[filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: domain transfer issues
Very good work! What camera and scanner do you use? I'm still with film and scanner as well, though I did pick up a Pentax Optio 555 for carry-around convenience. Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Henk de Jong wrote: I am still using slide film and my scanner. I am not yet ready for a digital camera and have subscribed to newsgroups about film scanning. Have a look at: http://www.hsdejong.nl/burma/miscellaneous/recently_added_photos.html Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Flatbed for prints only
I think any Epson flatbed would be fine - I have the old Epson Perfection 1200, which scans at 1200ppi maximum, and IMHO it provides excellent results. I've scanned BW and color photos, magazine and book images, and just the other day a notebook computer RAM chip. I did spring for SilverFast SE for it (the cheap version vs. the full Ai version) but haven't had to use it much - Epson's TWAIN has been sufficient. Maris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Most of the posts here are for film scanners, but I thought I'd ask for your opinion on a flatbad. I have a Umax Astra 2100U flatbed (circa 1999), that is a bit too slow. It's a USB 1.1 mdoel. The scan quality could probably stand improvement. Can anyone recommend a flatbed, which produces good print scans, but does not necessarily have a film attachment. This I hope would lower the price as well. I was hoping to find a flatbad for around $100. Format no bigger than std 8.5x11 or A4 (or close to it). Most flatbed reviews I read, lean on the film scan evaluation. I do not care about that at all. For film, I'd use a dedicated scanner. I read about Epson Perfection 4990, and it seems a good candidate, but again it has film scanning which I do not need. The cheaper scanners do not get reviews at all. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-30 -- strange behavoir
I second that emotion - I don't consider myself old at 55, nor a fogie, but thank you - I just picked up a PS digital for current use, but for fine art and long term, I'm still using film. Maris Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote: And thanks (again) for keeping this list going -- the dwindling crew of old fogies still doing this stuff relies on the advice to be found here. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Blue gray random pattern???
It's not moire, is it? What is he scanning? Have him try a different scanning program - free trial of Vuescan. He can perhaps narrow it down to a hardware vs. a software problem. http://www.hamrick.com/ Maris Brad Davis wrote: Hi, My electrician discovered that I know a little about scanning and presented me with this problem. He has an Epson 2400 scanner, hooked to a PC via USB2 - the PC is running XP personal. The Epson 2400 is his 3rd try at a scanner, the USB2 is the second try at an interface. In all attempts, he gets a light cyan-gray random pattern across all scans. This shows most clearly in white areas. It looks very much like what I would get using Photoshop and doing a random fill with noise at perhaps 10%. (I've never done anything other than a 50% noise fill, so that number is a very rough estimate.) The gray pattern, while random, is much too regular to be from interference, and it appears in the image, on the monitor - it isn't being added by the printer. He is using the Epson supplied software to do his scans and has had numerous folks look at his set up with no one being able to figure out what is causing the problem. That he has tried three different scanners seems to eliminate them as the cause. I wouldn't expect the interface to put in such an even (if random) dot pattern. I have no idea how XP might be at fault, but the one thing that would seem to be common is the XP driver for USB(12). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: FW: Software question re Nikon Coolscan 4000ED
I would suggest you try Vuescan out - the demo is free but will have a watermark on it. Essentially, it's preview is not all that accurate, but it will capture all of the detail in the highlights and shadows and you can work on the image from there in your preferred image-adjusting software. Maris - Original Message - From: Haydn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 6:51 PM Subject: [filmscanners] FW: Software question re Nikon Coolscan 4000ED Dear All, I have been watching with interest the mail that passes on this board for around 3 months now; as background info, I am an amateur photographer and have just purchased a Nikon Coolscan 4000ED with which I hope to digitise 20 years of accumulated photos from around the globe. Since I am a newcomer and a beginner to scanning, can anyone point me to where I can find information on the relative merits of the Nikonscan 3.1.2 software as against Vuescan or indeed any other scanning software for that matter. Thus far I have only dipped my toe gently into the water and after importing scanned images into Photoshop I do my tweaking there and am reasonably happy with the results obtained. I have already found the limitations of the ICE feature which sometimes works on an image and then again, more often than not, most definitely doesn't, but I am sure there are untold wonders on the road ahead and would like to get to them in the shortest and least painful manner. Sorry to go over old ground and I hope that my question doesn't upset anyone's applecart. Regards and thanks. Haydn Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon coolscan 3
Try adjusting the black and white point settings on the Color tab - the detail in the shadow should show up better and your image adjustment software will do the rest. Maris - Original Message - From: Elvis Hoshida [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 06, 2002 8:56 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Nikon coolscan 3 Hi fellows This is my first post .I'm from Brazil but actually i live in Japan So sorry for the bad english and miss spell ! I own a Nikon coolscan 3 but due some hardware problems i can't use the nikon software so i use Vuescan ,but i'm happy with the results . I use to have far more good results with the Nikon driver ! Colors ,grain and shadows come out pretty bad when i use vuescan. I would appreciate any help to improve my scan .I'm a photographer and i need the best results i can get .Lately i have print my slides using the Frontier mini-labs.I love the results , but without do a good scan ,my prints don't look that good anymore. Regards Elvis Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Film base color settings in VueScan
For slides there is no real need to lock film base color. In fact, Ed Hamrick suggests the image setting for scanning slides. Maris - Original Message - From: Vincent Cleij [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:57 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Film base color settings in VueScan Hi, I am using VueScan 7.5.47 with a Nikon LS30 and have some problems scanning slides. When I display my slides with a projector on the wall they look pretty good but with VueScan and also with SilverFast (4.2.7r07) I can't get results that comes close to what I see on the wall. With some slides I found that I could get good results when I first scan a slide that does not have problems, then lock the film base color and image color and then scan the slide that gives problems. This workflow gives good results with slides that does not contain dark or black parts (e.g. a photo from the sky with only clouds and blue parts). But with slides that do not have light parts it does not give good results (e.g. with photos of trees taken from an air-balloon without light parts). My question is what is the purpose of the film base color settings when scanning slides? When scanning negative film it is used to remove the orange color mask. When I check the Lock film base color option I can read the settings VueScan calculated after the last preview. The values are e.g.: Red = 0.493, Green = 0.443 and Blue = 0.692. Are these values strange for a slide? When I open the 16 bits raw scan file with PhotoShop (6.0) I get a very dark image. Vincent Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Best software for underexposed image
Vuescan will get all the data that might still be available - from there you'll have to deal with your preferred graphics program. Maris - Original Message - From: Denise Kissinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 2:04 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Best software for underexposed image Hello All, I'm having to correct some severely underexposed images, at least 2+ stops. I have a SS4000 and Vuescan, Polaroid, and Silverfast. Which software would give the results I need. Sincerely, Denise E. Kissinger --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Any opinions on Nikon Coolscan 3 LS-30?
I am and have been entirely satisfied with mine, and I primarily use Vuescan with it. I paid $500 for a refurb before the new batch came out, so Major Andras's suggestion of $300 tops sounds about right. I have not had problems with the film strip feeder, but then I've scanned no more than about 200 rolls of film. Maris - Original Message - From: Julian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:58 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Any opinions on Nikon Coolscan 3 LS-30? I'm thinking of buying one of these secondhand. This would be my first film scanner. What would be the maximum price I should pay for one and what is the quality like? Thanks Julian Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: How does Minolta Scan Dual 2 compare with Nikon LS-30?
Many of my films are old and scratched through poor processing labs, so I have found Digital Ice (and Vuescan's IR-channel dust scratch removal) invaluable. Maris - Original Message - From: Julian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:02 PM Subject: [filmscanners] How does Minolta Scan Dual 2 compare with Nikon LS-30? Further to my earlier post about the Nikon, I have also seen a Minolta scan dual 2 being sold secondhand, how does this compare? As I am in the UK our prices are somewhat more expensive, so what should I expect to pay for this Minolta. I understand that it has no Digital Ice, but does this make a lot of difference? Julian Wales UK Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Fri 27 Sep, 2002
IM HARD OF HEARING - COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER? Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 4:45 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Fri 27 Sep, 2002 HELLO ALL, I AM ABOUT TO BUY A POLAROID SPRINTSCAN 120 OR MAYBE A COOLSCAN 8000. POLAROID IS SOME $500 CHEAPER AND I AM WONDERING IF THAT IS BECAUSE NIKON IS A BETTER ONE. I HEARD NIKON HAD PROBLEMS WITH SOFTWARE AND WAS FREEZING THE COMPUTER. CAN YOU SPRINTSCAN 120 USERS OUT THERE LET ME KNOW YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THIS SCANNER. ID APPRECIATE ENY INPUT THNK YOU MILOS Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
I tried it. Leaving the Resample box checked does result in no change the ppi Resolution. Unchecking the Resample box does result in a change in Resolution. Maris - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 7:03 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Maris writes: [snipped] Your hypothetical of entering 11 inches in the new dimension, with the resampling box checked or unchecked, would not result in PS computing 11 inches x 4000 ppi. PS would reduce the ppi proportionately in either case. Try it. If you simply enter a new dimension in inches, the size in pixels will increase or decrease as required to produce that dimension ... at 4000 ppi. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Brian said the file size was reduced, so there was apparently resampliing (downsampling). Your hypothetical of entering 11 inches in the new dimension, with the resampling box checked or unchecked, would not result in PS computing 11 inches x 4000 ppi. PS would reduce the ppi proportionately in either case. Try it. Maris - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 2:32 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Brian writes: If I scan a 35 mm slide or negative at 4000 dpi in a Nikon Coolscan 4000 and I want to make a print in Photoshop, I alter the long dimension to 11 inches (the short dimension ends up at whatever to retain the proper dimensions). Since this usually ends up in a file size that is smaller than what it was originally, does this mean the image will be downsampled? No. By default, when you enter a dimension in the Image Size dialog box, Photoshop will resample the image to match the dimensions you've given. In the case of pixels, PS simply resamples up or down to match the new pixel dimensions. In the case of a physical dimension like 11 inches (entered in the Print Size portion of the dialog), however, PS resamples up or down to match the new physical dimension _after_ calculating the number of pixels required by multiplying the physical dimension by the number of pixels per inch. When you open a scan from the Coolscan, the ppi is set to 4000 (the scanner's resolution); and the number of pixels in the image corresponds to the number of pixels in a 35mm frame scanned at 4000 ppi, or about 5669x3779 pixels. If you now enter just 11 inches as the new dimension in the resizing dialog, Photoshop will compute 11 inches x 4000 ppi = 44000 pixels, and will upsample the image to this size. In general, this is not what you want. [remainder snipped] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening
Yes it will be downsampled. To downsample by 2, one method would be to change the dimensions of the image to what you want, but UNCHECK Resample Image Click OK. This will change the resolution but will not be downsampled yet. Then Image - Image Size - change the resolution to 1/2 of the Resolution shown, readjust the Document Size to what you want, click OK. It will be downsampled by 1/2. Continue doing this until the Resolution is what you desire. Maris - Original Message - From: Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 4:49 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening Anthony, I would like to ask you a question about the proper interpretation of downsampling. If I scan a 35 mm slide or negative at 4000 dpi in a Nikon Coolscan 4000 and I want to make a print in Photoshop, I alter the long dimension to 11 inches (the short dimension ends up at whatever to retain the proper dimensions). Since this usually ends up in a file size that is smaller than what it was originally, does this mean the image will be downsampled? If the answer is yes then how do I downsample in powers of 2? do I go 4000 to 2000 to 1000 to 500 to 360, sharpening at each step as you suggest? [remainder snipped] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Vuescan
Ed has released Vuescan 7.5.31 What's new in version 7.5.31 Added support for right mouse click on neutral color (control-click on Mac) Added support for right mouse double-click to reset to White balance Added display of pixel rgb value when mouse over image Modified Filter|Infrared defects to not mark spots in output files Added support for several USB to SCSI converters on Mac OS X Changed keyboard shortcuts for Refresh and Eject (Apple-H hides on Mac OS X) http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html Maris Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different purposes]
Good point - you are correct. Maris - Original Message - From: Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 3:33 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different purposes] Maris writes: True enough, but if the image requires sharpening? You cannot know if an image will require sharpening or not until you know how the image will actually be used. I would think it better to convert to JPG and then sharpen rather than sharpen in TIFF and then convert. Neither of these operations is possible. You cannot sharpen anything while it is stored in a TIFF or JPEG file; you must open the file, read the image data inside, and load it into an image-editing program such as Photoshop in order to sharpen it. While the image is in Photoshop, it _does not have_ a format; it is not TIFF or JPEG or anything else. When you store the image, it is recorded in a file in TIFF or JPEG format. But you cannot sharpen an image in TIFF or sharpen an image after conversion to JPEG; neither of these makes any real sense. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
