[filmscanners] Re: Some findings/thoughts on the Sprintscan120(comments verywelcome please)
I said previously: A CCD scanner will not read the deepest shadows of transparency film Well, I may have to eat my words here. I've spent the evening testing the LS-8000 using some of the chromes that have given me fits in the past. One slide in particular that I had to use the two scans and combine in Photoshop trick, the LS-8000 sailed through with flying colors. I made three scans, all with ICE and the same curves correction: 1x multi sample, 8 bit, 3 CCD, 4x multi sample, 8 bit, 1 CCD, and 4x multi sample, 1 CCD, 14 bit. The correction was pretty extreme, to lighten and then add compensating shadow contrast using both curves and LCH editor (lightness channel). The first scan had major banding (it was a big band), so Nikon's statements that banding increases with increasing contrast edits is definitely true. The second had no banding, and was good enough really, so I wasn't expecting any improvement in the third hi-bit scan. After all, Nikonscan processes the correction in hi bit before saving to disk, right? I was surprised to see that the hi bit scan was considerably better in the shadows than the 8 bit scan, as shadow transitions were much smoother and there was more detail. In fact, on the 14 bit scan there was shadow detail I can't see on the #$%@ light table! This is a first in my experience. Perhaps I could see it if I masked the chrome off (on the light table), but I didn't bother, I was convinced already. Scan times go way up with all the goodies dialed in, so they'll only get use as necessary, but it's still a hell of a lot less time than I spent hunched over in front of the monitor scanning this image before, and this time I was on the sofa catching the news while the scanner whirred away. All of the scans I did need very little or no post processing in Photoshop. Somebody pinch me, I think I'm dreaming. Dave Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Why this horizontal line pattern in my night shotscans?
Hi Titis, I took a look at your two scans (I'm biting my tongue not to make a comment about the rhyme between two scans and your last name.) ;-) Anyway, from what I can see, these two samples show two different problems. You'll note the Scanwit lines are somewhat random in position and density, while the ones from the Nikon LS8000 are regular and of similar density. From the samples, I cannot tell if the images are horizontal or verticals. Assuming the samples are on the web page in their proper positioning relative to the full image, I'm guessing that both scans are from horizontal images, but that the Nikon was scanned with the 6cm as the width and the 4.5cm as the length. The Acer (Benq) Scanwit scan, shows a few interesting things. After brightening up the image a bit to see the streaking better, I note that the thin line about 3/8 from the bottom shows up on all three channels. I suspect this might be a thin long scratch in the film base. The blue channel is showing noise and streaking, but the jpeg artifacts make it hard to determine what is going on exactly. The Green channel shows banding and streaking, and the red channel a bit of both as well. But these bands and streaks take place in different locations along the CCD lines, making a somewhat colored streaking. This can be a mixture of events. Some of it might be CCD noise, although that usually is more random speckling, some are just calibration errors in each CCD line of elements. Some might even be due to random dust on the individual CCD lines causing incomplete or inaccurate calibration of individual sensor elements. I doubt if there is much to be done about it. The Nikon is more interesting. The banding is more regular. It seems to only be in the Red and green channels, and it appears to be the same locations in both. Yet, the blue looks fairly clean. It may be that the jpeg compression has obscured the banding in the blue channel. Also, the image is mainly deep blue in that area, which may mean the blue channel is at a higher light intensity than the red or green channels. It seems, in general, miscalibration in scanners is more obvious in the darker areas. If this banding is indeed the notorious Nikon LS-8000 banding at play, the way they fixed it was to rescan your image using the scanner in superfine mode which uses only one of the three CCD lines, making for a more consistent calibration. It takes about 3 times as long to scan that way. Art Titus Tucan wrote: Hi everybody, I've scanned a 35mm slide, a night shot, on my Scanwit. In the lower part of the slide where it was supposed to be black or almost black I got a pattern of horizontal lines as seen here on my web site http://www3.sympatico.ca/titust/scan.jpg I have tried the Scanwit software MiraPhoto and Vuescan and got the same results. Looking at the slide trough a projector, there is no trace of theses line. Recenty, I went to my photo shop to scan another Velvia night shot MF (6x4.5). They used a Nikon 8000 and ICE. When I went to pick up my CD and checked the file, the whole slide had a similar horizontal line pattern from scanning: http://www3.sympatico.ca/titust/scan2.jpg I complained and they scanned it again for me. The second time it was perfect. ! Now here comes the question? What is happening with these patterns and how did they get rid of it on the Nikon 8000. thanks a lot, Titus Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Scanning negs vs. slides
