Re: filmscanners: Magnification of light
Marvin: I shoot architecture using color neg, Fuji Reala, NPS and NPL, exclusively... I meter everything with an incident meter and will often overexpose to ensure shadow detail... these films are incredible... I am currently getting custom prints and machine prints (from a Fuji Frontier) made... If I take the same neg that I have a custom print made from and scan it with my Minolta Elite, I will get even greater tonal range I am not familiar with hands on digital camera images, but i do know that my scanned negs are capable of being enlarged many more times than the Nikon D-1, 990 or any other reasonable priced digital camera... I also find it extremely hard to believe that Jay Maisel (who I first met in 1974) has truly given up shooting on film... there are two many archiving issues as well as enlargement, etc. I have stopped playing with my scanner for a while (I make my money shooting, not scanning) but I am planning to keep wortking on perfecting the process referred to by Tony and others... that of gaining the maximum tonal range from a given scene through one of at least 2 ways 1. Multiple scans of the same neg, then combine as layers.. 2. Multiple shots of the same scene at different exposures, thus capturing an even greater tonal range, then combine the scans in PShop... this is a technique that John Paul Caponigro discusses in his book... the rersults are incredible.. Imagine a Zone System with 100 Zones, not 10 :) Mike Moore Marvin Demuth wrote: Larry Berman, a list member, along with his associate, Chris Mayer, published their interview with Jay Maisel, the noted New York photographer who is rapidly moving to digital, in the June 2001 issue of Shutterbug http://bermangraphics.com/press/jaymaisel.htm. In my zeal to make the switch to the digital era, I have read the article three times. One section particularly caught my eye: Chris/Larry: I've read that it's an electronic shutter. (Referring to the Nikon D1) Jay: Yeah, OK. So I can hold down to a 15th now. I'm an old guy. I don't have the shakes but to hold down to a 15th hand held is pretty wild. So, with the fact that I'm now shooting 200 ASA, and all my life I've only shot 50 or a hundred, tops, and I never liked to push film, I'm now, effectively my shutter speed is always higher. Plus the fact that this sucker amplifies light. I'm sure you're aware of that. Chris/Larry: Well, I know that it certainly has the ability to work at different ISO's or ASA speeds. Jay: No no, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you take a photograph at the recommended ISO, in a bad light situation, you will look at it and be amazed at how much detail it pulls out. Chris/Larry: Opens up the shadow details. The ability of the sensor to see into the shadows. Jay: It's astonishing. The phrase, OPENS UP THE SHADOW DETAILS, strikes me as a real bonus. Yesterday in making a C print from a negative, I virtually lost all my shadow details in printing for the central theme of the scene. Also, yesterday, I received via e-mail a JPEG file made with a Nikon 990 which contained more shadow detail than I could have printed with a C print from one of my negatives. Question: Does the same principle of opening up the shadow details work with scanned negatives? In asking this, I am aware of the manipulations that can be done with shadow details with PhotoShop, et alwhich are certainly easier to do than with the conventional dodging techniques in photographic enlarging. Marvin Demuth
Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile scheme
Tony: Would you be so kind as to give a step by step outline of your technique for dealing with color neg from exposure to final output? Am particularly interested in how you are dealing with 1. inversion...do you do it with the scan software or take it into PShop 2. setting white/black/gray points/ etc. Thanx Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 18:54:57 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: True, and I'm sure most of us take advantage of that range sometime or the other, and goddam grateful for it too:). But if one had an accurate colneg profile, I would think one could get as good first results with varying negs scanning as in the darkroom. Can't really blame a profile for not predicting light temp etc variables. Nope, you are quite right - a profile should classically be just be a straight translation mechanism. However... there is a case for a family of profiles which characterise the film under a variety of illuminant conditions. That seems to be what DH is proposing. But a 'profile' scan of the flourescent green chrome would have the same problem. It's going to come up looking pretty much like the chrome, for better or worse. You're still stuck doing alot of work. Profiling isn't intended to deal with variables, it's intended to establish predictible accurate results under standard conditions. Yup. Except with colour neg, there's this whole range of not-very-standard conditions which have to be factored in. That's why nobody bothers with ICC for colour neg - a single, standard profile really doesn't get you very far. However I can forsee the ICC fundamentalists sharpening their knives and sparking a terminological Jihad : it may keep the peace better to stick with the standard understanding of a single profile, and offer preset adjustment macros to cope with the variables - or do as other s/w does, rely on adjustments based on white point or whatever. I now think a lot is possible here, having had to eat my words some months ago when I was arguing that manual corrections to colour neg appeared mandatory, and could never be done in software because human judgement and intent were involved. Just to make me look maximally silly, Ed Hamrick went and added some rather smart correction routines based on white point, which generally work extremely well and save me a lot of time. I'll be interested to see if the Polaroid approach works, and until then I'm not doing soothsaying again :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Need Help Deciding
Why not the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite? DeVries wrote: I'm in the market for a film scanner between US $500 and $1K. Am considering: Minolta Scan Dual II, or a refurbed LS-30 for $500 or so, New Coolscan IV, or maybe a LS-2000. Will be scanning lots of bw negs. Any advice for best performance/price in this group? Thanks, Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. Have been using a friends LS-1000 off and on for several years and am generally satisfied, but now want my own and know that improvements have been made since that model.