So the moral of the story is you have to know your printing company and act accordingly. Perhaps save in Adobe RGB for now, and when you find a printer talk to them - you can then convert to Colormatch RGB if they are not color-management aware or if that's what they prefer. Maris - Original Message - From: Andrew Darlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes Tomek Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: What color spaces is best to choose for the following purposes: - printed material, for example a magazine or a photographic book - stock photography (image bank) - inkjet and Maris V. Lidaka Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested: I also would suggest Adobe RGB. I would not sharpen the images yet - sharpen when you are ready to print on inkjet or to send to the publisher, as your sharpening amount will probably be different. Some publishers will do the sharpening themselves AFAIK. --- Maris has excellent advice. For a fuller story, try a Googlesearch for: (color space RGB colormatch sRGB Adobe) and you will get lot's of informative links. One pre-press expert in my area recommends ColorMatchRGB instead of Adobe98 for pre-press work. Is this a Mac vs. PC thing? Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was at a recent event with industry experts and one gentleman who is highly respected in the area uses Colormatch RGB because of the large number of files created in Photoshop 4.0. Also, if a file is given to a non-color managed company, the Colormatch RGB image will survive a stripped out profile better in general because it closely resembles the Mac monitor space. The sacrifice is that bright blues and greens will be sacrificed a bit., which probably doesn't matter for offset printing, but might matter when outputting to a Lightjet or other continuous tone process. All the best! -Andrew Darlow Photography, Digital Print Consulting and Custom Editions Andrew Darlow Images International, NYC - www.andydarlow.com Author: Inkjet Tip of the Month Club (newsletter) To subscribe, send e-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different purposes]
Initial sharpening is what Bruce Frasier recommends: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html As to the effectiveness of sharpening on the smaller image - you have fewer pixels to work with, so the same sharpening radius will be much more visible. Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 10:43 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different purposes] [snipped] OK, I think I'm getting clear here. So let me rephrase a bit. When I scan an image - into whatever file formet, I use TIFF out of Vuescan - and then open it in PS, I can immediately see some sharpness loss which I understand to be a result of the scan - scanner limitation, etc. One eventual step in my workflow is usually to try to restore the image to something resembling the original slide, through the use of as little sharpening or USM as possible. If I try that on my original file - before down-sampling - I have to use large USM values to see any effect at all, or use sharpen more (I'm using PS Elements at the moment). Once I've resized for the web - typically to 800 pixels in long dimension, which I do using a bicubic resample and changing the resolution, usually to about 600dpi from 2720 - the file shrinks from its former +/-20MB to about 1.25MB and sharpening must be done very cautiously in order to avoid halos and other artifacts. When I resize for *print* I don't resample, I just change the dimensions and leave the resolution the same. It's in the down-sized scan that I see the change in sharpening response. So, aside of asking for any observation regarding improving my workflow - why is the sharpening so much more effective on the smaller image? And am I losing something I'm not yet aware of?I'm sure a much more experienced eye can detect sharpening artifacts in my stuff, but I've been relatively pleased with the results. 2 examples - feel free to criticize: http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=716 http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=29447 But I'd like to understand more and get better results. Thanks for all the explanations! Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes)
It's not that unusual, though I don't recall why, and LZW compression will not reduce file size nearly as much as JPG Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 4:32 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Archiving and when to sharpen (was:Color spaces for differentpurposes) [snipped] The reason I ask is that I just compared a scanned photograph of 3591 X 5472 pixel size saved in several formats. The results were: TIFF36,498 kb TIFF with lwz compression 36, 523 kb JPG @ Photoshop level 1217,633 kb Wow, are you sure? The LZW TIFF was *larger*? That's unusual. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Probably the artifacts created in the compression process. It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen. Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:05 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 16:17:30 +0100, you wrote: Personally I do some sharpening for an archival image that may end up going to different outputs. This is only a minor sharpening to restore the sharpness of the original which is almost always softened by the scanning process. Most images will benefit from further sharpening when targeting for a specific output but this should not really be done for an archival copy. Speaking of sharpening - I think I understand this in a sort of sloppy intuitive way, but could someone offer a technical explanation of why sharpening has so much more visible effect on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs? Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Sorry - I hadn't read this post when I sent the previous message. Perhaps you are over-sharpening? Also, are you sharpening just the Lightness channel or also the color channels? Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:58 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:56:29 -0500, you wrote: Theoretically maybe; but out of curiosity, how does one do this in actuality when one would have to first decompress the JPG file before one could carry out the sharpening operations. Afterwhich, one would then recompress the file again in its altered state which would be what typically causes the artifacts and deterioration in JPG files to begin with? Yes, I realized after I typed that what I actually do is resize the TIFF, edit, * sharpen * and THEN go to JPEG. It's in this resized TIFF that I see the increased sharpening or USM effects, over the raw intitial file. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
Yes - definitely TIFF for printing, but sharpen after you resize. I'm not familiar with Vuescan's for print output setting, since I output to PS anyway. Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:55 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:33:05 -0500, you wrote: Probably the artifacts created in the compression process. It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen. But when printing it's best to go direct from the TIFF isn't it? This is where I run into it. When producing for the web, yes, I go to jpeg and then sharpen. Actually, I often resize the TIFF to the pixel size I want, do the rest of my editing and then sharpen just before converting to JPEG. I get good results this way.Come to think of it, I see a lot more sharpening effect when the TIFF has been resized than before - let alone the JPEG. I also haven't experimented with the for print output setting in Vuescan - any idea what this does differently? Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
At this point it's moot since Ken said he resizes in TIFF and sharpens, but I think you are correct - conversion from TIFF to JPG reduces file size and apparently compresses, I would think to Maximum quality. Sharpening at that point was what I was suggesting, before saving as a more-compressed JPG. Maris - Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 3:35 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes Alas, either I am misunderstanding you or I am terribly confused; both options are entirely possible. I would convert and sharpen before compressing If you convert any file format to a JPG format, are you not coverting and compressing at the same time? I did not think that in fact they are practically separate and distinct operations even if the act of coverting presents itself to the user as if it were being done in stages. Thus, if I am correct about the conversion and compression processes being from the users point of view for all intents and purposes one in the same, how does one sharpen between the conversion stage and the compression stage? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka Sr. Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 1:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes I would convert and sharpen before compressing. It may or may not help - I'm not an expert - but it would deal with any artifacts that might possibly be introduced in the conversion process itself. I would not compress, re-open and recompress absent drastic sharpening artifacts in the compressed JPG. Maris [remainder snipped] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different purposes]
True enough, but if the image requires sharpening? JPG is not a good format, I know, but it is very useful and in fact necessary for the web. I would think it better to convert to JPG and then sharpen rather than sharpen in TIFF and then convert. I haven't tested but I think it would result in fewer artifacts. Maris - Original Message - From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 8:34 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes [snipped] conversion from TIFF to JPG reduces file size and apparently compresses, I would think to Maximum quality. Sharpening at that point was what I was suggesting, before saving as a more-compressed JPG Saving a file as a JPG file at a level of compression involving the least amount of compression would obviously result in much less lost empirical information (e.g., actual image data) than to save at higher compression levels; however, I think it is questionable if the remaining empirical data would represent maximum quality in all cases. But to change the existing data in the original JPG file by sharpening and then resaving the result to a more compressed state is one of the sorts of actions which tends to produce the often found JPG artifacts and deterioration of the image that such a file can produce. [remainder snipped] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: VueScan vs. SilverFast with negs
Because it doesn't clip the highlights or the shadows. Using levels and curves in PS will bring the image back to life, but there are times when you want/need to keep the lightest highlight or the darkest shadow. Maris - Original Message - From: Petru Lauric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:20 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: VueScan vs. SilverFast with negs [snipped} - VueScan - as I said I have only used it for a few times, mainly to try to compare the results with the SF scans. In general I got very flat images, even after adjusting the levels in PS the scans were still a little too flat for my taste. Many people on this list however like the results from Vuescan. filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Lack of contrast in the (raw) scans from VueScan ?
This is how Vuescan is designed to work - to NOT clip any highlights or shadows, but to leave that for postprocessing in PS or other program where you can examine the image more closely and determine what if any endpoint clipping to do, and set your black and white point with much more accuracy. On the Device tab be sure your selection for Option types is advanced - that will give you the full controls. On the Color tab you can experiment with Color balance, Black point and White point, and the Brightness controls. Maris - Original Message - From: Sassan Hazeghi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 12:55 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Lack of contrast in the (raw) scans from VueScan ? I have had a Nikon LS-30 scanner for over a year now and until recently it was being used occasionally to scan images that I needed to post to a web page or send via email. A couple of months ago, though, I started looking into how to capture the most from my films for archival purposes and was surprised by the initial results from using VueScan (which I had hoped would give me more than the 8bit pixel depth I am getting from NikonScan.) I am using VueScan 7.5 (beta ?) and NikonScan 3.1.0, and the default settings for VueScan generally produces images that are washed out and lack in contrast. This is particularly pronounced for BW negatives (TMY-400 Tri-X) where the histograms for the raw scans show ~10 points less std deviation than the scans produced by the (default settings for) NikonScan. The lack of contrast is also present, though not as pronounced, when comparing the scans for T400-CN (C-41 BW film) as well as color negatives or slides. Are there any obvious controls for VueScan that I need to be changing (other than the film type scan resolution -- I don't seem to be able to find a manual exposure or Analog Gain control.) I have placed the JPG form of the scan files from NikonScan, VueScan and raw fladbed scans from 4x6 prints (from the local lab) of a couple of Tri-X and one T400-CN negative under the attached URLs (sorry about the large files) and would appreciate any insight into what I may be doing wrong as well as the answer to any of the the listed questions I have run into, in the course of this exercise. Thanks, Sassan. Tri-X http://63.197.150.190/sassan/photography/test-scans/Heidesee-pumphouse-Nikon Scan.jpg http://63.197.150.190/sassan/photography/test-scans/Heidesee-pumphouse-ViewS can.jpg http://63.197.150.190/sassan/photography/test-scans/Heidesee-pumphouse-print .jpg Tri-x http://63.197.150.190/sassan/photography/test-scans/Heidesee-boathouse-Nikon Scan.jpg http://63.197.150.190/sassan/photography/test-scans/Heidesee-boathouse-ViewS can.jpg http://63.197.150.190/sassan/photography/test-scans/Heidesee-boathouse-print .jpg T400-CN http://63.197.150.190/sassan/photography/test-scans/Village-after-Lentsch.Ni konScan.jpg http://63.197.150.190/sassan/photography/test-scans/Village-after-Lentsch.Vi ewScan.jpg http://63.197.150.190/sassan/photography/test-scans/Village-after-Lentsch.pr int.jpg And the questions ... - What is the appropriate film (media) setting for T400-CN (color negative or BW negative) under either software ? - Likewise, how does one disable autoexposure entirely (NikonScan allows changing the Analog Gain but this seems to be changing the bias to the autoexposure readout. ) - Can VueScan reliably/repeatably get 10bit raw readouts of a given pixel or are the extra two bits simply random values being read independent of the value of the pixel ? I.e. Does a full resolution scan of Q60 produce a tiff file that matches that of LS-40 ? - Related to the above tow back-to-back scans of the same image (without any change to the registration of the film) seem to always produce scan files that differ measurably, if not significantly. I realize that compared to digital logic, CCD's can be more temperamental but I am wondering, if this is more noticeable in LS-30 compared to LS-40 or LS-4000 or they all use a similar CCD array ? - If I need to switch to a more capable scanner for consistent archival scans, beyond the auto slide-feeder, does LS-4000 offer real advantages over LS-40 ? More specifically: - Does LS-4000 cope with Kodachrome any better than LS-40/30 ? - Is the digital ICE capability of the LS-30 and LS-40 comparable ? - Is the Firewire interface in LS-4000 noticeably faster than LS-40's USB ? - On a different type of question, how does one view the (density/ luminescence) histograms for two images side-by-side under PS 6.0 ? This seems to be a very basic and useful operation but it is not obvious how to display the histogram for the second image without closing the first one ! Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest'
[filmscanners] Re: Eyedroppers in Curves in Nikon Scan
Double-click on the gray eyedropper and you can pick the values you want for the gray value in your image, be it 128-128-128 or any other setting. Maris - Original Message - From: Jerry Lodriguss [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:40 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Eyedroppers in Curves in Nikon Scan Addendum to the Gray point eyedropper behavior in Photoshop. Using it re-maps pixel values to neutral, but not necessarily to middle gray. For instance, in Photoshop 6.01, in curves, I have the gray point target values specified as 128,128,128. No auto levels or auto contrast is performed first. Eyedropper sample point is set to 5x5. Clicking on a gray card in an image with pixel values of 106,118,106, the values are re-mapped to 110,109,110. Pretty close to being neutral, but not the specified 128,128,128. Is this curious behavior, or am I missing something here? Thanks, Jerry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-40 vs Polaroid SS4000
All or nothing deal. Maris - Original Message - From: Tris Schuler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 8:06 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon LS-40 vs Polaroid SS4000 I use it on an LS2000 it saves me 3-5 hours a week. That's worth real money! There is very slight image degradation but far less than in the transition from pixels to ink. David Hoffman Is there a control to it, to where it can directed to work on just a given part of the image, or be directed to look for certain kinds of artifacts? Is it an all-or-nothing deal? Tris Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Sony monitor problem
I don't know how your finances are, but IMHO it is not worth fixing - you can move up to a 17 monitor, a cheapie for $200 U.S. or less or quality for $300-400 U.S. You can always keep the old monitor for a dual-monitor system and live with the jumping. OTOH it could possibly be the video card - do you have the latest driver? Maris - Original Message - From: Philip Elkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:30 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Sony monitor problem Please can you respond off list to prevent a OT thread. I have a 15 Sony Multiscan 100es monitor that has given about 4 years of good service. However it is now jumping every 30 mins or so like when you press a degauss? button (it does not have one!). Could this be the power regulation/ supply failing? If so is does anyone know where it could be looked at in the north of the UK? if it was worth fixing? Regards Philip Elkin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: PMA 2002 - Orlando
