RE: filmscanners: open and control
>A lot of people who talk about "evading" patents are confusing them with >copyright, which is another thing entirely. While many people do confuse the two, one must be careful not to assume that the distinctions and uses of the two which exist in one country hold for another. I made that mistake once by assuming that because copyright, trademark, and patent have given uses and meanings in the US they had the same meanings and uses in other places like the UK. Until recently, copyrights in the US were valid for a specific limited length of time and could be renewed multiple times by the original owner or those who had be assigned the copyright; currently copyrights in the US are valid for the life of the originator even if assigned to someone else, I believe, and are renewable for a limited length of time only once. Moreover, I believe that in the UK copyrights have a broader use than in the US. In the UK, I believe you can obtain a separate copyright for the design, design idea, and design concept of a patentable invention along with the patent for the actual invention; whereas, I do not think this is the case n the US where the patenting of an invention includes protection for the design, design idea, and design concept which is not a separable transaction. Tangible designs, design concepts, and design ideas or plans as abstract entities not tied to a particular concrete invention can be copyrighted, but not patented without being tied to a concrete invention. This, however, does nothing to undermine the main points which you have made. I just thought it was proper to suggest that the concepts being used should be regarded in terms of shades of gray across international borders and not in terms of black and white. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Rumary Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 11:15 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: open and control In <382693518.991527991110.JavaMail.root@web595-ec>, Lynn Allen wrote: > It seems to me that George Eastman circumvented Talbot's and other patents > very successfully vis-a-vis sensitized-paper and celuloid negatives--and > then proceded to take over or eliminate almost every other film and > camera-maker in the USA within a short span of time. This probably relates > more to the variations of the nations' laws than to the hypotheses at hand, > viz "control" vs. "open," IMO. > Eastman did _not_ evade Talbot's patents, as they had expired by the time he got into the photo business. At that time British patents lasted 16 years and I believe that Talbot invented his Calotype paper negative process about 1849. By Eastman's time paper negs had long been replaced by glass plates. A lot of people who talk about "evading" patents are confusing them with copyright, which is another thing entirely. Patents cover the basic principles of an invention but only last 16-20 years. Copyright covers the exact design of a particular product, and last virtually for ever. However when something is out of patent, you can sell something that *looks* different, even if it conforms to the same basic principles. For instance if Henry Ford had patented the motor car, then no one could have sold another motor car until his patent ran out. After that they could have sold other designs of cars, but *not* an exact copy of the Model T, as to do so would have infringed his copyright on that design. > Ansco managed to hold out > the longest, but is gone now except for the name. > I think Ansco were killed by the fiasco of "Anscochrome" colour film. As I understand it this was brought out in the fifties. Photographers thought it was wonderful, as it had a much higher speed than Kodachrome, which at that time was only about 10ASA. They saw that they could no take colour slides of fast moving subjects, or in lower light conditions - great!! However it was not so great a few years later when they found all the colours were fading from their Ansco slides! Anscochrome was not chemically stable, while Kodachrome has always been famous for its stability. As for US-made cameras being killed off by Kodak, I think it is much more a case of them being wiped out first by the Germans and then the Japanese. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
RE: filmscanners: open and control
Before we get into an argument that may be based in a) use of terms or b) the nature of laws in different countries, I agree with you on the specs you gave for copyrights. As for trademarks, I am not confusing them with copyrights; in the US they are two quite separate and distinct laws and legal entities. One does not copyright a trademark; one registers a trademark under the trademark laws. One uses two different notations for copyright and trademark designations. I am not questioning whether or not trademarks are forever or not; I am questioning the notion that your comments imply that trademarks are a form, type, or variation of copyright. I do not think this is the case in the world outside of the US; and I am sure it is not the case in the US. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Rumary Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: open and control In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Laurie Solomon wrote: > currently copyrights in the US are valid for the > life of the originator even if assigned to someone else, I believe, and are > renewable for a limited length of time only once. > I think you may be confusing copyrights for an "artistic" works, such as a book or piece of music, and those for trademarks etc. In most of the world artistic copyright now extends to 70 years after the death of the author. The copyright can be sold or transferred to another person or a company, or passed to the authors descendants but it still only extends to the 70 years after the death of the original author or creator. Copyright on such things as the Coca-Cola trademark goes on for ever, or at least for as long as it is still in use. Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
The film sizes for 120 and 620 are the same; it is only the spools that were different and which accounted for the change in product number. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control Rich wrote: >Can you still get 620 film? AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not mistaken. I think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras. Best regards--LRA -- On 07 Jun 2001 16:01:12 EDT Richard Starr wrote: >--- You wrote: >The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what Rich >is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth at least $1000, according to my >book. In that case, I'd *definitely* like to take a look at it! :-) > >Best regards--LRA >--- end of quoted material --- >I was taking about the Medalist II as it turns out. I checked Ebay and they >are running for a couple of hundred dollars as it appears. > >Can you still get 620 film? > >Rich > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
>Unfortunately, I'd have to drive 70 miles--and probably twice that--to buy a roll of 120 film of any flavor, upping the >price by 3 gallons of gas! Unfortunately, unless you live in a big commercial metropolitan area, anyone would have to drive a few miles to get to a retail outlet that carries 120 or 220 film, which is why most people order it via mail order or off the net and have it sent to them at their locations. >The 620 spool is 7/8" diameter. It takes fewer pictures that 120, which means it would be smaller--by how much, I'm not >sure, The spool size does not really impact on the size of the frames or the number of pictures per roll. It is the size of the camera's aperture which determines the size and number of pictures that will fit on a given length of film for the most part which why you can shoot 10 frames of 6cm x 7cm images on a 120 roll, 12 frames of 6cm x 6 cm on a roll of 120, 15 frames of 6cm x 4.5 cm images on a roll of 120 film, or only 8 6cm x 9cm frames on the 120 roll. Obviously the 6 cm dimension remains the constant. Rolls of 220 film the same as 120 film but twice as long; they fit on the same spool as 120 film. The difference is that unlike 120 film there is no paper backing for the film only paper leader at both ends of the roll. I believe that the reason that you got fewer images on a 620 roll was that the film was thicker which meant that there was not as much of it in a roll in terms of length. As for the differences in diameters of the spools, I do not know what the difference is myself since I do not have a spool handy at present; but any difference in spool diameter was so as to enable it to hold the thicker film in a more or less equivalent amount. With respect to the difference in camera backs for 620, 120, and 220, it has to do with the pressure plates which hold the film flat with thinner film like 120 requiring more pressure than 120 film because it does not have the extra thickness created by the addition of backing paper. I assume that the 620 required even less pressure because of its added thickness of the film plus the additional thickness created by its paper backing. This, of course, could be a drawback to using 120 film in a 620 camera but not as much as trying to use 220 film in that 620 camera since the differences in film thickness and backing paper thickness are more or less negligible while the difference between having and not having the paper backing is significant. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control Michael wrote: > The 120 and 620 film and backing paper are the same size but the spools are very different in size and are not interchangable. 620 is no longer made by Kodak. and Laurie wrote: >The film sizes for 120 and 620 are the same; it is only the spools that were different and which accounted for the change in product number. Oh,oh. I knew I was probably wrong about this almost as soon as I punched the "send" button. Now everyone knows how long it's been since I've actually been "exposed" to medium format film! Unfortunately, I'd have to drive 70 miles--and probably twice that--to buy a roll of 120 film of any flavor, upping the price by 3 gallons of gas! I have a flock of 620's--all pre-1960--none of which are actually good enough to buy film for other than out of curiosity. The 620 spool is 7/8" diameter. It takes fewer pictures that 120, which means it would be smaller--by how much, I'm not sure, since I don't have a 120 in my collection. *Should* have, certainly, but don't. *Some* of the cameras will accommodate a larger spool. The cheaper ones will not. Eastman Kodak, to their credit, used to make up special orders of discontinued film sizes for Old Camera buffs. I don't know if they still do--I haven't actively pursued it. An earlier post mentioned that 120 can be re-spooled to 620. I may be the only Old Stuff collector on this list. But if anyone thinks *filmscanners* are defensive about their choices, you should visit a meeting of Old Camera Collectors!! Uhm, no, you probably shouldn't. ;-) Best regards--LRA BTW--$200 doesn't seem like a bad price for a working Medalist II. If you really want one, that is. :-) > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen >Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:46 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control > > >Rich wrote: > >>Can you still get 620 film? > >AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not >mistaken. I think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras. > >Best regards--LRA > > >On 07 Jun 2001 16:01:12 EDT > Richard Starr wrote: >>--- You wrote: >>The Super Six-20 was a folding camera, if I'm not mistaken. If that's what >Rich >>is talking about, it's pretty rare and worth
RE: filmscanners: Colour fix problem
Ever think of doing something similar to split contrast printing as used in traditional Black & White photographic printing but this time with respect to color correction. Namely, make adjustment layers for each of the different items that need a unique color correction, masking off the other items, and then make the required color correction for that specific item. When you are done, merge the different layers down. This will give you a particularized adaptive color correction as opposed to a global one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ian Boag Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 12:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Colour fix problem I have attached two heavily crunched down photos. I am looking for help here on how to fix one of them. Last year I went to the RAF museum at Hendon. I took pictures on regular Fuji 200 film using a Konica Revio APS camera. I also had an Agfa 1680 digicam. The museum has some kind of arc lighting which came out all green in the prints. It scans like that too. See greenmig.jpg (the pic is a Mig-15). The scan was done on a Kodak FD-300. Comes out much the same whether I use their auto fix on scanning or not. The digicam took a picture that looks about right (see digimig.jpg). Generally the FD-300 does a job that I am happy with. My problem is how to fix the green scans. If I just throw in magenta correction I eventually get the plane looking right, but the roof and surroundings go bad. The situation is complicated of course by the fact that the camera suffers from vignetting at full aperture on max wide. Any ideas would be gratefully accepted. Ian Boag
RE: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control
Michael, I am willing to accept what you say about the thickness and length of 620 compared to 120. I just seem to remember reading and hearing that it was slightly different especially in thickness and maybe length. Well, so much for relying on memory. :-) Happy to be corrected when wrong; but my understanding as to differences in thickness would help explain curl - too bad it evidently does not fit the facts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Creem Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Re: filmscanners: open and control 120 and 620 film were the same size width, length and thickness. The only difference was the shape of the spools. The 620 spool had a very thin core and slim ends. The 120 spool had a thicker core and fatter ends. The 620 spool and film together made a more compact package than a spool of 120. If I remember correctly, there were problems with film curl with 620. There were very few high end camera that used 620. Hasselblad always used 120. Michael
RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
Thanks for your input on the Kodachromes. I just noted it to point out that the statement by Derek Clarke, like most statements of this sort, are true under certain conditions and not as universal unqualified statements as his statement implies:"I think you'll find that nothing will last as long as Kodachromes." Epson's archivial claims for the 1270 should serve as a case in point where archival longevity statemetns were true only under the stated lab conditions and did not account for ozone or gaseous pollutions. As for Brian Eno's comments, I agree with them for the most part. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave King Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 12:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Kodachrome has better dark storage than E-6. E-6 is better for use in slide projectors, but any valuable transparency should be duped for "slide" projection anyway. Brian Eno (the musician) points out the most relevant issue regarding the digital vs analogue archiving issue. He said something to the effect that "analogue degrades gracefully, digital catastrophically". The idea of re-doing a digital archive every so many years isn't practical in my view. What happens to the archive when you get hit by that bus with your name on it? So many valuable artifacts have lain in obscurity for years before "discovery". Current digital will likely not survive that, and the purpose of a true archive is survival beyond the life of the creator. Even badly faded analogue artifacts can be restored, if need be. Once digital is dead, it's dead, Fred. Dave - Original Message - From: laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 11:17 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings > I forget which is the case; but Kodachromes only had either longevity with > respect to dark storage or longevity with respect to lightfastness as > compared to E-6 but not both. While the Kodachrome process is entirely > different from E-6 which may stabilize the dyes as you say, it is always > possible that there is an inherent limitation in dyes which restricts > stability of one type versus another; whereupon the manufacturer has to make > compromises. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 4:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings > > > Unfortunately I think you'll find that nothing will last as long as > Kodachromes. > > The completely different process used means that the dyes can be made more > stable. > > And it looks to me that Kodachrome is slowly on the way out. > > Soon the only game in town for longevity will be digital re-copied to more > modern media and possibly converted to a more modern file format every > five years or so... > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arthur Entlich) wrote: > > > Silly me, I used almost exclusively Kodachrome back in the 60's 70's > > and 80's. I only really moved to E-6 films after they convinced me I > > could trust them (in the 1990's), (other than Afga slides which used > > some weird process (CF??) which has failed completely on me, and will > > need to be dealt with via digital repair (for what is left of the > > image). Even the Agfa stuff made me nervous enough to go back and > > reshoot on Kodachrome before I left the area (good intuition that > > time...) > > > > I do have some 40+ year old slides from childhood that are looking > > pretty ratty and some negs from the 70's and early 80's that need a bit > > of help, but these are in the minority. > > > > I think today's slides and negs (properly processed!!! and stored) will > > remain very effective images for a long time to come. If they last as > > well as my 1970's Kodachromes, I'll be overjoyed. > > > > Art > > > > Isaac Crawford wrote: > > > > > Hersch Nitikman wrote: > > > > > >> For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning > > > my > > >> personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from > > >> the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my > > >> 30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration of > > >> Color) very badly. Ed Hamrick's independent version in Vuescan has > > >> done some remarkable things for me, turning slides that were very > > > much > > >> faded to a predominantly magenta image into very much more believable > > >> ones. I would not count on slides and negatives to be truly > > > 'archival' > > >> unless stored under 'archival' conditions, and maybe not even then. > > >> Storing and renewing a digital image on quality media every few years > > >> still seems like the best means now available. > > >> Hersch > > > > > > > > > This is an interesting idea that doesn't get talked about as much. > > > B&W > > > film has far better archival qual
RE: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
Tony, While all films today may not be Estar, they are not acetate from what I understand - may be Mylar or someother plastic base - but I could be wrong about that. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings) On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:42:21 -0500 laurie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Before anyone goes off the deep end on this, it should be remembered > that > this does not necessarily hold true for contemporary films but only for > films from around the 1960s and 70s or before for the most part. It appears to apply to all films on acetate stock. Very few films (sheet film aside) use an Estar base even now. AFAIK among 35mm/120, only Kodak HIR & Tech Pan are Estar. Maybe also P3200/TMZ - can't remember offhand. > The conclusion that one can draw is that there is no totally permanent > archival materials that last forever or, in the case of photographic > images, > the with certainty will last for centuries no matter what you do. Yup. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's
Technically no; but you can probably get away with it if you make them low resolution thumbnails, since you are using the images to advertise the selling of supposedly legitimate original prints or copy prints which the scans represent and not the scans themselves or prints made from the scans. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Nichols Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:45 PM To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk Subject: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's I know this is off topic, but since so many members here that produce photo's commercially I hope you can answer a question for me. I purchased a set of 4 Landscape Prints at an auction a couple days ago. It is my intention to sell them on eBay, however, they are un-signed so I am not to optimistic. My question is: "Can I scan them, and display a small picture of them on eBay for advertising without violating the copyright of the original photographer?" TIA, /fn
RE: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's
Actually Lynn, if you look at my response, you will find that we are for all intents and purposes in agreement on this. :-) Laurie -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 8:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's Frank wrote: >I purchased a set of 4 Landscape Prints at an auction a couple days ago. It >is my intention to sell them on eBay, however, they are un-signed so I am >not to optimistic. > >My question is: "Can I scan them, and display a small picture of them on >eBay for advertising without violating the copyright of the original >photographer?" Here we go again on the slippery slopes of "Intellectual Property!" I would say yes, because you own them and you're trying to sell them. Art, Laurie, Bill Gates and Michael Getty would probably say "No!" As long as you're not selling multiple prints you've done yourself (which would be a definite no-no), it would be impractical for the photographer or his/her heirs to sue you. You might even learn their identity. :-) Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
>I'm told by those who have that virtually all infringers will >gladly pay your triple licensing fee in accordance with ASMP and EP >practice rather than chance a suit over a registered image. This statement is slightly over-optimistic and a little lacking in qualifications. First, it probably is truer of legitimate established picture buyers, who would probably pay the licensing fees anyway, than the average man on the street or the causal image buyer who is running a personal home office operation. The latter do not understand, like, or support copyright rights and reject notions of having to pay to use things on the web, for starters; they also are willing to play the odds against getting caught since they often are engaging in relatively small and narrowly focused distribution of the used images. Moreover, they often count on the costs in time and effort as well as the monetary expenses of the copyright owner undertaking proceedings against them legally to dissuade any such action from being taken against them since they recognize that they are little fish and that, despite any court's orders, you cannot get more money from someone than they have - they also may be protected from personal penalties if they formed a corporation and acted under the cloak of that corporation. Second, it is up to the copyright owner to be vigilant in protecting his or her copyright, which means that you would have to be spending a lot of time and effort keeping track of your images and their potential and actual uses in the marketplace in order to be able to bring any action against an infringer. This is often more trouble than it is worth; and most infringers know that. Furthermore, they also know the speed of the courts in hearing and acting on cases, which is extraordinarily slow and tedious. Thus, they are prone to count on the copyright owner not pursuing the case to a legal conclusion but - at worst - settling out of court for pennies on a dollar of what they might have obtained if they had gotten the license fees or the legal penalty had been levied. Like locks, copyright notices and the like are basically only for the honest and should not in and of themselves be regarded as practical protection against deliberate infringements - actual or potential. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan McQueen Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright At 12:07 AM 7/22/2001 +1000, Rob Geraghty wrote: >I note there's been some discussion of copyright lately. I just uploaded a >stack of new pictures to my website, and it's taken quite a while to process >them all. On the larger images I've put "(c) Rob Geraghty 2001" where the >(c) is the proper copyright symbol. I've also marked each picture using >Digimarc watermarking, which is built into Paintshop Pro. The watermarking >works OK on larger images (like 1024x768) but makes smaller images (320x200) >really poor. It makes the images look like they've used a higher level of >compression than they have. I guess 320x200 is so small that nobody could >do much with it, but it's also too small to put the text copyright message >in. > >Has anyone else tried this sort of thing? If you want to see what the >images look like they're on http://wordweb.com and click on the Stories link >in the index at the top, then the link to the story about Airlie Beach. >They've all been scanned using a Nikon LS30 scanner with Vuescan. This is >the argumentative film which Vuescan's dust and scratch filtering doesn't >seem to work on. > >I'd be interested to hear the comments of others on the subject of >copyrighting images for web publication. > >Rob I do something similar on my website ( http://www.smcqueen.com ). I wrote a Perl script that takes the original TIFF file, plus a text file with info for the database, and produces two JPEGs--one for a thumbnail and a larger one to display when someone clicks on the thumbnail. Both images are produced in 72ppi density. The larger one has some framing that contains a copyright notice. The thumbnail doesn't, because as you've noted, there really isn't room. Although I use PSP, also I don't bother with the Digimarc watermarking, because it is not that hard to break (or so I've been told) and I think degrades the image somewhat. With small (200x200 or 400x400) images at 72ppi I'm not too worried about someone stealing the image and producing a magazine spread or calendar layout. In addition to the copyright notice on the larger image, there is a copyright notice on the entire site noting that all images are copyrighted by me unless otherwise marked. (For example, I have a picture of me taking a picture on the front page. That photo was taken by friend and fellow photographer Gary Hall. I have his copyright notice on it and a link to his website.) Finally, I register all my images with the copyright office by periodically
