Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning my personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration of Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan has done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were very much faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more believable ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly 'archival' unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even then. Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few years still seems like the best means now available. Hersch At 05:33 PM 06/24/2001, you wrote: Of course, you could always make many backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs The problem is that you need to remmember to make a third backup about 3/4 through the MTBF to be able to propogate your data forwards. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 12:36 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings In a message dated 6/24/2001 11:21:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Depends on the work. In some image, grain is desirable. Biggest I've printed is 36x 48 - but I am interested in doing some printing with painted on emulsion. The biggest 4x5 I've seen enlarged with nary a trace of grain was about 80x64 Sure you can do that with a digital back fo a 4x5, but its a scanning back and it costs over $20k... As far as I know, the digital backs for 4x5 cameras do not cover anywhere near the entire 4x5 film plane. Therefore, film is the best choice if size of enlargement is the prime consideration. I agree with your previous post concerning the fact that film will last many, many years, while digital storage of photos is very limited in life. The US Copyright Office at the Library of Congress will not accept the common digital storage methods we use for that very reason. According to their web site, however, they do have a study team looking at the issue. And if technology ever solves the digital storage issue, I'm sure they'll change their policy and begin accepting such submissions. In a related note, I read in one of my electronic trade publications ( E. E. Times) that a company has develop a chip to work with ultraviolet lasers. The article stated that the UV lasers could be used in CD writers to write the data more densely and that such a technology could store on a single CD what it now takes 100 CDs to store. I view that as a mixed blessing (assuming it every becomes a reality). A CD that becomes unreadable after few years would now cause the loss of 100 times as many photos as would be lost of a CD using current technology. Of course, you could always make many backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs. But unless they can speed up the write process, imagine how long it would take to write a CD that holds 100 times the info that our current CDs hold. So, it looks like film will be around for a while longer. It's more permanent than digital, it's easier to archive, it's capable of higher resolution, and you can always scan it if you need digital.
Re: filmscanners: Best film for scanning with FS 2710
I want to thank the people who provided extra info regarding Elite Chrome 200/ E200 film. I think it is time for me to write Kodak and get some explanations from the K-horse's mouth. Art Herm wrote: just ask the lab to extend developing time (in the first developer), here are the numbers from the Kodak web site: http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e28/e28.shtml Starting-Point Exposures for Push Processing EKTACHROME Film E200 Exposure Index Specify This Push Condition to the Lab Typical Time in First Developer: EI 320 Push 1 8 minutes EI 640 Push 2 11 minutes EI 1000 Push 3 14 minutes I use the same numbers with Elite Chrome 200, even if Kodak does not specify that this film can be pushed. I would suspect you will not find a suitable lab in a small town.
Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
Since I was quoted on the bottom of this (I've edited it out), I want to make it quite clear that on many occasions I have stated that I find the number one problem with digital is the poor archival nature of storage, so I am in total agreement with Karl. The problem of change of format, no easy way to identify what is on the disk/tape without a specialized (and maybe unavailable) reader, loss of magnetic or optical data reliability in minimal time often causing a few bytes worth of loss to render the total file or disk unreadable, etc, all lead to the same problem. Film is much more reliable. All you need is light to see it, a scratch is repairable without the full loss of data, etc. As I've said many times: show me a medium 1.5 x 1 x nearly zero, that stores a readily accessible, 200 megs of info, which is also almost fully archival with minimal care, and costs under 25 cents, and I'll be ready to go fully digital. Further, tell me of a more upgradable machine than a silver film based 35mm camera, which only needs a new roll of film (under $10) to take advantage of the latest in photographic image taking... Sure, I love digital, but no one should be fooled into thinking that right now it is a better media in the above mentioned areas of cost or reliability of storage, archiving and expense in upgrading. Art Karl Schulmeisters wrote: Well this has another 'permanence problem'. I still have in my 'archive' of storage media 2 9track 6250 tapes (from less than 20 yrs ago and now effectively unreadable) 6 8 Floppy disks (now unreadable) 3 IoMega removable disks (from 10 years ago - now unreadable) lots of 3.5 floppies, which are rapidly becoming unreadable on many machines OTOH, I have a cabinet full of negatives from 30+ years ago - and negatives from my grandmother's time, as well as positives, that survived Displaced Person's Camps and all sorts of horrible situations. How many CDRoms do you think would have made it through Forced Labor camps of WWII? ALL of which are 'readable' (ie printable) Data CD-ROMs, exposed to sunlight, have a life expectancy of about 15years before bit-rot becomes uncorrectable (not AS big a deal in image and music CDs where it appears as noise) As for Digital having the same quality as film - maybe if you are purely looking at 35mm - but I would disagree here as well. Note also, that as wonderful as an Epson 1280 is, It can't do 16x20 or larger. I can with my chemical enlarger. Pretty trivially. That said, I'm not an anti-digital luddite. But unless you are going to spring for a Canon D-30 or a Nikon D-1, even point-and-shoot film cameras give you better image quality, and I will take the crispness of a photographic print over a glossy inkjet anyday.
