Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
Rob Geraghty wrote: AFAIK digital cameras produce files which are set to 72 dpi. Can anyone who has one check this? I know it's been driving my brother nuts when people send digicam pics at screen resolutions and expect him to print them in a magazine! Our Sony Digicam gives images at 72 'dpi'. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: best film scanner for bw negs
Hi Harvey-- Well I could easily be wrong. Or I they might be looking at different things. I'll tell you what I was thinking specifically of when I wrote my comment: I've been scanning various reflective and transmissive greyscale targets on a new flatbed scanner and comparing the results. One of the things I've been doing is looking at the standard deviation of the pixel values within each grey step. I figure that, particularly at the dense end, increasing standard deviation indicates an increasing level of scanner noise. Well I was comparing tranmissive scans from two IT8 targets, one 35mm and the other 4x5, and the standard deviations on the 35mm target were huge in the dense end but similar in the low-density end. I couldn't understand why two targets of equal density on the same scanner could be so different; until I inspected both scans closely and realized that the 25mm target was hugely grainy, especially in the dense end of the greyscale. So what at first I thought was scanner noise turned out to be film grain. Now does this sound at all like what they've been discussing on the Colorsync list? Am I looking at this the wrong way? Regards, --Bill At 1:10 AM -0400 23-10-01, SKID Photography wrote: Bill Fernandez wrote: I've became aware of this when I was doing similar analysis recently; that much of the apparent scanner noise was in fact film grain. So now that I'm aware of this I factor it into my testing. --Bill Bill, What you write, runs contrary to all of the recent (6 months) threads on the colorsync list regarding grain and noise. Not that you are wrong, it's just what I've read and experienced with magazines scanning our work for reproduction. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Austin wrote: Why would you want to output at a fixed 300 PPI? Because that's the requirement of the offset printer which many of my recent photos are going to. Aside from that, 300 dpi is as a general rule of thumb the best resolution *most* printers (pc and otherwise) work with. Some are more, some are less, and the manufacturers muddy the water by talking about the size of individual ink dots not the size at which a pixel is reproduced as a dot on the print. If you are outputting to an inkjet printer, you are best to just choose your image output size and let the PPI output to the printer fall where it may. So what do you set the dpi to in the file? If you create a TIFF file, there will be a figure for the dpi embedded in it. I use 300dpi. When I actually print from PSP the real dpi is hardly ever precisely 300dpi - it depends on the page layout and how the picture is cropped. So yes, I'm effectively doing what you suggest above when prniting on my own printer. But I have to set the file's dpi to something, and it makes more sense to set it to 300dpi than 2700dpi or 100dpi for a full frame 2700spi ( :) scan. If you do any resizing of the PPI to make some fixed number, then you are resampling, which degrades the image. I was talking about the setting in the file. You can set the output dpi of Vuescan (or Nikonscan I think) to anything you want. It makes no difference to the number of pixels. Setting it to 300 dpi means that you'll get a meaningfully sized print (roughly a page) out of a 2700 spi scan on most printers. Leave it at 2700dpi and you'll have a print the size of the neg frame. Set it to 100dpi and the size will be silly for printing. Epsons seem to work quite well at 240dpi because of the integer relationship with the 1440dpi native dot size. That?s pretty much been proven to by a myth. It is true, to some degree, for lineart, but not at all for halftoned images. In my own personal experience it's true that prints having an integer relationship between the output dpi and 1440 on my Epson 1160 will be sharper and have less visible dithering than at other scales. It was also true on my previous Photo 700. I expect that newer printers, particularly those with more than 4 colours, will give better results. I don't know for sure about other printers - for instance the 12x0 series probably have fine enough patterns from 6 colours at 1440 or 2880 dpi that variations in the source dpi make much less difference. I don't know because I don't have one. What I *do* know is that Epson had on their own web site an equation for calculating the ideal source resolution which was based on an integer relationship with the printer's native resolution. Epson themselves said it was the best thing to do. The story may have changed since they wrote that FAQ. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Everyone has their own points of confusion and moments of comparative clarity, but this is one discussion about which I have never understood the confusion. I use pixels for everything. Everything that is relevant to me, I mean. The pixels I get out of the scanner becomes the same number of pixels when I work in PS, and is the same number of pixels on screen, and (unless I resample) will be the same number of pixels when I print it. The pixels per inch is only of interest at those moments when I want to transfer from my digital image to a physical sized image or vice versa, and its calculation is straightforward. It seems that thinking of the pixels more than the ppi is much more efficient. I have seen people totally tied in knots trying to fathom how to print their 36x24mm 2700ppi image onto 7x5 paper at 300ppi, but thinking of it as 3800x2500 pixels means the whole thing is straightforward. The tagging of images with ppi figures in PS and other software is an unnecessary confusion - I think it should never be mentioned unless the context at that time is one of transfer to a specific physical sized medium. Even then the ppi should only be mentioned with a kind of flashing red-arrow link to the image size that is implied by that ppi. The fact that the printer happens to separate colors and dither and re-present the image as a greater number of 4 or 6-colour dots is of no significance to me so I ignore it. I suppose it would be different if I needed to understand the printing process, but even then the concept of printer dots does not seem confusing because it is such a different thing from the pixels that the image is stored as. 1440 dpi is an internal printer spec that has no relevance to me other than to define - once- the likely resolution performance of the printer. It is not something I have to work with or calculate with, so I ignore it. And I don't understand the advantage in differentiating between scanner pixels and screen pixels or any other pixel - just makes things more complex? Julian At 15:37 23/10/01, you wrote: I use these terms: Scanner - spi - (scan) samples per inch Monitor - ppi - pixels per inck Printer - dpi - dots (of ink) per inch I think this came from Dan Margulis's Professional Photoshop Maris - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:45 PM Subject: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
You could have, if you wanted to... Art PS: At least I can have final words... and then drop it. Austin Franklin wrote: Since you felt the need to get in your final word (actually several hundred... but who is counting ;-) I'll do the same... My, how entirely uncharacteristic of you, Arthur! Sorry, I couldn't resist ;-) .