filmscanners: greatpixin,greatpixout
I want to throw this out for open comment and discussion... I had the chance to speak with a real live lab tech (from Replicolor in Salt Lake City, they are on the web at www.replicolor.com) this week... I asked him about his perception of reality when it comes to filmscanning and getting photographic prints back from digital files... he made several interesting comments 1. He said his lab uses a Linotype-Hell Topaz flatbed to scan 35mm and up negs.. he generally goes for a 60Meg fil, which allows him to output a 9x13 (approx) at 300 dpi... he said that he will use that same size file to interpolate to get a print up to 20x30 from a 35mm neg... that it doesn't make any perceivable difference to use a 60 Meg file or a 130 Meg file... 2. He feels that the higher resolution scanners tend to accentuate the grain... he said that a 2800 dpi scan is optimum for most 35mm work 3.That in his experience, color negative film tends to have a much wider tonal range than photo color paper is capable of reproducing... We were discussing my putting a white,gray and black card in the first shot of each interior view I shoot.. he said the gray and black cards would help, but to be careful with the white, because the neg film will have tonal range up into the whites of light fixtures visible in the scene and that I would be better off to take my white point from the brightest light...which fits with my experience... 4. he said he prefers to start with the scan in Colormatch RGB space and keep the image there all the way through final output to his photographic printer... I am about to run tests with my local labs... one has a new pro quality Fuji Frontier, another has the digital Noritsu, and then Replicolor (I forget what type of printer he said they use)... Anyway, what is becoming obvious to me from my perspective as a pro shooter of architecture and interiors is that filmscanning is here to stay, that the best way to use it (for me) is to scan selected shots, do whatever PShop stuff needs to be done, then have the files output as photographic prints by the lab (at their machine print price)... with the Epson output used as proofing and backup... with my client receiving a CD with scans and a set of real photo prints... Looks like my next challenge is the fine tune of the calibration (for lab output) and developing a set of instructions for clients and labs... Any comments or suggestions? Mike M.
Re: filmscanners: Canoscan 4000
Where's this thing for sale at? Charles Platt wrote: I was just about to pick up the phone and buy a Polaroid SS4000 when I ran across a mail-order company which claims to have Canon's new 4000 dpi scanner in stock and ready to ship, for $1099. Since the Canon has the ability to handle APS built in, and it has infra-red sensing to deal with dust, and it costs less than any other 4000 dpi scanner, it's a tempting product. Anyone else own one? Or shall I be the first to jump in and enjoy all the usual problems associated with buying a new product that still has bugs in it?! --Charles Platt
Re: filmscanners: Scanning large format without a bank loan
I live in Salt Lake City, which has fairly sizeable contingent of extremely picky photogs... especially the large format landscape shooters... My local pro shop, Pictureline, which takes on the air of catering to the trade, has started to push the Epson 1640, which it seems a fair number of their picky clients are snapping up like hotcakes.. I will probably be the next one to buy (I am still trying to decide if I should spend the $1200 on a Linocolor flatbed so I can get 4 4x5 negs on one scan) Pictureline has an 8x10 print of a Utah rock canyon, with lots of exquisite shades of red and blue casts, etc... it was scanned from the Epson... These guys usually don't recommend anything they would not use themselves...just a FYI FWIW... Mike M. Jim Yount wrote: Some time ago, at the request of several on this list, I published some VERY informal tests of the Epson Perfection 1640 at http://www.lauby.com/scanner The images include one photo (church picture) that Jerry was kind enough to print Piezo, with results that amazed us both. Since most of my images are 6x7, the flatbed will work for me, at least until more complete tests are in on the Nikon and Polaroid medium format film scanners. I haven't tried Ed's software on this machine yet (work is interfering with my photo passions!) but plan to do so, since I haven't been able to get good results with black and white. Hope this helps. Jim
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Elite, Nikon LS-40, Acer 2740S
I was under the impression he was asking about 35mm scanners M.Moore Rob Geraghty wrote: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Minolta over the LS 2000 Nikon (which I was ready to buy and they sell both)... The Minolta scan software is user friendly, I use it to TWAIN 16 bit linear scans into PShop, where I do the adjustments No comment on the Acer, since I don't own one. My only comment is that the new Canon scanner ought to be on your list as well Shouldn't the Polaroid SS4000 be there as well? Rob
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Elite, Nikon LS-40, Acer 2740S
Tells ya how much attention I've been paying to Polaroid's product line... oops.. Mike M. Tom Scales wrote: I'm fairly sure the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 is a 35mm scanner g. If not, I've been doing something wrong Tom P.S. Except for being broken (in for repair), I love my SS4000. I was under the impression he was asking about 35mm scanners M.Moore Rob Geraghty wrote: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Minolta over the LS 2000 Nikon (which I was ready to buy and they sell both)... The Minolta scan software is user friendly, I use it to TWAIN 16 bit linear scans into PShop, where I do the adjustments No comment on the Acer, since I don't own one. My only comment is that the new Canon scanner ought to be on your list as well Shouldn't the Polaroid SS4000 be there as well? Rob
filmscanners: Another link on Joe RGB
If you followed my last post, you know that Joe Holmes has developed a color space known as EktaSpace or "Joe RGB"... this is a link to a PDF where he explains in such a way that even Groucho could undertsand it...:) http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/images/EkSpPS5.pdf Mike Moore
filmscanners: Another ColorSpace article
I looked up Joe Holmes on Google, which led me to this CreativePro.com article on the various color spaces... http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/8582.html?origin=story the author is pretty close to the Einstein standard but not quite to Groucho's level... :) Mike M.