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a related note, I read in one of my electronic trade publications ( E. E. Times) that a company has develop a chip to work with ultraviolet lasers. The article stated that the UV lasers could be used in CD writers to write the data more densely and that such a technology could store on a single CD what it now takes 100 CDs to store. I view that as a mixed blessing (assuming it every becomes a reality). A CD that becomes unreadable after few years would now cause the loss of 100 times as many photos as would be lost of a CD using current technology. Of course, you could always make many backup copies since you'd only need one percent as many CDs. But unless they can speed up the write process, imagine how long it would take to write a CD that holds 100 times the info that our current CDs hold. Every time the density of storage media increases, this issue is (and probably needs to be) revisited. I figure, with each doubling of storage density, there should be a doubling of reliability and permanence, since we are at least doubling our confidence in the product with the amount of material going onto it. I do believe optical is better than magnetic, and if kept relatively safe of optical damage (from UV, intense lighting, etc), if the media is quality, it might even last a few dozen years... However, coming up with multiple formats for the same media almost always creates all sorts of confusion. Art
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid 120 Recall?
David, Thanks, Ian - Original Message - From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:05 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid 120 Recall? Ian, There has not been a recall on the SS120 on a worldwide basis.I do know we had a language issue on the CD's used in Europe and had to hold shipments for a patch CD. If I find anythig further I will advise. David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
Karl and Art's points are (and should be) well taken. Film is an excellent archival medium (less so prints). But the thing overlooked is the posibility of disaster; fire and floods have taken a devastating toll on archives of all types (and they're not very good for PCs, scanners or cameras, either). The answer? Multiple redundancy. Copies of negs and slides in another storage area, for example. Transfer of floppy data to CD-R. Recording negs, slides and prints to CD-R. Transfer of CD-Rs to DVD, for that matter, when the technology becomes available at affordable prices. Backup, backup, backup. But how many of us *do* that? Shoot, I haven't even backed up my HD for over a week! Aye, there's the rub--so much to do and so little time to do it in. ;-) Just my 2-cents' worth from the Rust Belt, on a serious subject. Best regards--LRA From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:41:23 -0700 Since I was quoted on the bottom of this (I've edited it out), I want to make it quite clear that on many occasions I have stated that I find the number one problem with digital is the poor archival nature of storage, so I am in total agreement with Karl. The problem of change of format, no easy way to identify what is on the disk/tape without a specialized (and maybe unavailable) reader, loss of magnetic or optical data reliability in minimal time often causing a few bytes worth of loss to render the total file or disk unreadable, etc, all lead to the same problem. Film is much more reliable. All you need is light to see it, a scratch is repairable without the full loss of data, etc. As I've said many times: show me a medium 1.5 x 1 x nearly zero, that stores a readily accessible, 200 megs of info, which is also almost fully archival with minimal care, and costs under 25 cents, and I'll be ready to go fully digital. Further, tell me of a more upgradable machine than a silver film based 35mm camera, which only needs a new roll of film (under $10) to take advantage of the latest in photographic image taking... Sure, I love digital, but no one should be fooled into thinking that right now it is a better media in the above mentioned areas of cost or reliability of storage, archiving and expense in upgrading. Art Karl Schulmeisters wrote: Well this has another 'permanence problem'. I still have in my 'archive' of storage media 2 9track 6250 tapes (from less than 20 yrs ago and now effectively unreadable) 6 8 Floppy disks (now unreadable) 3 IoMega removable disks (from 10 years ago - now unreadable) lots of 3.5 floppies, which are rapidly becoming unreadable on many machines OTOH, I have a cabinet full of negatives from 30+ years ago - and negatives from my grandmother's time, as well as positives, that survived Displaced Person's Camps and all sorts of horrible situations. How many CDRoms do you think would have made it through Forced Labor camps of WWII? ALL of which are 'readable' (ie printable) Data CD-ROMs, exposed to sunlight, have a life expectancy of about 15years before bit-rot becomes uncorrectable (not AS big a deal in image and music CDs where it appears as noise) As for Digital having the same quality as film - maybe if you are purely looking at 35mm - but I would disagree here as well. Note also, that as wonderful as an Epson 1280 is, It can't do 16x20 or larger. I can with my chemical enlarger. Pretty trivially. That said, I'm not an anti-digital luddite. But unless you are going to spring for a Canon D-30 or a Nikon D-1, even point-and-shoot film cameras give you better image quality, and I will take the crispness of a photographic print over a glossy inkjet anyday. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: cd making question
At 03:50 PM 6/22/01, you wrote: Are these CD's for archiving purposes, or just to run a slide show? archiving Do you want the thumbnails to open the full size images when clicked on? yes It sounds like you want to create a web site that will run off a CD. It can be activated through autorun or from a splash screen that appears when you put the CD in. It's a two part process. Design the web site on your local machine and use an autorun program to burn it to a CD. I have a good autorun program that I use from: http://www.pollensoftware.com/autorun/index.html You also might try some of the CD software, like EZCD from Roxio: http://www.roxio.com/index.jhtml Not necessarily a web site, just a cd that can automatically open the thumbs, and then the full file (when a thumb is clicked) into PhotoShop or other imaging program, so then the file can be manipulated and saved to the hard drive or something other than back to the cd. I have EZCD 4 from adaptec and I have not figured out how to do this using that software. I'll have to experiment with it and some other things suggested on list. Thanks, Jules_C
Re: filmscanners: cd making question (1/1)
At 02:46 AM 6/23/01, you wrote: If you want it to be cross-platform, you can do exactly this as web pages (ie with HTML). Anyone can then look at it in a browser. Cool, I'll give it a try. Thanks Tony. Jules_C
Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality?