RE: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's
>I believe catalog use (for sales) is usually considered "fair use", and >protected from copyright infringement. I don't think so Art. The qualifier here is the fact that the owner of the prints being sold happens to be the one advertising them via use of the image or is authorizing an agent to promote the sale of those prints via the use of their image. The use of the image is not what is being sold here; nor are reproductions of the advertised prints being sold. That, I believe, is what makes this a special case. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 4:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's I believe catalog use (for sales) is usually considered "fair use", and protected from copyright infringement. You might wish to place a watermark through the image, so the digital file is not reproducible in any realistic manner. Art LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > > Technically no; but you can probably get away with it if you make them low > resolution thumbnails, since you are using the images to advertise the > selling of supposedly legitimate original prints or copy prints which the > scans represent and not the scans themselves or prints made from the scans. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Nichols > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:45 PM > To: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. Uk > Subject: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's > > I know this is off topic, but since so many members here that produce > photo's commercially I hope you can answer a question for me. > > I purchased a set of 4 Landscape Prints at an auction a couple days ago. It > is my intention to sell them on eBay, however, they are un-signed so I am > not to optimistic. > > My question is: "Can I scan them, and display a small picture of them on > eBay for advertising without violating the copyright of the original > photographer?" > > TIA, > > /fn
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
Rob, Registering a copyright in one country first gives you copyright protection in that country even if you do not live there or are not a citizen there and second may give you some legal standing in other countries if you should wish to bring legal action against someone who has infringed on the copyright in that other country. In the later case, the copyright registration in the US for example provides a prima facia case for common-law legal claims in another country like Canada, UK, Australia, etc. even if one has not formally registered the copyright in those countries and may not be fully entitled to the complete copyright protections or punitive damages and sanctions furnished under that copyright laws of that country. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 10:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright "Stan McQueen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's a little hard to tell from your post, but I'm assuming that you are > not arguing in opposition to registering the copyright on one's images. What protection does registration with the *US* Copyright office offer if the person who infringes your copyright is in another country? Conversely, what good does the US copyright office offer myself as an Australian citizen? Presumably I can't mail CDs of pictures to the USA for registration. I don't know of such a service in Australia. Rob
RE: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's
Tony, The only caveat that I would offer is that, in the US at least, if the image copyright is registered with the copyright office, there are mandatory costs and fines associated with copyright infringements independent of damages or consequential losses. Otherwise I agree with what you have said and the main thrust of your point with respect to the pragmatics of any legal actions in cases like those being considered. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 6:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Copyright on Photo's On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 19:44:51 -0600 Frank Nichols ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > My question is: "Can I scan them, and display a small picture of them on > eBay for advertising without violating the copyright of the original > photographer?" Strictly speaking no, but Sothebys, Christies etc would be out of business if anyone took any notice of this. In UK at least, copyright damages are usually limited to the consequential loss to the copyright holder, and in such instances that is zero. If anything it does their reputation good, as a free ad., so nobody is likely to object. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
>It's a little hard to tell from your post, but I'm assuming that you are >not arguing in opposition to registering the copyright on one's images. Correct. >If your image is registered, even the "casual image buyer" will have much >to fear from you, because he will have to pay your court costs. You will, >in all likelihood, end up owning his business. Even if logically true, this is not practically so. The "casual image buyer" often has little or no knowledge or understanding of copyright laws or the consequences of violating them so they do not typically serve as an effective deterrent in the case of that class of buyers. Those in that class of buyers who do regularly infringe on copyrights or are prone to will continue to do so playing the laws of averages which favors their not getting caught or having legal action being pursued against them. Having said that, one also has to recognize that the monetary fines and legal penalties associated with the criminal aspects of copyright infringement depend on the decisions of the judge who often takes into consideration such things as the deliberateness of the infringement and any potential "fair use" aspects that might apply when deciding on penalties and sanctions. Moreover, such penalties and sanctions (i.e., criminal sanctions and costs as opposed to civil) go to the state and not the copyright owner who in criminal cases is not the plaintiff. The copyright owner is the plaintiff only in the civil aspects of the case where court costs, legal costs, and damages are granted to the copyright owner under the provisions of the copyright law. But here again, it is up to the judges discretion as to how much within the range permitted by the law will be allowed. The judge does not have to grant the full amounts stated in the copyright law's statutory statement of penalties and damages but only has to grant a reasonable amount given the circumstances within those statutory limits. >I don't believe the incorporation status matters. Incorporation cannot >shield one from illegal acts. Since most copyright law violations and infringements are civil matters and not criminal violations, incorporation does furnish a great deal of protection to the individuals within the corporate structure. If the violation was a criminal one rather than a civil violation under the law, you might be right. However, incorporation also typically affords protections in that commercial violators often are corporations owned by corporations who are subsidiaries of corporations that are owned by layers of holding companies. This is one of the reasons why mail order scams never result in the arrest, trial, conviction, and sentencing of individual perpetrators who are the main beneficiaries; it is only the small fish that get caught and punished. >If an individual uses your copyrighted images on their website (and you >find out), you can notify the ISP of the infringement. Since they don't >want to hand their business over to you, they will generally cooperate, or >so I'm told by those who have done it. Once again the effectiveness of this action depends on the ISP. Many ISPs claim and argue that they are mere conduits for information and data transfer and not policemen. They will take action only after the courts have deemed the infringement legitimately an infringement in violation of the law (i.e., after the legal action has be resolved by the courts). If the general effectiveness of the suggested approach were high, I would suggest that we would see similar effectiveness in the impact of complaints on ISPs controlling spam and pornography that flows over their portals and/or via hackers utilizing their networks and addresses. The fact is that any effort on their part at preventing copyright infringement tends to work with only the honest violators who have done so without malice of deliberate intent and not on those who knowingly and deliberately use images in violation of copyrights. It is for these reasons that I say you might be overly optimistic. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan McQueen Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 9:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright It's a little hard to tell from your post, but I'm assuming that you are not arguing in opposition to registering the copyright on one's images. I have never experienced infringement myself. I am getting my information second hand from the EP and StockPhoto lists. I should have mentioned that the people who have told me this have all experienced the infringement at the hands of (otherwise) legitimate publishers who would normally have licensed the image, but probably didn't due to some administrative foulup. If your image is registered, even the "casual image buyer" will have much to fear from you, because he will have to pay your court costs. You will, in all likelihood, end up owning his business. Of course, if the
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
I am arguing that people should not get their expectations up as to the nature of the protection that copyright registration provides, the ease of enforcement, the extent of the costs of insuring against copyright protection in terms of time and money, and what they anticipate by way of punitive damages and regular damages or other sanctions from infringers. It is not a good thing to leave the impression that, once one registers a copyright, one's work is automatically protected by some sort of magical enforcement that provides universal coverage without requiring any time, effort, or expense on the part of the copyright owner. It is also not a good thing to leave the impression that, once one has registered one's copyright, one will automatically receive the full amount of the statutory damages provided for in the US law if the infringer is found to have actually infringed by a court of law. In short, I think that the original remarks tended to present a very oversimplified picture that could cause more misunderstanding than not and lead to higher expectations than is practically the case in actual reality. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan McQueen Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 5:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright At 02:16 AM 7/22/2001 -0500, you wrote: > >It's a little hard to tell from your post, but I'm assuming that you are > >not arguing in opposition to registering the copyright on one's images. > >Correct. Then what are you arguing about? And why? I'm concerned that the effect of your argument will be to convince people that it is not worthwhile to go to the effort of registering their images. That would not be a Good Thing would it? Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
RE: filmscanners: OT: Copyright Registration
Thank you Terry. It was a very informative treatise and very worthwhile. There was one sentence that had me wondering: "So, for example, if you're an Australian trying to assert a copyright against an infringer in the UK, you go by UK rules; a US registration will probably not help you, unless the UK has some odd departure from the usual system." If you were an Australian bringing an infringement action in the UK, how does a US registration enter into the example at all except under some strange circumstance. I can see how it might enter into the example if one were a US citizen bringing infringement action in the UK but I fail to see why a typical Australian would apply for an US registration in the first place if they were holding an Australian Copyright. A technical point of qualification with respect to your statement: "The other thing is that you are ordinarily required to register your copyright prior to bringing suit. That's right; while it is true that you get a copyright automatically by creating a work, you're not able to enforce it until you register." This is only true with respect to bringing legal action under the federal copyright act; you do not need to register the copyright in order to bring legal action in the state courts under state laws for theft of services or property, appropriation of goods and/or services, or some other non-copyright type of legal provision in a state law. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Terry Carroll Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 9:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: OT: Copyright Registration There were a number of messages on this lately, and I apologize if posting a response is beating the proverbial dead horse, but I will try to bunch up what would have been multiple replies into this single message. (Up front: I am a lawyer, and copyright is an important part of my practice. I work in-house for a company, not in a law firm and not as a solo practitioner, so I don't represent any clients other than my employer. For credibility's sake, I should add that, in addition to my Real Job, I teach Copyright Law at Santa Clara University School of Law on the side.) In the US, as in most countries, you get a copyright in the work as soon as you create the work; technically the test is that it has to be "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." Exposing the film is probably enough, even if it's not yet developed, although I don't know any cases on this in the real world, since you can't copy a photo from undeveloped film. Registration is not a requirement. However, if you have a reasonable belief that you might be infringed, it's not a bad idea. Here's why. Ordinarily, when a copyright is infringed, the copyright owner can either get his economic loss due to the infringement (e.g., lost sales); the infringer's profits due to the infringement; or both, to the extent that they don't overlap (that is, you can't point to a particular sale made by the infringer and count it both as a profit to the infringer and a lost sale for you). But, if you register your work on time, you can elect to get "statutory damages" instead of (not in addition to) the above measure of damages. Statutory damages are set in the copyright statute, ordinarily in a range of $750 to $30,000, as the court deems just. The ceiling goes up to $150,000 if the infringement is done willfully. It can also go down to $200 for "innocent infringement." This is a per-work limit, by the way; so if the infringer is taking, say, four of your photos, the range is $3000 - $120,000, up to $600,000 if willful (or down to $800 if innocent). In addition, and perhaps as importantly as statutory damages, is attorney's fees. You can't get them unless you register on time. You don't necessarily get them if you do register on time, but at least you're eligible. This is in contrast to statutory damages, which you can elect as a matter of right at any time if you're registered on time. So when is "on time"? Well, for infringement of an unpublished work, your registration will entitle you to statutory damages and make you eligible for attorneys fees if you register prior to when the infringement starts; no fair waiting until you see that you're being infringed, and then filing your registration. For published works, it's timely if you register prior to the start of infringement or any time in the three months following publication. The other thing is that you are ordinarily required to register your copyright prior to bringing suit. That's right; while it is true that you get a copyright automatically by creating a work, you're not able to enforce it until you register. The exception is for non-US works (which essentially means either works that authored entirely by non-US nationals and, if published, are first published outside of the US). Copyright owners of those works can sue without getting a registration (although the
filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
If memory serves me, I think I remember some discussion about digital Ice not working all that well on traditional silver black and white negatives because of the silver which does not allow the infrared to work properly as it would in dye based films. But I am at the age where I could very well be in the midst of a giant senior moment. :-) -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve WoolfendenSent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 4:25 AMTo: FILMSCANNERSSubject: filmscanners: ICE and B&W? I seem to get odd effects when scanning B&W negs using ICE on my Nikon 4000 - like posterization . I vaguely remember someone once telling me this happened - can someone tell me why and if theirs a way around it other than just not using ICE on B&W negs? Thanks , Steve
RE: filmscanners: Wet-mounting slides?
I would think that what you propose would be as much of a pain in the butt as what you are now doing with your glassless renovation of the original Minolta holder and would be a lot more messy. I personally use the glass holder and have had neither any trouble with such things as flatness or Newton's Rings nor with it taking too much time to place and align the film within the mask. I am not sure what benefits are to be derived from a glassless version - let alone a wet mounted version. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeffrey Goggin Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Wet-mounting slides? >AIUI, it's common practice with drum scanners, >but I've never heard it being done on a CCD >scanner, unless one were using a glass film >carrier. (Which might be useful if one were >scanning a 6x9 cm negative, perhaps.) I have a Minolta Scan-Multi and it uses a(n anti-newton) glass carrier for medium-format film. I've been tinkering with a modification to the holder that makes it glassless and while this works -- and works quite well -- it's a PITA to scan more than a few images at a throw because it takes so much time to load and align the film properly. I thought maybe if I use mounting fluid with plain optical glass in the carrier, I might achieve better results still and faster loading to boot... Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM installed on them and using Win 98 and have not experienced any problems of the sort you describe. I have experienced problems with the motherboard not being able to resolve conflicts in timing between different types of 168 pin DIMMs but no operating system related problems. One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:12 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows 98. In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98. I think Microsoft's suggested workarounds on MSDN are hilarious. I wish I could move to Win2K, but I am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have will not work in that environment. So here's the warning in case you plan to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer: >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the maximum >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if needed. >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from 0xC000 >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. > >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, leaving >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine). > >WORKAROUND >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods: > >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. > >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: > >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that Windows >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less. > >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration utility, >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge >Base: >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings > >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB >or less. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
I have also been told that; but noone has ever suggested exactly how one determines if it is being used or not. I noticed in both systems that since the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication that the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. Since all my heavy RAM use is with image editimg applications and they all use either the swap file in Windows or theirown scratch files, it is difficult to determing when they have stoped using actual RAM and switched over to virtual RAM. Howver, you may be right; I just do not know how to tell. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500 LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and > the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-) Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what I have been told to expect. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Rob, Your explanation sounds like a very reasonable one. I am sure that your bringing up the issue is appreciated by all on the forum - some of whom might very well be effected. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 1:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Laurie wrote: > Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM > installed on them and using Win 98 and have not > experienced any problems of the sort you describe. The Q page on Microsoft's site says "...you *may* experience one or more of the following symptoms..." (my emphasis). The article doesn't enlighten as to why some systems might and others might not. My guess is that the hardware (eg. motherboard, what cards are plugged in etc) has a lot to do with it. The article also notes that the problem may occur "more readily" with AGP graphics adapters in the system. I simply thought "power users" of RAM in this forum might like to know about the issue. As I mentioned earlier - I'd upgrade to Win2K today if I knew all the devices and software would still work. I'm reasonably positive they wouldn't. If all I was doing was scanning and editing pictures, I would already be running Win2K. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>This is probably because you are usually using a process that is grabbing >sufficient memory to prevent the file cache getting big enough to block >every other process. You could be right. >File servers are the most likely machines to be afflicted with this problem. But wouldn't file servers be using Windows NT or 2000 rather than Windows 98 as their operating system? If so this appears to run counter to Rob's comments: "In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K)" -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Greenbank Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 3:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows This is probably because you are usually using a process that is grabbing sufficient memory to prevent the file cache getting big enough to block every other process. File servers are the most likely machines to be afflicted with this problem. It may come and bite you anytime so unless your feeling really lucky you may wish to look at my post just above this one. Steve - Original Message - From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:18 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > Funny, I have two systems with more than 512 MB of RAM installed on them and > using Win 98 and have not experienced any problems of the sort you describe. > I have experienced problems with the motherboard not being able to resolve > conflicts in timing between different types of 168 pin DIMMs but no > operating system related problems. One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and > the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-) > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 12:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > > > I'm just about to plug another 256MB of RAM into my computer and I thought > I'd better check up on a bug I'd heard mentioned in relation to Windows > 98. In fact the bug applies to all versions of Windows other than those > in the NT class (NT 4.0 and Win2K), not just 98. I think Microsoft's > suggested > workarounds on MSDN are hilarious. I wish I could move to Win2K, but I > am reasonably certain that the combination of hardware and software I have > will not work in that environment. So here's the warning in case you plan > to have more than 512MB RAM in your Windows 95, 98, 98SE or ME computer: > > >The Windows 32-bit protected-mode cache driver (Vcache) determines the > maximum > >cache size based on the amount of RAM that is present when Windows starts. > >Vcache then reserves enough memory addresses to permit it to access a cache > >of the maximum size so that it can increase the cache to that size if > needed. > >These addresses are allocated in a range of virtual addresses from > 0xC000 > >through 0x (3 to 4 gigabytes) known as the system arena. > > > >On computers with large amounts of RAM, the maximum cache size can be large > >enough that Vcache consumes all of the addresses in the system arena, > leaving > >no virtual memory addresses available for other functions such as opening > >an MS-DOS prompt (creating a new virtual machine). > > > >WORKAROUND > >To work around this problem, use one of the following methods: > > > >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum > >amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click > >the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge > Base: > > > >Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size > >Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that > Windows > >uses to 512 megabytes (MB) or less. > > > >For additional information about how to use the System Configuration > utility, > >click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft > Knowledge > >Base: > >Q181966 System Configuration Utility Advanced Troubleshooting Settings > > > > >Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB > >or less. > > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com > > > >
RE: filmscanners: Wet-mounting slides?
