in 16bit), and no doubt 6000 dpi
> will
> > come along soon for 35mm. If you do 5x4" - god help you.
> 
> I think it comes down to what resolution you need for the intended
> purpose.  I
> think 300 ppi for an 8 X 10 is sufficient for my Epson 1200 printer (2400
> X 3000
> image size).  I can not discern any improvement with higher resolutions -
> not
> that I would turn down a 4000 or 6000 ppi scanner if I could afford it and
> I do
> work with image files much larger than this.
>

But 2 1/4 inches times 4,000 ppi should create a 37.6 inch print at 240 ppi.
Just about perfect for an Epson 9500 printer.  Someone shooting medium
format and contemplating this type of system may very well be interested in
this size prints.  Even if smaller images are desired, it is best to scan at
full resolution and later reduce the size in Photoshop.

> >
> >
> > Processing power is not the problem, a high end Mac, P4 or AMD Athlon,
> will
> > all do the job well. All of these have enough power/ MHz. The issue
> seems to
> > be the memory handling of these large files:
> >
> > Now, the rule of thumb is that you need 3 to 5 times the RAM as your
> file
> > size for efficient PS handling, so... this means maximum RAM on the
> machine:
>

I have worked with files that are 16k by 16k, B&W, 16 bits per pixel,512 MB
file size with no problem.  Slow to open (80 sec), even slower to save(200
sec), but quite usable(an unsharp mask took 90 seconds).  This is on a stock
G4/500 running Photoshop 5.0.2 (no altiVec support) with just 256 MB of real
memory and lots of other applications running and a fragmented, nearly full
disk (512 MB file written into 124 fragments!).  Everything was limited by
disk access.

Anybody know what the image size limits might be for Photoshop under the
various operating systems?  Photoshop itself limits the dimensions (
http://www.adobe.com:80/support/techdocs/1454e.htm ) to be less than 30,000
pixels and 417 inches.  A related page (
http://www.adobe.com:80/support/techdocs/100d2.htm ) seems to indicate that
Windows may have a limit of 1GB per file (95, 98, and or 2000?  also this
may be a limitation of the MCI/Video player) and that the Mac has a
limitation of 2GB per file.

Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

>From Epson Inkjet Mailing list Resources: http://home.att.net/~arwomack01/

A4 is 8.3" x 11.7"

A3 is 11.7" x 16.5"

Maris

- Original Message -
From: "Chris Hargens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Chris Hargens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..


| Just what size is are A4 and A3 prints? Also, I should note that I've
often
| heard/read people remark that they can print off scanned images up to such
| and such size (e.g., 11"x14"), but I'm not always clear about just what
size
| the image is that is placed on the paper. What, for example, is the usual
| image size for a print on A4 paper? Does it vary much?
|
| Chris Hargens
|
|
|
| -Original Message-
| From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Date: Monday, March 26, 2001 8:56 AM
| Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..
|
|
| >On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:45:20 +1000  Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
| wrote:
| >
| >> Obscanning: I have yet to try printing at A3, but do those who have
| printed
| >> at A3 from 2700dpi scans find the scanning resolution adequate?
| >
| >Back to back comparisons here between A4 1200 prints of 2700 & 4000ppi
| scans of
| >the same Astia image show a slight fudging of fine detail in the 2700
| print.
| >Viewed alone, it's fine, but once you have noticed the slightly
'vaseline'
| >effect of lower sampling res, it's hard to overlook if you are being
picky.
| >However I didn't notice until I did the comparison :)
| >
| >A3 will make this rather more noticeable, but TBH there are very few 35mm
| >images which really benefit from that sort of size unless they will be
| viewed
| >from at least 3'.
| >
| >> I was intrigued
| >> (and a little depressed) to read Tony's recent comment that the
aliasing
| >> at 4000dpi was much less than at 2700dpi.
| >
| >All I meant is that 4000ppi seems to greatly reduce the sensitivity to
film
| >grain which causes this intractable problem. It's just one less thing to
| have
| >to worry about.
| >
| >If you stick to films which don't excite grain aliasing problems (Astia,
| >Provia, KR64, Reala - none gave me any trouble with an LS1000, and I'm
sure
| >there are many others), a 2700ppi unit won't give grain aliasing. Problem
| >solved ;)
| >
| >> I'll bite the bullet in the next
| >> few days and actually try an A3 print.
| >
| >Definitely the best idea :-)
| >
| >Regards
| >
| >Tony Sleep
| >http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
info
| &
| >comparisons
| >
|
|

Re: filmscanners: Grain in Color negative Film

[John Matturri]

> Duggal closed their downtown branch?  Didn't know that, when did that
> happen?
>

A couple of weeks ago, very suddenly. I had been there the week before
and nothing was said and then when I went to bring in some film there
was a sign saying that they were closed at this location. This was the
branch at Prince and Broadway.

Thanks for the suggestions.

John M.

RE: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)

[Laurie Solomon]

>I found that the surface would "fracture"
>if the paper was flexed in a tight circular curve, looking a bit like
>the "crazing" or cracking of the glaze of an old teacup.