Hi, Steve-- Yes, this is sort of what I was talking about, on a lesser scale--I had the idea back in the 80's, Ray Bradbury had it back in the 40's. :-) It's a little bit Star Trek, but the concept is valid. Thanks for passing on the web site. As of now, the technology is too expensive and too limited--it still needs a breakthrough or several. I knew the mother of an engineer/physicist whose field was liquid crystal research. He hit so many brick walls (in the 60's 70's) that he had a nervous breakdown and eventually committed suicide. True fact. Eventually, Bradbury's concept will come about, and you'll actually be able to put movies of the African Veldt on the wall of your kids' room. Not in my lifetime, though, and the kids will *probably* not be able to turn the lions loose on their parents. ;-) Best regards--Lynn Allen From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality? Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:15:38 +0100 - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 10:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality? What's more likely to happen, is a jump in technology, maybe a digital screen that fits into a thin frame on the wall and changes the picture with the click of a button. It isn't here yet, but it will be. There's already been quite a few of these - they are generally small and expensive as they use LCD screens. This one even has it's own internet connection. http://www.storybox.com/about/demo/index.html Others use a CF card and can show one picture or a slide show at pre-determined intervals. Steve _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution File Sizes ( workflow)
Thanks, Roger, for that work-flow description. I've also found that anotating a proof-sheet is very labor-intensive, which is what prompted my comments. Seems like there ought to be an easier way, but I haven't found one, either--despite the claims of the software packages. Keeping a tidy shop is a b*tch. ;-) Best regards--LRA From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution File Sizes ( workflow) Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:10:04 EDT In a message dated 6/22/2001 6:20:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rafe wrote: 35 mm images are about 60 Mbytes (24 bit color.) 645 images are about 160-170 Mbytes (24 bit color.) That stands to reason, given the larger size. I'm wondering if there is a program that would save both a TIFF and a much smaller JPEG file to HD, and index them according film strip, date scanned and frame#. Then one could select the best TIFFs and dump the weak ones, but still have good references for future work. If there isn't, it's just an idea and I don't believe too thoroughly in Intellectual Property--so feel free to run with it, anyone. If I were a better programmer, I'd start on it tomorrow, and wouldn't have mentioned it today. (I might not believe in IP, but I'm not stupid, either! ;-) ) Best regards--LRA There are probably a number of programs out there that will allow you to do what you are proposing. It's just a matter of locating them. Personally, I use a rather simple method of managing my digital photos that doesn't require any special software and is suited to my needs. I'm sure there are better and faster methods, but the following workflow and method works for me and might give some ideas to others who are developing their own system or workflow: I don't scan anymore than I have to. I scan mostly 35 mm slides and they remain in their original box except during the actual scan, so I don't have the dust problems that others on this list complain about. I don't leave scans on my hard drive any longer than I have to (it's surprising how fast even an 80 gig drive will fill up if you don't purge it often). I transfer files from the hard drive to CD as soon as possible (as protection against a crash and to allow for disc purging) and I make CDs only if I anticipate needing to work with that image again (if I guess wrong, I can always re-scan). I store images in psd format, not tif or jpg, and at their full uncompressed resolution. These files are never stored as sharpened images and Photoshop annotations are added when useful. Each slide and its digital file is give a name that includes the date it was processed, the roll number, and the frame number (for example, 28Mar00 R06 F34). The date and frame number are already stamped on the slide by the processor and I write the roll number on the slide when I scan it. Note that I use two digit roll and frame numbers (R06, not R6) so that they will sort properly. The date could be written in a different format for better sorting too (000328 for 28Mar00, for example) but that's not necessary for my applications. All images for a given job that I want to archive on CD are also copied to a proof sheet file using Photoshop to create that file. That file is designed to print on 8.5 x 11 inch paper and each image on it is 2 inches high. I can sometimes get nearly 50 images on one proof sheet because I crop tightly around the model and sometimes even knockout the model from the background. The entire proof sheet file is heavily sharpened, even if it messes up the skin tones. Each image on the proof sheet has the roll number and frame number printed next to it and the date and any brief notes, customer name, etc., are printed only once somewhere else on the proof sheet. Every image copied to a CD also has its associated proof sheet copied to the same CD. I print one copy of each proof sheet for my records and sometimes an additional one for the customer. I also print a word document listing the file names for each CD. By the way, creating the proof sheet is the most labor intensive part of the process and the area that could use some software automation. But, for me, the software would have to be optimized to get as many cropped and knocked out images as possible on a single proof sheet. That's something no commercially available program probably does, but I'd be happy to share royalties if someone wanted to write such a probram. The result of my work flow is that I can keep a fairly clean hard drive and I have a hard copy of a proof sheet for every important image. I, or my customer, can use the proof sheet to readily identify and locate a given slide or its CD file by using the file/slide name shown on the proof sheet. Some people might prefer to keep a copy of the proof sheet on their hard drive, but I prefer to purge it and use the hard copy version instead. By
RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
For the life of me, I fail to understand why Walter Bushell would post a message to the list repeating what Karl and Tony said on the list already without making any further contribution. Did Mr Bushell forget to put in his own comments and response? That would be the only explanation I can think of; or am I missing something. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Walter Bushell Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Heraclites already proved you cannot photograph the same river twice.