Hans, I see what you are saying; I just did not think of this when I wrote my reply. I was focused more on things like flatness of the negative, newtons rings, and troublesome inconveniance issues whicht he original post directed attention to when I said that I was not sure what the benefits were. As for evaporation and non-messiness of mounting oils, what you say may be truer of drum scanners where the oil is open to the circulating air as opposed to the Minolta film holders which sandwich the film between two sheets of glass where the chance of evaporation between scans and after scans is less efficient. It would seem in those circumstances one would have the bother of wiping down the two sheets of glass and the holder between scans and after one finishes with the holder; one would also have to be concerned with the effect that the oil and/or its leakage or dripping might have on the internal workings and parts of the Minolta film scanner which was not set up for wet mounting and may not have sufficentair circulation within the scanner to allow for evaporation of any excess oil that might find its way into the inner workings of the scanner. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hans Rijnbout Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Wet-mounting slides? On 26-07-2001, LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: >I would think that what you propose would be as much of a pain in the butt >as what you are now doing with your glassless renovation of the original >Minolta holder and would be a lot more messy. I personally use the glass >holder and have had neither any trouble with such things as flatness or >Newton's Rings nor with it taking too much time to place and align >the film within the mask. I am not sure what benefits are to be >derived from a glassless version - let alone a wet mounted version. In theory wet mounting would have the advantage that scratches in the film and most dust particles become almost invisible, because their refractive index is close to that of the mounting oil. The glass plates should be so thick that the outside of the glass is sufficiently out of focus. A good mounting oil evaporates reasonably fast and leaves no residu. -- Hans Rijnbout Universiteit Utrecht, CBLE Postbus 80.054, NL-3508 TB UTRECHT tel: ++31 30 253 4567 fax: ++31 30 252 2478
RE: filmscanners: Digital Copyright
I agree with you; but not everyone sees even traffic enforcement in that light. Many people tend to view laws and offical documents as being objective clear-cut, non-discretionary, absolutes and their enforcement as a mere turnkey operation which requires little effort, thought, deliberation, or costs to implement the enforcement of taffic laws or copyright laws. In short, many approach laws as black and white principles whose enforcement is more or less automatic rather than as pragmatic affairs whose enforcemetn is a practical matter. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Copyright LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > > I am arguing that people should not get their expectations up as to the > nature of the protection that copyright registration provides, the ease of > enforcement, the extent of the costs of insuring against copyright > protection in terms of time and money, and what they anticipate by way of > punitive damages and regular damages or other sanctions from infringers. (much cut) I see copyright regulation and enforcement like traffic lights. You sort of hope everyone follow them because the consequences of not doing so could be very messy, and being the one in the right is no guarantee that you'll be any less harmed than the person in the wrong. Art
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
As I have already said in earlier posts, my experience with ram greater than 512MB on two different Win 98 systems have been different in that I have been less likely to run out of system resources, get out of RAM messages, or find the additional RAM to be a waste or unused. Given my experiences being different from that of others and what has been written, I would suggest that you cannot accept at face value as a universal given that RAM above 512MB with WIN 98 will be a waste or unutilized; nor can you assume that it will create problems in WIN 98. You have to just get some additional RAM and try it on your system with your motherboard and chipset to see if it works and works well. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows I understood and would like someone to confirm that the Windows resource meter had nothing to do with how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of usage of some stack or similar. When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still regularly run out of resources because I seem to run some programmes that are heavy on resources (Eudora and Info Select) and because windows is just hopeless at managing resources, and because IE5 gets confused and refuses to release, until there are no more left. I have to reboot regularly just to regain resources. I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or RAM is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend. Julian Win 98 non-SE 384MB RAM At 04:03 27/07/01, you wrote: >. I noticed in both systems that since >the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately >less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's >resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication that >the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the additional RAM is being taken into account and used? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 5:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I noticed in both systems that since > the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately > less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's > resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication > that > the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. AIUI Resources meter shows only useage of 3 internal OS stacks which are of fixed size (System, User, GDI) and don't vary with RAM installed. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Matrox and Monitor standby
It seems that some motherboards have energy saving features in their BIOS which sometimes fight with those of their operating system; the fight can turn into an all out war when certain devices are used. You might try to disable alternately the energy saving features of the motherboard using only those of the OS and, if that does not work, than disable those of the OS using only those of the motherboard's BIOS. I would also suggest checking the Matrox web site to see if this is a problem with your BIOS or OS or contacting them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 1:53 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Matrox and Monitor standby "Colin Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Slightly off topic here, sorry about that. Recently installed a Matrox G450 > on my W98 (not SE) machine, and now I can't wake the computer/monitor > up after the monitor only has gone into Standby after x minutes of idleness. > It hangs, and has to be re-booted. I had a similar problem on my computer. I had to disable the power saving features. I think the problem was caused by PNP insisting on putting the SCSI card and video card on the same IRQ. It would caue hangs when power saving occurred while writing a CDR on the SCSI CDR drive. Rob
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Thanks! I remember seeing it but did not understand at the time what use it might be or how to use it. It now becomes clearer that it might be the more appropriate indicator as you suggest. Thanks for bringing it back into my memory. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows If you have Win95 or Win 98 there is a little utility called SYSMON. It has a fantastic range of graphs it can show you, including Allocated RAM, Swapfile in Use, Disk Cache Size, Unused Physical RAM. Do a File Find for SYSMON. If you can't find it, search your Windows disk. Very handy in tweaking one's configuration (e.g. setting PS's memory). If you can't find it I can mail it to you... Jawed > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon > Sent: 26 July 2001 19:03 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > > > I have also been told that; but noone has ever suggested exactly how one > determines if it is being used or not. I noticed in both systems > that since > the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately > less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's > resources available), which is one thing which I take as an > indication that > the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. Since all my > heavy RAM use is with image editimg applications and they all use > either the > swap file in Windows or theirown scratch files, it is difficult > to determing > when they have stoped using actual RAM and switched over to virtual RAM. > Howver, you may be right; I just do not know how to tell. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500 LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > > One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and > > the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-) > > Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what > I have been told to expect. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film > scanner info > & comparisons > >
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Thanks for the recommendation; I will take a look and hope that I understand what I am looking at. :=) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows At 11:27 28-07-01 +0100, Tony Sleep wrote: >On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >wrote: > > > Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the > > additional RAM is being taken into account and used? A more informative Task manager should be helpful. Try TaskInfo2000 at http://www.iarsn.com/index.html to get more information about application memory usage. Look at the screenshot on the site to see what information it can display. NT and Win2K include a highly configurable Performance Monitor (perfmon.exe) but Win9X doesn't have equivalent functionality built in. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
The only caution that I would add is that not all memory despite the fact that they are said to be compatible with a given motherboard or with other DIMMs may not be and may act up in ways other than expected. Apart of the obvious differences between PC 100 and PC 133 RAM or ECC and non-ECC chips, there are slight differences between manufacture's products which a finicky mainboard and CPU might react to. Alas, there are also CL1, CL2, and CL3 varieties of 168 pin PC133 DIMM sets of RAM which appear to have slightly different timings which some systems do not work well with if you get the wrong type or mix types. I discovered this when I tried to install a couple of 256MB PC133 CL2 chipsets into a system with a 256MB PC 100 CL1 chipset; they did not work well together resulting in crashes and periodic slowdowns in operations until I replaced the CL2 DIMMS with CL1 DIMMS. This is just a caution and some additional information for you in your evaluations. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 8:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows OK thanks Rob and Rafe for luring me to check the price of memory. I nearly fell off my chair - $68(australian) for 256MB so I bought two, and a 40G HDD as well what the hell I was trying to work out what to do to save my over-full disks anyway. I have just installed same, now have double the RAM and more than double the HDD space after retiring a few bits. As for "resources" this (below) is what I was trying to say and wanted confirmed. In fact, from the observation that System resources is always the most pessimistic of User and GDI, I assume it is just an "overall" figure and there are actually only two stacks involved. Who knows... all I know is that I run out of the damn things and it is very annoying, and I am sure that my comparatively huge new memory will not change this one iota. Will report on effect of 768MB on my W98 system when I get time. Looks good so far, fingers crossed that I am one of the lucky ones. Cheers, Julian At 12:38 28/07/01, you wrote: >"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > I noticed in both systems that since > > > the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows >proportionately > > > less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's > > > resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication > > > that the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. > > AIUI Resources meter shows only useage of 3 internal OS stacks which are >of > > fixed size (System, User, GDI) and don't vary with RAM installed. > >Tony is correct. The system resources have nothing to do with free RAM in >general, >only with available space within the fixed User, System and GDI blocks. > >Rob Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Yes, so I have been told. I stand corrected and less ignorant than I was prior to having the meaning of system resources explained. I do appreciate everyone's patience with me and helpful explanations, Despite my wrongfully using the wrong indicator, my experiences still remain the same regarding the Ram over 512 MB being utilized in my system and setup under Win 98. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > I noticed in both systems that since > > the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately > > less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's > > resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication > > that the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. > AIUI Resources meter shows only useage of 3 internal OS stacks which are of > fixed size (System, User, GDI) and don't vary with RAM installed. Tony is correct. The system resources have nothing to do with free RAM in general, only with available space within the fixed User, System and GDI blocks. Rob
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Thank you Pat. That was a most illuminating and helpful description of what the hell system resources is and does as well as how it works in WIN 98. I already know some of this but did not really understand it until your response. It may be because it was an excellent response or because I have gained some computer aging and maturity along with the increased background that goes with it to make me ready to understand it now. As for your second paragraph, I concur which is why I stated in some of my posts that it has not been my experience but I may have been lucky. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pat Perez Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows Strictly speaking, what Win 3.x through Me consider 'system resources' are a fixed amount of memory regardless of how much system memory you have. I seem to recall that in 3.x it was two 64K heaps and increased in 95, where it has stayed the same until Me. These heaps control how many environment variables, how much memory can be utilized by applications for dynamic variable access and various and sundry other things. One of the real big resource hogs was fonts. The more you have, the fewer system resources available. The increase in the heap sizes after 3.1 mitigated the effect, but didn't eliminate it as a cause. In short, any 9x based variant has resource handicaps as compared to NT/2000/XP, which can just keep assigning more memory (either physical or virtual) as needed. The 512 meg barrier described is real, but due to different uses to which people put their computers may or may not affect you. Additionally, some motherboard/chipset combinations have issues with large memory spaces (of course in 10 years we'll laugh at the present day notions of what large memory is). Pat - Original Message - From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:57 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > As I have already said in earlier posts, my experience with ram greater than > 512MB on two different Win 98 systems have been different in that I have > been less likely to run out of system resources, get out of RAM messages, or > find the additional RAM to be a waste or unused. Given my experiences being > different from that of others and what has been written, I would suggest > that you cannot accept at face value as a universal given that RAM above > 512MB with WIN 98 will be a waste or unutilized; nor can you assume that it > will create problems in WIN 98. You have to just get some additional RAM > and try it on your system with your motherboard and chipset to see if it > works and works well. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 8:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows > > > I understood and would like someone to confirm that the Windows resource > meter had nothing to do with how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of > usage of some stack or similar. > > When I increased my RAM I didn't notice any change, and I still regularly > run out of resources because I seem to run some programmes that are heavy > on resources (Eudora and Info Select) and because windows is just hopeless > at managing resources, and because IE5 gets confused and refuses to > release, until there are no more left. I have to reboot regularly just to > regain resources. > > I'd also like to know if it is true as Tony suggests that aver 512MB or RAM > is a waste, as I was thinking of getting more RAM on the weekend. > > Julian > > Win 98 non-SE > 384MB RAM > > At 04:03 27/07/01, you wrote: > >. I noticed in both systems that since > >the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately > >less system resources being used than previously (ie., more system's > >resources available), which is one thing which I take as an indication that > >the additional RAM above 512 is being taken into account. > > > Julian Robinson > in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Neither did I which is why, evidently wrongly, chose to use the system resource meter as my indicator. I do know that I get fewer out of memory messages when using Photoshop, when scanning, and the like than I did before adding the memory above 512MB. The only place where I sometimes run out of space is when printing if the windows\temp folder gets too clogged up with orphaned files - which is something that really has nothing to do with the amount of physical RAM installed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 5:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the > additional RAM is being taken into account and used? Dunno, especially as I think PS does some of its own memory management instead of the OS. But I simply don't know enough to say anything useful. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Matrox and Monitor standby
It very well could be that the clock and harddrive recognition are based soley on battery power all the time and do not use power cord power at all, which would account for the clock slowing down if the batter is going dead even if the computer is plugged into an active power source. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Rumary Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 11:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Matrox and Monitor standby In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Geraghty wrote: > Problems like the clock losing the time and the computer "forgetting" > what hard drives are connected usually indicates a faulty battery on > the motherboard. There is a small battery which allows the static > RAM in the real time clock to remember the time and IDE settings etc. > Yes I had thought of that. This would explain the MB forgetting the time and HDD setting while the mains power was off. But I can't see how it would explain the clock running slow and the computer not being able to "see" the slave HDD when the power was on! I am beginning to think that I have just got a bad board, and I will have to see about getting a replacement for it. > Again, the best resource for these issues is the gigabyte newsgroup. > Yes I think you are right. I will have to follow this up there and stop boring this list with my computer problems! Brian Rumary, England http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
RE: filmscanners: Colour depth: 16 bit versus 16 bit linear?
In Minolta's language, the 16-bit lineal is a pure and simple raw scan using no gamma corrections or any other tone, color or inversing corrections at all, including any corrections for color negative masks; the 16-bit scan does do some basic corrections like autofocus ( if selected ), gamma adjustments to the gamma setting you select, application of color mask filters, and reversing of negatives into positives. Both produce 48bit tiff files (16 bits per RBG channel) which results in a smoother more defined historogram containing more raw information than is the case for 24-bit ( 8 bits per RBG channel) scans. The difference is that a lineal scan is the more basic of the two in that it applies no curves at all to adjust for gamma and no color mask filters. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Edmonds Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Colour depth: 16 bit versus 16 bit linear? Please can someone throw some light on this for me. My Minolta ScanSpeed software has a setting for 16 bit or 16 bit linear colour depth but the help file doesn't give any indication of exactly what the difference is. I'd really like to understand what the difference is and why you should use one setting or the other. Any ideas please? Thanks in advance, Mark
RE: filmscanners: Bypassing the scanner software filters and getting the raw data?
What you are getting is basically a raw scan. If you are going to do this, making corrections and adjustments later in an image editing program, you should probably make sure that you are getting high bit 16 bit linear scans, which will involve selecting that option in the Minolta software driver. Some have argued that it is better to make curve and levels corrections at the scan level rather than post scan; but for what you want, I think that you will be ok. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Edmonds Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 1:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Bypassing the scanner software filters and getting the raw data? Hi all, Is this possible and is my logic correct? I am reasoning that the output from the actual scanner hardware is always going to be in the same range of digital values irrespective of what adjustments are made in the scanner software (apart from resolution of course). Therefore, is it possible to get the actual raw data out of the scanner and bypass any processing? What I am aiming to do is to have all my scans coming out at exactly the same setting (ie: no processing) so that they all have a common base and then I can adjust with whatever software I am using over the following years. My scanner is a Minolta Scan Speed and I am running NT4 with the standard Minolta scanning software. Thanks for any comments! Mark
RE: filmscanners: (anti)compression?
Just to add something that might make your suggestion clearer. After selecting the "save as," one will be presented with the file format options as Roger suggests. It is only after you select the TIFF option for your file format that the dialog box you are referring to appears. You first have to click on the Save as a TIFF file option before you get to see the dialog box with the LWZ compression item. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 6:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? After the "Save-as" command in PS, you should get the attached screen giving you the option of LZW compression. Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 4:44 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? Well, my Photoshop 6.0 (on a PC) doesn't offer any compressed TIFF file formats. When doing a "Save-as" for a 48-bit file, I was given three choices: TIFF(*.TIF), Ras(*.RAW), and Photoshop(*.PSD,*.PDD). When saving a 24-bit file, I have many more choices including GIF, JPEG, etc., but nothing that implies a compressed TIFF. In a message dated 8/7/2001 2:29:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you re-save a file PS will automatically save in the format that was opened. If you use "save as" and select TIFF you get the choice of compression (none,LZW,JPEG,ZIP). Of these JPEG is lossy. None is the standard TIFF. The other three are legal variations that may not be supported by software that the person reading the file is using. Therefore unless otherwise told use TIFF (no compression) or normal JPEG (not the TIFF variety) if you intend someone else to read it. Steve - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 9:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: (anti)compression? > This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a > TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as > I know. Is there freeware available? Since a lot of my work involves models > against a solid colored background, it seems like lossless compression would > save me a lot of storage space. I assume you have to run a stand alone > decompression program to get the original file back. > > In a message dated 8/6/2001 7:03:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > That is because LZW works by substituting colors with variables. If you have > > an image with very few colors and shades, LZW will compact it to a tiny > > fraction of its original self. On the other hand, a very diverse image with > > lots of colors and shades will require tons of substitutions, and the size > > becomes larger. > > > > >
RE: filmscanners: OT: Spam
Yes. But two or three a day would be a blessing; try 30-50 a day. I get Spam mail that automatically reconnects me to my dialup network when I open it in preview mode to see if I need to delete it. Writing the postmaster typically does no good since much of this Spam mail is sent via hijacked ISP domain addresses in a way that the ISP cannot easily prevent. How does your anti-Spam utility identify Spam from legitimate desired mail. I have found that most of the Spam mail does not seem to use any given format in terms of either their address or subject line. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Colin Maddock Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 4:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Spam Over the last month or two the amount of spam I'm receiving has increased alarmingly. Used to get maybe one a week, but now it is more like two or three every day. I've started to use a utility (Bounce Spam Mail) which pretends that the address to which the mail is sent doesn't exist, and sends it back with an appropriate message from the "Postmaster", but goodness knows if it does any good. Is anyone else receiving much more spam than they used to? Colin Maddock
RE: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?
No, I am not certain about it; but it seems entirely logical to me that a six color printer will have or be able to effectively use a different gamut than a four color printer and that the general/business inkjet printers which are more focused on presenting color presentational graphics and illustration rather than color photography would use a gamut closer to the sRBG than would be the case with printers dedicated to printing photographs. This in no way questions what you have said below; it just suggested that the gamut used by some inkjet printers may be closer to sRBG than others although not necessarily identical to sRBG; and thus, we should be careful not to lump all inkjets into the same category when talking about color spaces. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 4:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? Laurie, Are you sure about that? I don't know, but I suspect that the 4-color general/business application inkjets also print colors outside of the sRGB color space, primarily because, in general, some ink colors are outside of the colors visible on the monitor just as some colors visible on the monitor are not printable using normal printing processes, i.e. inkjets. Maris - Original Message - From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 12:49 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? | shAf, | What the original poster fails to take into account and you failed to point | out is that not all Epson inkjet printer are the same just as not all HP | inkjets are the same. Some are 4 color general/business application | printers while others are photo application printers (4 or 6 color). They | do not all have the same color gamut. The lower end general /business color | printers probably do not need a larger gamut than sRBG; whereas the higher | end photo printers may produce much higher quality outputs with the larger | color gamut. Obviously one can print on any color inkjet with the narrower | sRBG gamut; and in that sense it is suitable for all inkjets; however that | does not make it optimum for all inkjets. :-) | | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of shAf | Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 7:27 AM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: RE: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ? | | | Steve writes ... | | > Many people on this list use Epson printers that supposedly | > work with sRGB. | > If you don't use external printing services or if the | > external service you use have their printing set-up to | > sRGB then why not use sRGB. | > Everytime you convert to or from one colour profile to | > another you have the potential to mess up your print | > If your end target is sRGB (which includes web work) why | > not just work in sRGB? | | If you have absolutely no need for a color space with a larger gamut | than sRGB, then you may as well be using it ... archive to target. But I | believe you're wrong about sRGB being the suitable color space for Epson | printers, and sRGB certainly does not contain some colors available to print | with Epsons ... even AdobeRGB doesn't. | | You are correct in saying there is a "potential" for messing up your | print with color space conversions, but it isn't necessarily the case ... | you simply need to know what you are doing within a chosen workflow. (... | granted, it sometimes isn't so simple ...) | | shAf :o) | |
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan and Kodak Infrared HIE B&W colormask ?
I do not use Vuescan; but why would an infrared BLACK & WHITE film have a color mask or need a special setting to remove one? I am unfamiliar with the film that you are referring to although I do have some familiarity with infrared B&W film in general. Unless this Infrared B&W film is a chromogenic dye based black and white film as opposed to a silver halide based film, I do not see why it would need or have a color mask; if this is indeed the case, then you would not find it listed as a special setting under films and would use settings appropriate to all black and white silver halide negative films. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christian Tsotras Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 7:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan and Kodak Infrared HIE B&W colormask ? Hello. I just scanned a black and white infrared negative Kodak HIE with Vuescan, and I didn't find this film on Vuescan's films mask list. Does anybody know which settings should I apply, or which mask film from those available in Vuescan does approach this film's settings ? Thanks. -- Christian Tsotras
RE: filmscanners: Vuescan and Kodak Infrared HIE B&W colormask ?