Re: filmscanners: Minolta Elite, Nikon LS-40, Acer 2740S
I cannot opine as to the new Nikon... it's not been on the market long enough for the real bugs to come crawling out... I own a Minolta Elite... it has given me good service and great scans... it doesn't have batch scanning, but the scans I get are sharp and well exposed... My local pro shop steered me to the Minolta over the LS 2000 Nikon (which I was ready to buy and they sell both)... The Minolta scan software is user friendly, I use it to TWAIN 16 bit linear scans into PShop, where I do the adjustments No comment on the Acer, since I don't own one. My only comment is that the new Canon scanner ought to be on your list as well, and if you don't have to buy one right now, you might want to wait to see if Minolta comes out with a new machine in the next few months... Mike Moore Egil Rognvik wrote: Has anyone got any good advice on which one I should choose, Minolta Elite, Nikon LS-40 (CoolScan IV) or Acer 2740S? I know of the differences "on paper", and I like the Acer for SCSI batch scanning of slides, the Minolta for SCSI and singlepass multiscanning, and the Nikon for the LED's and auto/manual focus. How do they compare on image quality (sharpness, color, noise...)? I will be scanning slides, mostly Kodachrome. Egil Rognvik
filmscanners: ColorCorrectionLink
FYI: Anyone who wants to add to their vast knowledge of rendering intents and color calibration in Photoshop can check out this link at CreativeProse http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12641.html?cprose=2-15 If anyone who thinks they understand it well enough to explain it to a child wants to share that understanding, I would be most grateful... Mike M.
Re: filmscanners: ColorCorrectionLink
Tony: This was a test... I believe it was Einstein who said that if you cannot explain a complex concept to a child, then you do not truly understand it yourself :) Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:57:05 -0600 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12641.html?cprose=2-15 If anyone who thinks they understand it well enough to explain it to a child wants to share that understanding, I would be most grateful... Fraser is a star, presenting dreadful technical material with amazing clarity and eloquence. I don't think it's at all a difficult article, so long as you understand the stuff he doesn't go into there - profiling etc. If you don't, the solution is to read more Fraser features about the stuff that seems confusing (lots at Creative Pro), or buy his books. However, since I have now demeaned your intellectual ability and slovenliness g, I had better offer a quick precis : When reprofiling, use the 'perceptual intent' rendering method except when one of the other choices works better. In which case use that. :-)) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Re Insight or Photoshop?
I agree with Larry... I use a Minolta scanner... I use PhotoShop 6 (used to use 5.5.) and use its import TWAIN to bring up my Minolta scan software, which I use to obtain a 16 bit linear scan, thus bringing a basically raw scan into PShop... There I do my work, saving the image at various key points and only do an Unsharp Mask when I go to make a print... If I am giving a CD to my client, I give them unsharpened files, with a note advising them of this Mike M. Larry Berman wrote: Try and do as much processing as you can in Photoshop. You'll have much more control and be able to save at various stages. If you choose not to, never sharpen the image during the scan. That should be the last thing you do after manipulating in Photoshop. And then it should be "unsharp mask". But I'm sure you'll be able to read different views on this, and changing light bulbs, if you monitor the forum long enough. Everyone has their personal work procedure that works for them. And most are willing to share that information. That's why this is such a good forum. Larry I, m new to this site so if this has been covered already, I apologized. My scanner is the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 with Insight. I use Photoshop 5.0. I would like to produce high quality 11x17 inch prints on my Epson 1200 printer. My question is...should I use the Insight software for my adjustments or just do a basic scan and do most of the adjustments in Photoshop? Also should I sharpen the image at all before the final scan or do it in Photoshop. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
Dave: Please explain what process you are using to get from negs or trans to a 24x36 ( I assume photographic) print? What scan DPI, print DPI, print process, etc. Thanks. Mike M. Dave King wrote: Tony, You're to be commended for bringing this problem to our attention. I've mulled it over a bit and come to some conclusions. I could be wrong however, so with that in mind, here are my opinions. It seems to me from eyeball guessing that my LS-30 is resolving grain in 100 ISO films at roughly 40-80% distortion, which looks pretty bad on the monitor at 100% view. 800 speed color neg film does much better at what I would guess to be roughly 25% distortion. The silver lining to this cloud is aliasing distortion (with the LS-30) looks worse on screen than print, IMO. When the ink hits the page aliased grain looks more or less like analog grain, being worse in certain tonal areas than others. Personally I don't find the actual image degradation objectionable, even all that noticeable, in prints of full frame negs up to 24x36 inches with slight interpolation to reach that size. Perhaps this explains in part why this problem hasn't assumed greater weight in the work a day world. Still, other things being equal (they never are), I would prefer less aliasing distortion. But I suspect that when aliasing distortion levels are kept under about 100%, the effect in print will be *relatively* negligible. Dave King PS - Just for funsies I recently printed a max res file from an Fuji S1 digital camera to 24x36. While the image was remarkably good in many respects, and completely grain (pixel) free in areas of even tone, image resolution was far less than from even 800 speed neg film scanned in the LS-30. For the time being at least I'll take the grain, aliasing and all.