RE: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Hi, all! I'm only going by what the catalog says, and I didn't write it. Stanley LED catalog, p. 24: Operating Life JIS C 7035 Ta=25C, IF=Max, t=1000Hrs. I'm a little behind in my reading of this list, but I thought I'd respond to this one. One thing that hasn't been mentioned (that I noticed) is that this spec from Stanley gives the operating life as 1000 hrs at IF=max. Usually, we power an LED with something on the order of 20mA current. This is the TYPICAL forward current. LEDs can be made to run somewhat brighter by pushing more current through them. This IF=max probably means a forward current of over 50mA. Beyond that, the LEDs in my experience undergo a wavelength shift (color shift) and begin to get dim after a short period of time. (I've designed and build many different LED strobe devices for previous employers). One can get around this by pulsing the LED. I've pushed over 500mA through an HP ultra bright LED by pulsing it at on the order of one microsecond with a repitition rate of 1kHz or so and seen no degradation of the LED over the lifetime of the device (several years). YOu just don't want the LED to heat up too much, or it dies quickly. Anyway, Stanley was simply giving a conservative estimate of the longevity of their LED when powered by the highest allowable current. Of course, at a sane current drive, they will last for hundreds of thousands of hours, at least!!! On a historical note, back in the late '80s and early '90s, blue LEDs were very dim. They were made from Silicon Carbide, and put out less than 100mCandela while good red or green LEDs put out in excess of 1000mC. I used a particular HP red diode that put out 3-4 Candela! from a T-1 package (small size). In the mid '90s I saw an example of a (then) US$50 blue ultribright diode. It put out at least one full Candela of power, but it was too expensive for my medical diagnostic device application. This weekend, I went to the drugstore to buy some film , and found a blueish-white LED flashlight for sale for ~$8.00 It is blinding in it's intensity!!! Clearly the state of the art is moving forward at quite a rapid pace! Hope this helps!! Guy Clark --
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Hersch Nitikman wrote: For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning my personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration of Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan has done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were very much faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more believable ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly 'archival' unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even then. Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few years still seems like the best means now available. Hersch This is an interesting idea that doesn't get talked about as much. BW film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff. Many people lump film all into one group when obviously there are differences between films. Maybe digital is the best way to preserve accurate colors... Isaac
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Check out http://www.dpreview.com/news/0106/01062301d1xtwopagespread.asp for the story of a two page spread in Sports Illustrated shot on a Nikon D1x. If this looks decent (I haven't seen the mag yet), it could be the end for film in weekly magazines... Isaac
Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution File Sizes ( workflow)
I scan to the hard drive, and when done with a roll transfer to CD-ROM. I use Irfanview (freeware) from http://www.ryansimmons.com/users/irfanview/english.htm to make a thumbnails sheet which I then print out on inkjet to stick in with the CD, save a copy with the images on the CD, and save a copy on the hard drive while deleting the image files themselves. Maris - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:27 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution File Sizes ( workflow) | Thanks, Roger, for that work-flow description. I've also found that | anotating a proof-sheet is very labor-intensive, which is what prompted my | comments. Seems like there ought to be an easier way, but I haven't found | one, either--despite the claims of the software packages. | | Keeping a tidy shop is a b*tch. ;-) | | Best regards--LRA | | | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution File Sizes ( workflow) | Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:10:04 EDT | | In a message dated 6/22/2001 6:20:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | | Rafe wrote: | | 35 mm images are about 60 Mbytes (24 bit color.) | 645 images are about 160-170 Mbytes (24 bit color.) | | That stands to reason, given the larger size. I'm wondering if there is | a | program that would save both a TIFF and a much smaller JPEG file to HD, | and | index them according film strip, date scanned and frame#. Then one could | select the best TIFFs and dump the weak ones, but still have good | references | for future work. | | If there isn't, it's just an idea and I don't believe too thoroughly in | Intellectual Property--so feel free to run with it, anyone. If I were | a | better programmer, I'd start on it tomorrow, and wouldn't have mentioned | it | today. (I might not believe in IP, but I'm not stupid, either! ;-) ) | | Best regards--LRA | | | There are probably a number of programs out there that will allow you to do | what you are proposing. It's just a matter of locating them. Personally, | I | use a rather simple method of managing my digital photos that doesn't | require | any special software and is suited to my needs. I'm sure there are better | and faster methods, but the following workflow and method works for me and | might give some ideas to others who are developing their own system or | workflow: | | I don't scan anymore than I have to. I scan mostly 35 mm slides and they | remain in their original box except during the actual scan, so I don't have | the dust problems that others on this list complain about. I don't leave | scans on my hard drive any longer than I have to (it's surprising how fast | even an 80 gig drive will fill up if you don't purge it often). I transfer | files from the hard drive to CD as soon as possible (as protection against | a | crash and to allow for disc purging) and I make CDs only if I anticipate | needing to work with that image again (if I guess wrong, I can always | re-scan). I store images in psd format, not tif or jpg, and at their full | uncompressed resolution. These files are never stored as sharpened images | and Photoshop annotations are added when useful. Each slide and its | digital | file is give a name that includes the date it was processed, the roll | number, | and the frame number (for example, 28Mar00 R06 F34). The date and frame | number are already stamped on the slide by the processor and I write the | roll | number on the slide when I scan it. Note that I use two