>Vuescan has settings for contrast indices of various black and white films, >not color masks. Ok, I can accept that. It is a little more sophisticated than many, if not most, film scanner applications which group all the various B&W settings under the same single label and setting. However, "contrast indices" and even "contrast masks" are quite different from color masks; so given the original post, I believe that my response was appropriate and legitimate. You are right, I am familiar with Kodak High Speed Infrared film; but did not recognize the three-letter code (HIE), which I noted but did not register and subsequently caused me to think it might be a new film. :-) Since I do not use Vuescan, I cannot recommend a contrast/film setting from among the list you provided; but I would follow the suggestion of another poster who suggested one of the generic T-MAX unless one developed the film with one of the developers listed to meet a known specified contrast range in the original scene being captured on the film. If one really wants to get into CIs (contrast Indexes) and film development procedures so as to use the specific non-generic settings listed, I would recommend getting Kodak's pamphlets on the processing of T-Max films which is a 30 page or so booklet that discusses in detail such things. I do not know off-hand the Kodak catalog # for the pamphlet. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan McQueen Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Vuescan and Kodak Infrared HIE B&W colormask ? At 07:17 PM 8/14/2001 -0500, Laurie Solomon wrote: >I do not use Vuescan; but why would an infrared BLACK & WHITE film have a >color mask or need a special setting to remove one? I am unfamiliar with >the film that you are referring to although I do have some familiarity with >infrared B&W film in general. > >Unless this Infrared B&W film is a chromogenic dye based black and white >film as opposed to a silver halide based film, I do not see why it would >need or have a color mask; if this is indeed the case, then you would not >find it listed as a special setting under films and would use settings >appropriate to all black and white silver halide negative films. Vuescan has settings for contrast indices of various black and white films, not color masks. These settings may be used to adjust the exposure for scanners that support this. Kodak's High Speed Infrared film is probably the most commonly used infrared film. If you are familiar at all with infrared films, you should certainly have heard of this one, although you may not be familiar with it under its three-letter code name (HIE). It is a silver-based film. Vuescan has settings for the following black and white films: KODAK T-MAX 100 Professional KODAK T-MAX 3200 Professional KODAK T-MAX 400 Professional KODAK T-MAX T400 CN KODAK TMAX-100 D-76 CI = .40 (D-76 Developer Contrast Index = .40) KODAK TMAX-100 D-76 CI = .50 (D-76 Developer Contrast Index = .50) KODAK TMAX-100 D-76 CI = .55 (D-76 Developer Contrast Index = .55) KODAK TMAX-100 D-76 CI = .70 (D-76 Developer Contrast Index = .70) KODAK TMAX-100 D-76 CI = .80 (D-76 Developer Contrast Index = .80) KODAK TMAX-100 TMAX CI = .40 (TMAX Developer Contrast Index = .40) KODAK TMAX-100 TMAX CI = .50 (TMAX Developer Contrast Index = .50) KODAK TMAX-100 TMAX CI = .55 (TMAX Developer Contrast Index = .55) KODAK TMAX-100 TMAX CI = .70 (TMAX Developer Contrast Index = .70) KODAK TMAX-100 TMAX CI = .80 (TMAX Developer Contrast Index = .80) KODAK TMAX-400 D-76 CI = .40 (D-76 Developer Contrast Index = .40) KODAK TMAX-400 D-76 CI = .50 (D-76 Developer Contrast Index = .50) KODAK TMAX-400 D-76 CI = .55 (D-76 Developer Contrast Index = .55) KODAK TMAX-400 D-76 CI = .70 (D-76 Developer Contrast Index = .70) KODAK TMAX-400 D-76 CI = .80 (D-76 Developer Contrast Index = .80) KODAK TMAX-400 TMAX CI = .40 (TMAX Developer Contrast Index = .40) KODAK TMAX-400 TMAX CI = .50 (TMAX Developer Contrast Index = .50) KODAK TMAX-400 TMAX CI = .55 (TMAX Developer Contrast Index = .55) KODAK TMAX-400 TMAX CI = .70 (TMAX Developer Contrast Index = .70) KODAK TMAX-400 TMAX CI = .80 (TMAX Developer Contrast Index = .80) Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
Wedding photography and commercial photography tend to be two very different types of photography which have very different needs and demands. Most wedding photographers are selling prints and mostly small size prints 8x10 or smaller with a few wall size enlargements. They have used medium format typically because the films were both large enough and suitable for traditional retouching which 35mm film is not. Thus they might get away with a high quality 35mm digital camera. Commercial photographers, depending on how you define them, typically are not selling prints at all. Typically they are selling images for reproduction and publication in media produced by offset presses. While they typically do not have their images reproduced in very large sizes, they do need to display clearly and sharply fine details and not have blocked up shadow and highlight areas. They generally have to maintain relatively flat lighting so as to be within the contrast range of the printing presses which is usually much less than what can be captured on film. Thus they have typically used medium format and large format cameras and transparency films to capture their images. With respect to digital cameras and backs, commercial photographers would go for high resolution medium and large format digital backs so as to be able to capture detail sharply and larger density/contrast ranges and bit depths in order to capture subtle tones and details within highlight and shadow areas. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Meier Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1 and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. Now these same photographers, as all others, say MF is absolutely necessary for the big enlargments. This seems to be a contradiction as the digital cameras mentioned only produce approx. a 6M*12bit=9Mbyte file compared to about (2*4000)^2*36bit=274Mbytes for a 4000dpi scan or approx 1000Mbytes assuming film has an 'equivalent' of about 8000dpi. Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need 24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20, i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and throughs their MF scannera away to go digital? Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding photographer and commercial photographers is? Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: Scanning 4x5 under $500 US?
If you take your 4x5 film and cut it in half, it is. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shough, Dean Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:31 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning 4x5 under $500 US? > Scan Multi is up to 4 x 5" > Not according to the Minolta web site: DIMÂGE SCAN MULTI ... "Usable film types include 35mm, Medium format, APS, 16mm, and TEM." Are you thinking of the Polaroid SprintScan 45i Multi-Format scanner? It looks interesting at 2000 dpi for 4x5. I will check used prices and see.
filmscanners: RE: film scanners: Re: Duplicate/triplicate messages
Yes, I have noticed the same thing happening - especially this evening. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 7:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Re: Duplicate/triplicate messages I seem to be getting two and three copies of messages but not at the same time-I just got a batch that I recall getting earlier today Stuart
RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography
>Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding >photographer and commercial photographers is? Depends on a number of variables like location, type of commercial work in the case of commercial photography, type of weddding coverage in the case of wedding photography, what is to be provided the client by way of services, and finished products, etc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert Meier Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1 and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. Now these same photographers, as all others, say MF is absolutely necessary for the big enlargments. This seems to be a contradiction as the digital cameras mentioned only produce approx. a 6M*12bit=9Mbyte file compared to about (2*4000)^2*36bit=274Mbytes for a 4000dpi scan or approx 1000Mbytes assuming film has an 'equivalent' of about 8000dpi. Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need 24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20, i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and throughs their MF scannera away to go digital? Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding photographer and commercial photographers is? Robert __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
RE: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips
>But it seems that one has to cut MF images into separate frames, which is >nonsense, since MF images are also negatives which are kept in sleeves and >not only slides in frames. They are also much larger than 35mm and often cut for automated processing in aperture cards anyway when returned from the lab. Many professional photographers who tend to be the ones who use medium format films generally file the frames individually and not in strips like is the case for 35mm negatives which are typically cut into strips of 4, 5, or 6 frames and not filed as uncut 24-36 exposure frames. By the way most medium format transparencies are not put into mounts like 35 mm slides are since they are generally not projected but looked at on light table;but they are cut into separate indivdiual frames. When you play with the big boys; you often have to play by the established rules of their game not by the rules of some other group of player's game or some other game. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tomasz Zakrzewski Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 8:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips Do you know if any MF scanner is capable of scanning 120 film images from strips with 3 6x7 frames or 4 6x6 frames? I looked at the specs of the brand new Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and it's very promising. But it seems that one has to cut MF images into separate frames, which is nonsense, since MF images are also negatives which are kept in sleeves and not only slides in frames. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski ___ fotografia - tomasz zakrzewski www.zakrzewski.art.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips
Well David, First welcome back; hope the vacation was a good one. Now to the debate. My experiences in talking with professional photographers ( especially wedding and portrait photographers) is that they typically send their color negative film off to professional labs that process and proof the film. In the process they also cut the film into individual frames which are placed into individual envelopes that are numbered as to frame and roll number so as to correspond with the frame and roll numbered proofs. From speaking with other commercial photographers, I have found that commercial photographers, although beginning to shot more negative film than before, have not typically shot negative film; when they do, they typically do not usually get proofs made via the 4x6 proof method but rather have the roll contact proofed. Hence they might get their film back from the lab in strips of three and four frames depending on the format size of the negative frame. The same may be true for black and white films which typically get contact proofed in contact sheets displaying rows of negative frames. Wedding and portrait photographers, generally get automated prints made using aperture cards which require that the frames be separated into single frames for placement on the aperture cards unless of course they have a custom enlargement made. The bulk of their prints generally are not custom prints. Commercial photographers that I know tend to separate their transparencies into individual frames for both filing purposes as well as for presentation to clients for approval since more often then not those that are selected by the client for publication will be set to the printer, who does not want the whole strip and probably would not keep it in tact during the printing process anyway. As for negatives, commercial photographers, generally do not use automated aperture printing and enlarging but go more toward custom enlargements. It is easier to file and keep track of the frames that are used for enlargement if one separates them from the unused frames. Thus, there is a practical propensity to save only the frames that are used and toss the rejects which many times are right next to the keepers, as well as to cut out the proof image with all the burning and dodging, cropping, and retouching directions from the contact sheet for submission to the lab who is doing the custom enlargements and for later filing with the negative frame itself. I have no idea what the amateurs and hobbyists do. I also do not know what the advent of medium format scanners and digital activities has done in terms of impact on how the practitioners who have gotten into the digital thing handle medium format frames. At any rate, my main point was that Minolta's implementation is not as stupid as the original poster thought and that it was indeed grounded in a practical reality found in the world of the professional medium format user. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hemingway, David J Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 6:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips My research has shown medium format photographers use any and all methods of storing film. Some do individual frames, individual frames in aperture cards, some entire strips and cut what they desire and some in multiframe strip. Not much of a trend. David -Original Message- From: Laurie Solomon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 6:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips >But it seems that one has to cut MF images into separate frames, which is >nonsense, since MF images are also negatives which are kept in sleeves and >not only slides in frames. They are also much larger than 35mm and often cut for automated processing in aperture cards anyway when returned from the lab. Many professional photographers who tend to be the ones who use medium format films generally file the frames individually and not in strips like is the case for 35mm negatives which are typically cut into strips of 4, 5, or 6 frames and not filed as uncut 24-36 exposure frames. By the way most medium format transparencies are not put into mounts like 35 mm slides are since they are generally not projected but looked at on light table;but they are cut into separate indivdiual frames. When you play with the big boys; you often have to play by the established rules of their game not by the rules of some other group of player's game or some other game. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tomasz Zakrzewski Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 8:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips Do you know if any MF scanner is capable of scanning 120 film images from strips with 3 6x7 frames or 4 6x6 frames? I looked at the specs of th
RE: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips
>That's what polish professional photographers practice, at least I assume that is Polish as in Poland and not Polish as in the US. :-) I now understand where you may be coming from. It is very possible that there is not as much use of automated aperture card based printing for Professional Portrait and Wedding Photographers taking place in Poland; but it is a significant proportion of the medium format color negative film processing and printing in North America. I suspect that Minolta has geared its scanner design to the North American market and the common practices of medium format shooters in that market. It is in light of that factor that I made the comment which you quoted below. It was not meant to be a put down of you, which is why I included the smiley face. However, in light of the new information which you have provided, I do recognize that my comment was very socio-culturally self centered in being based on North American practices while ignoring the rest of the world. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tomasz Zakrzewski Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 2:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips Laurie Solomon > When you play with the big boys; you often have to play by the established > rules of their game not by the rules of some other group of player's game or > some other game. :-) All the big boys I know, including me :-) cut 120 negative into strips and archive them in sheets. That's what polish professional photographers practice, at least. And this method is very comfortable, because I have all my 120 negatives in the same binder as 35mm ones. Is anybody able to help me find out if any of the film holders for the new Minolta Dimage Multi Pro will enable me to scan 120 film strips? From the pictures on the Minolta site it's not clear, but it seems that a special Multi Format Attachement would allow this. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski ___ fotografia - tomasz zakrzewski www.zakrzewski.art.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips
Tony, I suspect you do mostly transparency work and commercial/editorial work. Thus, it is highly likely that, if and when you have your color negative films commercially processed, you get contact proof sheets; and if you process your own color negative film, you make contact proof sheets and use a manual enlarger to make your prints. In the US, at least, a large number of medium format color negative users are wedding and portrait photographers who send their color negative film out to be processed and proofed by automated processors and printers. These films are cut apart into individual frames and sleeved separately in separate bags with the identifying information as to roll number and frame number as well as possibly color printing info that correspond with the individual proof prints that have the same info on their backs. Furthermore, when ordering standard enlargements and croppings without any custom dodging and burning, most portrait and wedding photographers use labs that employ automated printing systems that utilize aperture cards that require one to tape an individual frame to the card according to very specific instructions so that the card negative package can be inserted into the printer and printed. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 7:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:27:33 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > They are also much larger than 35mm and often cut for automated > processing > in aperture cards anyway when returned from the lab. Many professional > photographers who tend to be the ones who use medium format films > generally > file the frames individually This is news to me! I've never heard of anyone slicing up negatives like this, they'd be a swine to handle in most enlargers. Slides, well, yes of course. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips
Bob, I agree that the customer can tell the lab how they would like the film returned and thereby change the game for themselves ( e.g., a departure from the labs standard practices); but this does not necessarily impact on the game planes commonly used by the labs, which I suppose is what Minolta would be looking at in making their design decisions for their scanners. However, in Tomasz's case, a point which I neglected when responding to him which he pointed out is that He is in Poland and not North America so lab practices might be different there. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl & Assoc. Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 3:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips - Original Message ----- From: Laurie Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > When you play with the big boys; you often have to play by the established > rules of their game not by the rules of some other group of player's game or > some other game. :-) > Laurie, You are absolutely right about this. However, the big boys can change the rules, and the game for that matter, whenever they want because it's their game. That's what's happening here. My processor sends my 120 roll film back uncut because that's what I TELL him do do. When I purchase a medium format scanner it will have to handle roll film or at least film strips. Tomasz, I agree with you. Why cut roll film up into individual frames? I wouldn't. Bob Kehl
RE: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips
>how the hell do you make contact prints off a whole roll? You don't. When you send the film in for processing and proofing, the lab processes the film and makes individual color corrected 3 1/2 x 5, 5 x 5 or 4 x6 machine made proof prints off the negatives and returns the set of color corrected proof prints with roll and frame identification (and color printing information) printed on the back of each print along with the negatives sleeved individually in envelopes with the same identifying and color information on those envelopes as are on the proof print of that negative. If you want automated enlargements in standard crops, you tape the desired frame on the appropriate aperture card with the emulsion side facing front and check of the size enlargement desired in that crop. If you want custom enlargements, you can send in the proof print with instructions along with the negative for that image and they will put the medium format frame in a negative carrier (glass or glassless) which is then put in the enlarger. I find it no trouble at all to put single MF frames in a negative carrier for use in a manual enlarger. In fact I find it more trouble to use stripes which contain more that three 6x7 frames or four 645 frames since in my enlarger they stick out beyond the negative carrier and wind up getting caught up in the enlarger head itself. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 3:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips On Sat, 18 Aug 2001 09:16:23 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Laurie's right on the money. This is for color mind you... My pro lab > "cards" them (puts each individual negative in a glassine) with the > exposure > compensation information on the glassine, that information is used for > reprints. This is mostly for wedding/portrait work. Weird. Maybe a difference between UK and US practice. I think I'd be furious if a lab did that to my negs : how the hell do you make contact prints off a whole roll? Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips
Tomasz, Monday when I get to my studio where my Minolta film scanner, the manuals, and the documentation are, I will look up a contact number for Europe in the materials and literature to see if I can find one and send it to you. I would think that if you use the 6x9 medium format film mask with the medium format holder, you should be able to fit two 645 negatives in it if you cut the roll into strips of two frames each and a strip of two 6x6 negatives if you do not use the masks in the medium format film holder. The new expensive Universal Film Holder one with comes with the Scan Multi II software may provide enough room to hold strips of two 6x6 frames and three 645 frames comfortably; but I do not know for certain. I do not think that it would hold more than a single 6x7 or 6x9 frame however. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tomasz Zakrzewski Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 1:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: MF scanner for 120 strips LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > >That's what polish professional photographers practice, at least > > I assume that is Polish as in Poland and not Polish as in the US. :-) Should be "Polish", not "polish". My fault, sorry. And of course I mean Polish photographers working in Poland. I would be grateful is somebody helped me to find the way to get information from Minolta about the possibility to scan 120 strips with the Dimage Scan Multi Pro scanner. There's no contact e-mail addres on the Minolta/Dimage site. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski ___ fotografia - tomasz zakrzewski www.zakrzewski.art.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!!
None of the mentioned scanners. You are probably on the wrong list if quality is the point and budget is no concern. You probably need to go over to the high-end drum scanner list and pose your question. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrea de Polo Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 2:22 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Best film scanner, period!!! Importance: High Hello, a very direct question.. For top quality purpose, after reading many messages I am still confuse regarding what is considered today, the BEST film scanner around, and which model? SS 4000, Nikon 8000, Minolta Dimage II... Let's forget for now the budget and let's talk just about pure performance, mostly about resolution, max dmax and details, etc, etc.. Thanks for your consideration; Andrea -- Fratelli Alinari Photo Archives and Museum http://www.alinari.com The world's oldest picture library tel: +39-055-2395201 fax: +39-055-2382857
RE: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners:Best film scanner, period!!!
I just bought 256 MB Dimms for $47US each a few weeks ago and the prices went down since then. Check out www.champaigncomputer.com for RAM, CPU and other prices. They typically have very good prices on most items. Even if you do not buy from them their prices can serve as a guideline. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Duncan Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 11:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners:Best film scanner, period!!! >The machine I have requires special 128 MB DIMM modules or something. >Last time >I bought a pair, it cost me around $500, although that was a couple of years >ago. I'd have to buy two pairs to bring the machine up to the maximum >configurable RAM of 512 MB. > Last DIMM's I bought were US$55 for 256MB. Prices have really dropped on DIMM's since 2 yrs ago. Mike Duncan
RE: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners:Best film scanner, period!!!