RE: filmscanners: best film scanner for bw negs
I've became aware of this when I was doing similar analysis recently; that much of the apparent scanner noise was in fact film grain. So now that I'm aware of this I factor it into my testing. --Bill Bill, What you write, runs contrary to all of the recent (6 months) threads on the colorsync list regarding grain and noise. Not that you are wrong, it's just what I've read and experienced with magazines scanning our work for reproduction. I will try to grab a set of neutral density filters this weekend and see if they reduce the amount of noise. These filters should have *no* grain al all.
Re: filmscanners: best film scanner for bw negs
Bill Fernandez wrote: Well I could easily be wrong. Or I they might be looking at different things. I'll tell you what I was thinking specifically of when I wrote my comment: I've been scanning various reflective and transmissive greyscale targets on a new flatbed scanner and comparing the results. One of the things I've been doing is looking at the standard deviation of the pixel values within each grey step. I figure that, particularly at the dense end, increasing standard deviation indicates an increasing level of scanner noise. Well I was comparing tranmissive scans from two IT8 targets, one 35mm and the other 4x5, and the standard deviations on the 35mm target were huge in the dense end but similar in the low-density end. I couldn't understand why two targets of equal density on the same scanner could be so different; until I inspected both scans closely and realized that the 25mm target was hugely grainy, especially in the dense end of the greyscale. So what at first I thought was scanner noise turned out to be film grain. Now does this sound at all like what they've been discussing on the Colorsync list? Am I looking at this the wrong way? The threads on the colorsync list I think, for the most part were speaking about drum scanners. These on the colorsync list discussions started around why it was that magazines, et al, could no longer make good separations from 35mm slides because of 'grain'. The 'standards' within the magazine industry had gone from needing large format (4x5) in the 60's and early 70's, to a standard of 35mm, and then finally to medium format with the advent of contemporary digital imaging drum scans. I think that these scanners were single pass drums and not multipass or ccd, for what ever that is worth. The consensus of most was that the grain that was showing up in the dense shadows from the greater enlargements (samples) was due to the problem of electronic noise, and not, in fact grain. I think that these talks, for the most part, were centered around color transparencies as compared to color negatives or bw negatives. They were not addressing scanning 'targets', but rather actual 'real world' scanning (this is not to belittle your target argumentjust the facts). Does this help? Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC I've became aware of this when I was doing similar analysis recently; that much of the apparent scanner noise was in fact film grain. So now that I'm aware of this I factor it into my testing. --Bill What you write, runs contrary to all of the recent (6 months) threads on the colorsync list regarding grain and noise. Not that you are wrong, it's just what I've read and experienced with magazines scanning our work for reproduction. Harvey Ferdschneider
Re: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides
I use the manual bulb-type air blower and a good and very soft painting brush with good results. I always inspect the negatives and slides with a Rodenstock magnifying glass and a lightning box, both before cleaning and just before inserting the feeder in the scanner. Afer adopting this procedure, the number of rescans due to dust is much lower. I never tried PEC-12 fluid because I never found it. Anybody knows where I can find it (or a similar product) in Europe. Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 22 October, 2001 10:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides | Compressed air is good (but check the label and be sure no chemicals are coming out with the air - some have recommended a manual bulb-type air blower), and if needs be PEC-12 fluid applied sparingly with PEC pads. | | Maris | | - Original Message - | From: Jack Whelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:07 PM | Subject: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides | | | | I have several trays of 35mm slides that I want to scan. Some of these | | slides are still in the carousel where they were placed 25+ years ago. No | | doubt there is dust. Any advice on how to minimize the dust? Use a vacuum | | cleaner? Compressed air? Thanks in advance. | | | | Jack | | | | _ | | Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp | | | | | _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
OK, now I have a better understanding of your question. The big problem most people have is seeing images are composed of two things, dimension (the size in inches, for instance) and then resolution (the number of pixels that make up each inch.) This makes things more complex than necessary. There are no dimensions to an image within the computer. There are only number of pixels. As the number of pixels gets spread out (lower resolution) the image dimensions grow, and vice versa. So, a 100 dpi scan of a 4 x 6 print, would have the pixel dimensions of 400 x 600 pixels. Shown on a screen which is set to a resolution of 100 dpi, the file would produce an image 4 x6. BUT, if the screen resolution was (hypothetically) only 50 dpi, the same file would show up as a screen image 8 x 12. On the other hand, a screen set up with 200 dpi resolution, would make the same file appear as an image only 2 x 3. NOw, you mention a flatbed scanning a standard 4 x 6 snapshot, which you wish to, let's say, fill the screen with. And let's say your screen has the pixel dimensions of 800 x 600. That means you need to scan the print in a manner that you would get approximately 800 pixels in the long