Art, I didn't read your comment as pompous or even close to it. It was humorous when taken with a grain of salt and I even enjoyed it. Tony does give us a lot of leeway on this list, and I sincerely appreciate it. Maris - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 10:17 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PMA 2002 - Orlando Norman Unsworth wrote: Give us a break, Art. It's a legitimate beef, newcomer or not, and responding to perceived presumptuousness with pomposity isn't helpful. Now let's please drop it before it becomes another irrelevant OT thread. Norman Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archive
http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk Maris - Original Message - From: Philip Elkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 7:26 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Archive Just deleted all my messages in OE. What is the archive address please sorry to ask! Philip Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Photoshop 5.0 LE
To be a bit more specific, you can scan at 16-bit depth and Elements will open the image but will convert it automatically to 8-bit depth. Maris - Original Message - From: Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 8:05 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Photoshop 5.0 LE One thing that Photoshop LE has over Elements: If you get the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, it does not support 16-bit depth with Elements, while it does with LE. Anything else better about LE? Berry Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan 7.4+ raw scan file change
Version 7.5 is coming out in a few days according to Ed and it (if I recall his message correctly) will put the raw scan back to what it was like before. If not, you can certainly run 2 versions of Vuescan simultaneously (hopefully you've retained the earlier versions on your hard drive). Maris - Original Message - From: Henry Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 9:24 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Vuescan 7.4+ raw scan file change It has been quite awhile since I have posted to this list but with a recent change to Vuescan I would like to get the opinion of others. Actually, I posted this message more than 2 days ago but it never showed up on the list so I will post it again. I have been using Vuescan for close to 4 years and in the last year or so I have settled on the methodology of scanning with my Minolta Scan Elite using multi-scanning to create a high-quality scan and archiving the high-resolution raw scan files to CD. I probably have a thousand or so raw scan files archived now. I like to archive the raw scan files so that any time I want to use the photo I can use Vuescan to scan from the raw file at any resolution and using any setting (infrared cleaning, grain reduction, color parameters, etc.) I want. Using the raw file I can scan one time using no grain reduction, another time using grain reduction at various levels, with infrared cleaning, without infrared cleaning, etc. Another advantage of archiving the raw scan file is that Ed from time to time improves the infrared cleaning and/or grain reduction algorithm and by rescanning the archived raw scan file with the latest, greatest version of Vuescan I can take advantage of that improvement. This brings me to the point of this message. Starting with version 7.4 Ed has changed Vuescan from creating a raw scan file to a creating partially processed raw scan file. The raw file now has infrared cleaning already done and, in a message a couple of days ago, Henk de Jong says that grain reduction processing has already been done to the raw scan file also. I'm sure Ed has some very good reasons for making this change but, I for one, much prefer the previous method of saving a raw file with none of that processing. In recent months Ed has made some tremendous improvements to Vuescan (histograms, etc.) that I have been wanting for years and I heartily thank him for those. Certainly I trust Ed's good judgement because he usually gets things right, but this time I can see no advantage from a user's point of view, but there is a serious disadvantage. With the way Vuescan 7.4+ operates I must do one of two things: 1. Scan the slide/negative 8 times and archive 8 raw scan files: a. no infrared cleaning, no grain reduction b. no infrared cleaning, light grain reduction c. no infrared cleaning, medium grain reduction d. no infrared cleaning, heavy grain reduction e. infrared cleaning, no grain reduction f. infrared cleaning, light grain reduction g. infrared cleaning, medium grain reduction h. infrared cleaning, heavy grain reduction 2. Scan the slide/negative using the infrared cleaning setting and grain reduction setting that I *think* I will usually want for this image and when I want a different setting I will have to go back and rescan the original image again -- sort of defeats the purpose of archiving in the first place though. I hope Ed will reconsider and return Vuescan to creating raw scan files that don't have the infrared cleaning and grain reduction already performed. Maybe there is some advantage to the new method that I can't think of and if there is maybe someone can enlighten me. In my opinion, it would have to be a really huge advantage to offset the very serious disdvantage though. What do others think? Henry Richardson http://www.hrich.com _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: A bit OT scanning archival prints
First of all, on the Device Tab, first box, change Option types to Advanced. Since your scanning prints your Media type would be Image For the faded colors, you might experiment with the Restore Colors option on the Filter tab. For 16-bit color, change the TIFF file type to 48 bit RGB, and uncheck the TIFF compression box, both on the Files tab. I don't use TIFF compression myself for the very reason you suggest. For a RAW scan just check the Save raw file box on the Files tab. Photoshop will not know it's a 'RAW' file so you should make some not of it yourself, perhaps in the filename. I may be wrong on this, but Save Index file on the files tab may make a thumbnail. If not, you can make thumbnails in PS when you open an image and resave it, and you can create an index sheet using PS or something like Irfanview (PC only program). Maris - Original Message - From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 3:53 AM Subject: [filmscanners] A bit OT scanning archival prints Dear list, I want to begin my project of scanning my whole archive of family prints (bw and faded color) with mu Agfa Arcus 1200 using VueScan. But I'm lost in all those settings of VueScan. Could you give me hints as to recommended settings on VueScan and the work flow in general? I know I should work with 16bit color in Photoshop but I'm not sure how to switch it on. And what about raw scans? Even if you recommend to use it, I don't know how to enable this function. How do I recognize in Photoshop that a file is raw? My plan is to record to CDs the uncorrected originals as they are and the corrected ones alongside. All in tiff format, not jpeg. How to disable tiff compression in VueScan? If I use the compression, do I risk future incompatibility? Are uncompressed tiffs a safer option as compatibility and future use go? And the last question: my Photoshop 6 doesn't show thumbnails of files created with VueScan. What can I do to make them show up? Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski P.S. When I finally buy a MF film scanner, this will most probably be the Minolta Multi Pro, but since it's said to work poorly with negatives, I have no choice but use VueScan. I hope that my that time VueScan will be equipped with proper user's guide. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: calibration for beginners
For the basics of Color Management, try these out: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13605.html http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13036.html http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/2440.html http://www.computer-darkroom.co.uk/ (see especially the Essay Configuring Photoshop 6 Colour Management) http://www.digitaldog.net/ http://www.colorremedies.com/ http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/PSTV_links.html Hope this helps Maris Lidaka - Original Message - From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 4:23 AM Subject: [filmscanners] calibration for beginners Calibration is a frequent topic on this list. But these are often highly advanced methods. I'd be interested in knowing the rudiments of calibration. First of all I want to achieve a 90% matching of image put into my scanner with that on my monitor, with that printed on my Epson. Simple, eh? ;-) I'm interested in most straightforward and effective method of calibrating my system, without resorting to expensive hard- or software. I do not intend to clutter this list with unnecessary OT mails so if you can give link to sites devoted to this topic, this will me ok for me. Regards Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: The weakest link
The most important is the scanner so that your input is of the best quality possible. You can always visually compensate for a poor monitor. You can always work on the image with whatever software you prefer. And if your printer is not good enough you can send it out for printing. Maris - Original Message - From: ludmilla ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 6:36 AM Subject: [filmscanners] The weakest link Which compnent is the weakest link in choosing an image manipulation system: Is it the Video Card, The Software, The Scanner or the Printer? If I buy a high spec filmscanner how can I guarantee the best result at the other end i.e. is the scanner most cuicial and thereofre anything else can prove to be a weak link. When a new printer comes along would my scanner then become the weak point depriving me from the chance of a perfect result? Regards Ludmilla Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging
Most major video cards will do fine. Maris - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging Well, to be on-topic one additional question which is related to PC hardware: is it important to chose certain Video Adapters for further image editing or just anyone available today will do fine ? Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging
Correct - I bought an nVidia about a year ago (you might consider dual-monitor capability in case you want to add a second monitor later) for about $130. Maris - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Video card for imaging Thanks. So there is no point to spend more then minimum for today's video adapter, right ? (80-150 $ are fine) Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 9:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging Most major video cards will do fine. Maris - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging Well, to be on-topic one additional question which is related to PC hardware: is it important to chose certain Video Adapters for further image editing or just anyone available today will do fine ? Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Archive??
Web archives for this list may be found at :- http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ Regards Tony Sleep Maris - Original Message - From: Dawn Campbell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 8:37 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Archive?? This question has probably been asked a billion times before, but is there an archive for this group. I look at Tony Sleep's site and couldn't see any evidence of one. Rather than bore the group with the typical questions posed every week, I thought I'd try to educate myself a little first. I just got VueScan and Silverfast, and am working my way thru Vuescan, but am a bit confused about some of the default settings and why they are set the way they are. Thanks, Dawn Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Epson 2450 on a Mac + Vuescan
Be sure that Disable device events is checked in the scanner Properties box. Maris - Original Message - From: Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:32 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Epson 2450 on a Mac + Vuescan On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 23:26:12 + Richard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Secondly I cannot get Vuescan to see the scanner even though it is supported. Could it be that the Epson scanner software has installed something that is blocking Vuescan? More likely you have a clash of SCSI ID's between the two scanners, or a termination problem. Only the last in the chain should be terminated. Also try swapping them round in the chain. Thanks for the reply but It's a USB scanner. -- Regards Richard // | @ @ --- Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED] C _) ) --- ' __ / Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: VueScan 7.3.10 Available
You should clear your browser's cache and try again - 7.3.10 showed up fine for me. Maris - Original Message - From: Paul Chefurka [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 3:13 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: VueScan 7.3.10 Available On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 12:01:15 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just released VueScan 7.3.10 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X and Linux. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html Th version I downloaded comes up identified as 7.3.9 on the top bar, even though the link on the Web indicates 7.3.10. Is this a programming oversight by Ed, or did I pooch the download? Paul http://www.chefurka.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Neat Image noise/grain removal prog, was'Anyone Have Exp WithGrainSurgery..'
It is very slow *period* - I have a 700MHz Pentium with 576MB RAM Maris - Original Message - From: Mark T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 4:15 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Neat Image noise/grain removal prog, was'Anyone Have Exp WithGrainSurgery..' [snipped] - *very* slow ..then again, perhaps my 366MHz Celeron does need that upgrade ;-) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Editing application
Consider Corel PhotoPaint also - it will do much more than Photoshop Elements and you can get the CorelDRAW 9 suite for under $50. AFAIK PSP will do more than Photoshop Elements as well, but Elements will have an easy learning curve. You can download Elements to try it out. I believe you can download PSP and CorelDRAW 10 (expensive) for trial as well. Maris - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 11:25 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Editing application Thanks. Why it might be better then Paint Shop Pro ? I'm quite new to image processing so any opinion/thoughts are highly appreciated. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Traudt Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 7:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Editing application I would take a look at the new Photoshop Elements. steve. Steve Traudt Synergistic Visions Photography P.O. Box 2585 Grand Junction, CO 81502 Web Site: www.synvis.com *** Be glad of life because it gives you the chance to love and to work and to play and to look at the stars. -Henry van Dyke - Original Message - From: Alex Zabrovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 9:42 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Editing application What would you recommend as the most comprehensive image editing application (software) considering resource/performance ? I'm trying to evaluate what image evaluation/editing software would provide me with best, yet simple managing taking the least amount of system resources possible. Photoshop is probably the most famous, however I suspect it is quite heavy in use (considering my beginning level) and might be quite resource-hungry by itself (memory). What about Paint Shop Pro ? I was advised to try it out instead of Photoshop... Regards, Alex Z Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Anyone Have Experience WithGrainSurgerySoftware?
I am trying out the demo and I have not been impressed either. I am more impressed with NEAT. Maris - Original Message - From: Mark T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 5:01 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Anyone Have Experience WithGrainSurgerySoftware? FWIW my experiments with the demo of this software left me *very* cold. It seems quite effective on patterned images (eg flatbed scans from textured paper). However, I found it to have little benefit on normal grain - when it was adjusted up enough to be any 'better' than the usual grain softening techniques, it introduced strange vertical streaks and other artefacts. Plus the effect is inconsistent, giving a very odd look to the images. Vuescan's grain removal is far more usable, I think. Maybe I just didn't get the hang of it? But I wasn't all that impressed with their demo images either (is it just me, or does the 'grain' look a little fake..?), so that must be a bad sign. Too fussy, perhaps - but at that price I'd want something a lot better. mt Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Anyone Have Experience WithGrainSurgerySoftware?