Art, I respectfully agree with you that different locations, due to differing tax structures, distribution systems, shipping costs, currency rates, and the like, may very well have differing prices on any given item ( and this is without even bringing up the fact that most of the world does not have access to or use digital equipment and information systems - let alone the internet. My point was that RAM prices around the world have recently exhibited a significant decrease as compared to what they use to be. That decrease may very well be relative to what the earlier prices in that give area were such that the prices that I quoted for my location in the US would not be the going rate elsewhere. My reference to www.champaigncomputer.com was intended to provide evidence of the truth or accuracy of what I claimed to be the current price range within which I had obtained RAM during the recent past as well as to provide a guideline as to the current US pricing which one can compare to their location or to US prices for RAM a year ago. I also made explicit mention of the fact that they had GOOD prices so that one would not take their listed pricing as the average US mail order or web order pricing which may - and often is - a little higher. Given that this is an international list, I think that it would be difficult to carry on any discussions if we restricted ourselves to only those areas of pricing and law, socio-cultural practices, etc. that we all had in common as a shared identical referent. I think we do need in carrying on our discussions to recognize the diversity by giving out information that allows the reader to identify similarities and differences between the writer's situation and the reader's circumstances, which is what I tried to do by stating my sources, that I was speaking in terms of US dollars, that the time frame was a few weeks ago, and that the source was one that typically had better than usual pricing. I assume that armed with this information the reader can then go about making their own decisions, evaluations, and judgments. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 7:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Getting around the firewire problem was Re: filmscanners:Best film scanner, period!!! LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > > I just bought 256 MB Dimms for $47US each a few weeks ago and the prices > went down since then. Check out www.champaigncomputer.com for RAM, CPU and > other prices. They typically have very good prices on most items. Even if > you do not buy from them their prices can serve as a guideline. > I've made mention of this before, but it might bear repeating, the US, as the most consumer oriented society in the world, has lower, sometimes very substantially lower prices than elsewhere in the world. I just heard a recent report that indicated that 95% of the world population does not have access to the internet, and that over 80% have never even heard of it (in many cases there isn't even a world for it yet). We need to keep in mind that tax structure, distribution systems, manufacturing capabilities, demand and exchange rates vastly alter costs for individuals throughout the world. Prior to "free-trade" between the US and Canada, it was very worthwhile to import items from the US, even after exchange, taxes, duties and brokerage fees. That was because distribution here was very poor due to lowered demand. Today, we get people from the US coming here on vacation and buying high tech goods due to the very favorable exchange rate for US dollars, which is causing manufacturers to eat their profits just to sell up here to prevent killing the market they spent millions developing. Canada's population is a major consumer of consumer electronics right now, so much so that Best Buys just bought out the largest chain in Canada. I don't know how much longer this can last though, because with the current exchange value of our dollar, the prices should be much higher than they are, and someone's got to be unhappy with the lower markups up here. Anyway, my main point is that France, if like much of Europe, would tend to be more expensive for consumer electronics, so quoting US prices, or even English or Australian ones, doesn't mean a whole lot. Art
RE: filmscanners: Glass and Film
Really very simple; they use Anti-Newtonian glass as opposed to regular glass for starters. They might also use an Anti-Newton Rings powder on the glass between it and the subject being scanned. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 12:58 AM To: scanner group; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Glass and Film I was wondering how hi-res flatbed scanners, like the Scitex Eversmart avoids the Newton ring problem? We have had several scans done on them, and there never seems to be a problem with those very pesky Newton rings, but many times when we try it at home ( on an admittedly cheaper) flatbed scanner, it can be a problem. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Anti-Newton Rings powder
No, that is not what was said. You can buy some anti-Newtonian glass and replace your existing glass; or you can use the powder along with your existing glass. You cannot make anti-Newtonian glass from plain glass by sprinkling some fairy dust on it in the form of Anti-Newtonian powder; if you do use the powder, it will not change the glass which will remain with or without the powder plain glass. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 12:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Anti-Newton Rings powder > > > > >> They might also use an Anti-Newton Rings powder on the > >> glass between it and the subject being scanned. > > > > Sorry for my ignoranceWhat is 'Anti-Newton Rings powder'? > > > When you place two flat surfaces together, you get a form of banding known > as Newton Rings that represent the different transference of light between > the surfaces due to the pressure. Glass slides, and even enlarger glass has > been coated for years with a transparent substance that prevents flat/flat > contact, spacing the two flat surfaces just far enough apart to prevent the > pressure banding. So are you saying that one can make their own anti newton glass by getting some of this 'Anti-Newton Rings powder'? Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative.
Ok Austin, You have just openned a can of worms here. Are we talking about sharpness as seen through a loup, from a monitor, off a light table, photographic print or inkjet print? Is the comparison based on each coming from the same type of source and under the same lighting; or are we comparing apples and oranges (e.g., projected chromes or light table chromes versus reflected light prints)? I think if you are fishing for a set of comparable data and experiences to evaluate you will need to set out some very precise standards and conditions under which we are to analyze our experiences so as to produce comparable data worth evalauating. Otherwise, you will have started an unnecessary "My old man is better then your old man" type of discussion that will quickly degenerate into an argument where no new information will be added as it goes on and neither siode will win over the other. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 7:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative. What do people have to say about the differences in sharpness between same ASA, same brand chrome vs color negative film? My experience shows that the chrome films are not as sharp as the negative films.
RE: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative.
Not totally (which should not surprise you); but we are getting there. :-) If I understand your requirements, each film should contain the same photograph of the same subject taken at the same time (so to speak) under the exact same lighting with the same or equivalent equipment. In addition; each film should be scanned by the same scanner in the same way under the same conditions and with the exact same settings; and each should be output to the same exact monitor for display and viewing upon which the evaluation will be based. >Identical images, shot at the same time from the same angles etc. I got that much; what I was really asking was not the same lighting source at the time of the taking of the image but rather at the time of viewing the processed films. I think you got at this by suggesting both were to be scanned images as viewed via a monitor. If that is correct, you indirectly answered my inquiry; if not, than it remains open for further specification. Assuming my understandings are correct, all I can say is "let the games begin." :-) However, I would respectfully submit that this may tell us more about which type of film scans and displays sharper than which is actually capable of capturing a sharper image on the film; and as such may not really be getting at the question you asked unless your concern is with scanned and monitor displayed images only. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 2:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative. > Ok Austin, You have just openned a can of worms here. Are we > talking about > sharpness as seen through a loup, from a monitor, off a light table, > photographic print or inkjet print? Seen through, say, a drum scanner...or a very high end CCD scanner. Take every factor out of it you can...so both are on equal footing and only the ability of the film to retain sharpness is at question here. > Is the comparison based on > each coming > from the same type of source and under the same lighting; or are we > comparing apples and oranges (e.g., projected chromes or light > table chromes > versus reflected light prints)? Identical images, shot at the same time from the same angles etc. > I think if you are fishing for a set of > comparable data and experiences to evaluate you will need to set out some > very precise standards and conditions under which we are to analyze our > experiences so as to produce comparable data worth evalauating. Assuming a very controlled scene, such that the only difference is in the actual ability of the film to maintain image sharpness. This SHOULD be a very very basic question, not related to anything but the film, assuming both are processed to the highest standards. > What do people have to say about the differences in sharpness between same > ASA, same brand chrome vs color negative film? My experience > shows that the > chrome films are not as sharp as the negative films. OK, Laurie, do you have an answer ;-)
RE: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative.
That's nice; but pardon my ignorance, what is an MTF spec? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Duncan Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 11:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative. >Not totally (which should not surprise you); but we are getting there. :-) >If I understand your requirements, each film should contain the same >photograph of the same subject taken at the same time (so to speak) under >the exact same lighting with the same or equivalent equipment. In addition; >each film should be scanned by the same scanner in the same way under the >same conditions and with the exact same settings; and each should be output >to the same exact monitor for display and viewing upon which the evaluation >will be based. > >>Identical images, shot at the same time from the same angles etc. > Kodak and Fuji publish MTF specs on their films. Check their web sites. Mike Duncan
RE: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative.
>You can't use the same settings for scanning positive film, then negative >film... I should have been clearer. I meant a raw scan in which such things as levels, curves, gammas, unsharp mask , etc. settings were the same (i.e., uncorrected and unadjusted). Obviously, there might be some reversal of the negative image from negative to positive (although technically that would not really be necessary) and removal of the orange color mask from the color negative. >I don't think that's going to be the case... Then hell, make a 20x30 print >from each and compare the prints ;-) I don't know either which is why I raised the possibility. As for making a 20 x 30 print from each, is that an inkjet, Lightjet, LaserJet, or traditional enlarger prints; and how do we account for the differences in the paper media between Ilfochrome and C Print materials if we select the traditional enlarger avenue? Moreover, a non-enlarger (e.g., digital file based print) does not avoid the issue of whether the differences in the sharpness of the two types of films are being represented or the quality of scan that each might produce is being reflected. If one is trying to determine the sharpness of the film in capturing an image, one needs to eliminate scans and other digital intervening variables; however, if one is looking at not the comparative sharpness of the film's capacity to capture sharp images but at the films ability to be scanned and produce a sharp image, then that is a different question where one does not have to eliminate the digitalizing variable only control for it. As I initially said, you may have opened up a can of worms. :-) Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative. > each film should be scanned by the same scanner in the same way under the > same conditions and with the exact same settings; You can't use the same settings for scanning positive film, then negative film... > I got that much; what I was really asking was not the same lighting source > at the time of the taking of the image but rather at the time of > viewing the > processed films. I think you got at this by suggesting both were to be > scanned images as viewed via a monitor. If that is correct, you > indirectly > answered my inquiry; if not, than it remains open for further > specification. Yes, viewed on a monitor, in PhotoShop, actual pixels or even higher magnification...just to see if there is a noticeable sharpness difference. > However, I would respectfully submit that this may > tell us more > about which type of film scans and displays sharper than which is actually > capable of capturing a sharper image on the film; and as such may > not really > be getting at the question you asked unless your concern is with > scanned and > monitor displayed images only. I don't think that's going to be the case... Then hell, make a 20x30 print from each and compare the prints ;-)
RE: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative.
Thank You -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 3:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Sharpness of color chrome vs color negative. Laurie asks: > That's nice; but pardon my ignorance, what is an MTF spec? MTF is the modulation transfer function: it is a measure of how well small details are recorded or focused, and is expressed as a percentage for a given resolution (in line pairs per millimetre, usually) and contrast ratio (1.6:1, 1000:1, etc.). A MTF of 50% at 50 lp/mm means that about fifty percent of the contrast between black lines and the white spaces between them is preserved when their spacing is 50 line pairs (one black, one white) per millimetre. The MTF can never be higher than 100% for a lens, since at 100% the lens is transmitting 100% of the contrast in the target--perfect resolution. The MTF _can_ be higher than 100% for film, though, since some films will exaggerate contrast at some resolutions, causing the contrast to appear higher on film than it was in real life (this is called accutance). When you look at an MTF chart for film, the horizontal scale is usually lp/mm, and the vertical scale is modulation transfer in percent. The curve on the graph represents the percent of modulation transfer at a given resolution. It usually starts just above 100% for low resolutions, and gradually dips downwards for higher resolutions, eventually dropping below 30%, at which point most graphs stop. The 50% point is often considered the nominal resolving power of the film. For film, a MTF chart shows the curve for a specific contrast ratio in the target, usually 1.6:1 or 1000:1. Higher contrasts produce higher resolution figures, since they tend to show up better on film. When you look at an MTF chart for a lens, the horizontal scale is usually the distance from the center of the frame, and the vertical scale is again the percent of modulation transfer. There are usually four curves, representing resolutions of 5 lp/mm, 10 lp/mm, 20 lp/mm, and 40 lp/mm. The curves show how much of the resolution is retained as you move outward from the center of the image. The MTF is never higher than 100% for a lens, since a lens cannot show more contrast than what exists in the original scene. A good lens will show relatively flat curves that are quite high on the MTF scale all the way out to the edges of the frame. A poor lens will show a sharp drop in resolution as you move outward, and even in the center, the curves will start quite low, especially for the 40 lp/mm curve. The exact MTF for a lens depends on the aperture setting, focus setting, and focal length (for zooms); MTF is usually best for some intermediate aperture, like f/5.6.
RE: filmscanners: Removing water spots
I have yet to find anything that removes water spots once they have dried; there are things which will reduce them - especially their obviousness - as you have found. I have even tried rewashing the film. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris HargensSent: Monday, September 03, 2001 6:06 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: filmscanners: Removing water spots Any suggestions for removing water spots on film? I've tried Ethol's antistatic film cleaner. It did reduce the stains -- so it helps a bit -- but if something more effective is available I'd like to hear about it. How about Pec 12? I've also heard that rewashing film in developer can help remove stains -- not sure I'd like to go this route without trying something over--the-counter first. Chris
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Not to beat a dead horse or start an argument; but with respect to buying film on location, I would certainly take into account the purposes of the photography. If it is just snap shots, then there may not be any reason not to buy film on location as long as you get it from a respected and known photo supplier who sells enough film to have a regular and rapid turnover in inventories. I would stay away from places that do not have air conditioning or do not refrigerate the film if the location is a hot humid location like the South Florida, tropics, Central America the West Indies, etc.; I would stay away from sellers who only stock a small supply of a few limited types of films and/or appear to have a slow turnover in inventories which may indicate that the film may be short dated or out-of-date, may have been obtained from irregular and not-traditional distribution chains and sources where it was kept under hot humid conditions or have undergone cross oceanic shipment in unsealed containers allowing for salt air and water pollution or some other type of contamination. On another level, one may not be able to obtain the brand and type of film which one is familiar with working with at one's destination that is the same as one can get at home; thus, one may be forced to use a type or brand of film that one is unfamiliar with. Not all films are created equal or have the exact same properties. If the shoot is a professional commercial shoot or one in which the images have some serious value like one of a kind pictures of famous people that you may never see again or pictures of soon to be dead family, then I would say bring the film with you with the additional caution that you obtain it at home from a reputable supplier who keeps the inventory under reasonably acceptable conditions that are know by you to be so and who has a rapid enough turnover in inventory to assure that the film is fresh film. As for processing the film at your destination, two things can be said against this. First I am not sure how convenient one would find traveling with boxes of slides, transparencies, or prints as contrasted to a brick of film canisters. I would think that it would be easier to travel with undeveloped film in rolls than trying to pack processed film and prints if it is negative film in a safe, easy and economical way. Secondly, as a traveler in a strange place, you would be trusting your film to processors whose reputations are unknown to you based on recommendations of people who you do not know; you would be trusting your film to processors who you may never see again and who know that they may never have to deal with you again. In addition, just as in your own country processing can vary from day to day and processor to processor; but in your own country you can have the film processed by those whom you know and trust and have used before, where you have some idea what their quality of processing is and can be expected and to whom you can return to and complain or threaten with loss of your business if they screw up. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 5:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging Buy film at your destination, and have it developed there before you return. Unless you are venturing into the Third World (and even if you are, sometimes), this will give you photographs just as clean as taking your own film with you in both directions, and the danger of fogging (or other unpleasantness) is eliminated. I've never understood why photographers lug hundreds of rolls of film around the world when film and development are available practically everywhere on the planet. What's so special about film and development at home? - Original Message - From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 22:59 Subject: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging > Some weeks ago there was a thread about fogged negs from airport X-rays. > This is to put everyone on notice that if you travel in the US, fogging is a > strong possibility, because it just happened to me on a trip from Cleveland > to Seattle--neither of which are particularly effective smuggling ports. > > I am not from Jamaica, I am not Black (well, not very much, anyway--not > noticeably), and my family has been out of the smuggling business for at > least 300 years. Yet my film got "nuked," either at Cleveland Hopkins or at > SeaTac (I'd weigh it as 70% likely SeaTac, on the conservative side--there's > little need to take Ohio pot to Seattle!) > > This definitely pisses me off, and I wrote and sent corroberating pic to the > (US) FCC in charge--for whatever good that will do. I'm hoping that the > people who control air traffic in the US can at least read! But judging from > the people I've seen at the check-in gates, I wouldn't count on it. :-( > > Anyone wishin
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
But not everybody uses the same quality controls or implements them in the same way with regularity. Moreover, not everyone uses the same exact chemistry or has the same quality of water. I know of two professional labs in my community that use different brands of chemistry which results in slightly different results in processing film and papers; they also tend to use different brands of paper so as to produce slightly different print results. The net result is that while in many cases the results will be similar; they will not be virtually the same or identical as would be more likely the case if you take your film to the same lab over time whose work you are both familiar with and have come to expect a certain level of quality and type of result in terms of color reproductions. >Virtually everyone uses the same machines Only true in a qualified sense. While most one hour mass market photofinishers may use different brands of roller based processors and printers, many professional labs, custom labs, and even some mail order labs use dip and dunk machines to process film. When it comes to printing it is not so much the type of machine as much as the types of papers and chemistry that is used as well as the sorts of quality control and maintenance that is instituted and performed along with the competence of the technicians who run the machines. I once has a technician at a well known photofinishing chain in the US accidentally use a 110 film holder when printing a 35mm negative without being at all aware of it and arguing that it was my camera's fault that I got only prints of belly buttons despite the fact that there were whole people on the negative. If I were not a professional photographer, I might have not examined the prints and negatives while at the lab so as to raise the complaint. If I was the man on the street, I also might have never compared the negatives to the prints and left believing that my camera or I were at fault and that the technician was competent. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging Johnny writes: > you know how it'll turn out Virtually everyone uses the same machines. I'd be very hard pressed to identify the work of one lab as opposed to another in film development.