Yes, I had heard of this also; but my idea was specifically in response to
Tony's problem (e.g., making a print of his digital file image so that the
Repro house could then scan it for publication).  Hence, for this purpose, I
do not think that the archival quality of the print really is an important
feature, for starters, nor do I think the print will be handled that roughly
in terms of being flexed into a tight enough arch to cause the "fracturing"
or rectilineation that you are speaking about.  If, indeed, the repro house
personnel do handle the print that roughly, then they would probably do
damage to or scuff up any print - inkjet or photographic - and may even wind
up fracturing the emulsion on a photographic print.

>(Something you Brits can certainly relate to.) ;-)

Senior moment Art?  You are responding to my post not Tony's; and I am not
British.  I am an "ugly American" by birth and nature, who does not use
teacups even for coffee. :-)

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 2:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)




Laurie Solomon wrote:


>
> Hence, given the purpose that you would be using the inkjet print for,
> archival quality is not a major significant factor as long as the damn
thing
> does not turn orange within a month or two; moreover, since there are few
> other features other than a whiter base that you could obtain from using
> Premium Glossy Photo Paper over the Epson Photo Paper when used with the
> 1200, I do not think the Premium Glossy Photo Paper (EPGPP) would be of
any
> benefit to you.
>
One potential negative in this equation, at least in earlier
manifestations of this paper, I found that the surface would "fracture"
if the paper was flexed in a tight circular curve, looking a bit like
the "crazing" or cracking of the glaze of an old teacup. (Something you
Brits can certainly relate to.) ;-)

Art

RE: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning

[Laurie Solomon]

>Even if the neg film was designed for tungsten lighting, and not shot
>under those conditions, it could be corrected in both the prints and
>slides which were made through filtration.  Probably easier for them to
>correct it at their lab than expect people who bought this stuff to even
>know what "tungsten" was... (Seattle Filmworks wasn't exactly the place
>professionals flocked to).

Good points, which others have also noted.  The only reason I can think of
for not thinking of it myself before I made my posts has to be that I was
having a "senior moment" or was there a full moon. :-)



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 3:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning




Laurie Solomon wrote:

>> Sorry, drifting off topic.
>
>
> Never a problem with me - especially if the information is informative or
> interesting.
> I hate to sound stupid; but I want to check and see if you mean what I
think
> you mean when you speak of CN in relation to film.  Are you speaking about
a
> chromogenic negative? All the movie films that I know of are tungston
films
> which always left me wondering why places like Seattle Filmworks and
others
> who sold the respooled tails of those films never made a point of saying
> that they needed to be shot under tungsten lighting.
>
> If the negatives produced off these films tend to be thicker than normal
as
> you said or implied, at least as I understood your to be saying or
> impliying, would this not make it harder to scan and make scanning the
> slides easier if not better?  Since you have already said that you have
not
> actually scanned the stuff, I am asking this sort of in terms of
rhetorical
> question or in search of a logical speculation rather than an empirical
> answer.
>

Even if the neg film was designed for tungsten lighting, and not shot
under those conditions, it could be corrected in both the prints and
slides which were made through filtration.  Probably easier for them to
correct it at their lab than expect people who bought this stuff to even
know what "tungsten" was... (Seattle Filmworks wasn't exactly the place
professionals flocked to).

The 'slide' film that was used was actually a non-masked negative film
also c-41 processed, and they used contact printers to make them, so
filtration could be easily accomplished ay that stage.
Art

Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)

[James L. Sims]

PAUL GRAHAM wrote:

> (Snip)
>
> Basically the new 4000 dpi m/f scanners will output such large files that
> handling them demands a new ball game in desktop systems: files of 500 to
> 700 Mb will be common at 4000 dpi, (in 16bit), and no doubt 6000 dpi will
> come along soon for 35mm. If you do 5x4" - god help you.

I think it comes down to what resolution you need for the intended purpose.  I
think 300 ppi for an 8 X 10 is sufficient for my Epson 1200 printer (2400 X 3000
image size).  I can not discern any improvement with higher resolutions - not
that I would turn down a 4000 or 6000 ppi scanner if I could afford it and I do
work with image files much larger than this.

>
>
> Processing power is not the problem, a high end Mac, P4 or AMD Athlon, will
> all do the job well. All of these have enough power/ MHz. The issue seems to
> be the memory handling of these large files:
>
> Now, the rule of thumb is that you need 3 to 5 times the RAM as your file
> size for efficient PS handling, so... this means maximum RAM on the machine:
>
> (Snip)
>
> ok: from what I understand the max RAM controllable on a windows board is
> set by the chipset, and of course, the physical number of memory slots
> present. Older chipsets/boards are pretty much the same as Mac's (3 memory
> slots (dimms), 1.5Gb controllable) But there are now motherboards out there
> now that have new chipsets (3 or 4 Gb controllable) and 4 memory slots, so 2
> Gb is can easily be dedicated to Photoshop alone.
>
> Newer DDR memory boards (latest Athlon systems) are also out there with 3 or
> 4 slots, as are P4 boards, with Rambus memory RIMMS, but... this memory is
> very expensive, with a 512Mb stick being about $800 in DDR compared to only
> $170 currently in the older SDRAM. so.. if you are buying four of these (to
> make 2Gb) then you can save literally thousands of $ by not buying the
> latest memory types, losing maybe a few % performance. Or put another way,
> you can have 2Gb of SDRAM for the price of 500 Mb or DDR RAM.
>
> It seems a new style Athlon SDRAM board with 4 slots is the way to go for
> best bang per buck at present.