Neat Image is a digital filter designed to reduce visible noise in digital photographic images. http://absoft.nm.ru/ It presently supports only JPG and BMP files so you will have to convert from TIFF to BMP first, but I wrote them and they responded that they are working on TIFF support (though who knows when?). Do follow their suggestion - print out the Help files (only about 10 pages) for optimal results. It is still at the beta stage and is therefore free for now. Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 6:43 PM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Anyone Have Experience WithGrainSurgerySoftware? what is neat? joanna Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Trashing Adobe Gamma
I'm not sure about removing the program itself from the hard drive, but to prevent it from loading just remove its icon from the Startup folder in the Start-Programs menu. You can also do this by Run-msconfig-Startup - uncheck the box for Adobe Gamma. Either way the next time you boot up Adobe Gamma will not load. Maris - Original Message - From: Ezio c/o TIN [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 3:08 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Trashing Adobe Gamma Dears, in a Windows 98 installation what do you remove and where to get rid of Adobe Gamma ? I am not able to remove it !!! Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site ICQ: 139507382 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 4:43 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Spectrocam Problem Solved To everyone..Thank you! Downloading the Spectrocam program update 1.6.2 and trashing Adobe Gamma as well as all the spectrocam, colorsync preferences did the trick. I now have a calibrated monitor for the first time. A scary thought. Color me happy. Happy holidays to all. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC PS: Our Christmas card URL http://www.bway.net/~skid/trowelangel.html --- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe' in the title or body
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC IMPORTANT
So, does 3.1.2 run on Win98SE as well? Maris - Original Message - From: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:51 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC IMPORTANT | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of James Grove | | You should always uninstall the Windows versions and also run | the regsweep utilitity in the Utils folder of that versions | download, then install the new version after reboot. | | | I made registry snapshots before and after installing NS version 3.12 | with ConfigSafe Complete Recovery 4.0. Examination of the keys that NS | uses shows no compelling reason to do that with this version. As I'm | very likely the only person on this list who's written an entire book on | the NT registry I think I can say that with some authority;-) | | If I recall correctly prior NS versions prompted users to uninstall | earlier versions. However, this version no longer does that so it's just | a waste of time. I was able to use NS 3.12 immediately after running | setup without any problems at all. If it makes anyone feel better then | go ahead and run regsweep. It won't hurt anything. | | Cary | (formerly [EMAIL PROTECTED], Senior Technical Writer on Windows NT | Server Resource Kit team at Microsoft 1991-97) | | Cary Enoch Reinstein aka Enoch's Vision, Inc., Peach County, Georgia | http://www.enochsvision.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: iCorrect software
I have only downloaded the demo but I would certainly get the plug-in: with the stand-alone you would have two procedures to do separately. With the plug-in you can make any adjustments you want first (levels, contrast or whatever) if you wish, run iCorrect as a filter, and then finish up immediately without having to close and save the image and re-open in PS. Maris - Original Message - From: Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:42 PM Subject: filmscanners: iCorrect software | I'm thinking of getting the iCorrect software for Christmas. Does anyone | know whether I should get the stand-alone application or the Photoshop | plug-in version. (Yes, I have PS6.01) | | Preston Earle | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | |
Re: filmscanners: Moir pattern in scan
Try scanning it sideways and then rotate in Photoshop. Why it opens almost black in PS6 I don't know - try scanning it with Vuescan, using the Image setting rather than Slide Maris - Original Message - From: Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 7:59 AM Subject: filmscanners: Moiré pattern in scan Hi everyone, I have a photograph of a tall building which has many thin lines running vertically along its complete length - you know which one. Scanning the old Kodachrome 64 slide on a Polaroid SS4000 with PolaColor Insight makes the building look terrible because of a very pronounced Moiré effect. Is there a remedy? On a related note, although the scan looks OK in Insight, it opens almost black in Photoshop 6. I find that very strange, my scans from color negatives work great. Thanks! Herb PS: I won't be able to answer your replies until I'm back from vacation in January. Happy Holidays and a wonderful New Year with many happy scans to all.
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Histogram
You cover it all! Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2001 8:47 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan Histogram | In a message dated 12/16/2001 9:46:17 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | writes: | | What scale do other programs use? | | Others are linear ... but I have to admit, a log scale would be more | accurate as the data approached the Wp and Bp. (... Hmmm, maybe not | accurate, but at least visible ...) If we are worried about setting the | endpoints accurately and visually, maybe we ought to consider ... either a | log scale, or the ability to zoom in on the y-axis(?) | | I've made the histogram type an option in the Prefs tab. The options | are Linear, Square root and Logarithmic. I'll release this in VueScan | 7.3.5. | | Regards, | Ed Hamrick |
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - film types
I would go the Advanced Workflow Suggestions route and lock in the film color, using White Balance. Maris - Original Message - From: P Elkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 1:44 AM Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan - film types | I rely on the film profiles in Vuescan to get me somewhere near accurate | colours when scanning colour neg, especially as I am partially colour blind. | However I have had some trouble recently using Fuji Superia 400, S-400. I am | finding the Super G 400 G2 profile is quite cold and I am having to use the | Neutral setting instead of White Balance but it is often too warm! I have | tried to scan the film base but with no success - it just ends up being a | grain filled blue/yellow mess - I was hoping to do my own profile and lock | the colour. | | Any guidance or advice would be much appreciated. | | Philip Elkin | |
Re: filmscanners: Rescans and archiving
Whether it is worth your time or not is up to you - probably not, I would say, because you may well move up to a 4000spi scanner some day and then you will want to rescan again. Rescan only as needed IMHO. For optimal archival longevity the Kodak Ultima would be better, but to save money and time you can keep the Verbatims, just check them once a year or so to make sure they are OK. You are, of course, better off making and keeping duplicates of all the disks, so that may be the way to go - make the duplicates on the Kodaks. Maris - Original Message - From: Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:57 AM Subject: filmscanners: Rescans and archiving | I have a question for the group. | | I recently upgraded from a original Photosmart scanner for 35mm film to a | Nikon LS-IV scanner. I recently scanned about 100-200 images from a trip | and then changed scanners and monitors. The Photosmart was 2400DPI scanner | and teh Nikon was a 2900DPI scanner. | This past weekend I opened up some of the old scanned images and was | looking at them and noticed that there is a big difference in the scans | compared to new scans I have done with the Nikon scanner. | | Question is.. IT is worth my time to rescan all those images again | It will take some time to do since I will have to fish them out again. | | Secondly, I have been burning my finished scans onto Verbatim CD-R discs. | But I have read and been recommended recently that the Kodak Ultima CD-R 80 | are better for long term storage. Does anyone have a opinion on this? | | | Thanks | | Eric | == | | | | Dare I say it, but the mistake here might be the belief that a 4000dpi | scanner is actually capable of 4000dpi scans (or samples per inch, if | we | want to reduce confusion). | | Anyone got any hard evidence of the *actual* resolving power of these | scanners? | | Objectively measured? No. AIUI it's pretty hard (ie expensive) to achieve, | as conventional test target images don't work properly with digital | systems. In any case, I am more interested in real-life use :) | | Empirically, yes - I have scanned several ISO100 originals on both | 2,700ppi and 4,000 ppi scanners. There is a difference, which is somewhat | analogous to that between fast and fine-grain film but without the grain! | At the same time it's obvious but subtle. The 4000ppi scans show better | tonal smoothness and inner detail, though only look marginally sharper. | | Printed on the same Epson 1200, both are perfectly acceptable, especially | in terms of sharpness, but the 4000 scan looks somehow smoother and | clearer, whilst the 2700 appears almost slightly smeared or veiled. But | you'd only really notice this in a side-by-side comparison. After carrying | out this test, I concluded I wouldn't be bothering to rescan all the stuff | I had done at 2700, apart from a few originals which had produced massive | grain aliasing problems. 4000ppi is very much less sensitive to that. | | I suspect the Nikon mentioned was having a bad focus day. | | Regards | | Tony Sleep | http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner | info comparisons | | |
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan file overwrite warning
Thanks, Ed - I've made this mistake, too (thankfully not often) so this will help very much. Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 1:10 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan file overwrite warning | In a message dated 12/10/2001 10:52:52 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | PLEASE can you add this. I've just noticed that when I re-input my | settings after installing v7.3, I forgot to add the 'plus' to the file | path. I've lost the last 3 strips worth of film scans (about 1h30m in | scanning time) because I didn't get a simple warning to say This file | is going to overwrite - are you sure?. | | I just finished getting this working in 7.3.1, and I'll release it in the | next hour or two. | | Regards, | Ed Hamrick |
Re: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)?
Possible Qimage at http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage It is a printing program and will batch-rotate for printing, but I don't know whether you can batch-rotate and then save as rotated. Mike Chaney is the developer and is as responsive as Ed Hamrick is - go the site and send him an e-mail asking him, or join the Qimage newsgroup http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/qimage and ask there. Maris - Original Message - From: Mark Otway [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:50 AM Subject: filmscanners: Batch image processing software (Windows)? | | Having got a couple of hundred scans now, here's a good question for | you: before I adjust colours and so on on individual images, I'd like to | batch-rotate all of the scans to the correct orientation (I didn't | rotate the images at scan-time due to memory and time restrictions) and | cut them to CD as an archive. | | So, is there a good quality app which will allow me to select, say, 50 | images and rotate them all one after the other (whilst I go and get my | lunch!!). | | Any recommendations greatfully received. | | Thanks | | Mark | http://www.otway.com | |
Re: filmscanners: Ed Hamrick: Output files in VueScan
On the Files tab be sure the TIFF file name is .0001+.tif On the Prefs tab check Add extensions Maris P.S. Please send messages in plain text. - Original Message - From: HEREDIA, ARMANDO J To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:07 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Ed Hamrick: Output files in VueScan Assuming you're a Windows user, your Folder Options might be set to Hide Extensions for Known File Types. This would mean that Vuescan is saving them as .TIF files, but Explorer just isn't showing it. Or is this not the case? -Original Message- From: Bernie Ess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 12:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Ed Hamrick: Output files in VueScan When I am scanning in Vuescan, I get only files that have no file endings like .tiff. I have checked the box output tiff - but no way. When I am renaming them to tiff, they can be viewed in PS, but it doesn´t happen automatically. What am I doing wrong? greetings Bernhard
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan descreen
If the descreening you are thinking of is in the scanner TWAIN software the answer is no. Vuescan bypasses the TWAIN software. Maris - Original Message - From: P Elkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 3:57 AM Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan descreen | Hi | | Does Vuescan support descreening with a compatible flatbed? | | Thanks | | Philip | |
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan
Yes, but that would require a preview rescan anyway, which could be made automatic, absent a MAJOR modification of the program. But I'm not a programmer so I'll leave any further comments to Ed. Maris - Original Message - From: Hersch Nitikman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:52 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan Maris, if I understood Stan, he'd like a dynamic update of the preview, like Photoshop does with the Levels dialog box, and others, so you can see what you are doing, as you do it.. Hersch At 10:43 PM 12/04/2001 -0600, you wrote: What difference would that make, as the changes would not appear until you clicked Preview again or Prev Mem? Maris - Original Message - From: S Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:31 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan Ed, I do wish it were possible to have the preview box open and visible as you make changes on the color tab or device tab. I recall you mentioned that as a possible user-selectable option in the future. Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 4:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan In a message dated 12/4/2001 4:55:46 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I´d like to add a question: Its true that VueScan has gained a very favorable reputation amongst serious scanner users (I like the results too), however almost everybody seems to agree - me included - that the user interface is not only unpleasing to the eye but also not very confortable. No buttons or shortcuts, no browser boxes for file locations etc etc - it´s a bit like shareware 6 or 7 years ago. You think it's ugly now - you should have seen it a year ago smile. It's improving a lot more rapidly than you realize. I just did a count, and there have been 199 releases since March 1999. That's an average of one new version every 5 days for almost three years. So, have you planned to modernize - at a moment when no new important scanner is released - the GUI in the future? I plan on continuing to improve it with a new version every 3 or 4 days. I don't plan on revolutionary change, but instead on evolutionary change. For instance, I'm very close to adding dialog boxes for file name selection instead of typing file names. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Monitor recommendation
Check Dell Computer for monitors, too - last I heard (and what I have) they carry a Dell-branded 19 Sony Trinitron as well as others. Mine went bad and Dell did the same - shipped a new one overnight, and had me return the old in the same box at their expense. Maris - Original Message - From: Tris Schuler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 10:14 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Monitor recommendation | | I have a ViewSonic PT795. Besides the excellent quality of this unit's | display, the company seems to stand behind their product all the way. Short | version: about a year ago I thought I might have a problem with the monitor | (I'm convinced it's simply the nVidia drivers for my GeForce2 GTS card, but | at the time it wasn't clear) and called ViewSonic to explain the situation. | I didn't ask for anything other than feedback on whether the company had | heard of such a situation before (my display would all of a sudden go to a | strange speckled pattern across the entire screen, and the only way to get | out of this was to reboot, and sometimes that didn't bring the display back | properly either). The lady from ViewSonic, then told me she'd ship a new | unit the next day and that I should put my monitor into that new units | packing box and send it back to them by the same means. All she asked for | was a CC to secure the deal temporarily, plus I had to pay shipping one | way--back to ViewSonic. This was about a year after I'd purchased the | original unit. | | I don't know, but that sounds like exceptional support to me. | | Tris | | Someone mentioned Viewsonic so although I really haven't intensively | compared it with others, I've been very happy with my A90 since I | bought it - almost a year ago now. I'm sure it's been superceded, but | its a sharp, clear and bright monitor that I can hold a print up next | to a display of the same and not be jarred at all. | | | Ken | | |
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan
I have the Nikon LS-30 with Nikonscan. I used Nikonscan for about a week - had to fiddle around with numerous level and curve controls etc., got a good result but I still had to re-adjust it all in (at that time) Corel PhotoPaint. The image as seen on the NikonScan panels was not of good enough quality or large enough size to adjust properly, plus when brought into PhotoPaint it always was different enough from what it looked like on the NikonScan screen that it needed further adjustment. I had already gotten Vuescan to try out on my flatbed, I scanned from the LS-30 quickly without detailed adjustments - essentially the default settings except for inserting the film type and adjusting the crop, and got a scan very good in terms of complete information from the film (though it will look bland). I then adjusted it in PhotoPaint - Levels, Curves and sharpening, and my result was better - because I was making the fine adjustments using a graphics program where I could see what my adjustments would result in better than I could in NikonScan. To make a long story short, why adjust twice when Vuescan gives me all the film's detailed information quickly and easily, and (now) Photoshop tweaks that information to my liking. It makes the scan process itself quick and easy - it has a specific film setting for (I estimate) over 90% of all films ever made. Plus, when adjusting Levels and Curves based on a Preview view (which one has to do in a scanning program), one can never know for sure what the scan result will actually look like. Re SilverFast - I only have SilverFast SE (lite) for the Epson flatbed and have barely used it, so I can't speak to it's qualities. Maris - Original Message - From: Tris Schuler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 10:19 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan | | I have to ask this, Maris, and please don't take it the wrong way: you | seem very high on Vuescan. Why? What is it you like about Vuescan over and | above SilverFast AI or whatever software that came with the scanner you | use? What are the advantages? What are the disadvantages? | | Tris | | Not to beat a dead horse, but Vuescan will do a RAW scan as well, and if | you were to take a 1/2-hour break from learning Silverfast I guarantee | even you would know enough to use Vuescan well. | | I have also tried working with RAW scans - the primary problem with | negative film is the orange mask but it can be done. It's just easier the | regular way. | | Maris | |
Re: filmscanners: OT: curled film - any help?