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
They usually know what it is and, unless extraordinarily dumb, do not try and unroll it. Remember that 120 and 120 like roll films have been around a hellava lot longer than 35mm roll film in canisters; and they are likely to be more common than you think in third world countries were old twin reflex cameras may still be in use by a large number of those who own cameras and where one would expect inspectors to a lot less knowledgeable and accepting. When China or the old Soviet Union put out cheap a knock out camera for sale in their countries and for export to other countries, it was a 120/220 camera ( Seagull twin lens reflex in the case of China and a Kiev ( Hassy imitation) in the case of the old USSR). While Germany and Japan had 35mm cameras in the 1940s, they were not popular mass owned cameras until much later and the early ones did not have film that came in canisters but used films that were rolled in wooden spools with a paper interleaf between layers and secured with an adhesive strip similar to today's 120/220 rolls. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Ostrom Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 7:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging >Fogging: Do the people who do the scanning at the airport know >what 120 film even is? Would they want to unroll a 120?? Just to >see if you have a very tiny "whatever" inside. > -- *** Ostrom Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** ***
RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
This is also true for Toronto when one flies into Toronto on an international flight, including US flight, and switches to a domestic Canadian flight or when one flies in on a US flight and switches to an international flight to Asia, Europe, or elsewhere and/or visa versa. You not only have to pick up your bags and go through customs; but immigration and customs is located outside the security perimeter of all the different terminals so that merely switching terminals results in having to go through security. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stan McQueen Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging At 12:04 PM 9/7/2001 +1000, Rob Gerahty wrote: >The problem I experienced when travelling in the USA is the number of >transfers >it takes to get anywhere. Direct flights in the US are few and far between >with the airlines all hubbing through somewhere. My experience has almost always been that, when transferring to a connecting flight, the transfer is made behind the security perimeter. You don't have to be re-scanned to make a connection. The only exception I have ever encountered is when forced to collect baggage and re-check-in at the ticket counter, such as when flying Southwest from Salt Lake City to Dallas. I just put my film in my hand baggage and don't worry about it. I've never had any fogged. I did request (and get, amazingly enough) a hand check of some Kodak 3200 speed film at DeGaulle Airport in Paris. Stan === Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
>Most large cities have photo stores. Many of these have refrigerators stocked >with fresh film. All you have to do is buy from one that has film stored in >this way. It's unlikely they'd pay for refrigeration just to keep ruined film >cold. It is obvious that you did not read my post closely; the short portion that you quoted was within a much larger context which suggested among other things that one should be specially concerned with refrigeration of film if one is in certain types of environments and that one should be concerned with sellers that do not maintain a large variety of films in sizable quantities since that might indicate that they have relatively slow turnover in inventories which could mean that you are purchasing short dated films among other things. The full quote read: "If it is just snap shots, then there may not be any reason not to buy film on location as long as you get it from a respected and known photo supplier who sells enough film to have a regular and rapid turnover in inventories. I would stay away from places that do not have air conditioning or do not refrigerate the film if the location is a hot humid location like the South Florida, tropics, Central America the West Indies, etc.; I would stay away from sellers who only stock a small supply of a few limited types of films and/or appear to have a slow turnover in inventories which may indicate that the film may be short dated or out-of-date, may have been obtained from irregular and not-traditional distribution chains and sources where it was kept under hot humid conditions or have undergone cross oceanic shipment in unsealed containers allowing for salt air and water pollution or some other type of contamination." Thus your response is really not very responsive - argumentative yes but responsive no. Secondly, yes most large urban industrialized metropolitan cities have photo stores and even professional suppliers and custom labs; but when one is traveling, one is not always in or traveling to those large urban metropolitan centers. Nor is one always in or near such a center at the time that one might have to replenish ones film supply. One could very well be visiting a rural area far away from any such center or in a not so advanced industrialized country where even the large urban city does not have photo retailers that maintain a stock of internationally branded films. Hence, your suggestion about getting the film when you reach your destination may not be applicable except as a qualified suggestion applying to visitors to the major European and North American capitals and urban centers. Even residents and visitors to the hinterlands of the US may find that they have to get some of their film via mail order since the selection carried in the local mass merchandiser is severely limited as to brands, speeds, and types of films carried in inventory. Not too many small town photo stores or mass market stores carry 120 films, 35mm tungsten color slide film, silver halide black and white films, infrared films, or even 35mm daylight color slide films. >But frankly, I've bought slide film and other film even from photo shops that >don't have refrigerators, and I still get the same results. Yes, we all have and we all have also bought film from non-photo stores with no ill effects. However, this may be due in part to luck among other things; but some of use have also had bad experiences as well. It really proves little except that we were either lucky or we made those purchases in stores that had high turnover rates in inventories and were not located in places with high temperatures and humidity. I would still stand by my stated cautions as well as by my statement that those cautions may not be as important if one is engaging in snap shot photography as they would be for more serious and significant photography. And that on professional commercial shoots, one might find the risk of airport security machine fogging to be less of a risk than buying one's film on location or having it processed on location. >If you are concerned enough about film to want it refrigerated, why would you >bring it unrefrigerated through multiple climates and extremes of temperature >and humidity to your destination? That is a good point and question worth responding to. The answer is complex. If one is going to or thru locations where the climates and temperature/humidity extremes exist and there is not air conditioning available in the modes of transportation that one employs, in the places that one is staying in, or in the places where one stores one's supplies and equipment, then there is a very good likelihood that there will be no places where one can get film on location that is fresh and stored under acceptable conditions anyway. One could always store one's film brought from home - so to speak - upon arrival in an ice chest which may provide better storage than the local retailers provide. If, on the other hand, air cond
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
Alas, nothing is foolproof. That a process is automated and even consistent does not mean that the operators are equally competent in performing the process, equally diligent in keeping temperatures consistent or regularly changing chemistry on a consistent schedule, equally concerned with running and examining routine water quality checks for impurities in the water supply or test strips, or equally consistent in cleaning the equipment on a regular and consistent basis which often means shutting down the line for a period of time or paying workers overtime to do it after hours. No matter how automated, there is always room for human error, for changing factors external to the process that are beyond one's knowledge or control which impact on the process itself. To ignore such possibilities and - I dare say probabilities - is to be in denial. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 5:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging Laurie writes: > But not everybody uses the same quality controls > or implements them in the same way with regularity. The results I've obtained have been extremely consistent. The process is so highly automated and consistent that it is far less likely to be messed up than, say, the preparation of prints (although recent advances such as the Fuji Frontier appear to be making prints nearly as foolproof as well).
RE: filmscanners: OT:X-ray fogging
From the quotes that have been included, I am not sure if you are responding to me or to someone else. However, I will make a few counterpoints to your comments. First of all, many of those high quality magazines published in the US which are printed or distributed in Europe have bureaus in Europe whose staffs are full time residents in that location and not temporary traveling staff personnel ( with some of the full time resident staff being professional photographers). Thus they are familiar with the consistent and reliable sources for supplies as well as for processing and if need be pass the information on to visiting photographers from elsewhere who come to their location to shoot for their magazines. In the case of the high quality European magazines that publish and distribute in Europe, their full time resident staffs as well as any freelancers shooting for them are very familiar with the reliable and consistent suppliers and labs in the area or are made so by those in their publications who have that knowledge. This is not the case for visiting tourists or professional commercial photographers who may be passing through a given location and not affiliated with any of the major European or US magazines or newspapers - be they their on vacation, to shoot stock photos or on commercial assignments. Secondly, not all the locations in the US or out of the US are major metropolitan urban areas or near such areas so as to afford visiting photographers access to high quality suppliers and labs that might be found in the major metropolitan urban areas; and if they do exist, the visitor will not know of their existence in advance so as to be able to count on there being at the location when the visiting photographer is in that location. I would hate to arrive in some rural village 200 miles from any major urban metropolitan area with a few rolls of film only to find that there are no suppliers in that village or the surrounding area or that they only carry one type and speed of film in small quantities such that I would have to go 200 miles to get the supplies that I needed. Moreover, not all countries in the world are industrialized so as to even have major urban metropolitan areas that serve as centers for any of the uses of commercial photography so as to have suppliers of international brands of film and modern processing available. Thirdly, you can get bad film anywhere and you can get screwed up processing anywhere; that is not the point. The point is that visitors to a strange area do not know or have any way of knowing who is and who is not reliable on a consistent basis in the area that they are visiting unlike people from the area. This means that the visitor takes a much more uncontrolled and uncalculated risk than the person who is from the area in making purchases of perishable - so to speak - supplies and getting demanding precision processing and/or printing done. Consequently, the risk of fogging via x-rays may frequently be less if one takes precautions than getting supplies on location or having processing done on location. Some of the precautions include knowing what countries have airport scanners that are cranked up to high levels or generate stray x-rays, which airports do not allow hand checking of films, and the like. Furthermore, if one is shooting for some major internationally influential client, the client may have some ways of by-passing the x-raying of their film via some special arrangements with customs and airport security which the individual photographer will not have. Many companies that engage in international commerce use brokers and expediters to get around many of the requirements that mere mortals encounter. As a couple of asides, many of the high quality magazines use their own staff photographers and staff operated labs; they buy their film, paper, and chemistry in bulk direct from the film manufacturers or their distributors. They therefore control the storage conditions of the supplies which their staff uses so as to assure as best that anyone can the quality of the supplies rather than leaving such things up to random chance. They also maintain and control their own developing and printing processing equipment and activities with respect to regular changing of chemistry, filtration of water, cleaning of processors, etc. Another aside has to do with distinguishing between professional photographers and non-professional photographers with respect to their demands and needs concerning the delivery of a high quality successful product. Professionals shooting for commercial purposes are paranoid and concerned about quality because not only is their reputations at stake but their livelihood is as well which is not the case for non-commercial photography done by amateurs or professionals. Thus, while some of what has been said may be appropriate for non-commercial p
RE: filmscanners: X-ray and digital camera
Of course; it might get stolen or damaged. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Stephen Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 11:35 AM To: Film Scanner Subject: filmscanners: X-ray and digital camera Hello, Now that film and x-ray has been discussed, is there any danger in passing a digital camera through either check-in or hand carry airport machines? Thanks, Stephen
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
I think the likelihood of someone wanting to buy a web resolution image is probably very low; but the likelihood of someone wanting to steal it (i.e. use it for free) is probably much higher. Typically, those that do steal web resolution images are those who either do not use images for their livelihood and do don't understand anything about copyrights and licensing or those who are aware of such things but will steal what they can and do not really concern themselves with the quality or resolution of the image that they steal and use. While it can be argued that making low resolution images available on the web and easy to find entices people to download and use the low resolution images rather than view them as previews upon which to base decisions as to what Images they would want to license high resolution versions of which in turn may narrow the market for higher resolution images, I do not think this really is as big a problem as one might think; and the existence of engines like Google probably do not have any major impact on the rates of image theft. Thus, I concur with your first paragraph in both its literal articulation as well as in some of the associated implicit issues it suggests. As for the second paragraph, I do not think that the question being raised is so much people buying low resolution web images per se; but the issue is more the effectiveness of selling or licensing high resolution versions of the images being cataloged and displayed on web sites based on those low resolution web displays. I know some stock photographers who do find this as an effective way of marketing their images; however, I, like you, have not found the web to be an effective way to market high quality and resolution versions of images or commercial photographic services. My experience like yours has been that the costs outweigh what those who use the web are willing to pay for services and use of images. It tends to cater to the mass market mentality where those shopping tend to want high quality images ( if they are even concerned with or know quality) at poster prices - if not for free - and cheap photographic services where quality is not the concern but bottom line pricing is. In short the web market, in my experience, is the sort of market where the buyer regards all photographers indiscriminately as if they were copy machines (with no differences in style or skills being recognized) and all images as if they were off the shelf manufactured retail products like you find in a retail outlet. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 4:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Harvey writes: > In a word, yes.to both questions. Interesting. I am surprised that anyone would be willing to pay for a thumbnail image. Web-resolution images are easier to understand, but even if that is a source of revenue, why would putting them in a search engine make them any more likely to be stolen than leaving them on your site? Personally, I have a very hard time finding buyers for Web images; most people want them for free, and even if they are willing to pay, they don't want to pay much. I cannot cover my costs with what people are willing to pay for a Web image, which is one reason why I still shoot film (high-resolution images, such as those obtainable from film, are worth much more than Web-resolution images, and since they are not themselves on my site, they cannot be stolen).
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
>The point here is not that the image is listed, but that the Google site says that the images *might* be copyrighted, >when it should say that they *are* copyrighted (or some such thing). However, it just might be the case that the images on a given site are not privately owned images but images in the public domain or that even if copyrighted they are royalty free images ( sort of like freeware) that anyone can use in any manner or for any purpose they see fit as log as they give the photographer credit and the use is ethical, legal, and the copyright owner is held harmless for any misuse by the user. I would suggest that this is why the *might* be copyrighted qualification is used rather than the *is* copyrighted caution. Moreover, some images even when or if copyrighted do not require permissions or even photo credits for certain types of uses - e.g., editorial and educational uses, for use as legal evidence under certain circumstances one they have been published (wherein placing them on a web site is treated as publication), and the like. Thus, noting that they might be copyrighted rather than that they are may be all the caution that is required or appropriate. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 3:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Alan Womack wrote: > I took a look at the engine, if you don't use descriptive names you won't be indexed in a usable manner. No on at google is doing to look at image0001.jpg files and decide that was a cake and note it in the index. But that (not using descriptive terms) defeats the whole purpose of getting one's website listed. The point here is not that the image is listed, but that the Google site says that the images *might* be copyrighted, when it should say that they *are* copyrighted (or some such thing). Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC > > > >> Harvey writes: > > >> > The possibility of losses is scary, > > >> What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail > >> images > >> or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen > >> any less > >> frequently from your own site than from any other site? > > Epson Inkjet Printer FAQ: http://welcome.to/epson-inkjet
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
While I do not always agree with Anthony or his reasoning, I think that he raises some good questions here that merely a yes answer while sufficient is not very helpful. I for one am curious and would like further elaboration on what sort of client would license or buy a thumbnail image or a web resolution image. I can think of two possibilities - to use for layout marketing purposes as opposed to actual publication or to use in another web site as a display within the context and design of that web site. If there are other reasons why someone would want to license a thumbnail image or a web resolution image in contrast to a high resolution and/or larger sized image, I would be interested in increasing my awareness. I would also be curious to hear in more detail why you think images "would be stolen any less frequently from your own site than from any other site." This is especially of interest since my understanding is that the Google engine indexes images and refers users via links to the sites where they can be found but does not actually house the thumbnail images themselves on its server or site. I am also curious about your reasoning in light of the old truism that locks are for honest people which may be read that those intent on stealing images will find a way to steal them form your site or another site whether the site indicates or not that they are copyrighted. This is true even if you watermark the images on your site. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 3:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Harvey writes: > > > The possibility of losses is scary, > > What sort of losses? Do you do a lot of business in licensing thumbnail images > or web-resolution images? Is there any reason why they would be stolen any less > frequently from your own site than from any other site? In a word, yes.to both questions. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
>Virtually nothing is in the public domain, and I agree with those who object to >the phrasing of the search engine's warning. Saying that an image "might be >copyrighted" implies that copyright protection is the exception to the rule, >when in fact, essentially everything is copyrighted, unless it is explicitly >released to the public domain by the copyright holder, or unless it has entered >the public domain through expiration of copyright. And in some jurisdictions a >copyright holder _cannot_ release his work entirely to the public domain; it can >only enter the public domain when the copyright expires. Firstly, on the face of it, this does not serve as a valid counter-argument to my statements since, as you quoted, I made no claims as to the amount of material which is actually in the public domain but to the fact that there *might be some* that is and that certain sites which are being cataloged and indexed *may* specialize in those sorts of materials. Secondly, your statement has some apparent (but not literal) contradictions which in effect underscore and validate my point when you point out the sorts of exceptions that might exist to materials that are copyrighted. Now, to be sure, what is or can be public domain materials may very well be determined by the statutes in local national and regional jurisdictions and hence vary; but that is not to say that such materials do not exist virtually or otherwise. All photographic images taken as work for hire by the U.S. government is public domain (e.g., NASA images, images taken by military personnel as part of their function as a member of the armed forces - even if the public appearance and use of said images is restricted by security rules and statutes, some scientific images and papers created under the auspices of federal contracts in government labs, etc. I am sure that the same is true for other countries and governments. This makes up a healthy body of public domain materials in and of its own right. Copyright expirations also account for a significant body of public domain materials and images around the world. >So the search engine should really be saying "this is copyrighted material" (the >exceptions being practically nil). While it may or may not be the case that the amount of non-copyrighted images and materials is great as compared to the total body of materials generated is arguably debatable, but that it is "practically nil" is at best an overstatement and, in my opinion, inaccurate in that many of the images and materials within that "practically nil" category are very significant historically and in terms of their rates of use and reproduction. Jumping ahead to your last point. >Copyright is the default when a work is created. Therefore all works should be >treated as protected by copyright until and unless the absence of such >protection can be established. True enough under current copyright laws and conventions; but that has not always been the case. It is not true under the older statutory provisions of copyright laws - at least in the US. Moreover, it can always change in the future. However, your point is taken. But from a practical point of view, since there are and will be web sites on the internet to cover materials from all periods and regions, it may just be more practical for these search engines to caution that the materials might be copyrighted rather than asserting that they are. The inference that to say *might* implies that the materials in all likelihood are not is quite an inferential leap which could just as easily be made in the other direction. As you yourself noted elsewhere, those who see a cautionary notice of either variety and are predisposed out of deliberate intent or ignorance to steal and use the image will not be stopped from doing so by the mere display of either cautionary notice. Those who regularly deal in the purchasing and licensing of materials for reproduction and commercial uses tend to be on the cautious side, if they are legitimate and respectable agents, and assume that they need to get permissions for the use of any materials they want to use until notified otherwise regardless of any cautionary notices posted on or by a search engine or web site. I suppose that search engines could argue that to put any cautionary notice under your arguments is unnecessary since everyone knows to assume that everything is copyrighted from its very creation so there is no need to even mention the notion of copyrights. Of course, we all know that such knowledge and understanding is not universal or even widely held and understood among professionals let alone laymen. I would suggest that the minimal cautionary advisory warning that the materials "might be" or "could be copyrighted" is as effective and as a more unqualified and assertive advisory notice to the effect that the materials "are copyrighted." I doubt that most people seeing either type of notice do a linguistic analysis o
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