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
Art: You have apparently read more about CD-RW than I have... I agree that the phase change method of recording has a potentially longer life than the dye based CD-R media... However, what I have read is that the best practise for making long lived discs for use in different CD readers is to use the CD-R gold (or now gold/silver) and record it slowly, only filling up about 550Mb... Who the devil knows what the truth is... We will (or our kids will) know in 20,30 and 100 years from now how well this whole move to digital from silver holds up... I am sure that there will be a lot of silver based negs and slides that will reside in museums, etc. that will have stood the test of time... CD media are a different game entirely... Mike M. Arthur Entlich wrote: Just wondering if you have heard anything that makes CD-RW less archival than CD-R, if one is using it as an internal media (not for supplying to others). I suspect it might be more stable than CD-R dyes, but haven't read anything definitive. Have you? Art Michael Moore wrote: ReWritable is NOT preferable... CD-R media is cheap enought that you don't need to mess with all the variables of trying to rewrite a CD file... What I and lot of other folks on this list do is to use the best CD-R (not CD-RW) discs we can get ahold of (Kodaks Optima Gold or Gold-Silver are great) to archive our images... what counts is 1. The ability of your disc to be read by multiple users (in other words your clients or lab) 2. Archival and Information quality... If you want to work on a file, you pull it up off your Master Files (the ones that include your original scans, pre-manipulation, as well as the Master manipulated files) CD, do whatever tweaks are necessary, then save it as a separate file... And burn it onto a new CD-R... costs about a buck for a new disc... Mike M.
Re: filmscanners: MDSD2
Re: Emulsion side up or down... it really doesn't matter as far as I can tell... all you have to do is flip the image in PShop or whatever program you're using. Mike M. Rome wrote: Hey guys, Finally got my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II back from the shop, a new replacement actually. Seems to be working this time. The Italian's came through okay. That's what I was worried about, as in the past I've heard quite a few horror stories about stores in Italy who won't exchange faulty goods. But as it's turned out okay, then in good faith, I'm now happy to give the dealer a plug: If you're ever in Rome, Italy and need a good, well-stocked, pro-oriented photography or digital imaging dealer, go to - Fotoforniture Guido Sabatini Via Germanico, 168/a Tel: 063207278 Fax: 063210304 They also have a website at: http://imago.tin.it/sabatini/ though it's difficult to pull any solid information about stock or prices off this site. Anyway, visit if you're in town. Their prices are a little weird - Incredibly expensive for some things (over book price!!), but really bargain priced for others. My Minolta was about 25 percent less than it would have cost me in England, so they do have some good deals. But they do have a huge stock (lighting, everything) and a separate digital department. They supply the local movie industry (at CineCitta) too, so it's the closest thing you'll find to BH in Rome, as far as I know. Incidentally, I'm getting a little sick of having to type the whole of 'Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II' each time. Sort of a mouthful that you wouldn't have thought was very good for marketing purposes would you? Either I save it in autotext, or else let's start calling it the MDSD2 huh? What I'd really like to know now, is if the question that someone asked last week on the list has been aswered yet, about which way up the negs are supposed to go in the DSD2 film holder. The manual booklet says emulsion side up, the pdf manual is diffrently worded but even more emphatic about putting them in emulsion up - yet logic says it should be emulsion side down. Which is it? Bye, Adam
Re: filmscanners: Newbie question alert: you asked for it...
Kurt: 1. I would suggest you get familiar with the scanner and workflow by using the Minolta software at first... it's extremely user friendly... you may find you won't need to master Vuescan... 2. I have Scan Elite and use it for color negs... I use the 16 bit linear scan setting (which imports the neg into Photoshop as a neg) with ICE turned on and number of passes set for 2 (unless I am dealing with a particularly dirty neg, then I increase the number of passes) For largest image size at 300DPI out, use the max scan DPI of 2820 with 300 DPI out... 3. I always use PhotoShop's TWAIN import to get the scan from the scanner into PSHOP... This opens the Minolta software within PShop...This scan will take several minutes (depending on the number of passes) 4. Don't use your computer for anything else while the scan is running.. when the scan has completed, you will have a negative image (if you are scanning negs ) in Photoshop you can then close the Minolta software and either save the neg scan (which I do in any case) or work on it as a 16 bit file, then convert it to 8 bits for final output... I always save my 16 bit corrected file, and the final 8 bit file If you are working with negs, let me know and I will summarize how I am dealing with those in PShop to get a good positive image without going through too many gyrations in color correction, etc. Mike M. "Kurt Simpson (Dual Sport News)" wrote: Based on list discussion I had a Minolta Scan Elite over-nighted to my door. I spent the afternoon and evening trying to get it to run on two different SCSI machines only to discover in a conversation with tech support that it installed correctly (it shows with a ? in device manager)..curious but ok. I purchased Vuescan and am busy trying to learn the ropes. I've tried scanning with ICE and w/o and am elated. The scanner with the IR channel is such an improvement over the HP Photosmart. What I'm looking for is a primer on initial settings and a guide to workflow. Any suggestions are appreciated. Kurt Simpson Editor Dual Sport News
Re: filmscanners: Burning CD's
ReWritable is NOT preferable... CD-R media is cheap enought that you don't need to mess with all the variables of trying to rewrite a CD file... What I and lot of other folks on this list do is to use the best CD-R (not CD-RW) discs we can get ahold of (Kodaks Optima Gold or Gold-Silver are great) to archive our images... what counts is 1. The ability of your disc to be read by multiple users (in other words your clients or lab) 2. Archival and Information quality... If you want to work on a file, you pull it up off your Master Files (the ones that include your original scans, pre-manipulation, as well as the Master manipulated files) CD, do whatever tweaks are necessary, then save it as a separate file... And burn it onto a new CD-R... costs about a buck for a new disc... Mike M. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just getting started in CD burning. I saw that my options in blank CD are between Rewritable and Write Once Only. Is there any preference between the two for photographic image storage? My inclination is to think that Rewritable would be preferable because of the possible need to adjustments in the image. Thanks in advance for your input. Burt
Re: filmscanners: Fuji CD Rs
I use the Fujifilm CD-R 700MB (up to 12x) for archiving and passing out to clients... Have worked great... I am going to switch to Kodak Optima Gold or Gold silver this week... mainly for archival purposes... I also record at 2x (even tho I have a 10x machine) and only put 550 MB on a disc, cuz I read somewhere that is the best way to ensure the disc is properly recorded both for max compatibility with other CD readers as well as quality of data transfer M.Moore Darrin Zammit Lupi wrote: Does anyone use Fujifilm CD Rs (700MB, recording speed up to 16x) for archiving their pix? any comments?Cheersdarrin Darrin Zammit Lupi Photojournalist Website http://maltamedia.com/dzammitlupi
Re: filmscanners: ADMIN: Lurkers/newbies please read
I second that... truthe be told, we are all babes in the woods on this digital darkroom thing... quite literally, the blind leading the blind... to end this with another cliche that applies ... The only stupid question is the one you don't ask... Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: I've had a few mails from people lately asking if I can suggest a list for beginners! This list is for people at *all* stages of incompetence and confusion :) Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: Another CD-R link
Here is another good link on burning CD-R http://www.mscience.com/faq.html Mike M.