direction, and 600 in the other. To accomplish this with a 4 x 6 print, you need to scan at 6 divided into 800 or 4 divided into 600. The result is 133.333 pixels per inch in the long direction and 150 pixels per inch in the 4 direction. So, if you really want this image to fit the whole 800 x 600 pixel screen, you'd have to scan at 150 dpi, making an scanned image 900 x 600 pixels, and then crop off a bit from the sides (50 pixels each). Or, in theory, you could scan at 133 pixels and get a scan approximately 800 x 532, leaving a bit of border on the top and bottom. Now, what would I do? The same as I mentioned in my earlier posting. If the flatbed scanner has a native optical resolution of 600 dpi, I'd use that, making a 3600 pixel by 2400 pixel scan from a 4 x6 print. I'd then downsample it to 133, or 150 dpi bicubically, and unsharp mask it, and then jpeg it to an optimum file size. One final comment. It is pretty much accepted in the industry that drug store 4 x 6 snaps are produced to about 200 dpi resolution. Therefore, using much higher resolutions will likely not produce extra information on the scan, but it is still of some value to use the full native resolution of a scanner as the starting point of an image to be downsampled. Art Ken Durling wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:49:22 -0400, you wrote: Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct? No, not interpolation. Interpolation ADDS data. Decimation removes data, so scanning at 72dpi would remove data...if your scanner is 2700DPI and you scan at 72DPI, you are only using 1 for every 37.5 pixels! Are you scanning prints? On my flatbed, yes. Usually at 150 dpi. But now with the FS2710 obviously I'm only doing slides and negs, which is what brought up all these questions. I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6 print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than 288x432 pixels, wouldn't interpolation be necessary? Even more with a slide or a negative? Ken .
RE: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides
Calumet carries it in the U.S. Do they have it in the European side ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mário Teixeira Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides I never tried PEC-12 fluid because I never found it. Anybody knows where I can find it (or a similar product) in Europe. Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
Harvey, If I'm reading your comments (below) correctly, the only difference between your old scanner and your new one in this matter is how the software operates. A 72 dpi scan at 200% making a 8 x 12 screen image is the exact same thing as a 144 dpi scan of a 4 x 6 print. And you don't need Photoshop if you are going to do it that way. It is possible your new scanner has better downsampling software, also, which makes the process easier. In both cases, however, you might not be getting the optimum scan quality from the scanner hardware. Neither 72 nor 144 is a native divisor of standard flatbed optical resolutions, which usually are 300, 600, 1200 dpi... That's where Photoshop can be helpful, because it's software is very good at downsampling (and upsampling, BTW) using the bicubic formula. Personally, I probably wouldn't do either of the approaches mentioned above to get best results. I would use optical resolution of the scanner, or at least an exact divisor to 300, 150, and then downsample in Photoshop, unless the scanner is actually scanning at full optical resolution and downsampling afterward. Studies have shown that using this approach gives the best reduced size scan in most cases, based upon people's perception of the image. If speed is absolutely most important, then scanning at 75, 100 or even 150 dpi is preferred, as native scans of 600 dpi, for instance, are slower and take up large file spaces. Art SKID Photography wrote: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote: Screen dpi is not necessarily 72dpi - it depends on the size of the screen and what resolution you set your monitor to - consider a 17 monitor at 600x800 pixels v. set at 1200x1600 pixels - the second will have double the dpi of the first. Ignore dpi for web use - pay attention to the pixel dimensions of the image only, e.g. 480x640 or whatever. No matter which set of parameters (pixel count or 72 dpi) you still end up with images of different sizes on monitors set on to different resolutions. It finally makes no difference which set you use. I say use whichever is more comfortable to you. When we scan for web viewing, we scan at 72 dpi, to whatever final dimensions we want the image to be. If we want a 4x6 print to be viewed at 8x12, we would scan it at 200% and 72 dpi. We use a 42 bit Microtek Scanmaker X12 USL scanner, ant it works well. On our old, cheaper 24 bit Umax we could not do this.On that one, we needed to scan at full resolution and then convert in Photoshop. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC .
Re: filmscanners: Cleaning HP S20... Art?
Hi Richard, Thanks for thinking of me ;-) Unfortunately, HP did not make me privy of the materials in use within this scanner, nor did I dismantle mine to test the options. As someone else suggested, contacting HP's tech people might prove most effective, as they might know the answers you are seeking. I have been told the lens is glass not plastic. All front surface mirrors are very vulnerable to scratching, so be very careful when cleaning them. Art Richard Dellman wrote: After having my S20 for a year, using the blower on the glass lens isn't enough to get rid of a visible build-up of dirt... obviously affecting scans - yet the little manual is quite emphatic about not touching it or using anything other than air. I'm not sure if its glass or plastic so am worried about using any cleaning agent.. or even a lens cleaning tissue. I'm wondering if the warnings are just to discourage careless and rough treatment . .and that the lens is actually robust enough to be gently cleaned... I know Art has a lot of experience with this scanner... I'd appreciate your suggestions.. Richard .