Hi guys. I just had a conversation with some experienced user of IV ED. During the talk, he mentioned that once he acquired the scanner and started to built his archive, he turned to negatives solely claiming that he found the results to be better scanning negatives in case of wide dynamic range captured on the film. He states that the image with featuring high contrast (night scenic for example) will be rendered much better by the scanner in terms of the details in dark, while highlights are still well preserved, whilst with slides often the dark details are missing being still resolved visually on light table under loupe. Is that correct ? I usually prefer to shoot slides for anything except people-related stuff, but if is opinions have much to reflect the reality, I would probably switch to negatives for outdoors also. Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Scanning negs vs. slides
Alex, expect a war after your post :-) This is a long debated topic: last thread I followed ended with (more or less) the agreement that high-end scanners (drum scanners) work better with slides, whereas prosumer scanners give better results with negatives (of course, slides have the advantage of providing a visual reference for color calibration, but that's another matter). In my experience I can confirm that both the Nikon LS-30 and the Canon FS4000, especially for contrasty images, give MUCH better results with negs. I have never even seen a drum scanner, so I'll let someone else confirm or reject the other part of the statement. Anyway, if you already own a scanner and don't plan to change it, you may want to test your equipment, since that's what you're going to deal with. Alessandro Pardi One day I'll have a website. Until then, you can see some of my work here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=189247 -Original Message- From: Alex Zabrovsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: lunedì 15 aprile 2002 13.19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Scanning negs vs. slides Hi guys. I just had a conversation with some experienced user of IV ED. During the talk, he mentioned that once he acquired the scanner and started to built his archive, he turned to negatives solely claiming that he found the results to be better scanning negatives in case of wide dynamic range captured on the film. He states that the image with featuring high contrast (night scenic for example) will be rendered much better by the scanner in terms of the details in dark, while highlights are still well preserved, whilst with slides often the dark details are missing being still resolved visually on light table under loupe. Is that correct ? I usually prefer to shoot slides for anything except people-related stuff, but if is opinions have much to reflect the reality, I would probably switch to negatives for outdoors also. Regards, Alex Z -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Scanning negs vs. slides
Thanks, I wasn't aware about the persistence of this issue on the List. Well, just after I hit Send button sending away my message, I thought it would be worthwhile to check it out shooting similar images simultaneously on slides and negs, scan then on my IV ED and then to make final decision. I think I'll do it soon. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alessandro Pardi Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 12:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanning negs vs. slides Alex, expect a war after your post :-) This is a long debated topic: last thread I followed ended with (more or less) the agreement that high-end scanners (drum scanners) work better with slides, whereas prosumer scanners give better results with negatives (of course, slides have the advantage of providing a visual reference for color calibration, but that's another matter). In my experience I can confirm that both the Nikon LS-30 and the Canon FS4000, especially for contrasty images, give MUCH better results with negs. I have never even seen a drum scanner, so I'll let someone else confirm or reject the other part of the statement. Anyway, if you already own a scanner and don't plan to change it, you may want to test your equipment, since that's what you're going to deal with. Alessandro Pardi One day I'll have a website. Until then, you can see some of my work here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=189247 -Original Message- From: Alex Zabrovsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: lunedì 15 aprile 2002 13.19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Scanning negs vs. slides Hi guys. I just had a conversation with some experienced user of IV ED. During the talk, he mentioned that once he acquired the scanner and started to built his archive, he turned to negatives solely claiming that he found the results to be better scanning negatives in case of wide dynamic range captured on the film. He states that the image with featuring high contrast (night scenic for example) will be rendered much better by the scanner in terms of the details in dark, while highlights are still well preserved, whilst with slides often the dark details are missing being still resolved visually on light table under loupe. Is that correct ? I usually prefer to shoot slides for anything except people-related stuff, but if is opinions have much to reflect the reality, I would probably switch to negatives for outdoors also. Regards, Alex Z -- -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Difficult scan problem