I don't know what causes it but I don't think it is anything you did in the cleaning process - maybe different film types, maybe some difference in processing. Once you get them sleeved I think they will flatten out after a while. Maris - Original Message - From: Tomasz Zakrzewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 1:14 PM Subject: filmscanners: OT: curled film - any help? | I used the word 'curl' which I'm not sure is correct. | My filmstrips are bended in the direction from top to bottom of the frame, | not from 1st frame to 6th. | | Tomasz |
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan
I have to weigh in on the interface - it may not be top-notch graphics design with buttons and shortcuts, but it is IMHO extremely functional and easy to use. I don't need the buttons when I have useful tabs and boxes on the tabs. I was up and running with it within an hour as I recall, and the results have (almost) always been excellent (exceptions are exceptional frames - my fault, or old film, etc.) I am happy with the interface as is. Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 4:29 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan In a message dated 12/4/2001 4:55:46 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I´d like to add a question: Its true that VueScan has gained a very favorable reputation amongst serious scanner users (I like the results too), however almost everybody seems to agree - me included - that the user interface is not only unpleasing to the eye but also not very confortable. No buttons or shortcuts, no browser boxes for file locations etc etc - it´s a bit like shareware 6 or 7 years ago. You think it's ugly now - you should have seen it a year ago smile. It's improving a lot more rapidly than you realize. I just did a count, and there have been 199 releases since March 1999. That's an average of one new version every 5 days for almost three years. So, have you planned to modernize - at a moment when no new important scanner is released - the GUI in the future? I plan on continuing to improve it with a new version every 3 or 4 days. I don't plan on revolutionary change, but instead on evolutionary change. For instance, I'm very close to adding dialog boxes for file name selection instead of typing file names. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan
I run it on Win98SE and I've never had things not work. If it happens, write Ed and he'll be quick to help, I'm sure. Maris - Original Message - From: Jeff Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 6:45 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan | 2001-12-04-17:54:39 Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.: | I was up and running with it within an hour as I recall, and the | results have (almost) always been excellent (exceptions are | exceptional frames - my fault, or old film, etc.) | | I am happy with the interface as is. | | I don't pine for fancy UI gewgaws either -- hell, I'd probably be | entirely happy with a mostly command-line scanning infrastructure. | The one thing I'd love to see corrected is that in my admittedly | limited tenure with Vuescan, I haven't yet seen an error message. | | I've seen things not work, I've seen things like the device menu | sometimes not having entries, and I haven't known what to do except to | apply common-sense guesswork and trial and error until whatever | condition is peeving the program (could be a missing subdirectory, | could be bad permissions, could be an un-loaded SCSI driver) allows it | to function. I'd love some clues to point me vaguely in the direction | I need to be looking in. | | Maybe this is a special feature of the Linux version, though -- I | haven't tried the others. | | Makes lovely scans, though (and I don't think I'd be making *any* | scans on Linux without it) once you propitiate it.
Re: filmscanners: photoshop problem
Check the handbook and/or the Help files - there is a method, short of reinstalling, involving deleting (after saving of course) a Preferences file and then re-opening Photoshop. Also, if I am not mistaken Photoshop puts some files on the C: drive in Windows 98SE, directory C:\Windows\ Application Data\Adobe\Photoshop even if you installed on another drive, so your C drive failure would have wiped that out and you may have to uninstall and reinstall Photoshop completely. Maris - Original Message - From: Paul Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:01 AM Subject: filmscanners: photoshop problem | Hi all, | | I'm having an issue with Photoshop, after a C drive failure, and a complete | rebuild of programmes, it now seems to be behaving strangely: | | when, for example I do a levels adjustment, I adjust everything so it looks | good in the screen preview, then press ok, and it works the levels move | through the whole image (rather than just the screen preview), and just as | it finishes (watching the progress bar at the bottom) it jumps back to | something between what I wanted and what I had before. In other words, I do | not get the full levels move I saw in the preview... any ideas? have I got | something simple set wrong? | | many thanks for any suggestions | |
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan
Bernhard, Do you mean beautiful the way the program looks onscreen, or beautiful in the results it provides? :-) Maris - Original Message - From: Bernhard Ess [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 6:20 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan Well I didn´t know it 1 year ago - I know that you are very fast with new versions, however my impression was that these changes are more about functionality than about the look - but I may be wrong... I will be patient for another year - or, lets say 6 months, if its not beautiful then, I will remind you... :-) Greetings Bernhard - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 11:29 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan You think it's ugly now - you should have seen it a year ago smile. It's improving a lot more rapidly than you realize. I just did a count, and there have been 199 releases since March 1999. That's an average of one new version every 5 days for almost three years. So, have you planned to modernize - at a moment when no new important scanner is released - the GUI in the future? I plan on continuing to improve it with a new version every 3 or 4 days. I don't plan on revolutionary change, but instead on evolutionary change. For instance, I'm very close to adding dialog boxes for file name selection instead of typing file names. Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: VueScan Improvements Was: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan
What scanner to you use? Do you usually (always) scan slides or film? And what specifically wrong with the scan results? Then we could make suggestions. One of the common complaints about Vuescan is that the image is bland or washed-out, but this is what Vuescan is designed to do. Most scanner software is designed to do black and white point tweaking, color control tweaking, and other Photoshop-like adjustments in the scanner software so that hopefully you would have to do minimal further adjustments in PS or your graphics program. I prefer to do all of my tweaking in Photoshop and Vuescan's strength and design is to capture all of the available information in the film and transfer it to Photoshop or whatever to do all adjustments in a program designed to do such adjustments, with Levels and Curves and layers and everything else that is available. Maris - Original Message - From: Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 6:44 PM Subject: VueScan Improvements Was: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan | After struggling for some time to understand VueScan and get decent | scans from it, I finally get pretty good scans most of the time, though | I'm not sure why. I think the difficulty is in the User instructions and | Help Files. If they were as good as the program, it would be worth $100! | | It's probably a lot to expect that a talented software programmer would | also be a terrific technical writer. Further, someone who knows the | program inside out can have difficulty seeing just what a new user needs | to know (and how to explain it). | | The Help files contain a lot of information about what a guy *can* do, | but it doesn't give much help as to what he *should* do. | | Perhaps it would be helpful for some of you guys who know the program | from a user's standpoint to write some instructions on how you scan, | what settings you use (and why), what works for you and what doesn't. | Knowing what scanner you use and your expectations (low, medium, high) | would be helpful. Us neophytes could study through them and pick up a | lot of knowledge you've dredged from the hard school of experience. | | Ed could then concentrate on improving the software. | | Preston Earle | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | |
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan
Tris, Try it. It is the easiest-to-learn program I use for graphics except for viewers. Maris - Original Message - From: Tris Schuler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 7:35 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan | | You've got that right, Ed. I don't even own your product and still I've | mentioned you a couple of times to people. Once in a forum, the other time | in an email. (By the way, the reason I haven't tried your software is | solely due to my reluctance to learn yet one more program from scratch. | It's all I can do here to try and figure out SilverFast AI. Meanwhile I've | been leaning on Insight.) | | Tris | | In a message dated 12/4/2001 11:40:52 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | writes: | | Many of us, including me, have been spoiled by Ed Hamrick's steadfast and |generous low pricing and no-charge updates. But most of the commercial |world still has to pay their bills. Updating software that is customized |for an OEM product isn't free. The dot.com model of VC$$+advertisting |revenue = profits doesn't work. | | The free upgrade model works well. I'm pretty sure my profits | are higher than LaserSoft's. | | What free upgrades do is encourage good word of mouth | referrals. Word of mouth referrals are very effective, especially | word of e-mail referrals. | | Regards, | Ed Hamrick | |
Re: filmscanners: Monitor recommendation
There is an excellent discussion of this at http://www.pctechguide.com/06crtmon.htm I have a Sony Trinitron 19 myself and am very pleased with it. Maris - Original Message - From: Jim Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 10:13 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Monitor recommendation | - Original Message - | From: Martin Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | on 12/4/01 7:20 AM, JackG at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | | I have always liked Sony products, but the horizontal lines in the | Trinitron | tubes that you see on the screen are certainly bothersome. | | | The horizontal lines are intrinsic to all Trinatron and Mitsubishi tubes. | I | barely am aware of them and do not feel they interfere with viewing and | working with Photoshop at all. | | The horizontal lines are a design feature of the Trinitron monitors. Instead | of an Invar mask, or other device, they use a grating that uses two | horizontal threads to align the vertical ones giving you your dot pitch. I | never notice them because I know why they are there and have tuned them out | as white noise. I would rather have a superior monitor with two | imperceivable horizontal lines than a poor monitor without. | | Jim Snyder |
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan
Not to beat a dead horse, but Vuescan will do a RAW scan as well, and if you were to take a 1/2-hour break from learning Silverfast I guarantee even you would know enough to use Vuescan well. I have also tried working with RAW scans - the primary problem with negative film is the orange mask but it can be done. It's just easier the regular way. Maris - Original Message - From: Tris Schuler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 10:08 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan | | I believe you, Maris, but I'm not too swift when it comes to learning the | ins and outs of software. Let me get a handle on SilverFast, then we'll see. | | On a different note, I finally did a RAW scan and worked with it in Paint | Shop Pro until the result matched my mind's eye of what the scene looked | like when I tripped the shutter. Up until now I exported TIFF files | exclusively from Insight. Do others here work with RAW images? What are | your results? I kind of like it. | | Tris | | Tris, | | Try it. It is the easiest-to-learn program I use for graphics except for | viewers. | | Maris | | - Original Message - | From: Tris Schuler [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 7:35 PM | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan | | | | | | You've got that right, Ed. I don't even own your product and still I've | | mentioned you a couple of times to people. Once in a forum, the other time | | in an email. (By the way, the reason I haven't tried your software is | | solely due to my reluctance to learn yet one more program from scratch. | | It's all I can do here to try and figure out SilverFast AI. Meanwhile I've | | been leaning on Insight.) | | | | Tris | | | | In a message dated 12/4/2001 11:40:52 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | writes: | | | | Many of us, including me, have been spoiled by Ed Hamrick's | steadfast and | |generous low pricing and no-charge updates. But most of the commercial | |world still has to pay their bills. Updating software that is | customized | |for an OEM product isn't free. The dot.com model of VC$$+advertisting | |revenue = profits doesn't work. | | | | The free upgrade model works well. I'm pretty sure my profits | | are higher than LaserSoft's. | | | | What free upgrades do is encourage good word of mouth | | referrals. Word of mouth referrals are very effective, especially | | word of e-mail referrals. | | | | Regards, | | Ed Hamrick | | | | | |
Re: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan
Try out Vuescan and compare the 3 for yourself. Personally I prefer Vuescan, but many others prefer Insight or Silversoft. The download is free and will leave a watermark on the scan but other than that is fully functional. Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:41 AM Subject: filmscanners: Polaroid Insight vs. Silverfast AI vs. Vuescan | I have just started using my new Sprintscan 4000. before I invest a lot of | time in the learning curve, can anyone recommend which scanner software is | best for which users? Insight and Silversoft are included with the scanner, | and I could easily get Vuescan. | | I am an amateur photographer using both slide and negative film. My | preferences run to very sharp, realistic prints in both BW and color, and I | might occasionally want to enlarge a portion of a 35mm frame to 8 x 12. So | far, I have used Insight and had no particular trouble with color fidelity | getting through Photoshp 6 and my Epson 1270 printer. So I am not intending | to spend a lot of time adjusting color. | | | | Bob Goldstein | |
Re: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan IV - positioning