MicroStar's K7 Master is the only mainboard I've see advertised with this
feature (I'm sure there must be others).  More RAM is essential.  I have already
experienced one hard drive crash that seems to have been caused from over
heating. My OS has also lost its way occasionally after working with large image
files - particularly after opening very large Windows Meta Files. I really wish
I knew why this was happening. It happened with Win 98 and now with Win ME (for
me, ME is much more stable than 98).

According to the information from MicroStar their K7 Master will accept both DDR
and SDRAM with a 4 gig capacity.  From the standpoint of economics I think
installing 2 gig of SDRAM would be a big improvement over what most of us have
now.  Also, while AMD's Irongate 761 chipset is relatively new and is probably
not as mature as the VIA chipset, it is solid as a rock and, in casual
communications with one AMD engineer, they acknowledge most of the commonly
reported issues and have three driver updates pending certification that should
resolve most of these issues.

> (Snip)
>
> So that is where I am at, and about to spend my hard earned dosh.
> Sorry if this is geek-speek to some, but others will (hopefully) point out
> some mistakes or oversights in my thinking, and advise another way...
> please.
>
> I know this sounds crazy high-end stuff, but I really think its coming in
> thick and fast... there will be plenty more pro-photographers out there
> doing this same m/f scanning, and all coming up against these issues.

Very good points Paul, and with the higher resolution scanners coming on line
the computer resources will be required to meet the tasks.  From the information
I've seen about Microsoft's new OS, Windows XP, better management is in the
future - I just hope all the CPU and device manufacturers are on board with the
new system.  Drivers were a major issue with ME.

Jim Sims

>
>
> regards to all,
>
> paul

Re: filmscanners: Re:grain

[Richard Starr]

--- You wrote:
Ilfotol has none of these idiosyncrasies, and is what I have used ever since.

Regards 
--- end of quote ---
Took a year and a half and untold hours of retouching before I learned the
truth.

Rich

Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..

[Chris Hargens]

Just what size is are A4 and A3 prints? Also, I should note that I've often
heard/read people remark that they can print off scanned images up to such
and such size (e.g., 11"x14"), but I'm not always clear about just what size
the image is that is placed on the paper. What, for example, is the usual
image size for a print on A4 paper? Does it vary much?

Chris Hargens



-Original Message-
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, March 26, 2001 8:56 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..


>On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:45:20 +1000  Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>
>> Obscanning: I have yet to try printing at A3, but do those who have
printed
>> at A3 from 2700dpi scans find the scanning resolution adequate?
>
>Back to back comparisons here between A4 1200 prints of 2700 & 4000ppi
scans of
>the same Astia image show a slight fudging of fine detail in the 2700
print.
>Viewed alone, it's fine, but once you have noticed the slightly 'vaseline'
>effect of lower sampling res, it's hard to overlook if you are being picky.
>However I didn't notice until I did the comparison :)
>
>A3 will make this rather more noticeable, but TBH there are very few 35mm
>images which really benefit from that sort of size unless they will be
viewed
>from at least 3'.
>
>> I was intrigued
>> (and a little depressed) to read Tony's recent comment that the aliasing
>> at 4000dpi was much less than at 2700dpi.
>
>All I meant is that 4000ppi seems to greatly reduce the sensitivity to film
>grain which causes this intractable problem. It's just one less thing to
have
>to worry about.
>
>If you stick to films which don't excite grain aliasing problems (Astia,
>Provia, KR64, Reala - none gave me any trouble with an LS1000, and I'm sure
>there are many others), a 2700ppi unit won't give grain aliasing. Problem
>solved ;)
>
>> I'll bite the bullet in the next
>> few days and actually try an A3 print.
>
>Definitely the best idea :-)
>
>Regards
>
>Tony Sleep
>http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
&
>comparisons
>

Re: filmscanners: Grain in Color negative Film

[Dave King]

Duggal closed their downtown branch?  Didn't know that, when did that
happen?  I use the C-Lab as it's very close to me, but Color Edge, and
Duggal I have good experience with also.  There are others I know by
reputation primarily, Ken Taranto, Ken Lieberman, Ken Horowitz (what's
with the Ken's?), Modernage, Time-Life Photo Labs, Zoreff, Graphics
Systems, Aurora, Carol, Colorite, CYMK, L&I, Jellybean, Laumont, LTI.
Using an out of date source book to jog memory, some of these may be
gone by now, but all are labs I've heard spoken highly of.

Listen, if a professional labs returns negs with fingerprints on them
*do not* under any circumstances pay for it !!  If that doesn't get
the supervisor's attention nothing will.  You have every right not to
pay for sloppy work.  It's an easy case to make, "this will cost me
hours in Photoshop time", etc, etc.

Dave

- Original Message -
From: John Matturri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Grain in Color negative Film


> > I guess I'm spoiled by location then.  Here in New York there are
many
> > labs that do excellent color negative developing.
> >
> David King
>
> I'm curious about which NY labs you've had good results from. I had
good
> results with Duggal (though not invariably) but they closed their
> downtown branch.
>
> John M.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: filmscanners: Re:Canon FS2710 and Windows 2000 SCSI not working

[SD M]

Thanks for the info. I found that loading the latest Win2k ASPI drivers did 
the trick for me.

