[filmscanners] Re: Better DOF than Nikon?
I will try taking some reject slides or dupes and create a warp of similar magnitude and see how the scanners respond. I may have to turn off autofocus. This will take me several days to get to, I'm afraid. Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: From: Arthur Entlich Well, that's hard to say without knowing the extent of the ripples and which model scanner you are considering. How much distance are we speaking about between the upper most and deepest ripple? Are we speaking of potato chip ripples or what? ;-) I have a Minolta Dimage Dual II and a Polaroid SS 4000+, and if you give me some dimensions, I can try to replicate it and see what they can do with it. Also, have you tried to remount the slides to see if they can be made to lie more flat? It's hard to measure, but just eyeballing it, I'd say that I have easily a millimeter of warpage on some of them. And it's not necessarily a smooth domed curve from one edge to the other--some slides have ripples down one edge. (Although a simple curve of sufficient magnitude would be an adequate DOF test.) I've remounted slides in anti-Newton glass mounts, and got somewhat better focus, but noticeable grain from the glass. However, there are two problems with remounting. First, it's extremely time-consuming. Second, some of the slides have ripples in them that even glass sandwiches won't take out. I really think that increased DOF is the only way I'll ever get decent files out of these. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Canon's FARE
FARE (the one in the film scanners) is indeed an IR cleaning method. I'm not quite sure what they are doing in FARE 2 for reflective scans. Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: Does this technology employ an IR channel? I notice that they say it doesn't work on BW and Kodachrome, which would imply it's IR. But I also notice that they put it in their top-of-the-line flatbeds--or is FARE 2.0 in the flatbeds different from the FARE used in the FS4000 film scanner? I'd also appreciate any feedback on the FS4000, or on the CanoScan 9900F flatbed when used for film or slides. As I said in another thread, I'm looking to replace my busted LS-2000, and would like to find something with better DOF, since I have loads of badly warped slides. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Imacon scans
Remember when Polaroid remaindered the SS4000? I bought one at the ridiculously low price... and it's still waiting to be installed! My main activity is editing music, my computer is set up as a digital audio workstation, and I simply haven't found the time to learn scanning Photoshop. Needing really good scans from a few significant 35mm images, I took them to my preferred lab, the Light Room in Berkeley. Rob, the owner, has an excellent track record with my work. He uses an Imacon scanner, and a couple of printers, including the high-end Epson (3200?). In recent weeks I've needed large prints of a couple of Himalayan images for a Tibetan Buddhist art show at Seattle Art Museum, so I called Rob and asked his advice. (One of the images, a richly detailed Kodachrome 25 of a Buddhist deity, shot in 1983, was scanned a year or so back at 5600 dpi, the other, more of a picture postcard of a landscape outside Leh, Ladakh, was scanned at 6300 dpi -- also K25.) He said there would be no problem printing them 18 in the narrow direction. When the prints arrived, approx 18 x 24 on half-sheets (23 x 34) of giclée paper, I was amazed. *All* of the fine detail in the Buddhist deity survived the enlargement, even at close viewing. Since there was a little cropping in the narrow direction, this means the degree of enlargement was actually 19x or 20x! The scenic isn't a great favourite of mine (the museum asked for it) but it too looks excellent. And the kicker is that I saved several hundred dollars from the price that the fine art giclée printer here on Maui wanted for the same work. Salutations, David Lewiston Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] JPEG2000 as archive format
Having just recently upgraded to Photoshop CS, I've been playing around with the JPEG2000 plugin. I'm considering using that format to save 16-bit film scans from a Sprintscan 4000 Plus using the lossless setting. This would help reduce the 115 Mb file size of those scans. (I'm using NEF for my Nikon camera files.) One problem I have is that I am now using Imatch as an Image management program. Imatch will catalog JPEG2000 only if I select the JP2 Compatibility option in the Pshop plugin. Adobe states generally that this causes color restrictions. And, I have to select the restricted ICC profile option in these images. I can't find a detailed explanation of exactly what limitations on color and color management this restricted profile or the use of JP2 compatibility causes as opposed to the extended JPF format. Does anyone have any thoughts On the suitability of lossless JPEG 2000 with and without JP2 compatibility as a scanner archive format? Thanks, Lloyd Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Imacon scans
On 10 Jan 2004 at 10:59, David Lewiston wrote: Needing really good scans from a few significant 35mm images, I took them to my preferred lab, the Light Room in Berkeley. Rob, the owner, has an excellent track record with my work.or body David-- the Light Room is literally down the street from me! I also have had excellent experiences with Rob's scanning on an Imacon--and highly recommend him for that. (OTOH, I've been less uniformly happy with his Ilfochrome printing). -matt -- Matt Haber dance, portrait and fashion photography http://www.matthaber.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Canon's FARE
Does this technology employ an IR channel? I notice that they say it doesn't work on BW and Kodachrome, which would imply it's IR. But I also notice that they put it in their top-of-the-line flatbeds--or is FARE 2.0 in the flatbeds different from the FARE used in the FS4000 film scanner? I'd also appreciate any feedback on the FS4000, or on the CanoScan 9900F flatbed when used for film or slides. As I said in another thread, I'm looking to replace my busted LS-2000, and would like to find something with better DOF, since I have loads of badly warped slides. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Does brand of film really make any difference nowadays?