digit roll and | frame | numbers (R06, not R6) so that they will sort properly. The date could be | written in a different format for better sorting too (000328 for 28Mar00, | for | example) but that's not necessary for my applications. | | All images for a given job that I want to archive on CD are also copied | to | a proof sheet file using Photoshop to create that file. That file is | designed to print on 8.5 x 11 inch paper and each image on it is 2 inches | high. I can sometimes get nearly 50 images on one proof sheet because I | crop | tightly around the model and sometimes even knockout the model from the | background. The entire proof sheet file is heavily sharpened, even if it | messes up the skin tones. Each image on the proof sheet has the roll | number | and frame number printed next to it and the date and any brief notes, | customer name, etc., are printed only once somewhere else on the proof | sheet. | Every image copied to a CD also has its associated proof sheet copied to | the | same CD. I print one copy of each proof sheet for my records and sometimes | an additional one for the customer. I also print a word document listing | the | file names for each CD. By the way, creating the proof sheet is the most | labor intensive part of the process and the area that could use some | software |
RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
printed at a resolution of 2 microns per pixel Just as a matter of interest, how the hell do you do this!? I believe they use some sort of scanning laser device. They being some other part of my company - I don't even know who or where as someone else took care of the details after telling me the service was available. When I examined some prior test slide under a microscope the finest resolution I could detect was around 4 microns. More than good enough for me and the optical system I was testing.
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.2 Available
Is there no longer a 'Clean' feature for the Sprintscan4000? I see only 'Grain Reduction.' STEPHENJENNINGS P h o t o g r a p h e r Cambridge, MA [EMAIL PROTECTED] Earlier versions basically limited the size of the largest dust spot based on wither the cleaning was set to light, medium or heavy. The current version tries to remove dust spots regardless of how large they are, so there was no need to specify a light, medium or heavy option. Regards, Ed Hamrick
filmscanners: NikonUSA warranty service
After all the complaints about Nikon service, I thought I should add a note on the other side. For the past several months, the LS-30 I bought last July 6 had a maddening intermittent set of failure modes, including severe banding, and severe gamut compression. I kept waiting for it to fail permanently, to assure proper diagnosis. The last thing I wanted was to send it in and have it come back unrepaired because it worked fine on the bench. Sometimes it was out of action for up to 3 days. Then it would come back perfect! Finally, with the warranty period almost up, I sent it in to the NikonUSA repair service, accompanied by a page of pix from a set of identical negatives, perfectly scanned, and with blatant failure modes, side by side. That had to have helped. Anyway, it went UPS Ground on June 4, and was received today, 3 weeks later, repaired, and apparently working very well. The invoice listed a replaced main pcb, (obviously the main culprit) adjusted focus tracking, general check and clean. I had spoken with the Tech Support personnel on their 800 number, a couple of times before sending it in, always polite and helpful, after only a brief period on hold. When I asked the Tech what would happen when the 1-year warranty ran out, if the repair was unsatisfactory, he replied that the repair is warranted for 90 days. That should be plenty to determine if the repair is for real. I would say that I could not have asked for better treatment. I can only hope that the new pcb is better than the original one. Right now, I'm ready to get back to work on my archiving. Hersch
filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000?
Hi I know this questioon has been asked in this list for N'number of times, but I am forced to ask again. I scanned the negative in VS, using ProPhoto as colour space. Scanned output had profile embedded in it. I edited this image in Adobe PS6.0 and saved on to disk. I set this image as wallpaper of my desktop and also opened this image in AcdSee viewer. Now comes the problem, the image shown in AcdSee wallpaper does NOT match with the image shown in Adobe PS6.0. To be specific the image shown as wall paper and image shown in AcdSee viewer are slightly less saturated compared to the one shown in Adobe PS6.0. Image shown as wall paper and image shown in AcdSee viewer match well. My PS6.0 setting: Working space: Adobe1998 (This does not matter though) Using embedded profile while editing the image. Operating System: Win2000 Sp2. I do not know why the 3 images are NOT matching. If the operating system is following CMM then 3 images should match. I have calibrated my monitor using AdobeGamma, but I think this should not matter if the image is being viewed on same desktop. Please let me know why all the 3 images are NOT matching. I did another experiment, In Adobe PS6.0, I converted image to sRGB and saved. I set this image as wallpaper of my desktop and opened this image in AcdSee viewer. Now all the 3 images matched perfectly. Does this mean, Win2000 assumes that image is in sRGB? Please throw some light on this issue, feel free to ask for more information about the scenario. Thanks Ramesh
filmscanners: Infrared dust removal accuracy
I have some vague idea of how infrared scanning is used to remove dust and scratches from film scans on scanners that have this capability. Is there any possibility that this method could mistake elements of the actual image on the film for the undesirable dust or scratch and thereby remove parts of the photographic image? Has anyone had observations or done any testing in this regard? Perhaps photographinq a high contrast texture or the white fluff from poplar trees floating in the air aqainst a dark background and then surgically placing lint on one half the film to be scanned for comparison? I am currently stuck with an Artixscan 4000T which, of course, does not have this capability as far as I know. If my vague knowledge of this subject has caused me to ask an rtfm type question I apologize in advance. I will infer my thickheadedness from any polite responses, no need to say it out loud. :-) Thanks. Darrell
Re: filmscanners: Infrared dust removal accuracy