SDM


>From: "Colin Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: filmscanners: Re:Canon FS2710 and Windows 2000 SCSI not working
>Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:41:19 +1200
>
>Sam asked:
> >Does anyone have this running on Windows 2000?
>
>Yes, it is working here, but I agree the installation is quirky. Here is 
>what worked for me.
>  I used the page of instructions on the Australian Canon website. It then 
>all worked, except for the twain recognition of the scanner from within PS. 
>To fix this I had to get SCSI software from the Adaptec website for the 
>AIC7850 card. The downloaded file is w2k_v100b_pci_drvs.exe.  I am using 
>the card which came with the scanner, by the way.
>
>Don't forget to run the Canon Automatic configuration. Doing that sometimes 
>solves problems. Also, in my experience it could be a good thing to turn 
>the scanner on before booting the computer, rather than doing a hardware 
>refresh in Device Manager later. Not sure about this point.
>It also works with Vuescan ok.
>
>Colin Maddock
>
>
>
>

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning

[Gordon Tassi]

The bothe the Imation slides and Ferrania (3M) C-41 negative scan very well in
VueScan.  (I have not touched my NikonScan in ages.)  I have not see much in the
way of scretches on the film/slides even under magnification in PS.  There have
been some scratches but very, very few.  Maybe one in one frame for each 15
rolls processed.

Gordon

>  From what you have said I take it that the movie film is no longer used by
> these processors; does this mean that they are now using standard still films
> which any regular C-41 lab
> can process?  How does the current film scan, resist scratching, etc. - if you
> know.
>
>

RE: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)

[Lynn Allen]

Paul wrote--

>I've been researching for months about getting a medium format workstation
for my scanning work...

>Basically the new 4000 dpi m/f scanners will output such large files that
handling them demands a new ball game in desktop systems: files of 500 to
700 Mb will be common at 4000 dpi, (in 16bit), and no doubt 6000 dpi will
come along soon for 35mm. If you do 5x4" - god help you.

Paul, this isn't exactly my territory but I do have a suggestion that you
might not have considered if you're limiting your search to Mac and PC
platforms: Check out the smaller Sun Micro workstations. They're pricey up
front, but once you've added all the memory and stuff to a Mac or PC, they
become much more cost-competitive (or at least did when I was looking, some
years ago). They're something of a "standard" in heavy-traffic parts of the
CG community (word of caution--the software is somewhat limited to
proprietary stuff, last I knew).

Just a thought, and it doesn't cost anything but time to look.

Best regards--LRA


---
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com

filmscanners: Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was

[Roger Smith]

At 1:44 PM +1000 3/27/01, Rob Geraghty wrote:
>Obscanning: What dpi do people scan at?  I scan on the LS30 at 2700dpi then
>change the dpi in the file without resampling before I print.  Do others
>scan at 300dpi (say) for the print output resolution?  This isn't possible
>AFAIK with Vuescan, but it is with Nikonscan.

I'm with you, Rob. I always scan at 2720 "dpi" (Canon FS2710) 
and resize without resampling for printing. That gives about 350 dpi 
for an A4 size print, and 235 dpi for an A3 print.
Two reasons for this - one, most authorities say scanners 
work best at their optical resolution, and two, I only have to save 
one image file which I can use for any conceivable sized print in the 
future (up to the limit imposed by a 2700 dpi scanner).

Regards,
Roger Smith

Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan

[Jim Sharp]

Michael

I will try this and see how it works for me. Is it much of a problem
getting rid of the orange mask from the negative?

It also appears I need to buy some books...

--
Jim


Michael Moore wrote:
> 
> Jim: I have a Minolta Scan Elite which I use for scanning color negs... I
> don't use VueScan, just the Minolta software, but the way I take my scans
> into PShop is the key to my success... I had the same problem with
> apparently flat scans as well, until I started to scan the neg directly into
> PShop as a linear file, this means that your scan software does not make the
> reversal to give you a positive image... what you want is to have the full
> blown neg with all its info come directly via TWAIN in PShop... you then do
> an Image>Adjust>Invert, which will give you a positive image... the ones I
> get at this stage are all too bright and apparently flat, but when I go to
> Inage>Adjust>Levels and adjust the sliders, or as I recently discovered, use
> the droppers to set my white, black and mid points, the picture pops almost
> magically into adjustment... A good book on all this is Photoshop 5 & 5.5
> for Photographers by Barry Haynes and Wendy Crumpler, published by New
> Riders. Costs about $55 (less at Amazon) It explains from a photographers
> point of view how to use PShop and has good coverage on color calibration
> and scanning as well as using Levels and Curves. Good Luck, hope this helps.
> 
> Mike M.

Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning

[Gordon Tassi]

Most local shops in my area will process "SFW" film but require an add on price
whether it is marked C-41 or not.