e first place nor take action on in most cases in the second place? And why do you want the search engine to take steps to protect these sorts of images which you have not taken yourself on your web site so as to keep unauthorized images from being downloaded by the search engines for use as thumbnails for their indexes or others who might be intent on lifting these low resolution thumbnail images? It looks sort of like you want your cake by having the search engines list your images while eating it to by not protecting your own images on your own site by putting copy right notices across an obvious part of the image area or making those images non-downloadable from your site so as to make the search engines come to you to acquire them for use even if you let them use it for free but insist on certain conditions being met. True they may refuse you and you will not be on their search engine; but that is the practical realities of the business world where there is not free lunch. You want the free promotions and advertising, then you give you such things as protections and the right to make demands and conditions. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 3:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Since we shoot mostly famous rock & roll personalities and sell a lot of stock imagery, we find that our images have a relatively short shelf life, and a propensity to be lifted by those who would rather not pay us our rightful fees. However, whenever such unapproved usages are found out by us, and threatened with legal action, we we tend to get our regular fees plus an extra charge for their illegal actions. So, again, a clear copyright admonishment will help us get our money more easily. We don't pretend to understand others businesses, but we feel that these search engines do have a responsibility to state in clear and certain terms that imagery cannot just be lifted. It makes public education just that much easier. We want our clients to understand that our (and this is *all*, yours and mine), images have a value and a clear ownership. We feel its in every professional photographer's best interest to keep those ownership rights issues in front of the public whenever possible. I am old enough to remember when it was a new concept to base licensing fees based on usage, rather than on a flat day rate for commissioned work. I, for one, do not think it's in our best interest to revert to the old way of doing business, with lower fees. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > I think the likelihood of someone wanting to buy a web resolution image is > probably very low; but the likelihood of someone wanting to steal it (i.e. > use it for free) is probably much higher. Typically, those that do steal > web resolution images are those who either do not use images for their > livelihood and do don't understand anything about copyrights and licensing > or those who are aware of such things but will steal what they can and do > not really concern themselves with the quality or resolution of the image > that they steal and use. While it can be argued that making low resolution > images available on the web and easy to find entices people to download and > use the low resolution images rather than view them as previews upon which > to base decisions as to what Images they would want to license high > resolution versions of which in turn may narrow the market for higher > resolution images, I do not think this really is as big a problem as one > might think; and the existence of engines like Google probably do not have > any major impact on the rates of image theft. Thus, I concur with your > first paragraph in both its literal articulation as well as in some of the > associated implicit issues it suggests. > > As for the second paragraph, I do not think that the question being raised > is so much people buying low resolution web images per se; but the issue is > more the effectiveness of selling or licensing high resolution versions of > the images being cataloged and displayed on web sites based on those low > resolution web displays. I know some stock photographers who do find this > as an effective way of marketing their images; however, I, like you, have > not found the web to be an effective way to market high quality and > resolution versions of images or commercial photographic services. My > experience like yours has been that the costs outweigh what those who use > the web are willing to pay for services and use of images. It tends to > cater to the mass market mentality where those shopping tend to want high > quality images ( if they are even concerned with or know quality) at poster > prices - if not
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
>And it's not the 'thumbnails' that we worry about getting lifted, it's the larger images on our website Maybe you should not have larger images that are downloadable on your web site; and if you do, they certainly should not be high resolution images. Obviously, the search engine can only acquire your images for use in their engine by downloading the image from your web site; and they are not only going to be able to download the image at the resolutions that you provide. Moreover, they probably will resize the image into a thumbnail image for their uses as in the index and not use it at its original size if the size is larger than a thumbnail. So I really have difficulty is seeing you concern here with theft and unauthorized use of your images off the search engine web site for commercial purposes or for reproduction since the individual stealing the image off the search engine site will only get a low resolution thumbnail of the larger low resolution images that you have on your web site, which they could got to and steal directly from without having to mess with the thumbnails on the search engine site. >It would not take much effort on their part, and go a long way to alleviate the ..."Oh, I >thought it was in the public domain" excuse I doubt it, the people who are stealing your images are probably the young teenagers and people on the street who are not using them commercially anyway and who you will not educate or stop. These same people in all likelihood and despite any admonitions and education will and do regard anything that is on the web, on CD, on TV, on Radio, or on VCR as being in the public domain and there for the taking by them for their personal use. Copyrights mostly pertain to commercial reproduction and use not to personal non-commercial uses. Moreover, the general public does not know or care about copyrights not=r care to be educated about them. so I doubt if any change in the cautionary advisory from might to is will have any effect in general or in your case in particular given the audience for your images. If you think that there should be a stronger advisory caution, then you should put the copyright notice in the image area of the images on your web site. That way it will be on every copy downloaded from your sight including those being used by the search engines who probably got the images from your web site in the first place. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2001 1:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Harvey writes: > > > In a word, yes.to both questions. > > Interesting. I am surprised that anyone would be willing to pay for a thumbnail > image. Web-resolution images are easier to understand, but even if that is a > source of revenue, why would putting them in a search engine make them any more > likely to be stolen than leaving them on your site? > > Personally, I have a very hard time finding buyers for Web images; most people > want them for free, and even if they are willing to pay, they don't want to pay > much. I cannot cover my costs with what people are willing to pay for a Web > image, which is one reason why I still shoot film (high-resolution images, such > as those obtainable from film, are worth much more than Web-resolution images, > and since they are not themselves on my site, they cannot be stolen). I cannot/will not get into a discussion of business practices, but suffice it to say, that the fees generated from licensing web images are more than worth our time and effort. And it's not the 'thumbnails' that we worry about getting lifted, it's the larger images on our website (although our website is currently down). Again, I maintain that saying that an image on a web search engine 'might' be copyrighted is misleading, when, more than likely, it *is* copyrighted. Perhaps they should, on every page, of every search, have a paragraph about copyrights. It would not take much effort on their part, and go a long way to alleviate the ..."Oh, I thought it was in the public domain' excuse. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
It was not Metallica alone; they had vast support from the recording industry as well as some other artists and writers. However, if one does not take things literally, Rob has a point since Metallica is a very wealther band with significant influence and revenue generating capacity - the group may even be incorporated as a corporate entity. At any rate, it was the organization, Metallica, that took on Napster and not the individual band members as individuals. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 3:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Rob Geraghty wrote: > Want to bet that it wasn't > any individual musician who chased Napster? > Actually it was a band called Metallica. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
>I'm not so sure. My impression is that stealing images is the rule on the Web, rather than the exception. This is a little ambiguous; what aren't you sure of? Are you uncertain that is its mostly teenagers and laypersons who are stealing low resolution thumbnail images; or are unsure that one will probably not be able to educate or stop them? There is a lot of theft of images taking place on the web just as their is a lot of theft of written materials ( did you know that emails to lists are considered protected materials so technically you cannot dupplicate them in their entirety without permission of the creator of them). However, I doubt if the majority of it is being done knowingly by commercial image users or for commercial use. I suppose that technically just merely downloading an image to one's monitor for previewing is a form of reproduction and duplication; but I understand your point. I just doubt that much of the copying that you are referring to is being done commercially by professionals in the industries that make commercial use of imaging which is not to say that there is none or little of it going on - what goes on no matter how small is significant when it is being done commercially as opposed to for personal purposes. >Personal reproduction is generally prohibited Technically correct, I should have been more clear here in what I meant. When I said "mostly" I probably should have said "practically speaking." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Laurie writes: > I doubt it, the people who are stealing your > images are probably the young teenagers and > people on the street who are not using them > commercially anyway and who you will not educate > or stop. I'm not so sure. My impression is that stealing images is the rule on the Web, rather than the exception. For every person who asks me permission to use an image, I suspect there are one hundred others who just copy the image and never say anything to me. > Copyrights mostly pertain to commercial reproduction > and use not to personal non-commercial uses. Personal reproduction is generally prohibited, too, and is most likely to be actively sanctioned when it involves a significant material loss for the copyright holder. The problem is that individual infringements involve so little loss and are so hard to isolate and prosecute that most copyright holders let it slide.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
While I generally agree with you on several points in your response to Harvey, I have to say that screen resolutions right now are way beyond 800 X 600. I am able to get screen resolutions as high as 1600 x 1200 using some video cards and a little higher using other video cards. However, all this discussion about a future which none of us are able to accurrately foresee or predict does not respond to the points in question which are concerned with what is happening in the hear and now. The search engine people are not concerned with structuring their cautions based on future possibilities but on current realities; so I doubt if they would find such rationalizations very pursuasive when it comes to what they will or will not include in their search engines. Moreover, since the search engines merely furnish a low resolution thumbnail representation of images on other web sites with links to thoe site they are on, I would think that if a cautionary advisory is to be uesed and is effective at protecting the images on the sites being linked to that cautionary advisory should be on the site itself with the image that is being linked to more than on the serach engine. Of course, this switches responsibility back onto the image owner to protect his own images on his site rather than making the search engine responsible for this task. As for Harvey's comments concerning fair use and editorial use in connection with copyright, he does not make it clear if his legal action against TV news shows or any other media outlet were in Federal or state courts, based on copyrigth infringement or other state laws concerning appropriation of images. If the legal action was brought in state courts it was not for copyright violation since that can oly be brought in federalcourt in that the law is a federal statute. If it was brought in the state courts then the action was based on state laws which are not technically copyright laws and the caution that the images are copyrighted would not apply as a caution aginst the sorts of actions that were being brought in the state courts and would vary from state to state. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 5:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Harvey writes: > ... but eventually, our screen resolution will be > the same as paper reproduction. I don't expect that ever to occur, as there is very little need for it, and it is technically difficult. It has taken many years just for the average screen size to advance from 640x480 to 800x600, and matching print use would require resolutions of at least 3600x2700 or beyond. That is not likely to be achieved with CRT technology, and it may also be very difficult with flat-panel technology, at least for the foreseeable future. > It might only take a year or 2, or longer ... If it happens at all, it will take far longer than two years. Current screen resolutions are barely above what they were thirty years ago. The average resolution of 800x600 today is not even twice that of text-only CRTs from the 1960s. Part of this is related to the fact that print resolutions are often well beyond what people can actually see, and so there is no good reason to try to duplicate them in display systems. > For example, who could have predicted, 10 years ago > that 20 gig hard drives would be the norm ... And who would have predicted, when solid-state replaced vacuum tubes nearly half a century ago, that people would still be using huge vacuum tubes (i.e., CRTs) in 2001? > ... or that modems would be performing at the > speeds that they do ... Modems are only about 10 times faster than they were thirty years ago. The inability to make them work _really_ fast is what will cause their demise in the future, as other methods of communication become available. > I think that the same will, finally, be true of the > image search engines as well. I think that there is a very strong possibility that the Internet and like technologies will eventually bring about the abandon of copyright as it now exists. It will be a long, hard fight, led mostly by giant multinationals who are the real beneficiaries of copyright (as opposed to individual artists, who often sign away their rights, anyway), but it will not be successful in the long run. > Beyond all of the above: > We don't like it when our images are appropriated. Life is tough. > It is frustrating to think that we can *only* post > thumbnail sized images on our website, or need to > disfigure them with our copyright or watermark, > (for fear of theft)...There must be a better way. I don't do either of these. I provide good-sized images with no watermarks or disfigurement. I figure that some people will steal the images, but hopefully enough people will pay for them so that I can still derive revenue from them. If I can cover my cos
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
First, your statement that only the current law is applicable may be true where you live but where I live in the US it is not. Images created and registered under the old copyright laws are governed by the older laws that they were copyrighted under. There are many images in the historic archives whose copyrights have run out or never existed that are in the public domain. There are many images created as work for hire by the U.S. government ( and probably other governments as well) which are in the public domain in so far as they were created with public moneies and under work for hire contracts. I just finished some copywork about a year ago for a company that was putting out a CD of those sorts of images (mostly those which are well known or famous from the 1920s, 30s, and 40s). Neither the company nor I needed to get copyright releases for the images since they were in the public domain; permission was necessary in some cases to access the originals which where housed in secure collections in public libraries and archives. Sometimes, permission to access the collections was contingent on the institution being given a photo credit and sometimes on the payment of a small token fee to cover the costs of admission to the institution and that particular collection or the maintenane of the collection. If special or additional services from the institution were needed they would have to be paid for by the company; but this was not a license fee. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Laurie writes: > ... but that it is "practically nil" is at best > an overstatement ... Do a search on images, then count the number that are probably _not_ copyrighted. Very often the number is zero. > True enough under current copyright laws and > conventions; but that has not always been the case. That is irrelevant, since only the current law is applicable. > Moreover, it can always change in the future. When it changes, the search engine can change its notice appropriately. > ... it may just be more practical for these > search engines to caution that the materials > might be copyrighted rather than asserting that > they are. It would be still more accurate to advise that some images might _not_ be copyrighted, since the absence of copyright is a rare exception to the rule, and not the inverse.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
While the res[ponse will not satisfy you, the answer is that the creator is not selling the rights but only renting them; if the creator decided to sell the rights then he would not be able to collect rent on each and every use after the sale of the rights - the new owner would. It is sort of like real estate. What is being sold or rented is usage rights not the product itself, whioch is sort of like going into a hardware store and renting equipment rather than buying it outright. Inb the case of the mechanic, you are buying his services out right and not renting the use of those services as might be the case if you purchased annually an annual service contract. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 4:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Johnny writes: > If I write a movie and get 5% of producer's net, > I get it forever. Why should you be paid forever for something you did only once? Do you pay your mechanic forever for a repair on your car that he completed only once?
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
>I was speaking of average resolutions, and not maximum resolutions Average versus maximum for whom. For me, 1600 x 1200 is my maximum resolution that I can get on a majority of my monitors with 1024 x 768 and 1152 x 864 being the average resolutions that I can get from among all the possible available resolutions. The 1024 X 768 being the resolution that has the average usage in terms of all the actually used resolutions. I think my observation is very germane; it is your statement that was not very precise. You never said that average and maximum resolutions referred to *usage* and by *web surfers only* until this post. How am I or any one else suppose to know what you meant to say but left unstated. >Currently, most people surfing the Web have their screens set to 800x600, with >1024x768 running a moderately close second, and 640x480 a much more distant >third. I am not even going to ask for the source of this statistic. However, any determination of average resolution would be dependent on how one defines ones sample. Are we talking about a world wide sample or a North American Sample or...? And Why have you arbitrarily restricted it to people surfing the web? In the US and quite probably in North America in general, sales of 17" monitors are far greater than those of 14 and 15 inch monitors with 19" monitor sales trailing close behind the 17" ones. All are capable with the newer video cards of resolutions greater than 800 x 600. Since most users of the 17" and above monitors have newer higher resolution cards, I would assume that they are using higher resolutions for those monitors on or off the WEB. Many systems which have 17" or above monitors and the newer video cards are work stations that may not be connected to the internet/web at all; and other may be used by people who do not "surf the web" whatever you define that as being. I do not surf the web although I do use the internet and do go to specific sites from time to time as the need arises, I use dual monitors 17" or bigger on each of two systems at resolutions of 1024X768 and higher, would I be included or excluded from your sample based on some arbitrary definition of surfing the web? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Laurie writes: > ... I have to say that screen resolutions right > now are way beyond 800 X 600. I am able to get > screen resolutions as high as 1600 x 1200 using > some video cards and a little higher using other > video cards. You're welcome to say that, but since I was speaking of average resolutions, and not maximum resolutions, your observation is not germane. Currently, most people surfing the Web have their screens set to 800x600, with 1024x768 running a moderately close second, and 640x480 a much more distant third. > ... I doubt if they would find such rationalizations > very pursuasive when it comes to what they will > or will not include in their search engines. They will not find anything persuasive that does not have a lawyer behind it, unless it costs them money.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Now that is one of your more stupid arguments. The equivalent for your bricklayer as is the case for your mechanic would be to keep them on an annual paid retainer or service contract so that they would be available to furnish bricklaying services or mechanic services whatever they may be throughout the year for you. What you would be licensing or renting in those cases is the bricklayer's or mechanic's services (skilled labor) and not the product (e.g., the house he along with a bunch of other tradesmen built or repair to your vehicle that the mechanic made). What is being sold and/or rented is not the fruit of the labor but the labor or services themselves. It is not the results of the labor or services in the case of trades people, professionals, craftsmen, artisans, or just plain old employees who rent or sell their services by the hour and not by the finished product). When buying/renting the services, the price or rental costs of the services includes the skill levels of the service person and value of their time in addition to any expenses like materials and parts. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 6:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Laurie writes: > While the res[ponse will not satisfy you, > the answer is that the creator is not selling > the rights but only renting them ... So why can't a bricklayer rent the fruit of his labor instead of selling it? You want him to build a house? Just pay him each month for the time you spend living in the house; if you wish to stop paying, you must move out.
RE: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
>So why are the rules for artists different That is the point they are not different. The creation is the embodiment of the artists talent, skills, creative powers, knowledge, and services (or if you will the carrier of the artists conception). It is the conception which is an expression of those skills, talants, knowledge, etc. that is being rented for use and not the physical creation itself or the actual physical labor that was involved in generating that conception. But I do not anticipate that you will agree or will ever be able to be persuaded, so I will just leave it at. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 1:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Laurie writes: > What you would be licensing or renting in > those cases is the bricklayer's or mechanic's > services (skilled labor) and not the product > (e.g., the house he along with a bunch of other > tradesmen built or repair to your vehicle that > the mechanic made). So why are the rules for artists different?
RE: filmscanners: Minolta Dimâge Scan Multi PRO info
A recent issue of a Publisher Perfection catalog, which tends to be on the high side regarding prices, listed it at, I believe, around $2900 plus. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Shough, Dean Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:28 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' (E-mail) Subject: filmscanners: Minolta Dimâge Scan Multi PRO info I have not seen anything on this scanner before so here goes. If someone else has already posted this, sorry - our mail system is running almost a day late. Minolta has some information up about their new scanner at http://www.minoltausa.com/main.asp?productID=888&whichProductSection=1&which Section=2 It's 4800 dpi for 35 mm, 3200 by 4800 dpi for 120 film, 16 bit per color A/D, includes ICE^3 (ICE, ROC, and GEM), capable of multisampling, can scan 24 mm by 65 mm panoramas, and has both SCSI and FireWire interfaces. Do not know when it will be available or what the price will be. The 3200 by 4800 dpi seems strange. Dean Shough [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: filmscanners: The Nikon 4000 and Genuine Fractals
>Does the license allow me to do that? Usually OEM software bundled with hardware >doesn't allow that so I'm not sure in this case. Usually all software (bundled or not) allow one to give away the software, or in some cases even resell it, as long as certain conditions are met. The main provision being that you cannot retain possession of a copy on your computer or on a hard copy media like, floppy, tape or CD of the supplied program other than copies that have been purchased and registered independent of the one being given away or sold. The logic behind this is that the bundled version while provided free to you was purchased for distribution by the bundler; thus it is not a stolen or unauthorized copy. If you were to duplicate this copy and give one of the copies away that would be a violation of the copyright and licensing agreements; but not if you go not make any additional copies and give away or sell the original copy that you legally own. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 7:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: The Nikon 4000 and Genuine Fractals At 18:45 20-09-01 -0400, you wrote: >Joe > >I bought the Nikon 4000 from Ritz Camera and it came with Genuine Fractals. >I think that it is only the grey market products that don't come with it. I bought my LS4000 retail at KEH Cameras in Atlanta. It came with Genuine Fractals though it wasn't mentioned anywhere and I had to hunt around the CD to find it. I already have a licensed copy of GF installed so I wouldn't mind giving the one that came with the Nikon away. Does the license allow me to do that? Usually OEM software bundled with hardware doesn't allow that so I'm not sure in this case. Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia http://www.enochsvision.com/, http://www.bahaivision.com/ -- "Behind all these manifestations is the one radiance, which shines through all things. The function of art is to reveal this radiance through the created object." ~Joseph Campbell
RE: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ?