With the big catch being that grain structure is different at a fixed ISO rating between brands of films i.e. Portra 160 vs NPC 160 etc... and with the observation *our film scanners can scan an incredible range of colours at high bit depth *digital photo editing tools are highly capable nowadays does it really make much difference if we choose to shoot with one brand of film or another? (assuming grain detail is the same) Dieder Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Canon's FARE
Hi Paul, On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:48:42 -0800, Paul D. DeRocco wrote: Does [FARE] employ an IR channel? Yes. But I also notice that they put it in their top-of-the-line flatbeds--or is FARE 2.0 in the flatbeds different from the FARE used in the FS4000 film scanner? That I don't know. I'd guess it's different, because I can't imagine how the IR Prescan technique could work with reflective media. I'd also appreciate any feedback on the FS4000, or on the CanoScan 9900F flatbed when used for film or slides. I've been very happy with mine, with two exceptions. First, specific to the FS4000, it's pretty slow. A full resolution scan of a 35mm frame, with FARE enabled, takes ten minutes or so. Second, all 4000 dpi scanners tend to get a lot of chroma noise due to grain aliasing. But, for half the prices of the Nikon (when I bought it) I've been very happy with mine. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Does brand of film really make any differencenowadays?
[From a lurker on this list] Well, I think so. Two simple examples--one from film per se, one from scanning. Last year I tested some film on a 4x5, comparing Velvia to Astia. Photos were on the coast, mid afternoon, clear skies but high humidity, hence the light was a little blue. The difference in the color was remarkable between the two--the Astia being blue/magenta, while the Velvia really brought out the greens. I showed the images to a group of people, a photography class, and everyone agreed that the Velvia was a much better image. If I had scanned the images, the first thing I would have tried to do is to match the film, and then improve it. If I hadn't had the Velvia, I wouldn't even have known that the image could be so much more alive. I don't know how much work it would have been to move the Astia towards the Velvia digitally, but I suspect it wouldn't be a simple transformation. Second example from scanning some medium format E-100S. A desert scene just after sunrise, orange light, blue shadows. The shadows, which were naturally a little blue, went more blue with the E-100, then even more blue on the scan. It was a lot of work to bring them back to something approaching what I had seen. If I had shot this picture on something other than E-100S, I suspect that I would have saved hours in Photoshop, and probably had a better final image. Again, my approach here was to first correct the scan to make it approximate the film, then improve it. Granted, I still have lots to learn about Photoshop A Dieder Bylsma at Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:25:00 -0800 said: With the big catch being that grain structure is different at a fixed ISO rating between brands of films i.e. Portra 160 vs NPC 160 etc... and with the observation *our film scanners can scan an incredible range of colours at high bit depth *digital photo editing tools are highly capable nowadays does it really make much difference if we choose to shoot with one brand of film or another? (assuming grain detail is the same) Dieder - --- 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: Does brand of film really make any differencenowadays?
On Saturday, January 10, 2004, at 12:27 PM, alan wrote: Well, I think so. Two simple examples--one from film per se, one from scanning. Excellent points and examples Alan. Though I mostly use digital cameras these days (Nikon D1X, Canon EOS 1Ds, and Kodak Pro Back) , I still shoot film. And it makes a huge perceptual difference with different films. Film choisce is like a painter choosing a palette. That palette will react differently in different light. You can tweak that palette in Photoshop but you will turn yourself into a mental pretzel and waste a lot of time trying to force one palette into another digitally. Ellis Vener http://www.ellisvener.com A photograph is not what was photographed, it's something else. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