In a message dated 6/25/2001 3:11:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have some vague idea of how infrared scanning is used to remove dust and scratches from film scans on scanners that have this capability. Is there any possibility that this method could mistake elements of the actual image on the film for the undesirable dust or scratch and thereby "remove" parts of the photographic image? Has anyone had observations or done any testing in this regard? Perhaps photographinq a high contrast texture or the white fluff from poplar trees floating in the air aqainst a dark background and then surgically placing lint on one half the film to be scanned for comparison? I am currently "stuck" with an Artixscan 4000T which, of course, does not have this capability as far as I know. If my vague knowledge of this subject has caused me to ask an rtfm type question I apologize in advance. I will infer my thickheadedness from any polite responses, no need to say it out loud. :-) Thanks. Darrell Darrell, no part of your image will be accidentally removed. The film is transparent to the IR beam but the dust particles block it and it's very easy for the hardware/software system to tell the difference. I've read on this list that some people say the dust removal system can soften the image, probably because the software replaces parts of the image where the dust particles were by sampling the area immediately around them and it's obviously not able to accurately and perfectly select the correct colors and densities for those parts of the image blocked by the dust particles. Silver based black and white film won't pass IR, so there's no way to use IR dust removal with it. And I've read here that Kodachrome doesn't do a good job of passing IR, so, while some people report success with IR dust removal on Kodachrome, there's no way to guarantee that it will always work. But you should have no concern about part of your image being accidentally lost because the IR beam gives a very high contrast between actual dust and the image itself. In fact, I believe that I read on this list that Vuscan can display the mask showing where the dust spots have been detected, so you could verify visually as to what it has detected as dust.
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Walter Bushell) wrote: On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Heraclites already proved you cannot photograph the same river twice. I have this image of some poor AP sports guy having to hold a Heath Robinson bracket with a D30, EOS1v and two 300mm f/2.8s...
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Infrared dust removal accuracy
Darrell wrote: I have some vague idea of how infrared scanning is used to remove dust and scratches from film scans on scanners that have this capability. Is there any possibility that this method could mistake elements of the actual image on the film for the undesirable dust or scratch and thereby remove parts of the photographic image? Not with a colour slide or negative film. Chromogenic films should be fine, as should be slides but some of the more dense slide films may have problems - eg. Kodachrome. It depends on how much of the image is visible in Infra-red. Silver based BW film images are not transparent to IR so they don't work. Has anyone had observations or done any testing in this regard? Perhaps photographinq a high contrast texture or the white fluff from poplar trees floating in the air aqainst a dark background and then surgically placing lint on one half the film to be scanned for comparison? I haven't done a test like this but I have recently looked at the IR component of scans from a number of different types of film. The only respect in which I've seen the real image being adversely affected by IR dust and scratch removal is a softening of the image overall. I am currently stuck with an Artixscan 4000T which, of course, does not have this capability as far as I know. No, the Artixscan 4000T and the Polaroid SS4000 don't have an IR channel. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000?
I use Windows 98SE so I'm not sure what the settings would be in Win2000, but it depends on your Windows Display settings. The default Windows color space setting is sRGB, so that would explain why your wallpaper looks the same as Windows wallpaper and in AcdSee as (I assume) AcdSee is using the Windows default as it's color space as well. Windows interprets your embedded profile as an sRGB image and adjusts the colors accordingly. You will have to change your Windows Display setting (in Win98SE it's Control Panel-Display-Settings-Advanced-Color Management) if you want to modify this. Maris - Original Message - From: Ramesh Kumar_C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 3:22 PM Subject: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000? | Hi | I know this questioon has been asked in this list for N'number of | times, but I am forced to ask again. | | I scanned the negative in VS, using ProPhoto as colour space. Scanned | output had profile embedded in it. | I edited this image in Adobe PS6.0 and saved on to disk. I set this image as | wallpaper of my desktop and also opened this image in AcdSee viewer. | Now comes the problem, the image shown in AcdSee wallpaper does NOT match | with the image shown in Adobe PS6.0. | | To be specific the image shown as wall paper and image shown in AcdSee | viewer are slightly less saturated compared to the one shown in Adobe PS6.0. | Image shown as wall paper and image shown in AcdSee viewer match well. | | | | My PS6.0 setting: | Working space: Adobe1998 (This does not matter though) | Using embedded profile while editing the image. | | | Operating System: | Win2000 Sp2. | | | I do not know why the 3 images are NOT matching. If the operating system is | following CMM then 3 images should match. | | I have calibrated my monitor using AdobeGamma, but I think this should not | matter if the image is being viewed on same desktop. | | Please let me know why all the 3 images are NOT matching. | | | I did another experiment, In Adobe PS6.0, I converted image to sRGB and | saved. I set this image as wallpaper of my desktop and opened this image in | AcdSee viewer. Now all the 3 images matched perfectly. | | Does this mean, Win2000 assumes that image is in sRGB? | | Please throw some light on this issue, feel free to ask for more information | about the scenario. | | | | Thanks | Ramesh |
RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Look at the end... One liners can make serious points, and his was that double-shooting can make you miss the action. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (laurie) wrote: For the life of me, I fail to understand why Walter Bushell would post a message to the list repeating what Karl and Tony said on the list already without making any further contribution. Did Mr Bushell forget to put in his own comments and response? That would be the only explanation I can think of; or am I missing something. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Walter Bushell Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital. For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot everything twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market which AP are now trying to muscle in on. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Heraclites already proved you cannot photograph the same river twice.
Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality?
Sorry Lynn, you are several months (which in this biz is centuries) out of date. Epson (the printer people) with Cambridge Institute (I believe this is in Boston) have developed a method for using inkjet technology to spray some type of transistors onto substrates, to make a color panel which uses room reflective light source to create bright colored images that can be changed at will electronically. It only requires an edge connector to be activated. This stuff will be so cheap to produce within a few years, and can be sprayed on so many different substrates, that you'll being seeing video Weakies commercials on the cereal box in the grocery store, very likely in YOUR lifetime (as long as you don't do anything too strenuous ;-)) And, BTW, as mentionedm, the more expensive version of this, using LCD technology is already available, but is only for people like Bill Gates, who has just such a thing. Smaller versions are available for the little people (;-0) in places like Sharper Image catalogues. Art Lynn Allen wrote: Hi, Steve-- Yes, this is sort of what I was talking about, on a lesser scale--I had the idea back in the 80's, Ray Bradbury had it back in the 40's. :-) It's a little bit Star Trek, but the concept is valid. Thanks for passing on the web site. As of now, the technology is too expensive and too limited--it still needs a breakthrough or several. I knew the mother of an engineer/physicist whose field was liquid crystal research. He hit so many brick walls (in the 60's 70's) that he had a nervous breakdown and eventually committed suicide. True fact. Eventually, Bradbury's concept will come about, and you'll actually be able to put movies of the African Veldt on the wall of your kids' room. Not in my lifetime, though, and the kids will *probably* not be able to turn the lions loose on their parents. ;-) Best regards--Lynn Allen
Re: filmscanners: LED Illumination for Film Scanners
Just two days ago, I was at a local retailer who showed me the new HP scanner/copier (which is basically an inkjet printer and a scanner on top). It was only $399 CAN, and they have reduced the footprint to that of a small inkjet printer. Pretty amazing. The part that relates to this discussion, is that they were just setting it up, and that included a calibration process for the color and black ink heads. It is now an automatic function. The printer printed a set of varying matrixes and lines in both black and yellow. The print head also had a very bright blue LED which went on, and I expect some type of sensor, which read the resultant printout. When the blue LED was on, the yellow printing probably became gray, and the system probably tried to find the placement of the yellow and black lines which made for the highest contrast (which would be when the yellow and black lines printed on top of each other exactly). I assume the unit than used this information to either physically adjust the head positioning, or to change the printing pattern to use certain nozzles and delays between the black and color cart, so that the ink would be printed onto the paper in registration. It was a pretty neat idea, all made affordable by a blue LED. Art Clark Guy wrote: On a historical note, back in the late '80s and early '90s, blue LEDs were very dim. They were made from Silicon Carbide, and put out less than 100mCandela while good red or green LEDs put out in excess of 1000mC. I used a particular HP red diode that put out 3-4 Candela! from a T-1 package (small size). In the mid '90s I saw an example of a (then) US$50 blue ultribright diode. It put out at least one full Candela of power, but it was too expensive for my medical diagnostic device application. This weekend, I went to the drugstore to buy some film , and found a blueish-white LED flashlight for sale for ~$8.00 It is blinding in it's intensity!!! Clearly the state of the art is moving forward at quite a rapid pace! Hope this helps!! Guy Clark --
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Silly me, I used almost exclusively Kodachrome back in the 60's 70's and 80's. I only really moved to E-6 films after they convinced me I could trust them (in the 1990's), (other than Afga slides which used some weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me, and will need to be dealt with via digital repair (for what is left of the image). Even the Agfa stuff made me nervous enough to go back and reshoot on Kodachrome before I left the area (good intuition that time...) I do have some 40+ year old slides from childhood that are looking pretty ratty and some negs from the 70's and early 80's that need a bit of help, but these are in the minority. I think today's slides and negs (properly processed!!! and stored) will remain very effective images for a long time to come. If they last as well as my 1970's Kodachromes, I'll be overjoyed. Art Isaac Crawford wrote: Hersch Nitikman wrote: For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning my personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration of Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan has done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were very much faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more believable ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly 'archival' unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even then. Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few years still seems like the best means now available. Hersch This is an interesting idea that doesn't get talked about as much. BW film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff. Many people lump film all into one group when obviously there are differences between films. Maybe digital is the best way to preserve accurate colors... Isaac
Re: filmscanners: ScanWit Yellow stain