No difference in performance or scan quality. Maris - Original Message - From: Mark Otway [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:03 AM Subject: filmscanners: Nikon Coolscan IV - positioning | | Hi all, | | Quick, and possibly dumb, question: all of the pictures I've seen of the | LS-40 have shown it stood on its side - i.e., with the 'Nikon' logo at | the correct orientation, and the power light at the top. However, I note | that it has rubber feet on the 'side', implying that it can also be used | 'flat' (with the film strip going in 'on-edge', so-to-speak. | | The latter would suit my desk layout better, but will it affect the | scanner's performance in any way? Is there an optimal position, or will | it make no difference? | | Thanks | | Mark | |
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: No luck with Superia 400
In Levels select a point that you think should be gray and check the RGB numbers of the point. Then double-click the gray (middle) eyedropper and type in identical numbers for the gray value you want there, e.g. R-128 G-128 B-128. Close the box and then click on that spot with the gray eyedropper you have picked and set, and that spot will now be gray. Bruce Fraser as an excellent article on this at http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13811.html (Cheap Trick 2: Gray-balance by the Numbers) Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 11:10 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: No luck with Superia 400 | On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:31:02 +1000, you wrote: | | Ken wrote: | Very strange. I've tried everybody's suggestions, scanning under SGH, | NGH, Real 100 (Japan) even Royal Gold 400, but a shot I have of a | blood-red DayLily keeps coming out deep purple. Any ideas? | | Is there any grey point you can use with Levels to neutralise the image? | | Rob | | | | This sounds interesting - but I'm afraid I dont' fully understand the | notion. Would you mind explaining a little further? | | | Ken Durling | | | | Photo.net portfolio: | | http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 |
Re: filmscanners: Superia, CM et al
Read the Advanced Workflow Suggestions section of the help file and lock in a test exposure. It worked for me on Superia 800.. Working in sRGB is fine, but you might look into profiling your monitor with Colorvision's Spyder with Photocal, and into printer profiles using either software such as Colorvision's ProfilerPRO, Monaco's EZ-Color, or WiziWYG. For the basics of Color Management, try these out: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13605.html http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/13036.html http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/2440.html http://www.computer-darkroom.co.uk/ (see especially the Essay Configuring Photoshop 6 Colour Management) http://www.digitaldog.net/ http://www.colorremedies.com/ http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/PSTV_links.html Hope this helps Maris Lidaka Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:12 AM Subject: filmscanners: Superia, CM et al | Hi folks - | | I have two questions. One is I'm having a very hard time scanning | Superia 400, and there's no setting for it in Vuescan. Colors are | coming out all wrong even on the scan, and it's very hard to even know | where to start fixing. What Vuescan settings can I tweak? | | in some cases I've done quite a lot of work in PSP7 or PElements and | gotten things pretty good looking, and then when I print it . . . oy | vey. I have one of these new Epson 820s - is anything established | yet about how good they are at color reproduction? | | Which leads me to my next question - what is the next step in getting | into CM? I understand there are some programs for it? So far all | I've done is the gamma calibration offered by Photoshop Elements, but | I think this is pretty rudimentary. I realize I probably need to | learn a lot more about colorspaces that I'm working in, but for now | I'm trying to do everything in sRGB. | | What are my next steps towards getting really good control over my | camera to print workflow? | | | | Ken Durling | | | | Photo.net portfolio: | | http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 |
Re: filmscanners: CanonScan 2710 and Vuescan
To answer what Roger didn't: 2. Preview means it will focus at the time of preview but will not refocus at scan, Scan means it will not focus for the preview (can save time) but will focus for the scan, and Always means it focuses both times. 3. No with the Canon 2710 to my knowledge. Nikon is one of the few one can adjust focus on. 4. Try these sites: http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/ Maris - Original Message - From: dbdors [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 11:14 AM Subject: filmscanners: CanonScan 2710 and Vuescan | I recently bought a refurbished CanoScan 2710. I also bought and later down loaded |the latest copy of Vuescan. I did not install the Canon software at all. | | My problem is that I am getting soft scans. Even at 2710 resolution, the scans seem |to be a little out of focus. What I am doing is scanning and then comparing the |scans to the slide on a light table. I am new to film scanner, so I don't want to |blame the scanner just yet. But if I have a problem, I want to send it back quickly |to Canon for check out. Am I expecting too much. I read Tony Sleep's page about |scanner problems and slightly soft scans. I have seen the results from others on the |web using CanoScan 2710's and they are getting much better results. | | Does anyone have any advice for using Vuescan and the CanoScan 2710. | | My problems, are: | 1. The vuescan documentation is not very good. Being new to film scanners I am not |sure what settings I need, (for good sharpness and good color). | 2. Not sure what focus mode to use in vuescan. Not sure what the options really |mean, Preview, Scan, Always, etc. | 3. Do I need to perform some sort of calibrations to get good focus? | 4. Cant get any help via searching the filmscanenrs archive. I have tried to search |the archives, but I get no results no matter what words I search on. I have been |using this site: http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/htdig/ . For example, I have searched |on 2710*, but I get No matches were found for '2710*'. Is there another option? | 5. Finally, what are the best settings for good color. So far my colors are off. | -- | Darrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |
Re: filmscanners: No luck with Superia 400
Try the Generic setting, and the Advanced Workflow Suggestions to lock in exposure for the roll. Then if you feel experimental try different individual brightness settings on the Color panel, esp. Red - try different combinations, maybe higher red and lower blue. You can change it, then click PrevMem and that will give you a quick result with the new settings without having to re-preview or re-scan until you are satisfied. Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 4:20 PM Subject: filmscanners: No luck with Superia 400 | Very strange. I've tried everybody's suggestions, scanning under SGH, | NGH, Real 100 (Japan) even Royal Gold 400, but a shot I have of a | blood-red DayLily keeps coming out deep purple. Any ideas? | | | Ken
Re: filmscanners: Re: Nikonscan v VueScan
Have you tried converting to LAB and then adjusting the curve in the L channel only? See the last section of http://www.ledet.com/margulis/LABCorrection.pdf Maris - Original Message - From: Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 4:00 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Nikonscan v VueScan | Yes I've tried curves of all kinds. I just wish I hadn't pursued the flat | is best school, because it was a very serious waste of time (well, OK, I | learnt to reject it). [remainder snipped]
Re: filmscanners: Re: Nikonscan v VueScan
The L channel should not change colors - it is Luminosity only. The A B channels contain the colors, so I'm mystified by what your are seeing! Maris - Original Message - From: Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 7:14 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Nikonscan v VueScan | Yes. L is quite interesting. A big move with L gets you funny colours too. | You end up having to balance a contrast change in both the L channel and the | R, G, B channel to get colour that doesn't go totally wonky. | | Jawed | | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka, | Sr. | Sent: 22 November 2001 17:50 | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: Nikonscan v VueScan | | | Have you tried converting to LAB and then adjusting the curve in | the L channel only? | See the last section of http://www.ledet.com/margulis/LABCorrection.pdf | | Maris | | - Original Message - | From: Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 4:00 AM | Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Nikonscan v VueScan | | | | Yes I've tried curves of all kinds. I just wish I hadn't | pursued the flat | | is best school, because it was a very serious waste of time | (well, OK, I | | learnt to reject it). | | [remainder snipped] | | | |
Re: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll
I find the Kodak Supra 400 is too grainy for my 2700spi Nikon LS-30. I like Kodak's Royal Gold 100 and 200, the Fujicolor NPS 160, and especially the Konica Impressa 50. Maris - Original Message - From: Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 2:01 AM Subject: filmscanners: Color Negative Film Poll | Hi everyone, | | I'm leaving for my vacation soon, and although I'd like to evaluate my | camera equipment against various films, film processing and digital | post-processing, there's really no time. I'd like to solicit this group's | recommendations for the best out-of-the-box color negative film to use | with a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 and PolaColor SprintScan or Vuescan. I have | read good things about Kodak Supra 400 and Fujicolor NPS 160, and the | purpose is mostly hand-held travel pictures under various lighting | conditions. | | Many thanks in advance, | | Herb | |
Re: filmscanners: Novice scanner
First question - how large do you like to print? If larger than 8 1/2 x 11 then you probably should get a 4000spi scanner instead of the Acer. If not then the Acer should be fine. The grain that prints out - do you see it onscreen as well or only in the print? If only in the print then it sounds like a printer problem - try cleaning the nozzles with Epson's software. If onscreen then it may be what is called dust and scratches. You have probably read references to Digital ICE and to Vuescan's Dust and Scratches filter similar to ICE - they both help but they need an IR (infrared) channel to work. Another possible reason to switch scanners as the ScanWit 2720S does not have the IR channel though their 2740 does. There is also an article on what is called Grain Aliasing at http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm - you might want to read that. Despite the discussions I would not be leery of the Nikon - I have the Nikon LS-30 and am very satisfied with it. I also would not worry about Polaroid's problems - the price is excellent with the $200 rebate, and David Hemingway of Polaroid participates in this group and has assured us the product is still being manufactured and rebates processed. I tend to trust his word on that. The banding problem is more particularized - when you print an image, what format is the image in (PSD, TIFF, JPEG, or what?)? And what is the resolution that you are sending to the printer? Good luck to you! I started late myself. Maris Lidaka Sr - Original Message - From: John Pendley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:44 AM Subject: filmscanners: Novice scanner | Hello everybody, | | I'd like to introduce myself and ask for some help. I've been lurking for | about a week and haven't seen anything aimed low enough that I could profit | from it--at least not now. | | I'm a retired teacher (English); I have been an avid amateur photographer | for even longer than I taught. For years, I did my own BW work in a wet | darkroom. I mention these things only to give you some indication of my | helplessness and frustration with newfangled technology. | | I have an Acer ScanWit 2720S and Epson 1270 printer, and I'm using | Photoshop 5. The scanner sat here for months while all sorts of friends | and technical support people tried to keep Windows 98 from installing its | SCSI card right where it created an IRQ conflict. Windows XP saved the | day, and I've taken my first tiny steps. Here are some of the problems | I've encountered. I'm sure all of them are elementary to you--in fact, I | hope they are. | | ...All of the prints I've made so far, color and BW, exhibit excessive | grain. I'm told that it isn't really grain, and I agree that it probably | isn't since it is quite prominent in BW images shot with Ilford Pan F, a | film that has no grain problems. | ...In color prints, this grain has color. A shot of a white church has no | apparent evidence of it in lighter areas, but in mid-range areas, it is | distracting. The white walls of the church look like they have measles: | there are tightly spaced red dots everywhere. The same is true of the | shingled roof, though some of these dots are green and maybe other colors | as well. BTW, everything I've done so far has been on Epson Premium Glossy | paper. | ...Some of the prints are banded, but not all. In one case, there even | appears to be banding in the scan! But in scans that have no apparent | banding, I still get banded prints at times. | ...I'm very frustrated that I can't dodge and burn in BW images. I've | read an article about simulating these functions by using multiple layers, | but I haven't learned about layers, yet, and the whole thing was over my head. | | I feared that this technology would not satisfy me after so many years in a | darkroom, but I thought it would at least give me acceptable results in | color. So far, it's worse than I expected. I'm sure that much of the | problem is due to my lack of knowledge and experience with the software. I | also suspect that some of it may be the fault of the scanner. | | I've thought about upgrading the scanner. Recent threads have concentrated | so much on the Nikon models and their problems with DOF, so I'm leery of | buying a Nikon. A friend who has the Coolscan 4000 ED talks like he wishes | he had his Polaroid SprintScan 4000 back. But Polaroid's business problems | are not encouraging. Not much has been said in the past week about the | Canonscan 4000. I've read glowing reviews of it on the web, and its price | is certainly attractive. It seems slow but excellent in all other | respects, and I'm probably never going to be one who must scan large | numbers of images in a short time. I know nothing about Minolta scanners | except what I've read here. | | The problems I mentioned about the results I am now getting are the most |
Re: filmscanners: Novice scanner
