[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
Just mount in glass and the problem ceases to exist, not only that your originals are better protected. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:59 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Nikon LS4000 Depth of field Hi, I know there are regular posts about the limited depth of field of the LS4000 and one work around was to set the focus to some point between the centre and the corner of the frame. (I believe this is how Vuescan focusses by default on this scanner.) Although I think most people accept this is a valid concern, I'm still unclear how effective this approach is in getting round the issue. So two questions for those who have used the LS4000. Firstly, does the setting of focus point in this way work for 100% of shots or are badly bowed slides still compromised? Secondly, does Nikonscan allow you to set the manual focus point permanently to the optimum point or does it have to be reset for each scan? This issue seems to be the only real negative aspect of this scanner (well apart from the price and Nikon's notoriously poor customer support!). I hadn't intended to the stretch my budget to an LS4000 but recent posts on it's ability to get right into the shadows on dense slides (apparently without streaking or banding) have made me more interested in it. (I think I have also pursuaded myself that I do need the extra resolution of a 4000dpi scanner.) Given that the Canon FS4000 doesn't seem, by all accounts, to perform quite as well in the shadows and that Polaroid SS4000Plus may never reach Europe, my options are rather limited! Al Bond 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: Scanner calibration
Yes, I also used to work with Adobe 98 in both Nikon 3.1.2 and Photoshop delivering good, well balanced results, until recently the scanner began to deliver pinkish scans with which I'm struggling till now... Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Scanner calibration Alex writes: > If so, it seems I'll have to turn the Nikon > CMS off permanently. I've always had it turned off in Nikon Scan 2.x, as it just messes up too many things. It seems to work okay in Nikon Scan 3.1.2; I have the color space set to Adobe 1998 (the same space I use in Photoshop). 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: Scanner profile
In Photoshop I use Photoshop's own CM engine. I was told I will have to Assign Profile with the scanner's calibrated profile to the image brought into the Photoshop to do the thing. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanner profile >The same for Photoshop. I'll work in it acquiring the scans by calling > NikonScan as TWAIN. > The Photoshop is normally configured for Adobe RGB working > space, how to > tell him to treat the image using custom scanner's profile ? > (Or I only have > to tell NikonScan that, and the Photoshop will pick the > processed image > already ?) First, it depends on which color management engine you are using - the os's engine or Photoshop's engine. Second if you use the Photoshop engine, you can select the scanner's custom profile as the Photoshop workingspace which will cause Photoshop to operate on the same working space as the scanner's profile defines. This should result in the scanner output and the photoshop version being the same unless you fiddle with some other contols related to the scanner output in the scanner's driver or application. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Zabrovsky > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Scanner profile > > > Once I'll have scanner profile generated, how can I tell the > NikonScan to > use it instead of his own CMS ? > > > 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: New Purchase
I don't have these (I own Nikon IV ED) but from those you mentioned the Polaroid beats the rest hands down according to all reviews and opinions I heard, and also, considerable part of our community and very satisfied SS4000 users and once you will become happy owner of one you will be able to get very valuable assistance on the List. I would certainly go for one would it be available in my country. (Although Nikon IV ED isn't bad either :-) ). Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed Renenger Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 1:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] New Purchase Hello all, I am new to the filmscanners list, but am excited to be a part of this group. I am currently in the process of purchasing a film scanner and intend to buy a used scanner. I am debating between a Kodak RFS 3600, Polaroid Sprintscan 35 Plus (Model cs3600) and an HP Photosmart S20. Based upon my budget constraints, the Polaroid or the HP seem to be the logical choice. I would appreciate any recommendations for one over the other. That being said, I may be able to acquire the Kodak for a relatively reasonable price. If so, would you recommend that I purchase that instead? Based upon your experiences (or conversations from others) have you found the Kodak to be a significant step up from the Polaroid or the HP? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Ed Renenger 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:remove
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
dickbo wrote: > Just mount in glass and the problem ceases to exist, not only that your > originals are better protected. > Most, if not all, photo archivists will tell you today that glass mounting of slides is considered to accelerate aging due to chemical off-gassing getting trapped between the glass and slide. Also, the risk of fungal growth or other moisture related problems are higher with glass mounted slides. You are correct that they are better protected from handling errors. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: New Purchase
Oh, sorry. I obviously meant SS4000 or his young brother SS4000+. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 2:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New Purchase Alex, One correction... he is referring to the Polaroid Sprintscan 35 plus, which is an older scanner prior to the SS4000. It is not longer supported by Polaroid in any major way. Art Alex Zabrovsky wrote: > I don't have these (I own Nikon IV ED) but from those you mentioned the > Polaroid beats the rest hands down according to all reviews and opinions I > heard, and also, considerable part of our community and very satisfied > SS4000 users and once you will become happy owner of one you will be able to > get very valuable assistance on the List. > I would certainly go for one would it be available in my country. > > (Although Nikon IV ED isn't bad either :-) ). > > 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: Nikon LS4000 Depth of field