Dear Jerry, I just took a look at your attachment in Photoshop. Of course, it is heavily artifacted due to the downsampling and Jpegging. The first thing I always do when I look at defects is to go into channels and look at each channel as a separate entity. In this case, all the problems I am seeing are in the blue channel, but of course, since the stain is yellowish, that would be expected. I can see considerable streaking in that area, which might either be the jpegging or it might indicate some dirt or dust or calibration problem (or defects) with the blue CCD. It could also, however, be a defective light source emphasizing the yellow end of the spectrum, which, of course, would be picked up by the blue channel. The first thing to do is to try to rule out that this defect is actually on the film itself. I would try two things to try to isolate this. 1) put the neg into the scanner the other direction, or flipped, so the left and right are reversed. Since the worst of the yellowing/darkening is on the right side currently, see if it become the left side of the scan when you reverse the image. If so, the problem is likely the film itself. 2) If you can sacrifice a frame of this film that is very overexposed, try mounting it in a slide mount at 90 degrees and see if the problem is still in the same place (in relation to the scanner) or not. It might be that the processing developed the streaks on the edges of the film and they are amplified by the overexposure. Yet another possibility is that the scanner is running into it's limits in dealing with the Dmax at those edges. Between a small amount of light falloff and possibly slightly darker film at the edges (film tends to get developed along the edges due to the sprockets carrying a bit of extra chemistry with them between chemical vats) If the film was drum developed, with a film reel, that would even make it worse, as chemistry gets trapped in the reel), anyway, you might be hitting a threshold of the scanner CCD or electronics which is being amplified by these factors. Lastly, typically, repairs made during a warranty period where the repair period caused the warranty to run out, usually carry some type of further warranty from 90 days to 1 year. Further, if a repair is not effective, the warranty is considered extended until the repair is completed plus an additional time for that repair (like 90 days). Of course, every country has its own legislation, and every company has its own policies concerning these matters, but most enlightened governments, like Holland, should have laws protecting consumers in these matters. Art Oostrom, Jerry wrote: Hi Alan, I recently received my scanner back from Acer, but it still showed the same problems. Here I have an example of an overexposed negative, which gave a perfect fine grained print, but scanning with the Scanwit 2720S is useless for such overexposed negatives as the negative is too dark for the (my) scanwit to scan. I don't know if it is the lightbulb which gives uneven illumination or dust on the lenses, CCD failures etc, but the outer sides of the CCD give too much noise on a dark negative / positive and in case of a negative this results in yellowish banding. Here I show you the scan, downsampled a lot of times. I did use either Vuescan or Miraphoto white balance (which clearly failed, but I know I checked both programs for their results: you get this strange color cast). I didn't try to remove the color cast, but you can still clearly see the yellow / brownish banding along the long edges. The one on the side of the frame where the left door is located is very prominent, it corresponds to the floor side of the film holder as you insert it in the scanner. I sent AcerCM some of my new scans (or links to the scans) made with the 'repaired' unit and they went very silent :-( I don't know if that has to do with vacations or whatever. I think they know they didn't solve the problem during the repairs and they can't solve it without changing a lightbulb or CCD, which is probably too expensive. Unfortunately, my warranty expired during the repair period, so there is not much left to do. I tried some things on my side as well to see if the problem has to do with electronic interference (somebody on this list suggested that some time ago), but I don't know enough about electronics to do some educated tests: I wrapped the SCSI cable in aluminium foil, but it was to no avail. I'll try one last thing this week: hook up the scanner on another group than the PC. This is my last hope. I've seen the monitor flickering, so it could be that the current or voltage is not stable enough in the group of the PC. almost scanwitless,
RE: filmscanners: Banding Problem with Nikon 8000ED Scanners
At 12:15 PM 6/24/01 -0400, Lawrence wrote: Peter, I got mine from State Street Direct Online. As for jumping in, I'd wait till this issue is understood. It is a growing concern at Nikon. Pehaps Rafe could jump in here and offer his experience. Rafe, are you on a Mac or PC? Are you seeing any problems? [re: wide banding running left-right on a landscape- format image, scanned on LS-8000] 2nd take... way past my bedtime (6/25) but I just got through scanning a very old, very dense slide and see exactly the same thing, in certain areas of the image. FWIW, in order to get anywhere near the right gamma out of this slide, I had to crank the exposure WAY up. The scanner seems cranky on slides. Auto-focus and auto-exposure nowhere near as reliable as with negative film. Fortunately for me I don't shoot slides all that much these days. This is the day for the 8000 to show some ugliness. Earlier this evening I scanned a 12-year old negative. Basically in OK shape. None of my other scanners could deal with the dynamic range in this image, and the extreme density in the sky. There's detail everywhere in the negative, but previous scanners just blew out all of the sky detail. First pass scanning this thing on the 8000, I was delighted. Gorgeous detail, everywhere! But wait -- what's this??? Banding quite visible in the left- hand edge of the frame, where the negative is most dense. Adjusting the exposure to get rid of the banding, I find that, at the point where the banding goes away, the sky is blown out again, just like with my Polaroid scanner. Bummer. rafe b.
filmscanners: A GOOD nikon 8000 scan...
All, I regularly post images to a critique page on my site. The current image is one that I did using the new 8000. This particular scan does not have visible banding (well that you can see on the screen anyway). If anyone wants to take a look it's at http:www.lwsphoto.com Click on the Critique button. I was very happy with the scan. Really held the luminance of the 645 transparency very well... As for the photo, you can make up your own mind about it's merits ;-) Lawrence