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
As mentioned, the 72 dpi number is a bit long in the tooth these days. It was a Mac standard used for screen fonts, but is no longer valid for most monitors which use higher resolutions. Larger monitors (17, 19, or 21) often function at 80-100 dpi or even slightly higher. Now, 72 dpi (or even 100 dpi) for screen use is just fine. Remember that each screen pixel can be one of 16.8 million colors in 24 bit mode. Printed dots are another matter entirely, requiring 200-500 dpi, since colors are produced from many dots, and also the resolution of paper images is higher. Screen images are quite forgiving. It is true that a 72 dpi scan is likely not to look very good if scanned at that resolution. The way around this is to scan at a higher resolution (either the actual full optical resolution of the scanner, or an evenly divisible fraction). So a 2700 dpi optical scanner should scan images at 2700 dpi, 1350 dpi, 900 dpi, 675 dpi, etc. 450 dpi, etc. For best results, use 2700 dpi. Then using a quality image manipulation program, use their best downsampling method (bicubic is one) and have the program reduce the dimension and resolution of the scan to whatever dimensional size and dpi you think best for screen shots on the web site. Then sharpen the image with unsharp masking, to crisp up the image, and then, finally, jpeg it to further reduce the file size. Some film scanners come with good down and upsampling software, in which case working in something like Photoshop isn't required. Art Ken Durling wrote: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:12:10 +1000, you wrote: If you're making web images, the dpi for the screen is 72dpi. End of story. Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand all this. ;-) Ken .
filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand all this. ;-) At 1:08 PM -0700 10/22/01, Ken Durling wrote: I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6 print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than 288x432 pixels, wouldn't interpolation be necessary? Even more with a slide or a negative? After reading these various comments about scanning at high resolution and downsampling vs initially scanning at low resolution, I decided to try it and compare. Using a Minoltal Dimage Scan Dual II and VueScan, I scanned a Fuji Provia 100F slide that I know to be very sharp. I scanned at 2820 (native resolution), 1410, 705, and 353 (the lowest that VueScan goes, and roughly equivalent to 4x6 inches at 72 ppi). I then set the Crop tool to 4x6 inches at 72 ppi and cropped the three higher-res scans identically. I could immediately see the 353 ppi scan was terrible, as can be seen in the enclosed photo. Note the jaggy edges on the steeple. The other three scans were remarkably similar, so I have included the downsampled 1410 middle resolution scan. Thus, it appears at least with the Scan Dual II that scaning at higher resolution and downsampling is much preferable to initially scanning at a low resolution. I noticed the same thing years ago with my Epson 636 flatbed when I scanned prints for inclusion in PowerPoint presentations. Images scanned at 200 or 300 ppi and downsampled to 72 ppi were much better than images scanned at 72 ppi. Regards, Roger Smith attachment: res_test.jpg
Re: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides
David M. Stone at Photographic Solutions, Inc. manufactures it - you can check his website at http://www.photosol.com/ or e-mail him at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maris - Original Message - From: Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 3:04 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides I use the manual bulb-type air blower and a good and very soft painting brush with good results. I always inspect the negatives and slides with a Rodenstock magnifying glass and a lightning box, both before cleaning and just before inserting the feeder in the scanner. Afer adopting this procedure, the number of rescans due to dust is much lower. I never tried PEC-12 fluid because I never found it. Anybody knows where I can find it (or a similar product) in Europe. Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 22 October, 2001 10:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides | Compressed air is good (but check the label and be sure no chemicals are coming out with the air - some have recommended a manual bulb-type air blower), and if needs be PEC-12 fluid applied sparingly with PEC pads. | | Maris | | - Original Message - | From: Jack Whelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:07 PM | Subject: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides | | | | I have several trays of 35mm slides that I want to scan. Some of these | | slides are still in the carousel where they were placed 25+ years ago. No | | doubt there is dust. Any advice on how to minimize the dust? Use a vacuum | | cleaner? Compressed air? Thanks in advance. | | | | Jack | | | | _ | | Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp | | | | | _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
Arthur, You bring up interesting points. I have never actually done side by side comparisons of the PS or scanner downsampling to see if there is a noticeable difference. However, I have not comprehended a difference by 'my memory' (always a scary proposition) going either way. I will try to do some side by side comparisons and report back. Another aspect to could affect the differences between the cheaper and slightly better scanners, beyond the software, is the mechanical qualitiesLike the better machine having a better (more well calibrated) stepper motor. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC Arthur Entlich wrote: Harvey, If I'm reading your comments (below) correctly, the only difference between your old scanner and your new one in this matter is how the software operates. A 72 dpi scan at 200% making a 8 x 12 screen image is the exact same thing as a 144 dpi scan of a 4 x 6 print. And you don't need Photoshop if you are going to do it that way. It is possible your new scanner has better downsampling software, also, which makes the process easier. In both cases, however, you might not be getting the optimum scan quality from the scanner hardware. Neither 72 nor 144 is a native divisor of standard flatbed optical resolutions, which usually are 300, 600, 1200 dpi... That's where Photoshop can be helpful, because it's software is very good at downsampling (and upsampling, BTW) using the bicubic formula. Personally, I probably wouldn't do either of the approaches mentioned above to get best results. I would use optical resolution of the scanner, or at least an exact divisor to 300, 150, and then downsample in Photoshop, unless the scanner is actually scanning at full optical resolution and downsampling afterward. Studies have shown that using this approach gives the best reduced size scan in most cases, based upon people's perception of the image. If speed is absolutely most important, then scanning at 75, 100 or even 150 dpi is preferred, as native scans of 600 dpi, for instance, are slower and take up large file spaces. Art SKID Photography wrote: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote: Screen dpi is not necessarily 72dpi - it depends on the size of the screen and what resolution you set your monitor to - consider a 17 monitor at 600x800 pixels v. set at 1200x1600 pixels - the second will have double the dpi of the first. Ignore dpi for web use - pay attention to the pixel dimensions of the image only, e.g. 480x640 or whatever. No matter which set of parameters (pixel count or 72 dpi) you still end up with images of different sizes on monitors set on to different resolutions. It finally makes no difference which set you use. I say use whichever is more comfortable to you. When we scan for web viewing, we scan at 72 dpi, to whatever final dimensions we want the image to be. If we want a 4x6 print to be viewed at 8x12, we would scan it at 200% and 72 dpi. We use a 42 bit Microtek Scanmaker X12 USL scanner, ant it works well. On our old, cheaper 24 bit Umax we could not do this.On that one, we needed to scan at full resolution and then convert in Photoshop. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC .
Re: filmscanners: Silverfast Frustration
Well, I am new at Silverfast and cannnot comment if it is for an earlier version, all I know is it says 5 on the file.
filmscanners: silverfast 5.5, worth it?
I am thinking about upgrading from the default silverfast version that came with my SS 4000. I scan mostly negatives. Do you think the upgrade is worth the $45? Also, I heard there was a free upgrade for SS4000 customers. Is this true? thanks! -e
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
and you thought this thread had died.. G Well, someone asked if the AN coatings of Glass Slides would show in a scan and I can say that with Quickpoint slides of the type I have at least, it most certainly DOES. You get a sort of grassy looking star pattern that is terrible especially in skys or continuous tone areas. Huge yuk! Basically I've decided I either use Glass slides and mount them reversed away from the AN coatings, or if I get Newton rings then stuff them in the FH-3 or in a std Slide mount (urgh). I am really wondering whether or not I should have got a Polaroid. Especially since I've found how easy it is to correct dust problems etc in PS6 not being a digital type before. This sharpness issue is a real pain IMO. Some scans I just can't get sharp, even with some of my best chromes (tack sharp under a loupe and shot on Leica glass, tripod mounted yadda yadda) and PS sharpening using various methods, actions etc just introduce too much noise when I want to blow them up to say Super A3. Have to live with it now I guess... Hmph. I've basically settled on the above mounting procedures with manual focus point selection in NS3.1, 14bit scanning, 16x sampling, ICE/GEM etc off, Color management off and color editing the file in 16bit mode in PS. Scanner pumps out 130mb files - ok on a grunt box PC like mine but a MPITA for a lot of others out there I bet having lived with a 433 Celeron laptop for ages. I do sharpening in 8bit, LAB mode using various PS actions. Any other suggestions for improving sharpness gratefully received! :) I really would love to see a crop from Polaroid scan of the same chrome side by side with one from a LS4000. Would be interesting.. 'ave a good one, Neil
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor Insight is the ability to use one of several decimation techniques from nearest neighbor(lowest quality) to bicubic(highest quality also longer). Your choice would depend on use. David -Original Message- From: SKID Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more. Arthur, You bring up interesting points. I have never actually done side by side comparisons of the PS or scanner downsampling to see if there is a noticeable difference. However, I have not comprehended a difference by 'my memory' (always a scary proposition) going either way. I will try to do some side by side comparisons and report back. Another aspect to could affect the differences between the cheaper and slightly better scanners, beyond the software, is the mechanical qualitiesLike the better machine having a better (more well calibrated) stepper motor. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC Arthur Entlich wrote: Harvey, If I'm reading your comments (below) correctly, the only difference between your old scanner and your new one in this matter is how the software operates. A 72 dpi scan at 200% making a 8 x 12 screen image is the exact same thing as a 144 dpi scan of a 4 x 6 print. And you don't need Photoshop if you are going to do it that way. It is possible your new scanner has better downsampling software, also, which makes the process easier. In both cases, however, you might not be getting the optimum scan quality from the scanner hardware. Neither 72 nor 144 is a native divisor of standard flatbed optical resolutions, which usually are 300, 600, 1200 dpi... That's where Photoshop can be helpful, because it's software is very good at downsampling (and upsampling, BTW) using the bicubic formula. Personally, I probably wouldn't do either of the approaches mentioned above to get best results. I would use optical resolution of the scanner, or at least an exact divisor to 300, 150, and then downsample in Photoshop, unless the scanner is actually scanning at full optical resolution and downsampling afterward. Studies have shown that using this approach gives the best reduced size scan in most cases, based upon people's perception of the image. If speed is absolutely most important, then scanning at 75, 100 or even 150 dpi is preferred, as native scans of 600 dpi, for instance, are slower and take up large file spaces. Art SKID Photography wrote: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote: Screen dpi is not necessarily 72dpi - it depends on the size of the screen and what resolution you set your monitor to - consider a 17 monitor at 600x800 pixels v. set at 1200x1600 pixels - the second will have double the dpi of the first. Ignore dpi for web use - pay attention to the pixel dimensions of the image only, e.g. 480x640 or whatever. No matter which set of parameters (pixel count or 72 dpi) you still end up with images of different sizes on monitors set on to different resolutions. It finally makes no difference which set you use. I say use whichever is more comfortable to you. When we scan for web viewing, we scan at 72 dpi, to whatever final dimensions we want the image to be. If we want a 4x6 print to be viewed at 8x12, we would scan it at 200% and 72 dpi. We use a 42 bit Microtek Scanmaker X12 USL scanner, ant it works well. On our old, cheaper 24 bit Umax we could not do this.On that one, we needed to scan at full resolution and then convert in Photoshop. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC .
filmscanners: LS-4000, calibration and Windows XP
I've noticed that I get much better results from Nikon Scan 3.1 if I disable color management. If I continue using this technique, I assume I should make a profile for the scanner that I'd assign to images in Photoshop. I could also use this profile with VueScan when scanning in raw format - at least, that's what I think. Any comments on doing this? A collegue at work has offered to help me make the profile if I generate a 300dpi raw scan from a target slide but I'm not sure if Nikon Scan or VueScan is the best place to make a raw scan. BTW, is anyone using Nikon Scan 3.1 with Windows XP? I'm having problems with my LS-4000, Windows XP and the LS-4000's included film strip adapter (SA-21). The scanning software fails to start if the adapter is already in the scanner or, if the software is already running, it doesn't recognize the adapter. The scanner's green light continues to flash after I put the adapter in and the scanner makes a noise until I either force-quit Nikon Scan or power cycle the scanner. The slide adapter works fine. Thanks, Fergus
RE: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides
I purchase mine at a local outlet, E. P. Levine, in Boston, I know BH carries it but I do not think the solution is UPS shippable. David -Original Message- From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 4:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides David M. Stone at Photographic Solutions, Inc. manufactures it - you can check his website at http://www.photosol.com/ or e-mail him at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maris - Original Message - From: Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 3:04 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides I use the manual bulb-type air blower and a good and very soft painting brush with good results. I always inspect the negatives and slides with a Rodenstock magnifying glass and a lightning box, both before cleaning and just before inserting the feeder in the scanner. Afer adopting this procedure, the number of rescans due to dust is much lower. I never tried PEC-12 fluid because I never found it. Anybody knows where I can find it (or a similar product) in Europe. Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 22 October, 2001 10:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides | Compressed air is good (but check the label and be sure no chemicals are coming out with the air - some have recommended a manual bulb-type air blower), and if needs be PEC-12 fluid applied sparingly with PEC pads. | | Maris | | - Original Message - | From: Jack Whelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 9:07 PM | Subject: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides | | | | I have several trays of 35mm slides that I want to scan. Some of these | | slides are still in the carousel where they were placed 25+ years ago. No | | doubt there is dust. Any advice on how to minimize the dust? Use a vacuum | | cleaner? Compressed air? Thanks in advance. | | | | Jack | | | | _ | | Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp | | | | | _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor Insight is the ability to use one of several decimation ^ techniques from nearest neighbor(lowest quality) to bicubic(highest quality also longer). Your choice would depend on use. David David, Im very impressed! Someone actually used the correct term for this! Will the documentation actually use this term? ;-)
RE: filmscanners: silverfast 5.5, worth it?
No free upgrade, there may be a discounted upgrade for the AI portion only. I am trying to get the info now. I would try Insight for negatives, it usually works very well. David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 6:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:filmscanners: silverfast 5.5, worth it? I am thinking about upgrading from the default silverfast version that came with my SS 4000. I scan mostly negatives. Do you think the upgrade is worth the $45? Also, I heard there was a free upgrade for SS4000 customers. Is this true? thanks! -e
RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)
I really would love to see a crop from Polaroid scan of the same chrome side by side with one from a LS4000. Would be interesting.. 'ave a good one, Neil Try http://www.imaging-resource.com/. Mike Duncan
filmscanners: Archive?
Is there an archive for this list? I've been out of town.need to catch up! Thanks! Barbara -- Barbara White/Architectural Photography http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com
filmscanners: Still Frustrated with SilverFast
I'd like to thank people for the suggestions on my last post. However, I am still struggling after trying some of the recommendations. I did update to 5.2. I've tried it as both PS Plug-In and Twain. My configuration is Win 98/633MHz/512MB/PS5.5. My biggest problem is that it crashes the system when it loads up much of the time, especially if it has been used once already. So I have to do a reboot after each scan. My email toLaserSoft Customer Service has been unanswered in over a day, which I consider unacceptable for a professional product that really jacked up the price of the scanner. If anyone has fixed problems with crashing due to Silverfast, I'd be interested to know how to fix it. The other problem I have is with the preview window. For some reason, this continued after a complete remove and re-install operation. The preview window shrinks down to the control buttons at the left for any medium format size except 6x4.5. I trashed existing scans, I tried to pull the window (which will only go down), but when I have the size on anything but 645, it just won't do anything. The manual wasn't particularly useful since it said the preview pane can be pulled at the border. Any help is greatly appreciated. Jeff Spirer Photos: http://www.spirer.com One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
What documentation!! :) You expect documentation to!!! I have been pushing for this feature for at least nine months and it finally made it in. David -Original Message- From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 6:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more. One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor Insight is the ability to use one of several decimation ^ techniques from nearest neighbor(lowest quality) to bicubic(highest quality also longer). Your choice would depend on use. David David, I'm very impressed! Someone actually used the correct term for this! Will the documentation actually use this term? ;-)
RE: filmscanners: Archive?
http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ -Original Message- From: Barbara White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:filmscanners: Archive? Is there an archive for this list? I've been out of town.need to catch up! Thanks! Barbara -- Barbara White/Architectural Photography http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com
Re: filmscanners: Archive?