Re: filmscanners: File format
Hey, Bill... your webmaster also made those files password protected Mike M. Bill Ross wrote: I just ran some experiments and I put the images into a directory on our website: http://www.asf.com/temp/. Our webmaster helped out by converting all the tifs to jpegs for viewing (uh-oh). I've asked him to convert them back, The converted-back ones will be just as bad as the jpegs, unless 'convert' means 'putting the original files back. Bill Ross
Re: filmscanners: Still Having Trouble with Win2K
Larry: At the risk of asking you a question you may have already answered, since I know you know very well which end of a computer is up, nevertheless, the one thing that occurs to me is the color temp that you have the monitors set for... could your new Dells somehow be overriding the color temp you have them set for when you do your color calibration? Are they perhaps going into a monitor profile different from the one you are creating? Just a thought from a pre-espresso brain on Sunday morning after the "wonderful" time change... Mike M. Larry Berman wrote: Hi Colin, Thanks for the suggestions. But both displays are set at Windows default. Here's a kicker. I've switch 21 inch monitors and the 21 from my Win98SE (Dell D1620HT) system looks fine on the new Win2k system. I've spoken to Dell tech support, although they couldn't look at the web page, and they told me that I should call my sales person and tell them I need a different monitor. I've also switched graphics cards back to the original nVidia card that came with the Win2K system and the P series monitors still looked bad What I'm seeing is that the Dell P series Trinitron monitors are not showing full 32 bit color. I'm now seeing the same bad color gradations on my Win98SE system with my new 19 inch P991 Dell Trinitron also. So maybe both new Dell monitors are going back this week. The 21 inch that showed the bad gradations is a P1110. Summery: Dell's D1620HT Trinitron looks good on either computer. Dell's P1110 Trinitron looks bad on either computer, showing a colder looking gray and what appears to be a not full 32 bit color. Dell's P991 Trinitron looks bad on either computer, showing a colder looking gray and what appears to be a not full 32 bit color. Larry At the risk of stating the obvious, your display problem sure looks like the graphics card is not set up properly in W2k. I can get a very similar effect by setting the card here to 16 bit High Colour, although even then it is not as bad as your example. Could be a cumulative effect taking place with the screen capture though. Your surround is still on the Windows default colour in W2k. I always find that one difficult to sort out when setting up the display, but I have nailed it now. Display Properties - Appearance - Item box, select 3D Objects, and alter the colour to your desire. *** Larry Berman http://BermanGraphics.com http://IRDreams.com http://ImageCompress.com ***
Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house
I've used the Kodak papers on my HP 932C as well as my Epson, and the results are always outstanding... much better than any other third party papers I've tried... It is worth the try if you are looking for a paper that looks and feels like a "real" photo print... It's also less money. Mike M. Derek Clarke wrote: The trouble being that a 700/740 uses different inks to a 750/1200, which is different again to a 790/870/890/1270/1280/1290! I've never tried to use non-Epson papers because I don't fancy wasting the pack price for a paper that might not work, but then I'm a cowardly custard! [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Moore) wrote: Kodak makes an excellent photo weight glossy paper that works just fine in my Epson 740 Mike M. Derek Clarke wrote: In fairness to Epson, the full technical specs of all their papers is available on their various national web sites. But to be honest, I don't think they make a paper you would describe as photo weight. Epson printers have relatively straight-through paper paths, but they still have a limit on the weight of paper they can reliably feed, even one sheet at a time. If you really want something chunky and weighty, why not get into mounting or even laminating?