michael shaffer wrote: Most likely a white balance problem, and the fact neither software can properly determine the color of white for a microscope illuminated subject. What Maris suggests should work ... that is, Vuescan's advanced techniques should allow you to color correct a normal negative ... fix the mask correction, and then fix the color correction. These settings could then be used to scan the problem negs. We have played with all the colour controls in Vuescan and still can't get a satisfactory result so the scan is sent to PS and its altered in there. Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] SS4000 and XP
Hello All, Trying to install SS4000 on new computer with XP. Not recognizing scanner. Been to Polaroid site and - unless I'm not understanding something - it's not working for me. Can anyone advise? Thanks, Denise --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.346 / Virus Database: 194 - Release Date: 4/10/2002 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tri-X on Nikon 4000
You have ICE turned off, right? - Original Message - From: Steve Woolfenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 18:29 Subject: [filmscanners] Tri-X on Nikon 4000 I've just scanned a Tri-X neg on my Nikon 4000 and got a rather wierd effect unintentionally . I've not scanned much Tri-X before , but I've never seen this - its almost as if the pic has got a texture pattern laid over it . A bit like one of those painter effects.. I did it twice with the same result and applied no tweaks whatsoever either time. What the hell could it be?? Steve Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] scan lines ??
I am getting scan lines, (verticle) on an epson 1200 U Photo, Only on negs, 35,120,4X5, trans are ok, no lines..any suguestions ? I talked with an epson repair shop, inTexas, they said possiblly dust has gotten in scanner, but why just on negs ?? Thank You George Mitchell Carolina Lighthouse Aerials Photographic Services www.lighthouse-aerials.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] 910-326-4425 Cell 910-382-3644 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] LS-4000ED and Fuji Superia
At this address http://www.nagabyte.com/coolscan there is a test of Nikon LS-4000ED which says Digital ICE badly messes up on Fuji Superia films and there are samples pictures there which show change of image color when using ICE on Superia 800. Is this incompatibility still an issue? The test probably doesn't reflect recent updates in NikonScan software. I would be interested in your experiences (LS-4000ED, alternatively 8000ED users). Regards Tomek Zakrzewski Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tri-X on Nikon 4000
Do you have dICE running? Upi cannot use dICE with real (silver) blackand white film, because the IR cannot see through the silver. Try it with dICE off, and let us know if it is still occurring. Anthony and Art , thanks , but no its not the ICE - eventually I did what I probably should have done initially and looked at the negs through a loupe!! The patterns on the damned negs . I've never seen it before but I think its reticulation - so much for the crappy lab I used Steve Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Tue 16 Apr, 2002
To Tomek: I don't experience problems with Fuji Xtra 800 and an LS4000 scanner - see Faces on the T - Two Girls at: http://www.johnsidlo.com/imagesTitles.html I'll note that I had to tweak the color in this a bit, since these were fluorescent lights, but the Fuji 4th layer seems to make that easier if anything. for example. I use Nikon Scan 3.1.0. Although I have to say that Fuji 800 NPZ is much, MUCH better film. = To Steve Woolfenden: You are almost certainly using ICE when scanning Tri X. ICE does not work with B/W films, and Kodachrome, on all scanners that I know of. I've tried it, and got the same results. Turn off ICE and you'll be fine, or try a C41 B/W film, like XP2 or TCN400. Take a spin through the manual...(grin) John http://www.johnsidlo.com Topic: LS-4000ED and Fuji Superia Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:30:47 +0200 From: Tomek Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] At this address http://www.nagabyte.com/coolscan there is a test of Nikon LS-4000ED which says Digital ICE badly messes up on Fuji Superia films and there are samples pictures there which show change of image color when using ICE on Superia 800. Is this incompatibility still an issue? The test probably doesn't reflect recent updates in NikonScan software. I would be interested in your experiences (LS-4000ED, alternatively 8000ED users). Regards Tomek Zakrzewski -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- Topic: Tri-X on Nikon 4000 = Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:29:48 +0200 From: Steve Woolfenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've just scanned a Tri-X neg on my Nikon 4000 and got a rather wierd effect unintentionally . I've not scanned much Tri-X before , but I've never seen this - its almost as if the pic has got a texture pattern laid over it . A bit like one of those painter effects.. I did it twice with the same result and applied no tweaks whatsoever either time. What the hell could it be?? Steve -=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Nikon 4000ED vs. Nikon 8000ED