Hi Barbara-- Tony Sleep sent this out recently: Web archives for this list may be found at :- http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ At 4:22 PM -0700 23-10-01, Barbara White wrote: Is there an archive for this list? I've been out of town.need to catch up! Thanks! -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
Re: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
Thumbs Plus (a shareware browser and processor) has these options for resizing (OK Austin, 'decimate'!), in order of low to high quality: - nearest neighbour - bi-linear - resample - bicubic My experiments revealed that the first 2 weren't very good (I think they were only there for those with very slow machines), and that the difference between 'resample' (?) and bi-cubic was not much at all. As an interesting non-f-s side issue, I found that the 'resample' method was the most effective in reducing moire effects (those loverly patterns you get when scanning from halftoned images). Note for those getting started in all this, and have no money left after buying the scanner..:) - Thumbs Plus v3.3 (registered) was recently given away on some magazine cover CD's. That version is quite old and is strictly 24-bit I think, but it is the one I still use and it's VERY quick and easy. I would recommend it to anyone who doesn't understand/like the way PS/PSP/PI handle resizing and resolution. You'll still need your image editor for touchups etc but TP does resizing/rotating, cropping, gamma-bright-contrast, RGB color adjustment and some very nifty 'contact-sheet' printing, all *very* simply. mt PS - if you do try version 3.3, when installing tell it to leave its DLL's in the Thumbs folder - I **wish** more progams offered this!! PPS - if you're cheap like me and you can't find the free version, you can still download v3.3 from www.cerious.com. 3.3 doesn't get 'crippled' after 30 days like the new ones. mt David wrote: One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor Insight is the ability to use one of several decimation techniques.. This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
Re: filmscanners: best film scanner for bw negs
Hi Harvey-- So according to your summary of the discussion on the ColorSync list they decided that the artifacts being discussed were caused by scanner noise in dense areas. Certainly a well-known phenomenon. I on the other hand was referring to an instance where I caught myself erroneously attributing the effects of film grain to scanner noise. As far as I can tell we were talking about two different things. --Bill At 1:39 PM -0400 23-10-01, SKID Photography wrote: The threads on the colorsync list... The consensus of most was that the grain that was showing up in the dense shadows from the greater enlargements (samples) was due to the problem of electronic noise, and not, in fact grain... Bill Fernandez wrote: ...I couldn't understand why two targets of equal density on the same scanner could be so different; until I inspected both scans closely and realized that the 25mm target was hugely grainy, especially in the dense end of the greyscale. So what at first I thought was scanner noise turned out to be film grain. -- == Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com ==
filmscanners: Serious SilverFast Frustration
Hello all! I simply cannot make SilverFast work well. (Version 5.5.0r14, NK LS-2000, Mac OS 9.1, PS 6.0.1) Negatives scan with a nasty green cast and are usually too dark and muddy. I have set up color management correctly in PS; I believe I have also done so in SF (the manual is gibberish, but a knowledgeable user kindly assisted me). I have read Ian's clear and logical tutorials. I have carefully chosen perfectly exposed negs with a wide color range. I have tried every one of the settings available. SilverFast costs something absurd like $350 US to support ONE scanner family. VueScan costs $40 US to support scanners I never heard of! All of them! And it WORKS! It's ugly as a warthog, about as intuitive as, well, SilverFast, but it by God works! Yes, we could use profiles for some new Fuji films (I bet Kodak has that data available by now.), and a slide or two would do not harm, but the damn thing FUNCTIONS. (Even though Ed seems to have hired SilverFast's tech writers...) If anyone can explain how to make NegaFix actually fix something, I would appreciate it very much. Les
filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro REVIEW???
Thank you to Bernhard Ess and Victor Landweber for the URL on the Minolta review! Just thought you might be interested to know that you both know more than Minolta does! I called Minolta and spoke to a fellow in digital imaging. He knew nothing about any available reviews on the Scan Multi Pro. Also, he said there is no available information re: estimated shipping on the units. By the way, does anyone know how to email Minolta? I spent too much time trying to figure out how to send a simple email on their website. Finally, I just gave up. Thanks. Joyfully, -david soderman-
RE: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
Thumbs Plus (a shareware browser and processor) has these options for resizing (OK Austin, 'decimate'!), Thanks! ;-) Basically, decimate means to take away, interpolate means to add...so when you resize, it depends on whether you go up or down. Actually, the algorithms should be different for decimation and interpolation...so Id bet that the best algorithm is different for decimation vs interpolation. Thats just a guess, I really havent extensively analyzed the PS or other, algorithms. They give you what they give you!