The best place to start is at http://www.scantips.com/ Wayne Fulton's information is succinct and accurate and will give you much good information. He also sells a book including more information, though I have not bought it. Optimal resolution to be sent to an hp printer is 300dpi, and to an Epson is 360dpi. A scan of a 35mm film image results, on the LS-30 at 2700spi yields a 3800x2500 pixel image, approximately. Sending that to the printer results in a 360dpi image at the 8x10 size, but only 220dpi at 11x17. If the resulting 11x17 print looks good to you, then all is well. Theoretically, a 4000spi filmscanner would result in a better print. The 'grain' is hard to deal with - enlarge to 100% and see what it looks like. You may have to apply some noise filters in Photoshop or whatever image program you are using - median, gaussian blur, dust scratches, or whatever works. Be sure to apply them in individual color channels only - I find it helpful to change to LAB color space, apply the median filter in the A and B channels, and dust scratches in the L channel. Banding is generally a problem in broad expanses of the same color - especially blue sky. A way around it is to select the sky using a mask of some sort, then apply (again) a median filter in the appropriate channels, or a gaussian blur. This will even out the colors and inhibit banding. Maris - Original Message - From: John Pendley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 11:14 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Novice scanner | At 09:42 AM 11/21/2001 -0600, you wrote: | First question - how large do you like to print? If larger than 8 1/2 x | 11 then you probably should get a 4000spi scanner instead of the | Acer. If not then the Acer should be fine. | | I like prints larger than 8 1/2 x 11 if the resolution is there. I found a | math formula somewhere that produced the number 11 for the width of prints | with a 2720 scanner. I supposed that would mean an 11 square print, or | maybe an 11 x 17. You don't think the ScanWit will be satisfactory at 11 x 17? | | The grain that prints out - do you see it onscreen as well or only in the | print? | | It's hard to say. When I enlarge the color image that has all the red | dots, almost to the stage of seeing the pixels, there is definitely color | spotting in the shadowed part of the church wall, but it's not the same red | dots that I get in a print. When I enlarge the BW image on the screen, | more and more grain becomes visible. | | If only in the print then it sounds like a printer problem - try cleaning | the nozzles with Epson's software. | | There's definitely some kind of grain on the screen, though not exactly | what I'm getting in prints, at least in color, anyway. I have used Epson's | three utilities (clean nozzle, etc.) three or four times. | | If onscreen then it may be what is called dust and scratches. You | have probably read references to Digital ICE and to Vuescan's Dust and | Scratches filter similar to ICE - they both help but they need an IR | (infrared) channel to work. Another possible reason to switch scanners | as the ScanWit 2720S does not have the IR channel though their 2740 does. | | I didn't know that Vuescan had an ICE-type feature; as you say, it would | not help with the 2720, anyway. | | There is also an article on what is called Grain Aliasing at | http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm - you might want to read that. | | Thanks; I'll read it right after I finish here. | | Despite the discussions I would not be leery of the Nikon - I have the | Nikon LS-30 and am very satisfied with it. I also would not worry about | Polaroid's problems - the price is excellent with the $200 rebate, and | David Hemingway of Polaroid participates in this group and has assured us | the product is still being manufactured and rebates processed. I tend to | trust his word on that. | | That's good to know about David. At the moment, if I were to get a new | scanner, it would be between the Polaroid and the Canoscan 4000. The Nikon | might be a terrific scanner, but the price is a bit high for me. | | The banding problem is more particularized - when you print an image, what | format is the image in (PSD, TIFF, JPEG, or what?)? And what is the | resolution that you are sending to the printer? | | First, I have prints with no visible banding. They were made using the | same settings as the prints that do show banding. I have been printing @ | 6.666 x 10, as I like the 2:3 format of 35mm. I've set the resolution at | 300 dpi, and all prints are from TIFF files. What seems even more puzzling | is that the slide that shows the most banding also shows bands in the scan | on the monitor. | | Good luck to you! I started late myself. | | Maris Lidaka Sr | | Thanks for your willingness to help Maris. I hope that my answers to your | questions will give you
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.1.1 update
I only see 3.1 there. Maris - Original Message - From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:50 PM Subject: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.1.1 update | There is a new Nikonscan 3.1.1 out today | go to nikon homepage | Mikael Risedal | | | | | _ | Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp |
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.1.1 update
Will the Euro version work on US machines? Maris - Original Message - From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 8:33 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.1.1 update | Hello Maris | try | http://www.nikon-euro.com/nikoneuro2/download/download_11.htm | | Mikael Risedal | | From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.1.1 update | Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:16:24 -0600 | | I only see 3.1 there. | | Maris | | - Original Message - | From: Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:50 PM | Subject: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.1.1 update | | | | There is a new Nikonscan 3.1.1 out today | | go to nikon homepage | | Mikael Risedal | | | | | | | | | | _ | | Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at | http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp | | | | | | _ | Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp |
Re: filmscanners: SS120 and Silverfast/Vuescan
Try out Vuescan and see if you like it - trial download is free. The essential differences are that Vuescan is designed to (and does) capture *all* information from the slide or film, and then you adjust color, tone and contrast in Photoshop. Silverfast is designed to do color, tone and contrast adjustment at the scan stage such that you (hopefully) will need no more, or perhaps just minimal adjustments in Photoshop. I go the Vuescan route myself - I feel I can adjust better in Photoshop post-processing than at the scan stage where I see only the preview, and I am confident Vuescan captures every bit of information that I need to do so. Maris - Original Message - From: Barbara White [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 3:38 PM Subject: filmscanners: SS120 and Silverfast/Vuescan | I'm a new owner of this scanner and I'm wondering if anyone else has a | problem with Silverfast and Photoshop! So far version 5.2 and 5.5 will | not run on my Photoshop (6.0) and the tech guy doesn't seem to know why. | Any ideas? | | Should I just skip it and go to Vuescan? What are the advantages of Vuescan? | | Thanks for any replies. | | Barbara | Barbara White/Architectural Photography | http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com
Re: filmscanners: Quick / Quality Scans - Help
Is a digital camera an option for you? It would be the quickest and easiest for on-the-spot display - just download to the laptop. Maris - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 6:12 AM Subject: filmscanners: Quick / Quality Scans - Help | Fairly new with a film scanner. Have Polaroid 4000 and using Polarcolor and | Photoshop 6.0 at present - Silverfast later. | | Situation, I shoot kids ice hockey each weekend (Nikon F5 300/2.8) for our | team. Want to scan photos to zip and display on laptop at rink for parents | to see and then buy those that they like, which I will then rescan at higher | resolution and correct. | | What is the quickest method to accomplish this? In addition, we manage the | kids web site and would like to be able to transfer this first scan down to | web-ready image. | | Have several hundred photos to handle and need the most effective method. | Any and all suggestions are welcome. | | Thanks - From an overworked volunteer parent!
Re: filmscanners: noise
The dandruff could be noise but it is more likely film grain - it is generally most noticeable in areas of similar color such as skies. If it is grain, upgrading will not help, but Vuescan's grain reduction filter should - try it and see. To upgrade to some kind of ICE, would cost $500 and up - the Scanwit 2740 has it, all the Nikon scanners, Polaroid has its own version and a number of the Minolta scanners have it. It is very useful IMHO - I have the Nikon LS-30 and use it consistently. Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:32 AM Subject: filmscanners: noise | Hi folks - | | Only slightly less of a newbie now, I continue to study Mr. Fulton's | superlative scanning tips book, and experiment with my scanner and | software. A few weeks into FS2710/Vuescan ownership, all this | learning is, I think, making me aware of a couple of this scanner's | shortcomings, but I want to ask about one of them. The other is | straightforward, the lack of batch scanning capability. | | But the question has to do with shadow noise, especially on Velvia | slides. Since I'm new to high res scanning, I'm not entirely sure | what I'm looking for. On some slides that I scan that have large | areas of shadow, I see something that looks like dandruff scattered | more or less evenly across the area. Is that what shadow noise looks | like? Are there various forms of it? | | Combining the two questions with one more - how expensive a scanner | would I have to upgrade to in order to have better shadow silence, | batch scanning, and some kind of ICE? | | I have on emore question, but I'll post it seperately. | | | Ken Durling | | | | Photo.net portfolio: | | http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 |
Re: filmscanners: pixels, printer dots, etc
You have hit on the key difference between display resolution of ppi and print resolution, but there is an additional point as well: Yes, the number of dots used by the printer to print the display pixel is set by the print resolution. But further, each printer dot is produced by a number of spots - I recall this being discussed in a chapter of a book I read recently, with diagrams showing the dot-spot relationship, but I don't recall which book. If it comes to me I'll let you know. Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:38 AM Subject: filmscanners: pixels, printer dots, etc | Ok, I have I think I simple question, stemming out of my study of | Wayne Fulton's scanning tips. Just getting clear, so forgive me if | it's a stupid question. | | On page 67 of that book he shows a tiny 32 pixel image scaled to 5 | dpi. It's printed as a 6.4 inch graphic with pixels that are, | obviously, 1/5 inch in size. My question is, what does this say about | print resolution? The printer is obviously using a certain number of | dots to produce one pixel. Is this number of dots specified simply by | selecting the print resolution in the printer driver menu? | | Thanks | | | Ken Durling | | | | Photo.net portfolio: | | http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 |
Re: filmscanners: pixels, printer dots, etc
Thank you Preston! Ken, that is the Chapter I was thinking of - Dan talks about dots, spots, and every other kind of resolution. Download the article and read it - meanwhile buy his book. Maris - Original Message - From: Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 1:54 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: pixels, printer dots, etc | Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: | My question is, what does this say about print resolution? The printer | is obviously using a certain number of dots to produce one pixel. Is | this number of dots specified simply by selecting the print resolution | in the printer driver menu? | | I'm not sure if this answers your question, but Dan Margulis has a very | informative article on Resolution from his Professional Photoshop book | at http://www.ledet.com/margulis/PP6_Chapter14.pdf. If you haven't | gotten the book, it's money well spent. | | Preston Earle | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.CGraphics.com | |
Re: filmscanners: LS-40 Vuescan
In addition to Simon's suggestion, I sometimes have to invert the film strip, and sometimes - when the film is cut poorly - even have cut some of the between-frame blank space at the end of the strip. I like Simon's suggestion better, though. Maris - Original Message - From: Marc S. Fogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Scanner List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 5:02 AM Subject: filmscanners: LS-40 Vuescan | I use a Nikon Coolscan IV. When I scan color negatives with Vuescan(7.2.4) | the frame does not line up. I will get part of two frames in the preview as | well as in the scan. I do not have this problem with Nikon Scan 3.1. | Is there some way to adjust this in Vuescan to prevent this? | | Thanks | | Marc S. Fogel | http://www.fogel.net | |
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan 7.2.3+ Filter|Grain reduction
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to run this test and to post the results. To me it's clear that VueScan's 7.2.3+ grain-reduction filter is a substantial improvement over 7.1.23 and 7.1.25 Thanks, Ed, for the improvement. Maris - Original Message - From: Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 6:13 PM Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan 7.2.3+ Filter|Grain reduction | Someone recently asked if there was any discernible difference among the |low-medium-high settings with Ed's improved grain reduction filter in vuescan 7.2.3. |I thought I'd try some small comparisons from a negative scan, a small crop of sky |and snow from a near-end-of daylight scene -- sky being a common area where grain |aliasing is noticeable and grain a reduction filter can assist with image quality. | | I think differences are noticeable. File sizes of almost same 200x200 pixel crop |are different: 28, 25, 23 and 21 KB for none, low, medium and high grain filter |setting (decreasing file size indicating a reduction in detail from the filter |action). | | I also included the same crop processed by vuescan 7.1.23 and 7.1.25 (these exhibit |color differences too). The negative was scanned on a LS-30 at full res (2700) using |white balance color and IR clean. Six files are at | | www.shomler.com/vuescan/ | | v7203n.jpg, v7203l.jpg, v7203m.jpg, v7203h.jpg, v7125h.jpg and v7123h.jpg are |approximately the same crop using, respectively vuescan grain reduction filters 7.2.3 |none. 7.2.3 low, 7.2.3 medium, 7.2.3 high, 7.1.25 high and 7.1.23 high. Scan was with |IR clean on. There are some color differences between 7.1.23, 7.1.25 and 7.2.3. |Scans are 48-bit mode, reduced to 24bit in photoshop 6.0.1. Jpeg is from photoshop, |compression maximum quality/12, color space AdobeRGB. | | Complete image (September sunset on Mt. Shasta, California) may be seen at | | www.shomler.com/other/0011329.jpg | | Crop is from upper right quadrant. | | | -- | Bob Shomler | http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm |
Re: filmscanners: creating correction curves from scanned calibration chart?