Hello All, Is there a qualitative difference between the Nikon 4000ED scanner and the Nikon 8000ED scanner? Does the 8000ED simply handle larger formats besides 35mm, or is there some other significant difference between the two scanners? Note that new 4000ED's can be had for about $1100.oo and new 8000ED's are being advertised for about $2300.oo on the price scan web sites. Thank You, Robert DeCandido, PhD NYC Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: SS4000 and XP
You may need the ASPI SCSI card driver for W2K which is available through a reference at Ed Hamrick's site. http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html Per Ed in relation to scsi interface If you're using Windows 2000 or Windows XP and a SCSI scanner and if VueScan doesn't find your SCSI scanner, you may need to download and install ASPI (you don't need this for USB scanners): ASPI for Adaptec SCSI Adapters ASPI for Other SCSI Adapters Rob Denise Kissinger wrote: Hello All, Trying to install SS4000 on new computer with XP. Not recognizing scanner. Been to Polaroid site and - unless I'm not understanding something - it's not working for me. Can anyone advise? Thanks, Denise --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.346 / Virus Database: 194 - Release Date: 4/10/2002 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Scanning negs vs. slides
Alex, I found the best comment on the topic of slides vs negs in a photo magazine a few days ago: The negs can record many levels of light (wide input range) but the slides can capture many more tones in a narrower input range. That's why usually a well exposed slide looks very rich, very dense. When I did some informal tests with my Polaroid SS4000 I was impressed with the Provia 400F scans - very good color reproduction and low grain. My 400 speed negs weren't that spectacular. Granted, I was using consumer grade film: Kodak Max 400 and Fuji Superia 400. Petru. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Difficult scan problem
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:51:20 +0100 Simon Lamb ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: When I scanned the image I found that all pixels from about 210 to 255 were showing as black and I could not get any detail to show, even though I know it is there from a scan done on a Sprintscan 120. The histogram shows that the detail should have been there. The fact that there are pixels of values 210-255 says there is a range of luminosities, and if you can't actually see them, to me it suggests a problem with monitor calibration on the system. But check : what happens if you run the PS eyedropper over the pixels which look black, do the luminosity values change? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Scanning negs vs. slides
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:17:10 -0400 Petru Lauric ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: That's why usually a well exposed slide looks very rich, very dense. When I did some informal tests with my Polaroid SS4000 I was impressed with the Provia 400F scans - very good color reproduction and low grain. My 400 speed negs weren't that spectacular. ...but you *can* produce scans from negs which look as saturated and punchy as scans from slides. Either way is just R, G B 0-255. With slide you discard a lot of image information at the shooting stage, with colour neg you defer those decisions until working on the scan and have a whole new degree of freedom not to mention endless second chances when you decide you got it wrong. Slide often forces you to sacrifice either shadow and/or highlight detail. With neg, you can if you wish retain both, by combining (say) an image which has good shadows and midtone separation but blown highlights, with one where you mask off the image apart from the highlights then adjust for those. This works absurdly well, is not difficult, and enables informal photography of subjects which would be impossible on tranny without an array of studio flash fill-in. Best done in 16bit/ch though, if you don't want a histogram that looks like a dog comb. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Difficult scan problem
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:30:13 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Tony, what if the constant colour temp lightsource is a fluorescent discontinuous light source such as what he has said was the light source for the microscope; will what you suggest still hold? I have used col neg (Superia and other Fuji mostly) in various fluorescents and it copes wonderfully with no camera filtration. Unless the microscope lamp is very weird it should be possible to get good results. I haven't tried it of course, but I use the eyedroppers as described for colour correction with just about every colour neg I scan. Usually I use Vuescan White Balance as a starting point, save in 16bit, then do this in PS. PS Auto levels is frequently very wrong and I seldom use that. With crystals, mostly there is going to be a problem finding anything in the image which is a mid-ish-grey to use the midtone eyedropper on. But fixed exposure and illuminant remove the variables, so provided a decent set of corrections can be obtained and saved using an image which does contain a neutral grey, merely applying the saved levels adjustments should give a good result with all images from this setup. Close enough that all that may need doing would be limited to overall gamma, perhaps contrast, and maybe tweak the hue and saturation a little on some subjects. Oddly enough, over 30yrs ago I had a maths teacher whose hobby was photomicroscopy of crystals. He used (Agfa) colour neg and produced awesome 20x16's. It's worth persevering here I think. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Scanning negs vs. slides