Re: filmscanners: Quickscan
Richard: You will no doubt be deluged with lots of answers to this and your previous question. It appears that you are about to take the plunge into the swamp of filmscanning... To answer your last question first.. 1. ICE is always better than no ICE... That then leaves the question of how much can you afford to spend and what are your goals in scanning your own film.. I shoot architecture for a living... I learned long ago to buy the best I can (within reason) instead of starting cheap and then having to buy what I should have bought in the first place If you are looking to scan 35mm for professional purposes, then you should be looking at the Minolta SCan Elite or Nikon LS 2000 or even the Kodak scanner (even tho it doesn't have ICE)... Anyhting less will have you feeling cramped... These scanners will be available at reduced prices (if they aren't already) due to the new Nikons that are coming on the market... you may want to consider an LS 40 Nikon, altho it might be wise to wait until the initial market debugging has had a chance to take place... If you are looking for something less costly than the scanners I have mentioned, I am sure that there are several folks who can steer you in the right direction 2. As far as color correction... I would suggest as a start that you look for a good book if you are using Photoshop, there is a book called Photoshop 5 5.5 for Photographers by Barry Haynes and Wendy Crumpler, published by New Riders... it will set you back somewhere around $50... but it is well worth it... Haynes explains the ins and outs of color calibration and correction from a photographer's viewpoint and gives you a CD so you can follow the step by step examples in the book... after that, you will have to swim with the sharks until you figure out how to get your liferaft built... Good luck and welcome to filmscanning... Mike M. Richard Starr wrote: There are a few refurbed Minolta Quickscan 35s on ebay for a good price ($269 US, buy-it-now). Tony's review for the Minolta Dualscan is quite positive. Does anyone know how this machine compares? The Acer has Ice. Does that make a big difference when considering a purchase on the low end? Rich
Re: filmscanners: Bulk scanning
My personal choice, which has given me excellent results for almost 6 months, is the Minolta Scan Elite... comes with ICE, 2820 DPI, good bundled scan software and is supported by VueScan... FWIW Mike Moore Kurt Simpson wrote: You know I've spent a lot of time lurking on this list and I wonder if the experts could give a bit of a gift to those of us who are beginners but want to put our feet down on solid ground with a good purchase choice. I have an HP S20xi Photosmart that is on the blink and ready for replacement. Is there any consensus on the list concerning a very solid well-priced unit or units? Perhaps one that benefits very well from Vuescan ? Thanks, Kurt Simpson Editor Dual Sport News I've been holding out for the new Nikons but am wondering after hearing of the focus problems on the most recent models...
Re: filmscanners: Re: shAF: OT - Dicky returns to form..
I'm not sure Dicky should be banned... I agree that his speling is horible :) and his use of old Anglo Saxon words is probably better reserved for the waterfront bar... but at least his rants help break the monotony of so much scanner-speak... sort of like the fellow breaking wind at the appropriate point in the boring Sunday sermon... keep 'im on I say... anybody can keelhaul us Yanks like this Limey bloke does, especially after we saved his bacon from the Nazis (or has he forgotten that part?) has got plenty of cheek and that's not all bad.. we can always delete him, just like any of the other posts that we are bored of or not interested in... I must say, I thought his characterization of George the Wobbly was quite entertaining... Mike M. Lynn Allen wrote: shAF wrote: I have to admit being more than embarrassed my the country's international policies sometimes ... but no more embarrassed than this list including Mr Dicky as one of my film scanning peers. I may have little control over republical policies, but I hope my vote gets counted again towards removing this jerk from the film scanner's list. I concur. We can only hope he (Dicky) gets back on his medication. ;-) 'Til then, shAF, keep on keepin' on--we enjoy your posts. At least I certainly do. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Color Calibration
This why I use the Fuji emulsions... REALA in 35mm and NPS/NPL in 4x5... I shoot in mixed light (daylight/tungsten/flourescent) with NO FILTERS and get great results... I've been the gels/flourescent filters/this and that route... that's the problem with trannies on interiors... Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 18:04:01 +0100 Michael Wilkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If you are working quickly its almost impossible to use gels unless you've used the location before. Specially if it's flourescents ;). However, then it's difficult to see the v/f image. The drawback to any on camera colour correction though is that in mixed lighting you can only correct for one source. Quite. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (l
Kodak makes an excellent photo weight glossy paper that works just fine in my Epson 740 Mike M. Derek Clarke wrote: In fairness to Epson, the full technical specs of all their papers is available on their various national web sites. But to be honest, I don't think they make a paper you would describe as photo weight. Epson printers have relatively straight-through paper paths, but they still have a limit on the weight of paper they can reliably feed, even one sheet at a time. If you really want something chunky and weighty, why not get into mounting or even laminating?
Re: filmscanners: Canon FS2710 vs Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II
I've always looked on refurbs as the best of both worlds... one hand is the lower price, the other is that the unit has already failed in the field (or been returned for whatever reason) and the factory has had to not only fix it but make sure it passes even more rigorous tests than the new units coming off the line, so it's less prone to fail... the one time I had a problem with a factory refurb was a Mitsubishi monitor, the red gun failed, and they sent me a brand new latest and greatest model since they no longer made the one I had bought... not a bad deal... Mike M. Lynn Allen wrote: Jim wrote-- Customers return things for a variety of reasons, sometimes with nothing at all wrong with them. Do you know the day of the year that always has the largest number of large screen TV returns? The day after the Superbowl... :-) This probably speaks "volumes" about customer prefs, and why "refurbs" are not always such a bad deal, so long as there's at least a minimal guarantee attached. Still, they also come with an implied "Caveat Emptor" attached, just like a used car does. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Printing A3 from a 2700dpi scan
Rob: Why don't you try a Fuji REALA negative at that size? Mike M. Rob Geraghty wrote: FYI last night I tried my first A3 (not A3+) print from a 2700dpi scan. The image was scanned from 100ASA print film with a Nikon LS30. The result is good, but perhaps not as sharp as I'd like - but for a real test I'll have to do an A3 print from a Provia 100F image. Taking a 2700dpi scan and setting the output dpi to 240dpi makes the print size just inside A3, leaving a nice sized border of around 25mm. Those with 4000dpi scanners will clearly be able to print more easily to full bleed A3, but I'm really not at all disappointed. I'll have to scan a Provia 100F slide on the SS4000 at work and try a comparison print. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan
I have had no problem with the orange mask... I guess either the minolta software strips it it when making the scan (as a 16 bit linear negative scan) or PShop does it on invert... Mike M. Jim Sharp wrote: Michael I will try this and see how it works for me. Is it much of a problem getting rid of the orange mask from the negative? It also appears I need to buy some books... -- Jim Michael Moore wrote: Jim: I have a Minolta Scan Elite which I use for scanning color negs... I don't use VueScan, just the Minolta software, but the way I take my scans into PShop is the key to my success... I had the same problem with apparently flat scans as well, until I started to scan the neg directly into PShop as a linear file, this means that your scan software does not make the reversal to give you a positive image... what you want is to have the full blown neg with all its info come directly via TWAIN in PShop... you then do an ImageAdjustInvert, which will give you a positive image... the ones I get at this stage are all too bright and apparently flat, but when I go to InageAdjustLevels and adjust the sliders, or as I recently discovered, use the droppers to set my white, black and mid points, the picture pops almost magically into adjustment... A good book on all this is Photoshop 5 5.5 for Photographers by Barry Haynes and Wendy Crumpler, published by New Riders. Costs about $55 (less at Amazon) It explains from a photographers point of view how to use PShop and has good coverage on color calibration and scanning as well as using Levels and Curves. Good Luck, hope this helps. Mike M.