Gordon

Tim Victor wrote:

> On Saturday, March 24, Arthur Entlich wrote:
> > Mike is right.  There are no "supermarket" brands.  3M/Scotch used to be
> > a main supplier of these no-brand films, but I think they left that biz.
>
> 3M spun off their imaging technologies business under the name of
> Imation in 1996. The photographic division was sold off to a group of
> private investors in 1999 and now operates (again) as Ferrania.
>
> (This according to http://www.ferraniait.com/Corporate/background.htm.)
>
> On Sunday, March 25, Alan Tyson wrote:
> > Do I remember correctly that 3M
> > had a plant in Italy? Who owns it now? It is the 'Ferrania'
> > plant I remember from my youth?
>
> Yes, 3M acquired Ferrania in 1964 and their film products were later sold
> under the Scotch name for many years, in addition to being packaged for
> private labels. According to one source, K-Mart is Imation/Ferrania's largest
> single customer. (I'm a big fan of Focal 100 myself. Cheap crap, but the
> good kind of cheap crap...)
>
> On Sunday, March 25, Laurie Solomon wrote:
> > Aren't they the ones who bought 35mm movie film tails, respooled the 35mm
> > movie film ends into canisters of 24 and 36 exposures, and then resold the
> > 35mm canisters to the public via the mail.  The net result was that you had
> > to use them for processing because no other knowledgeable lab would
> > knowingly process the film because it has a backing that would come off in
> > their processors and was damn near impossible to clean off.
>
> Yes, that's what Seattle Film Works did until sometime around a year
> or two ago. These days, their film cannisters are clearly marked "Process
> C-41" and "Made in Italy," a pretty good giveaway that it's Ferrania film.
> The film also has unique edge markings and a distinctive base color that
> indicates who made it.
>
> But I've heard that many film labs still refuse to process Photoworks/SFW
> film, no matter what the cannister says, and will be persuaded by no
> amount of explanation, because they "know" that it will mess up their
> machines or chemicals somehow.
>
> Assuming that this is on-topic because we have to know which media
> type to select when scanning the stuff...
>
> Tim Victor
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]

filmscanners: Semi OT: CD-RW

[Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.]

Does anyone have any experience with or seen reviews of the new PlexWriterT
16/10/40A?  I know the Plextor PlexWriter 12/10/32A
is good and am essentially concerned with new-product bugs.

Maris Lidaka

filmscanners: Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers

[Bob Shomler]

>Obscanning: What dpi do people scan at?  I scan on the LS30 at 2700dpi then
>change the dpi in the file without resampling before I print.  Do others
>scan at 300dpi (say) for the print output resolution?  This isn't possible
>AFAIK with Vuescan, but it is with Nikonscan.
>
>Rob
>
>PS No arguments abuot dpi vs ppi please - I'm talking about the labels used
>in the software not what is "technically correct".

For files that I'm going to print on my Epson 1200 I scan at the Nikon's 2700 dpi, hi 
bit using vuescan.  Then open the file in Photoshop crop further if needed (and 
perform any other editing).  At this point I scale the file to desired print 
dimensions (no resampling) and look at the document size resolution in pixels per inch 
reported by photoshop in the images size dialog box.  If this value is between 240 and 
180 I leave it as is and print.  If it is greater than 240 but not greater than 300 
I'll consider resampling to 240 depending on the image content.  If it's over 300 I 
resample down to 240.  And if it's less that 180 I give some serious thought to 
whether or not it will give a useful print (some do depending on image content).

--
Bob Shomler
http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm

Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan

[Jim Sharp]

Thanks to everyone who replied to this!

I downloaded the Margulis .pdf files suggested and will study them
closely. I'm hoping that will help. I also intent to try a few of the
adjustments in Vuescan that I've yet to experiment with. 

I'll let you all know how I fare...

--
Jim

Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)

[Tony Sleep]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:13:14 -0800  Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> No, seriously, you might be running low on one ink,

Yup, the low ink warning light came on eventually.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Re:grain

[Tony Sleep]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:10:24 -0800  Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> Often chemicals like this, especially if they are fairly non-toxic, can 
> safely be "reintegrated" by simply using a warm to hot water bath which 
> you place the bottle into.

Not PhotoFlo. It precipitates ground glass :)

I did think about tipping the lot into the fountains in Trafalgar Square...

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons

Re: filmscanners: CoolScan IV (or LS40)

[Tony Sleep]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 10:27:41   Mikael Risedal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> -- What kind of problems with the stepper motor?
> I have been doing  tests with ED4000 during the 2 last weeks.
> Only problem so fare is to slow software.   Not optimized.
> Please be more specific,  and let me know.
> Mikael Risedal

Mikael, this was a rumour about why the LS4000 took so long to develop. It may 
have been untrue/disinformation. I have heard no reports, or even rumours, of 
any actual problems in the production hardware.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons

Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..

[Tony Sleep]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 00:29:32 -0800  Arthur Entlich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

>  today I took a closer look at some 
> samples of the same image printed on Epson Glossy film versus Premium 
> Glossy Photo Paper and Photo Glossy Paper.

Thanks Art. Damn, more tests.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons

RE: filmscanners: CoolScan IV (or LS40)

[Shough, Dean]

> Interesting that Nikon is also a major provider of semiconductor
> manufacturing equipment, in which they include steppers that perform
> *much* more finely that 4000 lines/in.
>

At a *much* higher price.  The problem is not making a stepper that steps
6.35 microns, the problem is doing it for a reasonable price.  Some of the
wafer machines cost more than $1,000,000 each.