At 12:47 16/04/02, you wrote: On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:17:10 -0400 Petru Lauric ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: That's why usually a well exposed slide looks very rich, very dense. ... and Tony wrote: ...but you *can* produce scans from negs which look as saturated and punchy as scans from slides. Either way is just R, G B 0-255. With slide you discard a lot of image information at the shooting stage, with colour neg you defer those decisions until working on the scan and have a whole new degree of freedom not to mention endless second chances when you decide you got it wrong. Slide often forces you to sacrifice either shadow and/or highlight detail. With neg, you can if you wish retain both, by combining (say) an image which has good shadows and midtone separation but blown highlights, with one where you mask off the image apart from the highlights then adjust for those. This works absurdly well, is not difficult, and enables informal photography of subjects which would be impossible on tranny without an array of studio flash fill-in. Absolutely! to this. But I agree too with what Petru says, in my experience if you find a subject which is low contrast (studio lighting or landscapes at the right time of day are my examples) there is something about a slide that is particularly enticing - it is not only the lack of grain (compared with expanded neg grain) but also a tonal continuity or velvetiness or it might be a richness that I have never got from a neg (35mm). I can get my negs to be punchy and saturated and spectacular, but never that smoothness velvetiness or richness that a well exposed slide brings. But that said I use negs almost always, for the reasons Tony said here. Julian Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Difficult scan problem
I have used col neg (Superia and other Fuji mostly) in various fluorescents and it copes wonderfully with no camera filtration. While I have found this to be the case as well with normal subjects wherein the film was printed via traditional wet photographic methods rather than via scanning and outputting to monitor and/or inkjet. The poster did not say how the output was to be produced (e.g., on a monitor, inkjet, or something else). Since there are various types of fluorescent tubes that can generate a variety of color casts, I would suggest that one would probably need some information on what type of tube is being used in the microscope lamp and what sorts of luminescences it in combination with the subject generate that the film may see and register that would be out of gamut for digitalization, for monitor color spaces, or for printer color spaces to determine if it indeed can be digitally reporduced as it appears on the transparency or on the photographic prints from the negatives. But this is just mere speculation on my part at this point given that most of my familiarity with the products of photomicroscopy with traditional photography has involved only black and white films and radiographs that ppeople from the local University bring me to process, proof, and/or print via traditional wet dorakroom methods. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 9:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Difficult scan problem On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:30:13 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Tony, what if the constant colour temp lightsource is a fluorescent discontinuous light source such as what he has said was the light source for the microscope; will what you suggest still hold? I have used col neg (Superia and other Fuji mostly) in various fluorescents and it copes wonderfully with no camera filtration. Unless the microscope lamp is very weird it should be possible to get good results. I haven't tried it of course, but I use the eyedroppers as described for colour correction with just about every colour neg I scan. Usually I use Vuescan White Balance as a starting point, save in 16bit, then do this in PS. PS Auto levels is frequently very wrong and I seldom use that. With crystals, mostly there is going to be a problem finding anything in the image which is a mid-ish-grey to use the midtone eyedropper on. But fixed exposure and illuminant remove the variables, so provided a decent set of corrections can be obtained and saved using an image which does contain a neutral grey, merely applying the saved levels adjustments should give a good result with all images from this setup. Close enough that all that may need doing would be limited to overall gamma, perhaps contrast, and maybe tweak the hue and saturation a little on some subjects. Oddly enough, over 30yrs ago I had a maths teacher whose hobby was photomicroscopy of crystals. He used (Agfa) colour neg and produced awesome 20x16's. It's worth persevering here I think. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tri-X on Nikon 4000
So they cooked the film for you and then threw cold water on it to cool it down afterward, eh? Well, just call it an artistic filter permanently etched into the film ;-) Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