Re: filmscanners: Color Calibration
The reason I say this (as to the 3 cards) is that I have been working on several interior shoots lately, one is a home with lots of white (how many shades of white paint are there?) walls... I kept getting deeper and deeper into the muck until I figured out that if I used the ultra bright kitchen lights as my white point, then found a suitably deep shadow on a black chair for the black, then guessed at what part of the gray countertop to set the middle and bingo! the thing popped into good color range... I then tried doing the same with my Minolta scanning software, even tho I am setting it to spit out 16 bit linear scans via TWAIN into PShop... that seems tyo help as well, particularly with the highlight details and not having the colors too far off balance... I really haven't done any detailed comparisons, so I can't say with any scientific certainty if it's all just my impression or if it really does make a difference. What I would like to know is your opinion of Vue Scan as the medium for controlling the linear or raw scans into PShop instead of my Minolta software.. I have been too busy to take the time to figure out VS for my purposes... Thansk Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 22:54:11 -0700 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: what I am thinking of doing is making up 3 large (say 12"x12") panels, one white, one 18% gray, one white, attaching a color bar underneath and sticking that in the main light area of each different view, where I would make one shot with, then go on to make the actual exposures without... this would then allow me to use the eyedroppers in Levels to set my points and hopefully bring the colors into line... any comments or suggestions? Sounds a very useful thing to do, for a reference, and I've thought about doing the same myself. However I bet you'll still end up spending ages tweaking, as often colour errors are non-linear and vary with level, so beyond simple levels settings. The grey card and white reference will be most useful. But try it! Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: Digital Film Output
Tony: This is the lab I mentioned to you that my friend uses... http://www.replicolor.com/ Check out the film output sections for LVT and Solitaire... At least it's a place to start. Mike
Re: filmscanners: Digital Film Output
Aha! The Polaroid marketing shark surfaces. How 'bout lending me one for a year or so? :) Mike M. "Hemingway, David J" wrote: Tony, I would be happy to do an image(or 2 or 3) , 4x5, 6x7 or 35mm, on the ProPalette 8K. David -Original Message- From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 2:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:filmscanners: Digital Film Output Tony: This is the lab I mentioned to you that my friend uses... http://www.replicolor.com/ Check out the film output sections for LVT and Solitaire... At least it's a place to start. Mike
Re: filmscanners: Color saturation with Vuescan
Jim: I have a Minolta Scan Elite which I use for scanning color negs... I don't use VueScan, just the Minolta software, but the way I take my scans into PShop is the key to my success... I had the same problem with apparently flat scans as well, until I started to scan the neg directly into PShop as a linear file, this means that your scan software does not make the reversal to give you a positive image... what you want is to have the full blown neg with all its info come directly via TWAIN in PShop... you then do an ImageAdjustInvert, which will give you a positive image... the ones I get at this stage are all too bright and apparently flat, but when I go to InageAdjustLevels and adjust the sliders, or as I recently discovered, use the droppers to set my white, black and mid points, the picture pops almost magically into adjustment... A good book on all this is Photoshop 5 5.5 for Photographers by Barry Haynes and Wendy Crumpler, published by New Riders. Costs about $55 (less at Amazon) It explains from a photographers point of view how to use PShop and has good coverage on color calibration and scanning as well as using Levels and Curves. Good Luck, hope this helps. Mike M. Jim Sharp wrote: I have a Minolta Scan Dual I purchased recently, mostly with the thought of using it with color negative film for web work. It was inexpensive and I assumed it would be adequate for my intended use. I have been using Vuescan with it and have been basically pleased with how it's worked out with one exception. - Color saturation. It seems no matter what I try my scans come out "flat" for lack of a better word. They just don't seem to have much color, yet the negatives are fine when printed using a standard photographic process. I can fix this to a large degree in Photoshop, but it's tedious and difficult to keep the color balance correct, especially with skin tones. No matter what I try, even a low $$ photographic reprint still looks much better to my eye. I'm pretty new to all this and I can't help but think there is something basic I'm missing... Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- Jim
Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
It's been years since I tried the stuff from RGB Labs... A professional movie cameraman told me about it... what they do is take the basic neg stock as you have mentioned, then print it onto positive film and/or make prints... The color correction happens in the lab... I always knew it was tungsten stock, but that you could shoot it without filters and the lab would correct it... Some people like it... I prefer Kodachrome annd Velvia and Reala... Mike M. Laurie Solomon wrote: Interesting; but these daylight movie films are relatively new and came into being long after places like Seattle Filmworks were offering respooled movie film. Thus, my question still remains concerning their not mentioning that their product needed to be shot under tungsten lighting. I am sure that this information that you have introduced will be of more interest and possibly use to Richard than myself. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael Moore Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 8:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning You may want to check out this link for the latest and greatest from Mother Kodak as far as 35mm motion picture stock goes... this particular link is to a 250 ASA DAYLIGHT neg stock... http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/negative/5246.shtml Mike M. Laurie Solomon wrote: Sorry, drifting off topic. Never a problem with me - especially if the information is informative or interesting. I hate to sound stupid; but I want to check and see if you mean what I think you mean when you speak of CN in relation to film. Are you speaking about a chromogenic negative? All the movie films that I know of are tungston films which always left me wondering why places like Seattle Filmworks and others who sold the respooled tails of those films never made a point of saying that they needed to be shot under tungsten lighting.