RE: filmscanners: Digital Film Output

[Tony Sleep]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:55:48 -0500  Hemingway, David J ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:

> I would be happy to do an image(or 2 or 3) , 4x5, 6x7 or 35mm, on the
> ProPalette 8K.

A worryingly potentially-expensive prospect. Look what happened last time :-)

TBH the biggest problem with this route is that I have enough trouble getting 
clients to pay for scans. Asking them to cough for 5x4 film output + processing 
will be a blood-from-stone proposition - this is editorial.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Grain in Color negative Film

[Tony Sleep]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 03:09:13 -0800  PAUL GRAHAM ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> transparency film gets the gloved treatment, negatives get fingers (as in
> fingerprints...)
> oh, and I have changed labs 3 times... same result.
> but then, as we all know real pro's only use slide film, right?

Now I think about this, you are absolutely right. I've never had a fingerprint 
on tranny, though there was a manicure problem with Sky who put thumbnail 
creases every 18" through 3 rolls. I never went back.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons

Re: filmscanners: CoolScan IV (or LS40)

[Tony Sleep]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:20:28 -0800 (PST)  Collin Ong ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:

> Interesting that Nikon is also a major provider of semiconductor
> manufacturing equipment, in which they include steppers that perform
> *much* more finely that 4000 lines/in.

I didn't know that, but that makes their failure to deal with the LS30 jaggie 
fault even less comprehensible.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers

[Mark T.]

At 07:54 PM 27/03/01 +1200, Colin wrote:
>Rob, why aren't you using Celcast paper? We find it pretty good here,
albeit more expensive than Epson.
I've tried Celcast glossy *once* on an Epson 640, and it was useless - the
inks 'beaded' on the surface.  Maybe it's just the 640's inks, but I won't
use the stuff.

And Art wrote:
>Wilhelm does have some discussion of HP's wide carriage inks on his charts.
Is there another Wilhelm?  I've visited www.wilhelm-research.com many times
recently (and again just then) and there is still no 'update'..  they just
keep changing the date!

Mark T.

Re: filmscanners: Grain in Color negative Film

[John Matturri]

> I guess I'm spoiled by location then.  Here in New York there are many
> labs that do excellent color negative developing.
>
David King

I'm curious about which NY labs you've had good results from. I had good
results with Duggal (though not invariably) but they closed their
downtown branch.

John M.

Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..

[Rob Geraghty]

"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glossy Photo Paper and Photo Glossy Paper.  Although the difference is
> not huge, the glossy film did provide better detail and deeper, less
> posterized, color.  (the samples were printed with Photo 700/750 models).

I'll have to try it again on the 1160.  I wasn't impressed with it on the
700.
My experience was that it lost shadow detail.

Rob

Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning

[Arthur Entlich]

Laurie Solomon wrote:

>> Sorry, drifting off topic.
> 
> 
> Never a problem with me - especially if the information is informative or
> interesting.
> I hate to sound stupid; but I want to check and see if you mean what I think
> you mean when you speak of CN in relation to film.  Are you speaking about a
> chromogenic negative? All the movie films that I know of are tungston films
> which always left me wondering why places like Seattle Filmworks and others
> who sold the respooled tails of those films never made a point of saying
> that they needed to be shot under tungsten lighting.
> 
> If the negatives produced off these films tend to be thicker than normal as
> you said or implied, at least as I understood your to be saying or
> impliying, would this not make it harder to scan and make scanning the
> slides easier if not better?  Since you have already said that you have not
> actually scanned the stuff, I am asking this sort of in terms of rhetorical
> question or in search of a logical speculation rather than an empirical
> answer.
> 

Even if the neg film was designed for tungsten lighting, and not shot 
under those conditions, it could be corrected in both the prints and 
slides which were made through filtration.  Probably easier for them to 
correct it at their lab than expect people who bought this stuff to even 
know what "tungsten" was... (Seattle Filmworks wasn't exactly the place 
professionals flocked to).

The 'slide' film that was used was actually a non-masked negative film 
also c-41 processed, and they used contact printers to make them, so 
filtration could be easily accomplished ay that stage.
Art

Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)

[Arthur Entlich]

Tony Sleep wrote:


> 

> I've been struggling to print an image all evening which is acquiring about 
> +30M c/o some gremlin.
> 

What you may need is a good head cleaning... take yourself out to the 
nearest pub for a glass. ;-)

No, seriously, you might be running low on one ink, or have a clogged 
head for one color (like yellow or cyan or both).

Art

Re: filmscanners: Digital Film Output

[Arthur Entlich]

Michael Moore wrote:

> Aha! The Polaroid marketing shark surfaces. How 'bout lending me one for
> a year or so? :)
> 
> Mike M.

Gee, and people call me "harsh"...

If David is a shark, I'd see him more as a basking shark than a great 
white ;-)  Basking sharks are the second largest "fish" (yeah, I know) 
in the world, reaching 45 feet in length, and they eat plankton.

Their oil which is used to keep scanner mechanisms running smoothly (OK, 
it's a lie...)

Art

Art

Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..