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 11:59:16PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > I know there are regular posts about the limited depth of field of the > LS4000 and one work around was to set the focus to some point > between the centre and the corner of the frame. (I believe this is > how Vuescan focusses by default on this scanner.) > > Although I think most people accept this is a valid concern, I'm still > unclear how effective this approach is in getting round the issue. > So two questions for those who have used the LS4000. > > Firstly, does the setting of focus point in this way work for 100% of > shots or are badly bowed slides still compromised? > No it doesn't because film can be bowed differently depending on the mount, etc. You personally need to find how far from the focus plane is acceptable for you and then take it from there. I sample various points on the film and then make a decision. It's time intensive but by far the best method. I also now do my best to ensure film is flat before scanning - I don't mount film anymore and also try and flatten it out prior to scanning (weighting it under books etc.). If all else fails then I cut the frame from the strip and mount on a glass mount. -- Tony Terlecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Running Debian/GNU 2.2 Linux Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Scanner profile
>In Photoshop I use Photoshop's own CM engine. Then when using Photoshop as the destination for your scanned files you should not be using any other engine and should have them turned off (this includes the scanner driver/software color management engine and the operating system's color management engine). Thus all color management of those images would be done by Photoshop and nowhere else. Other colormanagement aware applications should recognize and use the embedded profiles in the Photoshop exported or outputted files; those applications which are not color management aware will not recognize said embedded profiles and will display the file in whatever there native color space is which may very well be different and appear so. Similarly, under this senario, the scanner driver/program preview of the scan will not be necessarily the same as that displayed in Photoshop since the colormanagement will come after the scan has been done and exported to Photoshop, UNLESS you specifiy the scanner's color profile in Photoshop as Photoshop's working space (or you choose to do a soft proof using the scanner profile as your soft proofing profile, which in my oipinion is silly since the scanner product is not the final version that one would want to proof. >I was told I will have to Assign Profile with the scanner's calibrated >profile to the image brought into the Photoshop to do the thing. I am unclear as to what you mean by "to do the thing." What thing? I would say in general that with respect to the scanner, all you really should be concerned with is that it is calibrated which it does typically automatically using an internal calibration strip in most cases and not with the color space that it uses for its files if you are exporting it to another program for color management. Calibration and color management are two spearate and different although related activities; the former does not utilize profiles while the latter does; the former is geared to standardizing the scanner output so as to produce consistency between scans while the later is aimed at defineing color spaces so as to produce a common language which will enable those spaces to be translated from one device to another device with as much fedelity as possible. If the devices are inconsistent or uncalibrated, it will render any color management impossible; but if they are calibrated, it does not necessarily mean that they will be color manageable. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Zabrovsky Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 6:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanner profile In Photoshop I use Photoshop's own CM engine. I was told I will have to Assign Profile with the scanner's calibrated profile to the image brought into the Photoshop to do the thing. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanner profile >The same for Photoshop. I'll work in it acquiring the scans by calling > NikonScan as TWAIN. > The Photoshop is normally configured for Adobe RGB working > space, how to > tell him to treat the image using custom scanner's profile ? > (Or I only have > to tell NikonScan that, and the Photoshop will pick the > processed image > already ?) First, it depends on which color management engine you are using - the os's engine or Photoshop's engine. Second if you use the Photoshop engine, you can select the scanner's custom profile as the Photoshop workingspace which will cause Photoshop to operate on the same working space as the scanner's profile defines. This should result in the scanner output and the photoshop version being the same unless you fiddle with some other contols related to the scanner output in the scanner's driver or application. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Zabrovsky > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 9:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Scanner profile > > > Once I'll have scanner profile generated, how can I tell the > NikonScan to > use it instead of his own CMS ? > > > 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 films
[filmscanners] Re:Digital ICE
I have "graduated" from a Nikon LS2000 to a Minolta Multi Scan Pro. I now find that digital Ice does not work as well with the Minolta. Is this because of the higher resolution showing up more detail - scratches and muck . Or is this because its not as good as within the Nikon software? Rob Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