If you're using PS, click on each the points in the image that you want to set, check the read numbers, then click, in the separate channels, on the curve at or about that point, they type in the read number in the input box and your desired output number in the output box. Do this for each point you want to set and in each channel. There may be a quicker way to set the input point on the line, maybe by double-clicking on the image spot, but I don't remember for sure. Maris - Original Message - From: michael shaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 7:59 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: creating correction curves from scanned calibration chart? [snippped] | However, I'll probably satisfy myself having gray balanced (as Bruce | Fraser implies ... you're 95% there if the grays are accurate). The more | important question is still #2 ... how do I do it?. | | | shaf :o) | | | From: michael shaffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | gray_value == (0.18^(1/2.2))*255 = 117 . Similarly, | | logD (18%) = .745 implies (1/(10^logD))^(1/2.2)*255 = 117 | | (2) What is the best way to create the curves? For example, | I would like to use the target for the curve's gray eyedropper | to change the curve such that 115/118/116 becomes 117/117/117, | ... and for a different gray, 155/159/154 becomes 157/157/157 | ... but the gray eyedropper doesn't seem to work this way(?) | | |
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - filenames
On the files tab, be sure to use a number (it can be a name and number or just a number), and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, be sure you have a plus sign after the number and just before the .tif or .jpg It's the plus sign after the number that saves the scans sequentially and prevents accidental overwrites. Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 10:32 AM Subject: filmscanners: Vuescan - filenames | On a related note - I kind if wish Vuescan didn't leave it so easy to | overwrite a file, since it doesn't ask you if you want to overwrite | the file of the same name. I've had to rescan a couple when I forgot | to go into files and change the name. This is such a given in most | Windows apps, I wonder why Ed didn't set it up this way? Or am I | missing something? | | | Ken Durling | | | | Photo.net portfolio: | | http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 |
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - filenames
As long as the plus sign is present, yes it does. If the plus sign is not present it will overwrite. Don't ask me why - it's Ed's way of doing it. :-) Maris - Original Message - From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 11:46 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - filenames | On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 11:02:32 -0600, you wrote: | | It's the plus sign after the number that saves the scans sequentially and prevents |accidental overwrites. | | | Thanks, Maris. Vuescan advances the numerical value automatically? | | | Ken Durling | | | | Photo.net portfolio: | | http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 | |
Re: filmscanners: Yellow barcode, color dashes
The colors are consistent - you can get a goodly full listing in Vuescan's Help files under Film Types. What the RGB values are - I haven't the foggiest. Scan one on a flatbed as an image and check it. Maris - Original Message - From: Dana Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 12:23 PM Subject: filmscanners: Yellow barcode, color dashes | Does anybody know what the actual color is of the markings that appear | outside the frame area on 35mm color film? | | If you look at Kodak Gold, for instance, there are yellow bar codes, | and for Gold 200-6, there are also red dashes between the sprocket | holes. | | Fuji also has yellow barcodes but they have red and green dashes | between the sprocket holes. | | What I am intersted in is the following information: | 1. Are the colors consistent from one roll to another? If not, my | interest in them vaporizes! | | 2. If the colors are consistent, what are the RGB values in Adobe | RGB color space? | | Thank you, | --Dana |
Re: filmscanners: OptiCal correction/retraction
Thank you for the report, Bill. Frankly, I very much questioned what you had said but had no solid information with which to dispute it. I use PhotoCal myself (I'm an amateur) and I'm very satisfied with my Sony Trinitron (Dell-branded) monitor. I have a Solux desklamp and I find it provides me with accurate renditions of my prints so as to compare them with the screen. Maris - Original Message - From: Bill Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 4:46 PM Subject: filmscanners: OptiCal correction/retraction | Hi gang-- | | I have to correct some erroneous information I contributed a couple | of weeks ago. | | It turns out that OptiCal and the monitor Spyder can only be used as | a colorimeter (to measure color temperature and light intensity) of | your monitor, NOT your room lights. ColorVision tech support says | they don't support the use of OptiCal/Spyder for room lights and I've | been getting wacky results in making the attempt so it looks like | they're right. | | I also made a mistake in stating that if you use halogen viewing | lights you should adjust your monitor to the same color temperature | as those lights. It turns out that to do this you'd have to turn | down the blue channel so much that you'd get dingy images and very | little tonal gradation (on your monitor) in the blues. | | These misstatements came from misinterpreting some mentoring I'm | getting from an accomplished professional in this field. | | What's still true is that if you want to be able to compare an image | on the screen to a physical print right next to it then the color | temperatures of the viewing light and the monitor must be the same, | and the brightness of the light reflected off a white paper in your | viewing area must be the same as the brightness of your monitor. | | A new twist on this is that you can still do reasonably good | comparisons without having to match color temperature and brightness | if you do not have the print viewing area next to your monitor. That | is, if the viewing area and the monitor are never both in your field | of view at the same time, and if the environment around your monitor | is dark enough not to affect you're eyes' interpretation of the | colors on the monitor, then you can look at the monitor, memorize | the color and tone of part of an image, then turn your back on the | monitor and examine a print in your viewing area. Apparently it only | takes a few seconds for your eyes to adapt from one color temperature | to the other. | | Hope this helps, | | --bill | | | | | OptiCal lets you use the Spyder as a Colorimeter! You can use it | to measure the actual color temperature of your viewing lights be | they halogen incandescents, high CRI flourescents or whatever, then | it lets you set your monitor to THAT color temperature rather than | to one of the generic standards (5,000K or | 6,500K). | -- | | == | Bill Fernandez * User Interface Architect * Bill Fernandez Design | | (505) 346-3080 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://billfernandez.com | == |
Re: filmscanners: OptiCal correction/retraction
Comments interspersed: - Original Message - From: Bill Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 8:02 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OptiCal correction/retraction | Hi Maris-- | | I'm still learning like everyone else ;-). | | I've been happily using PhotoCal for the past year but just upgraded | to OptiCal so that I could take my color management to the next | level of control. Good! I can't justify the expense yet. My next purchase would probably be Colorvision's DoctorPro - I have WiziWYG for printer profiles, and DoctorPro could tweak them to near-perfect I think. | The Solux bulbs send approx 4700K light out the front, which is much | closer to a monitor's whitepoint than reguluar halogen lights. It | uses a special reflector that lets some of the wavelengths at the red | end of the spectrum pass through, so you get the best results if | you're lighting fixture doesn't reflect them back into your viewing | space. It doesn't - it's a hooded desk lamp that shines only on the desk, though partially on the secondary monitor of a dual monitor system. | | --Bill | | | At 4:54 PM -0600 8-11-01, Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote: | Thank you for the report, Bill. Frankly, I very much questioned | what you had said but had no solid information with which to dispute | it. | | I use PhotoCal myself (I'm an amateur) and I'm very satisfied with | my Sony Trinitron (Dell-branded) monitor. | | I have a Solux desklamp and I find it provides me with accurate | renditions of my prints so as to compare them with the screen. | | Maris
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?
It sounds like a fantastic solution to many problems - too bad it's so expensive. Thanks for the info, though! Maris - Original Message - From: Jack Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 10:40 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness? | Hi Rob! Again, I envy your opportunities for combining excitement and | photography! | I have another idea to help with camera shake. I was talking to an aerial | photographer at a trade show recently and he told me about a gyroscopic | tripod. Their website is http://www.ken-lab.com/. | | He swears by it. Says it will stabilize small, medium and large format | cameras (three different models). He uses the medium format model with his | 35 mm camera. He shoots from a Cessna 172 by opening the window at 1000 feet | and about 80 knots. Uses an 80 to 200 mm zoom lens, usually near 200 mm. He | claims that suspending the camera by the tripod is much better than using a | fixed tripod that transmits the vibrations from the airplane to the camera | through the tripod. It uses a waist mounted battery pack to power it. | | I'm thinking about getting one to use at weddings. He says you can swing it | at about 10 degrees per second and capture a steady image. | | Just another idea. | | Jack Phipps | Applied Science Fiction | | -Original Message- | From: Rob Geraghty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] | Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 8:40 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a | limiting factor in sharpness? | | | Roger wrote: | It sounds like you want to know how much money you | should spend on lenses (and maybe what brand) in | order to get decent scans. | | Better scans, yes. The scans I get now are decent enough for me, but | they could be better. All these terms are relative. :) | | The best 35mm lens will have trouble making a really | good 11x14. The print size limit for 35 mm lenses is | therefore somewhere in that range, i.e., at least 8x10 | but not much over 11x14. | | See above about relative. :) I believe you absolutely as far as a really | good print from the point of view of a Pro photographer. But for instance | I have a 30x20 photographic print (as opposed to inkjet) at home which | everyone raves about. It was printed in 1981 from ordinary Kodak 100ASA | colour negative film, and taken with a Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder camera | dating from about 1950. But I take your point. | | It's the lens quality of a poor lens that would show up in a scan. | | Or other factors like aperture, camera shake etc. | | You don't need to buy a Lieca lens in order to get | quality. Check out www.photodo.com for unbiased | lens test data. | | I was pleasantly surprised to see that some Pentax lenses rated very well | on that site. I thought I might have to change cameras to get a better | lens. | | Rob, plan on spending a moderate amount of money on lenses (you | don't need the most expensive, simply stay away from the cheap | ones). Check out www.photodo.com before you buy a given lens. | | Makes sense. | | Shoot the lens under optimum conditions. | | If only that were always possible! My photos taken from ultralights are | under pretty challenging conditions - no chance of a tripod, vibration and | wind buffeting, hand held... but at least the bright conditions make a high | shutter speed possible! :) Again, I take your point. | | Don't spend your money on a lens based on the | brand name. | | Good advice - there seems to be a lot of variations in lenses. | | Plan on buying a 4000ppi scanner someday. | | By the time I can afford it maybe they'll be 6000ppi. ;) | | Thanks for the suggestions. | | Rob | | PS Thanks to others who have responded with their experiences of scanning | and what impact the lens used has had. | | | | Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://wordweb.com | | | |
Re: filmscanners: Photshop resource
David, There is a goldmine of information there! Thanks again. Maris - Original Message - From: Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 4:21 PM Subject: filmscanners: Photshop resource | Julieanne Kost works for Adobe as an evangelist. You may have seen her | presentations at the various trade shows Adobe attends. Her web page | www.adobeevangelists.com http://www.adobeevangelists.com contains a | wealth of information including a detailed procedure for dust and scratch | using the history palette amongst many others.. | I would encourage you to view the tips on her site. | David
Re: filmscanners: OT: Places to ask about lenses?
Re Pentax lenses, check out PUG Pentax Lens Gallery: http://gemma.geo.uaic.ro/~vdonisa/lensgal.html Maris - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2001 5:31 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: Places to ask about lenses? | Hi Alex! | | Rob, there are many Mailing Lists and Forums available online | for any major brand (Canon, Minolta, Nikon and Pentax) where you will find | a | lot of that brand specialists who can surely advise you about the brand | and | third-party lenses you would go with. | | Thanks. Someone sent me an address to subscribe to a Pentax list and I've | asked the question there. | | regard. I don't know which camera system do you use, so will hold from | speaking particularly about something special. | | My current SLR is a Pentax MZ5. I have two old K mount lenses, 50mm and | 28mm, and two FA lenses, 28-80 and 70-300. | | One word only: basically all 28-80 (especially those of f/3.5-5.6) are | so-called kit lenses produced especially to e sold in kits with low and | low-mid specified bodies. They featured by very cheap glass capable of | delivering mediocre results, since the main goal of such lenses is the | lowest possible price rather then quality. | | Sure, I'd expect that. The 28-80 zooms are essentially thrown in for free | when you buy the camera. | | In optics the rule: you get what you pay for has almost 100 % meaning... | | I'm usre this is generally true, although I imagine there's such a thing as | limiting returns. I find it hard to believe that the price difference | between the Pentax 50mm f1.7, f2.8 and f1.4 lenses would be obvious in the | results. I'd like to have at least one lens I *know* is as sharp as I can | afford. | | Rob | | |
Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan
You're right, Mike. You would have to keep track of the old names to rename back to the originals. Maris - Original Message - From: Mike Bloor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 3:30 AM Subject: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan | Rob Geraghty wrote: | | Is it possible to set the input directory and the output directory to | different | values? If so, can't you use identical filenames? | | I am doing exactly that at the moment, but am still limited to consecutive | file names. | | Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote: | | The work-around would be to (temporarily) rename them so that all 3 sets | are consecutively numbered - a program such as CKRename | | It seems to me that this would rename them easily one way, but not back | again, so I would loose my film and frame IDs. | | | Mike Bloor
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan
You are correct, Rob - different directories, can be identical filenames. Maris - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 3:55 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan | Maris wrote: | | Sorry, Rob - you lost me there. What do you mean? | | Is it possible to set the input directory and the output directory to | different | | values? If so, can't you use identical filenames? | | If you have a directory filled with raw files as the input directory, and | specify a *different* directory for all the crops, it doesn't matter if the | filenames are the same. Or am I missing the point about batch scanning | files? | | Rob | |
Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan
You can do that. From the Help files, Advanced Workflow Suggestions: You can later batch-process these raw files by changing the Device|Scan from option to Disk, and set the Device|Frame numbers option to 1-N. For instance, if you produce raw files named scan0001.tif, scan0002.tif, ..., scan098.tif, you can re-scan all these files without needing to insert the film again by setting the frame numbers to 1-98 and then using the Scan button. Maris - Original Message - From: Mike Bloor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:45 AM Subject: filmscanners: Bulk scanning with Vuescan | I know that I can leave Vuescan to process a complete film of raw TIFF | files into colour corrected, viewable TIFFs, JPEGs etc. by saying I want to | process disk files -01+ and frames 1-36. | | Is there anyway I can get Vuescan to process all the files in a directory | ? e.g. Take all the files in C:\RAW and process them into C:\DONE. Then | 1234-01.TIF in C:\RAW would produce 1234.TIF and/or 1234.JPG in | C:\DONE. This would allow me to leave a PC processing overnight. | | Ed - if this isn't currently possible, could it be done ? | Mike Bloor