[Arthur Entlich]

Regarding output prints from Epson printers for consideration as 
material for color separations, today I took a closer look at some 
samples of the same image printed on Epson Glossy film versus Premium 
Glossy Photo Paper and Photo Glossy Paper.  Although the difference is 
not huge, the glossy film did provide better detail and deeper, less 
posterized, color.  (the samples were printed with Photo 700/750 models).

Although the glossy film does cost a minor arm and leg, for repro 
purposes, it might just be worth it.  I wonder if some of this increased 
resolution is because it is so thin that the heads are a bit further 
away from the "paper" surface, allowing for less splatter or "velocity 
related dot gain" (my terms)?  If not, I would be nice if Epson could 
take this film with its coatings and adhere it to a heavier bases, since 
it is vulnerable to kinks.  It is a pretty amazing product in terms of 
print quality, but inappropriate for most applications due to its flimsy 
nature and cost.

Art


Tony Sleep wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:45:20 +1000  Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 
> 
>> Obscanning: I have yet to try printing at A3, but do those who have printed
>> at A3 from 2700dpi scans find the scanning resolution adequate?  
> 

Re: filmscanners: Re:grain

[Arthur Entlich]

Tony Sleep wrote:

> 
> 
> Yup. I once threw away 5L of very expensive Photoflo 600 (enough to make 3,000L 
> of bubbly water). Photoflo smears unless used at a much lower dilution than 
> recommended. But my 5L had been exposed to low temps, and was full of 
> crystalline crud. To be fair to Kodak, ISTR the label did warn not to store at 
> <50degF.
> 

Often chemicals like this, especially if they are fairly non-toxic, can 
safely be "reintegrated" by simply using a warm to hot water bath which 
you place the bottle into.  Often the lower temperature causes some 
component to fall out of solution (crystallize), and can be redissolved 
with a bit of warmth.  Remember to remove the cap to allow for expansion 
of the liquid and air.

Obviously, some formulations will not reformulate correctly, or may have 
changed properties, but it is sometimes worth trying.

Lastly, are you the guy responsible for all the foam found on the lakes 
and rivers of England?

Art

Re: filmscanners: OT-ish Epson 1270, was Repro house..

[Arthur Entlich]

Before we get into a "does not" "does too" fight over the archival 
nature of the 870/890 1270/1290 inks, it should be noted that although 
the inks have reasonable lightfast-ness, they are vulnerable to ozone 
and other pollutants, which are responsible for the "cyan to orange" 
fading problems.  Anyone's personal experience with these materials will 
be directly related to if their locale has pollutants which the ink is 
sensitive to.

However, do keep in mind that people move around, and although it would 
appear that if the inks set in a locale that doesn't have the 
pollutants, that the odds are better that the print will maintain color, 
it is not an absolute.  People who ship prints around, may be 
disappointed (or the recipients might be ;-))

Art

John Bradbury wrote:

> I've been using an Epson 870 for the last year. I print onto "premium Semi
> gloss" and have had no problems with fading,  or shifting to orange. 90% of
> the prints I sell (portraits and commercial) are output this way.
> The 870 is a joy to use and is not at all to be "dreaded"
> John Bradbury

Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)

[Arthur Entlich]

Laurie Solomon wrote:


> 
> Hence, given the purpose that you would be using the inkjet print for,
> archival quality is not a major significant factor as long as the damn thing
> does not turn orange within a month or two; moreover, since there are few
> other features other than a whiter base that you could obtain from using
> Premium Glossy Photo Paper over the Epson Photo Paper when used with the
> 1200, I do not think the Premium Glossy Photo Paper (EPGPP) would be of any
> benefit to you.
> 
One potential negative in this equation, at least in earlier 
manifestations of this paper, I found that the surface would "fracture" 
if the paper was flexed in a tight circular curve, looking a bit like 
the "crazing" or cracking of the glaze of an old teacup. (Something you 
Brits can certainly relate to.) ;-)

Art

Re: filmscanners: CoolScan IV (or LS40)

[Mikael Risedal]

-- What kind of problems with the stepper motor?
I have been doing  tests with ED4000 during the 2 last weeks.
Only problem so fare is to slow software.   Not optimized.
Please be more specific,  and let me know.
Mikael Risedal





>From: Collin Ong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: CoolScan IV  (or LS40)
>Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 15:20:28 -0800 (PST)
>
>On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
>
> > We hope, but during the LS4000's long gestation period there have been
> > persistent (though unconfirmed) rumours that Nikon was having trouble
> > developing 4000line/in stepper motor technology. It's all very 
>intriguing.
>
>Interesting that Nikon is also a major provider of semiconductor
>manufacturing equipment, in which they include steppers that perform
>*much* more finely that 4000 lines/in.
>
>Collin
>

_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Re: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED question

[Mikael Risedal]