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
Strictly speaking decimation means remove 1 in 10 hence the dec so it's definitely NOT the correct term even if some illiterate yank coined the phrase. ;-) Strictly speaking, in a normal English conversation (not engineering) you are entirely correct, sir. Personally I use down-sample (and up-sample for the reverse). Down-sampling is a fine term, but the word decimate is entirely correct in the DSP world...and is universally understood by people who design digital imaging systems (and any signal processing/DSP systems for that matter)...and we are talking about digital imaging systems, arent we? Heres some info on decimation filters, if youre interested: http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/AN9603.pdf http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/HSP43214.pdf The first document is a basic guide to digital filtering, and is quite for those who dont know anything about digital filtering...and it does have a section on decimation and interpolation. The second document is just a hardware decimation filter...just showing that is what they call it, not a down-sampling filter...I just use the terms, someone else makes them up ;-)
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
From Merriam-Webster dictionary One entry found for decimate. Top of Form ...OLE_Obj... ...OLE_Obj... ...OLE_Obj... Bottom of Form Main Entry: dec·i·mate Pronunciation: 'de-s-mAt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -mat·ed; -mat·ing Etymology: Latin decimatus, past participle of decimare, from decimus tenth, from decem ten Date: 1660 1 : to select by lot and kill every tenth man of 2 : to exact a tax of 10 percent from poor as a decimated Cavalier -- John Dryden 3 a : to reduce drastically especially in number cholera decimated the population b : to destroy a large part of firebombs decimated large sections of the city - dec·i·ma·tion /de-s-'mA-shn/ noun Bottom of Form I think you will find there is room for both uses Modestly Illiterately, David -Original Message- From: Steve Greenbank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more. - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:56 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more. One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor Insight is the ability to use one of several decimation ^ techniques from nearest neighbor(lowest quality) to bicubic(highest quality also longer). Your choice would depend on use. David David, I'm very impressed! Someone actually used the correct term for this! Will the documentation actually use this term? ;-) Strictly speaking decimation means remove 1 in 10 hence the dec so it's definitely NOT the correct term even if some illiterate yank coined the phrase. ;-) Personally I use down-sample (and up-sample for the reverse).
E-mail conacts, was, Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro REVIEW???
david soderman wrote: By the way, does anyone know how to email Minolta? I spent too much time trying to figure out how to send a simple email on their website. Finally, I just gave up. It is amazing how companies do not really want to be bothered answering questions, especially via email. There are so many, not just Minlota, equipment and software manufactures (like Adobe) out there that do not give any e-mail contact information on their websites...And these are companies that have a tangential relationships with the web based world! end of rant, sorry. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: best film scanner for bw negs
Bill, Maybe then I'm not understanding you. If what you are saying is true, then the 25mm sample is not the same density as the larger format, because of the grain (or more properly, the space between the grain). Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC Bill Fernandez wrote:- So according to your summary of the discussion on the ColorSync list they decided that the artifacts being discussed were caused by scanner noise in dense areas. Certainly a well-known phenomenon. I on the other hand was referring to an instance where I caught myself erroneously attributing the effects of film grain to scanner noise. As far as I can tell we were talking about two different things. --Bill At 1:39 PM -0400 23-10-01, SKID Photography wrote: The threads on the colorsync list... The consensus of most was that the grain that was showing up in the dense shadows from the greater enlargements (samples) was due to the problem of electronic noise, and not, in fact grain... Bill Fernandez wrote: ...I couldn't understand why two targets of equal density on the same scanner could be so different; until I inspected both scans closely and realized that the 25mm target was hugely grainy, especially in the dense end of the greyscale. So what at first I thought was scanner noise turned out to be film grain
Re: filmscanners: newton rings
- Original Message - From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've never personally encountered it, and not using glass mounts, I also haven't needed it. I suspect companies which supply offset printers might be a source. Perhaps other on the list will know. Bill Grimwood wrote: Thanks, where is this powder available. The powder is called Psilium powder, and is a transparent spore of the Psilium Lycopodum. I do not know who sells it, but this will help track it down. I thought that the Psilium Lycopodum spores were 'fingerprint' powder. Dang! I think you are right. Old age isn't creeping any more; it is at full gallop! Sorry for the bum data, folks. Jim Snyder
filmscanners: Lossless JPEG Rotate ???
I've been using ACDSee for three + years to view my images. It wasn't until last night I found out that ACDSee only has lossless JPEG rotate if the image is divisible by 16. Not that it makes a difference if your viewing full size images from digital cameras, because those pixel dimensions are divisible by 16. 1600x1200 or 2048x1536 etc... But I've been sizing my images at either 450 or 500 pixels (long dimension) and during a quick test I found that ACDSee trimmed my image to be divisible by 16. My CoolPix Gallery has 500 pixel JPEGs. I rotated one in ACDSee and found that it was trimmed to 496 pixels. I rotated the same image in Photoshop and found that it remained full. Just something to be aware of. If you're going to rotate your sized JPEGs for printing and such, be careful. Larry *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com ***
Re: E-mail conacts, was, Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro REVIEW???
I think many of them are concerned about an e-mail-delivered virus. Of course there are lots of ways around that, but it at least makes for a good excuse. Of course, also, they really aren't all that concerned about what their customers have to say, anyway... Hersch At 08:09 PM 10/23/2001, you wrote: david soderman wrote: By the way, does anyone know how to email Minolta? I spent too much time trying to figure out how to send a simple email on their website. Finally, I just gave up. It is amazing how companies do not really want to be bothered answering questions, especially via email. There are so many, not just Minlota, equipment and software manufactures (like Adobe) out there that do not give any e-mail contact information on their websites...And these are companies that have a tangential relationships with the web based world! end of rant, sorry. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: LS-4000, calibration and Windows XP
I've noticed that I get much better results from Nikon Scan 3.1 if I disable color management. If I continue using this technique, I assume I should make a profile for the scanner that I'd assign to images in Photoshop. I could also use this profile with VueScan when scanning in raw format - at least, that's what I think. Do not use VueScan for a 'real' raw scan. Vuescan does something to the CCD data (I forgot what exactly, but it is in the help file). As for the Nikon device profile: The only place you can use it is in Photoshop opening the raw scan and assigning the device profile in the 'missing profile' dialog. Vuescan uses its own version while scanning, not a custom-made one. And after the image comes out of Vuescan, you don't want to assign a device profile anymore, but rather use a working space profile. Barbara Nitz -- GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet. http://www.gmx.net