Since in reality these are really very different operations, I fail to see first how any comparison between the two is possible at all (apples and oranges) and second what definition and criteria of "destructive" is being used and with respect to what objective. If one rescales without resampling, one changes the effective resolution, is that destructive? If one resamples without rescaling, one changes the actual resolution, is that destructive? If one resamples and rescales, one has changed the actual resolution as well as the size of the image ( usually proportionately) so as to result in the equivalent to what one started with effectively, is that destructive? Is downward resampling more destructive than upward resampling or interpolation? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 1:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: ReSize, ReSample or ReScan ? On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 07:01:59 -0500 Gordon Potter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I have been told resampling is much more destructive to an image > then resizing. You were told wrong. Try it. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
RE: filmscanners: scanned files open larger than indicated
There could be a number of reasons. First every time you open a file in Photoshop, a duplicate working file is opened in memory; if there were no such duplicate file one would not be able to have a "revert to" feature and maybe not even a history pallet. All adjustments and changes are made to the duplicate temporary version in memory until you actually save those changes to file whereupon they are made to the file in your designated folder on your hard drive. Second each time you make a layer, you are using more memory and hence more disk space in the scratch file, which unless you save the file with those layers does not get reflected in the file size in the designated hard drive folder. Thirdly, Photoshop itself has overhead which gets added to the file sizes when a file is opened up in Photoshop that is not reflected in the actual size of the file itself. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of PAUL GRAHAMSent: Monday, September 24, 2001 2:49 PMTo: Filmscanners@Halftone. Co. UkSubject: filmscanners: scanned files open larger than indicated Can someone tell me why my TIF files open larger in Photoshop than their indicated size on the disk? A 25Mb file opens as 76Mb in Photoshops scratch size indicator A 130Mb file at around 205Mb A 330Mb somewhere about 410Mb what is going on? these are regular tiffs, I dont use LZW anymore. or any compression as far as I know. and the memory bloat is really annoying I have PS6 on W2K. thanks, Paul
RE: filmscanners: Recommendations for page scanning software
Caere Omnipage is a page scanning application using OCR where in text is rendered editable and uses on a PC the twain driver of one's scanning software to scan in a page of text; its cousin, Omniform, is a page scanning application for scanning in or designing forms which are capable of being filled and are editable, where the data collected by the filling in of the form can be stored in a database and utilizes database management features. Neither OmniPage not Omniform are Photoshop plug-ins or can be started from within Photoshop. They are independent applications which relate to the scanner via the scanner's twain driver. Omnipage can be registered to work from within designated programs like word processing, spreadsheet, or database programs and return to them OCR rendered editable text pages; however, this is far different from being a plug-in or something that would function from within Photoshop. By registering a program with OmniPage,OmniPage inserts in the programs file menu two OmniPage Pro commands, Acquire Text... and Acquire Text Settings..., when Direct OCR is enabled in the OmniPage settings. This may be why you found "that it operated reliably if I started it via "Start > Programs" rather than as a Photoshop plug-in." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 5:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Recommendations for page scanning software Obviously, you haven't used Silverfast yet. My Caere Omnipage (OCR reader only) for my flatbed ranked number 2 on the heartburn scale. I couldn't get Omnipage installed and Caere had to send me a patch. Then it crashed about every third scan. I finally found that it operated reliably if I started it via "Start > Programs" rather than as a Photoshop plug-in. In a message dated Fri, 19 Oct 2001 3:17:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Mike Bloor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Caere Pagekeeper came with the scanner. On paper, this looks as if it > should do most of what I want. Unfortunately it is the most unresponsive > and unreliable program I have used in many years. Added to this, I can't > get any response to e-mail enquiries to the company who now own it. > > Thanks, > Mike Bloor
RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
Preben, Since you seem to be knowledgeable about IDE RAID matters, I wish to make use of your knowledge as a resource even if it is OT for this list. I recently bought an ABIT motherboard with RAID. The manual is not very clear as tot he difference between RAID 0 (striping) and what it does versus JBOD (spanning). I understand what RAID 1 (mirroring) is and how it works; but I really do not understand how RAID 0 works or what parallel operation of the two drives on the channel means and entails. While it may be different for third party RAID controllers, the manual for the RAID controller on the ABIT KG7-RAID motherboard says that you need 4 drives to use RAID 0+1 and that the second pair duplicate the first pair. This appears to contradict your point concerning "You "pay" the equivalent of one drive i.e.. - in this case - 100 GB for the security of your data, but you end up with a 300 GB drive array." If I ma reading the manual correctly, at least on the ABIT RAID, you would have 200GB of original data storage and 200GB duplicate mirror backup protection under the RAID 0+1 setup - especially if you follow their advice of using same size, make, and model of hard drive in the array. Could you comment on this in a way so as to add some clarification for a novice to RAID arrays. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Preben Kristensen Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 5:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images IMO the best price/performance/data safety setup is IDE Raid 5. If you buy a Ide Raid 5 card (Adaptec makes a good one: 2400A, which sells for around 300 US) you can then connect, say four IDE 100GB drives and get an array which is very fast AND fairly fault tolerant. You "pay" the equivalent of one drive ie. - in this case - 100 GB for the security of your data, but you end up with a 300 GB drive array and the ability to swap/hotswap a drive and rebuild the array should one of the drives fail. Also, by using UDMA/100 5400 instead of 7200 drives you get a slightly slover performance, but you gain by having much lower temperatures and much lower noise levels. Such a Raid 5 system would cost around 1300 US (depending where you buy) for 300 GB, but your data is much more secure than the simpler and cheaper Raid 0. Lastly, these stand alone Raid cards - unlike raid solutions on motherbords - have their own processors on board which takes over all the hard work, freeing up your system processor. GreetingsPreben - Original Message - From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 9:46 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > I have just ordered a 60 Gig Maxtor ATA 100 drive (ATA 133 is also > available) I have done this because it is far cheaper than buying > another 36 gig drive to go on my U160 SCSI channel. I can get the Maxtor > drives for around 60 UK pounds, which means I could buy 4 of these IDE > drives for the same price as a Quantum U160 36gig drive! > > One thing to remember about Ide if you decide to give the drive a > beasting is to cool it with a slim cooler. > > -- > James Grove > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.jamesgrove.co.uk > www.mountain-photos.co.uk > ICQ 99737573 > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ezio c/o TIN > Sent: 10 November 2001 21:18 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > > > I would recommend to buy a U-160 SCSI ... from e-bay ... I have just > done this to integrate the other 3 U-160 I have and I have bought for > 102US $ a 18GB IBM 1 rpm brand new under warranty. A 36GB 1rpm > also IBM U-160 is rated for 170 US $ ... > > Sincerely. > > Ezio > > www.lucenti.com e-photography site > > > - Original Message - > From: "Andrea de Polo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 4:53 PM > Subject: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > > > > Hello, > > > > I have a CreoScitex scanner with attached a, Apple G4 Silver 733 with > > OS > 9.2.1 and 1GB of ram; I noticed that the internal HD is a slow 5400rpm > UltraAta HD; question: since I work only with Photoshop and my images > are about 60mb in size and I just have to open and save them during the > day (we process about 200 images/day), I was wondering what is the best > and effective way to speed up my work: buy a scsi external HD 10.000rpm > (total cost about 650 UK pounds), OR buy an internal UltraAta 7200 rpm > (total cost about 250 UK pounds) ??? > > > > Again, we just have to open, retouch and than save our 40mb images, > > but > currently I am noticing that is taking a bit to access the HD. > > > > Thanks to give me your best solution for time/money issue. Andrea > > -- > > > > Fratelli Alinari Photo Archives and M
RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
To Preben: Thanks for your response and patience. The Abit board does permit JBOD; but it does not provide RAID 5 as you have noted. When I asked about what appeared to be a contradiction between what you suggested and what the ABIT manual said I did not realize that there was a RAID 5 and that this was what you were referring to. I apologize for my ignorance; but I am not sorry I asked. Out of my asking, I learned about RAID 5, which I would not have known about if I did not raise my question about the apparent contradiction. To all who have posted on the subject of RAID: Thank you; it has been an education. I have a few additional questions that I need to be educated on and would appreciate any information that you could provide me. (1) If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks, must each hard drive be the master on a separate IDE channel or can they be set up as master-slave on the same IDE channel? (2) If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks under WIN 98, can one establish partitions for the array or must it be a single partition? In formatting the drives to be used in a RAID array, how does one format each of the disks with Fdisk (each disk being a brand new disk) with respect to partitions? (3)If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks under WIN 98, can one use utilities such as ScanDisk and Disk Defragmenter on the RAID array, on individual hard drive disks in the array, or - if logical partitions are usable with the array or disks in the array - on the partitions? If this is getting to OT for the list, you can email me privately. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Preben Kristensen Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 3:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images Hi Laurie, You basically got it right: Raid 0 or striping is putting two or more harddisks together into one bigger disk. The Raid controller and software then divides say a 55 MB file in two or more parts and writes them to the disks simultaneously. This is reversed for reading files. The pros are great speed. The cons: if one disk goes - all data on all the disks in the array is lost as well... Raid 1 or mirroring, as you said, is just an automatic backup of one disk to another disk... great security, but slow. When you combine the two you get Raid 0/1 or 10 which is data is written to several disks simultaneously and backed up automatically on a similar number of disk. Therefore the smallest number of disks in a Raid 10 is 4; 2 Raid 0 and two Raid 1 combined. JBOD is just a cluster of disks acting as one big disk - slow to write and no security. Raid 5 is like Raid 0. It writes to a number of disks simultaneously - but somehow it distributes at the same time information on all the disks - that makes it possible to recreate data should you loose one of the disks. In that case you insert a fresh harddisk and the data belonging there will be recreated. This is what I referred to as "payment for Raid 5 data security": you loose the capacity of the equivalent to one harddisk in an Raid 5 array of four disks. Ie: instead of say, 400 GB, which you would have available in a Raid 0 or 200GB in a Raid 1, you get 300GB available in a Raid 5. Because it needs to write this extra information to the disks, Raid 5 is slower than Raid 0, but your data is relatively secure. Unless, of course, you loose two harddisks at the same time from the same array. :-) The Abit KG7 Raid does not offer you the choice of Raid 5. Only 0,1 or 10 and possibly JBOD - and AFAIK nor does any of the other motherboard built-in Raid solutions. There are other and much more complicated, secure AND expensive versions of Raid. The Adaptec Website gives a very good overview: www.adaptec.com . greetings Preben - Original Message ----- From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 7:53 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images > Preben, > Since you seem to be knowledgeable about IDE RAID matters, I wish to make > use of your knowledge as a resource even if it is OT for this list. I > recently bought an ABIT motherboard with RAID. The manual is not very clear > as tot he difference between RAID 0 (striping) and what it does versus JBOD > (spanning). I understand what RAID 1 (mirroring) is and how it works; but I > really do not understand how RAID 0 works or what parallel operation of the > two drives on the channel means and entails. > > While it may be different for third party RAID controllers, the manual for > the RAID controller on the ABIT KG7-RAID motherboard says that you need 4 > drives to use RAID 0+1 and that the second pair duplicate the first pair. > This appears to contradict your point concerning "You "pay" the equivalent > of one d
RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
>Actually, both must be set up on the same IDE channel as masters. How does one do that? I thought that you could only have one master device per channel; and it was the one that was connected to the end of the ribbon cable and had its jumper set for master. At any rate, I am off to check out the web site you mentioned and do some further research. Thanks for the reference. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Snyder Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 8:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images on 11/12/01 12:22 AM, LAURIE SOLOMON at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To Preben: > > Thanks for your response and patience. The Abit board does permit JBOD; but > it does not provide RAID 5 as you have noted. When I asked about what > appeared to be a contradiction between what you suggested and what the ABIT > manual said I did not realize that there was a RAID 5 and that this was what > you were referring to. I apologize for my ignorance; but I am not sorry I > asked. Out of my asking, I learned about RAID 5, which I would not have > known about if I did not raise my question about the apparent contradiction. > > To all who have posted on the subject of RAID: > > Thank you; it has been an education. I have a few additional questions that > I need to be educated on and would appreciate any information that you could > provide me. > > (1) If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks, must each hard > drive be the master on a separate IDE channel or can they be set up as > master-slave on the same IDE channel? Actually, both must be set up on the same IDE channel as masters. There is a procedure to follow before doing so, but this is the end result. > > (2) If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks under WIN 98, can > one establish partitions for the array or must it be a single partition? In > formatting the drives to be used in a RAID array, how does one format each > of the disks with Fdisk (each disk being a brand new disk) with respect to > partitions? Each is first done separately, but then there are steps to follow before arriving at the end result. Check the website of www.storagereview.com for details. They have a great article on setting up RAID arrays. > > (3)If one sets up a RAID 0 (striping)with two 60GB disks under WIN 98, can > one use utilities such as ScanDisk and Disk Defragmenter on the RAID array, > on individual hard drive disks in the array, or - if logical partitions are > usable with the array or disks in the array - on the partitions? Yes. Both disc are effectively one disk when properly set up. Remember, data is being striped to both as if they are one disc. Jim Snyder
RE: filmscanners: Kodak Grand Central Diorama (Was: the 10 foot print from 35mm...)
>What was truly astonishing was the fact that >the tiny 35mm transparency, though magnified an incredible 516 times, >retained sharpness. A very impressive testimonial to the quality of Leica >lenses and photographer Ernst Haas. The camera: Leicaflex SL with Summicron >50mm lens". Also quite possibly to the fact that one was not looking at the print through a loupe or at a close distance but from typically a football field's width away or further depending where you stood in the station. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Freedman Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Kodak Grand Central Diorama (Was: the 10 foot print from 35mm...) I'm a little late to this thread so if this has already been mentioned, my apologies. Actually at least one of the Kodak Grand Central Colorama's was made from a 35mm transparency. Here's a posting from Phil Greenspun's site: "I would like to remind a very good example of the enlargement from Popular Photography, September 1978, p.75: "For the first time ever, a 35mm transparency was used for Kodak's 60-foot long Colorama in New York's Grand Central Station. All previous Kodak Coloramas (27 years worth) were made from Large-format negatives. What was truly astonishing was the fact that the tiny 35mm transparency, though magnified an incredible 516 times, retained sharpness. A very impressive testimonial to the quality of Leica lenses and photographer Ernst Haas. The camera: Leicaflex SL with Summicron 50mm lens". Good luck, -- Victor Randin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), October 19, 2000. " Dave F. - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 2:25 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Kodak Grand Central Diorama (Was: the 10 foot print from 35mm...) > Frank, > > Thanks for the correction on this. It did seem working from 35mm would > have been "a stretch", obviously more a stretch than reasonable at the > best. I can't recall the subject matter of the ones I saw, just that > they were pretty impressive, and very large! Do you recall what the > enlargement ratio was from the 9" x 18" film image to _?? > > Art > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The Grand Central Station transparencies were made from large format > > originals. Some were shot with 9 x 18 inch aerial cameras; the one > > featuring the U.S. Navy "Blue Angels" flying formation over (I forget -- > > it was either Niagara Falls or Mt. Rushmore), for example. That one was > > the subject of a Kodak "documentary" film made at the time and used for > > promotional purposes. Showed pretty much the whole complex production > > process for the huge transparencies. > > > > All the best, > > Frank Peele > > Pacific Photographic > > Redlands, CA > > > >
RE: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images
>With two disks, you would be correct; but in this case, the two disks are >going to act as one, so both must be set to be masters. Right, but they are on separate IDE channels (channels 3 & 4) if I am understanding things correctly which is what lets them read and right simultaneously in parallel which is not the case if they were both on the same channel. I also do not think it is possible to have to master drives on the same channel so you cannot have the jumpers on both drives set for master drive if they are connected to the same cable and channel. The same RAID array using two IDE channels maybe. Am I understanding things correctly? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Snyder Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 7:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Best solution for HD and images on 11/12/01 10:34 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Actually, both must be set up on the same IDE channel as masters. > > How does one do that? I thought that you could only have one master device > per channel; and it was the one that was connected to the end of the ribbon > cable and had its jumper set for master. > With two disks, you would be correct; but in this case, the two disks are going to act as one, so both must be set to be masters. Jim Snyder
RE: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
> Fed-X apparently no longer guarantees x-ray free travel for film, either. That maybe because Fed-X has an arrangement with the US Postal Service whereby it carries all the USPS's airmail (which is virtually all the USPS mail) from destination to destination; thus, they are obliged to impose the same security measures the USPS requires and imposes including x-ray and soon possibly irradiation of the shipped items. While this is true for the US; I would not be a bit surprises to find them instituting it world-wide for reasons of uniformity of operations and cost savings on volume purchasing of the security devices and standardization of procedures. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jeff Spirer Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 6:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc At 02:54 PM 11/25/01, Doug Segar wrote: >Since the Administrator has issued no such notice regarding the hand >checking film provision, the rule does apply WITHOUT exception. It is in no way clear that the Administrator has not done this. It is difficult to find information on where the changes in security are being issued from. For example, the FAA says that they (not the airlines) are now restricting the number of bags, but try and find a government order on that. I'm not sure where the provision for constant random baggage checks is that now occur, either. However, my posting was still just to demonstrate that the public does not have an irrevocable right (under the law) to have film hand-checked, and that point stands. In Mexico, my extra camera batteries were taken away at screening. I was told they should have been in my checked baggage. It's not really safe to assume anything these days. Fed-X apparently no longer guarantees x-ray free travel for film, either. Jeff Spirer Photos: http://www.spirer.com One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
RE: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
>But they grumbled about how I should have a lead lined pouch. Sort of funny in a way. I fail to see how a lead lined bag would help matters since it would prevent the film from being x-rayed and would necessitate a hand check anyway. How would that be any different that putting the film in a baggie and asking for the hand check straight out? I really think that you and others have run into instances of bureaucratic ritualism and pragmatism which holds that you follow the rules to the letter at any cost even if it is impractical so as to make your life easier, your work more routine and standardized with less problems, and you have the security of knowing that your ass is covered. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karl Schulmeisters Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc Well whether or not the 'official process' has been followed is somewhat irrelevant. I just got back from a multi-stop hop into, within and back home from Europe. Here is what I found I took all my film, put it in a ziplock baggy, and made sure I had some 1600 in there marked PUSH. With that I asked for hand inspection at all airports. I had no problems (after pointing to the 1600) at SeaTac and O'Hare outbound to Paris. I had no problems in CDG (despite my attrocious french pronunciation of 'trois mille' whilst pointing at the films) outbound to Stuttgart I had no problems Munich to Turin or Turin to CDG. BUT outbound from CDG back to the USA, I had no problems UNTIL, they did a final screening as part of the boarding process. After much begging, arguing and pleading (and here their threat of 'do it our way or get bumped' carried very real immediate consequences) they agreed to let me not have all of the 1600 not scanned, as well as all of the exposed 400 and 800. But they grumbled about how I should have a lead lined pouch. I think the trick is to carry your 1600 in a ziplock baggie. for your other film either a) put it in the lead lined pouch and run that through the hand-inspection screening or b) get one of those office label makers that print on aluminized labels, and print up markings for your film canisters that wrap the whole thing (just like the private label film from places like COSTCO) but are all marked 1600. Leave the auto-speed parts unchanged so your camera knows what's what. If need be, mark with a sharpie and apply another label. - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc > Thank you. > > Art > > Doug Segar wrote: > > > At 04:21 PM 11/25/2001 -0800, you wrote: > > > >>At 02:54 PM 11/25/01, Doug Segar wrote: > >> > >>>Since the Administrator has issued no such notice regarding the hand checking film provision, the rule does apply WITHOUT exception. > >>> > >>It is in no way clear that the Administrator has not done this. It is difficult to find information on where the changes in security are being issued from. For example, the FAA says that they (not the airlines) are now restricting the number of bags, but try and find a government order on that. I'm not sure where the provision for constant random baggage checks is that now occur, either. > >> > > > > Note that final revisions of regs post 09/11 (effective 11/14/2001) can be found at > > > > http://152.119.239.10/docimages/pdf73/134599_web.pdf > > > > The file is a large one but for those who do not wish to download it, the essential point is that the provision on hand inspection of film (including the critical word "shall") is unchanged and there is nothing in the document that modifies "certificate holder" authority to change this rule without direct authorization by the FAA Administrator . > > > > > > . > > > > > > >
RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
While it indeed may be more sensible for the ISP to maintain a virus checking operation on all messages coming into and going out of their ISP, your ISP also, evidently, seems to work under the assumption that redundancy insures that the message will get through and sends out multiple copies of your posts. :-) I received several copies of the post below. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Otway Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 7:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus >> Perhaps we should all suggest to our service providers that >> they should impliment a similar scheme. The ISP that hosts my website and provides my mail has a virus-checker running on the pop and smtp servers. This means that I *cannot* receive a virus, and if I accidently catch one it can't be sent either. He keeps the virus-checker totally up to date. That's much more sensible than just blocking certain types of attachments. I don't run any anti-virus software, and in 6 years of regular internet use I've never had a virus. Not once. Mark http://www.otway.com
RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus
I understanbd completely and was just pulling your leg. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Otway Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 3:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Filmscanners: OT: E-mail virus >> While it indeed may be more sensible for the ISP to maintain >> a virus checking operation on all messages coming into and >> going out of their ISP, your ISP also, evidently, seems to >> work under the assumption that redundancy insures that the >> message will get through and sends out multiple copies of >> your posts. :-) I received several copies of the post below. That wasn't my ISP. It was due to a fumble on my part (and Outlook). I tried to stop the message going, but it'd already gone. Then it got sent again. PEBCAK Mark