VueScan 7.0   Added support for Nikon LS-40  USB
not firewire.
Mikael Risedal

>From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED question
>Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 22:55:38
>
>VueScan 7.0 does not today support  Nikon ED4000. I have been testing the 
>ED
>4000 scanner now for 2 weeks, and the only software today who support the
>scanner is Nikon Scan 3.0.
>Mikael Risedal
>Photographer
>Sweden
>
>
>>From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED question
>>Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:06:57 -0600
>>
>>Vuescan does support it:
>>
>>"12-bit data from LS-40, 14-bit data from LS-4000"
>>
>>  The URL is http://www.hamrick.com/
>>
>>I haven't seen or heard of any reviews yet except Ed Hamrick's short but
>>positive note - I don't think it's been in shipment long enough yet.
>>
>>Maris
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Tom Scales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 1:33 PM
>>Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED question
>>
>>
>>| I am sure this has been asked a hundred times, but I have been offlist
>>for
>>| awhile.  Starting back up again and about to run buy a Nikon 4000 ED.
>>Just
>>| wanted to ask the lists' opinion.
>>|
>>| Also, does anyone know if Vuescan supports it, or will soon?  I couldn't
>>| find an email address on the site.
>>|
>>| Thanks to all!  I'm sure I'll be a more frequent contributor now.
>>|
>>| Tom
>>|
>>
>_
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>

_
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Re: filmscanners: HP pigmented inks

[Arthur Entlich]

Wilhelm does have some discussion of HP's wide carriage inks on his charts.

Jon Cone makes a medium range "archival" set which uses a mixture of 
dyes and pigments as well, which is supposed to have a wide gamut, and 
which are available for Epson printers.

Art

filmscanners: Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers

[Colin Maddock]

Rob wrote:
>What's worse is that the price lists don't include the gsm or thickness
>of the paper.  That would at least help to separate the "photo weight" papers
>from the "photo quality" but lightweight papers.  Most of the photographers
>aren't at all interested in lightweight papers, I expect.

Rob, why aren't you using Celcast paper? We find it pretty good here, albeit more 
expensive than Epson.

Colin Maddock

Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)

[shAf]

> Paul wrote:
> > ...
> > ok: from what I understand the max RAM controllable on a
> > windows board is set by the chipset
> ...

... and the OS.  That is, Win2k doesn't seem to want to give up
more than 2Gb to any task, unless Frank is correct about Win2k server.
I also believe I read somewhere this same limitation may be limited to
the Photoshop task, but not PS's implimentation of virtual memory ...
that is, you can designate a number of virtual drives, all of which
cannot donate any more than 2Gb each.

Another thing to consider is the reality of what is demanded of
the finished project.  That is, while the front end of the modern
scanning workflow ... the ever increasing demand for memory and
storage ... increases, the demand at the hardcopy end of the workflow
hasn't.  Even while Epson has, over the last 5 years, gone from 720dpi
to 2880dpi, the required resolution (and file size) has not changed
one bit ... it is still 240ppi!

I certainly don't have a problem with researching the best
hardware, but I would be careful about sacrificing $$ as you approach
diminishing returns.  I don't know about others, but I can get caught
up in this "hardware" trend sometimes to the extent my holiday $$ are
sacrificed.  My experience is, you'll spend twice as much to only end
up with an extra 10% of extra computing power.  Still, you cannont
ignore some hardwares you'll definitely need ... working storage space
and archiving storage space/media.

my $0.02 ... shAf  :o)

Re: filmscanners: scanning/photoshop workstation (long)

[Bill Ross]

I would just use raid0 for workspace, i.e. on the order
of 2-4 fast ~5GB disks. Maybe one set for swap and one
pair for files. Once the work is done, park the results
on something big & cheap (& burn a CD or DVD).

Bill Ross

Re: filmscanners: Color Calibration

[Tony Sleep]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:06:44 -0700  Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> What I would like to know is your opinion of Vue Scan as the medium for 
controlling
> the linear or raw scans into PShop instead of my Minolta software..

I do this (with a Polaroid), for the simple reason that VS 'white balance' 
usually achieves an approximation to reasonable colour balance, and even when 
it doesn't, it makes subsequent correction easier in PS.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Colormatch RGB

[Tony Sleep]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:17:31 -0500  Richard N. Moyer 
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> Now, if the print industry in UK started to use ICC/ICM colormanagement - -

..or even knew what it is.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Umax 3000

[Tony Sleep]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:13:07 +0100  Michael Wilkinson 
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> Whoops,thought it was the 3 grand job,sorry
The big A3 one? I dunno what the 3000 is TBH, filmscanners are confusing 
enough, let alone flatbeds. If it's A3, I guess it's a good price.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons

RE: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)

[Tony Sleep]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:43:09 -0600  Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
wrote:

>  I do not think the Premium Glossy Photo Paper (EPGPP) would be of any
> benefit to you.

Yeah, that is the way it looked to me too :) In fact a hammer is what I need - 
I've been struggling to print an image all evening which is acquiring about 
+30M c/o some gremlin.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons

Re: filmscanners: Re:grain

[Tony Sleep]

On 26 Mar 2001 08:39:35 EST  Richard Starr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

>  Turned out, the key was to get rid of Kodak PhotoFlo and use one
> of the more modern wetting agents.

Yup. I once threw away 5L of very expensive Photoflo 600 (enough to make 3,000L 
of bubbly water). Photoflo smears unless used at a much lower dilution than 
recommended. But my 5L had been exposed to low temps, and was full of 
crystalline crud. To be fair to Kodak, ISTR the label did warn not to store at 
<50degF.

Ilfotol has none of these idiosyncrasies, and is what I have used ever since.

Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & 
comparisons