Re: filmscanners: Grain in Color negative Film
Roman: I agree with you and respect your obvious expertise... the key words you have written are "tweak the process" and follow the manufacturer's recommendations... which most mini-labs with part time teenage help are less likely to do that a pro lab... not mention cleanliness of the processor.. Mike M. Roman Kielich wrote: At 14:48 24/03/2001 +, you wrote: Still, there is scope for variability in things like replenishment rates altering halide content, water quality (I assume the Kodalk content is left as a variable to deal with this), and (from my tests and experience with BW) agitation techniques and frequency. replenisher keeps alkalinity and CD at desired level, halides come from the material. there is no Kodalk in C41, just carbonate (plus some hydroxide in replenisher). Color processes require more standardization, unlike BW where you can vary many parameters. One machine with one process has to correctly process films from different manufacturers, different speed (various halides content), on commercial basis labs have to provide acceptable results for all sort of films using just one processing set (regardless of its origin). therefore they have to be compatible (interchangeable). The latter has a profound effect on grain. in BW yes, in color there is only one correct set of time/temp/replenishment/agitation - you set it using test strips, then stick to it. If you want the best results, you standardize, then maintain the quality. Reducing the number of variables is the easiest way of keeping a process within the limits. A belt transport minilab, deep tank with burst or dip/dunk, and DIY one-shot processing seem unlikely to give the same results from nominally identical chemistry AFAICS. If you tweak the process, yes, you should get the same results. Each system requires different rate of replenishment and more/or less an anti-oxidant. In general, follow the manufacturer's recommendations. rk "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)
Tony: FYI... in regards to getting trannies made from scans... I ran into a photog here in Salt Lake who is in the high dollar super photo collage game... you know the shots of earth and computers and suns and stars, etc. that get used in annual reports and high tech ads.. this guy makes well into six figures making these images up for stock (he's represented by the Image Bank) and he sold me his 4x5 enlarger cuz he was going totally digital, I asked him how he overcame the bias toward photographer generated scans and he said he has trannies made from his files... He may not tell the AD's where that 4x5 trannie really came from... Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 10:22:29 -0800 Bob Shomler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Can you find a lab to have a tranny written from your digital file? Now that is an interesting thought - I'd not thought about filmwriters as resolution always seems a bit soft. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has had stuff satisfactorily used at up to A3/DPS in a 150-170lpi magazine. I've provided PR folks with Epson 1200 prints that they have found to work well enough. These are more for press and theatre programs, brochures, and flyers -- not that I know used in magazine work. I have read good things from at least one US photog on the Epson 2000P. Is there one you can access for a try out? If the 2000P is OK, the 1200 I already have should be - longevity isn't an issue. Perhaps I'll try this then. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
filmscanners: Color Calibration
I shoot mostly architecture on Fuji emulsions, Reala for 35, NPS and NPL for 4x5..then I scan them as 16 bit linear scans into PShop 6 from my Minolta Dimage Elite, whre I do an invert and then levels which is where the fun begins..the exteriors are pretty easy to scan and get the color close enuf (blue skies and green grass, etc.) however when it comes to interiors, it is whole different story.. remembering the exact color of that carpet or wall covering is usually pretty tough... what I am thinking of doing is making up 3 large (say 12"x12") panels, one white, one 18% gray, one white, attaching a color bar underneath and sticking that in the main light area of each different view, where I would make one shot with, then go on to make the actual exposures without... this would then allow me to use the eyedroppers in Levels to set my points and hopefully bring the colors into line... any comments or suggestions? Mike M.
Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
Alan Many of the so called generic or "supermarket brand" are made by major manufacturers (konica, etc.) It sounds to me like your scratches and muck problem is a Laboratory problem, not a film problem... try to find a good custom lab where they use a dip and dunk processor as opposed to a roller transport processor... the difference is that with dip and dunk, the film is hung from a hanger and weighted so it can be dipped into and out of the process chemistry without any thing such as rollers touching it... roller transports are ok if they are meticulously cared for (which most consumer labs don't) but they still have their problems... a professionally run dip and dunk line is absolutely the best way to process your negs... you should see a huge difference in the scratches and muck problem. Mike M. Alan Tyson wrote: I've been trawling in the archive (http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/htdig) for the discussion I remember here 3-4 months ago about Kodak's "Supra" neg films, with allegedly good characteristics for scanning, and a protective layer. The conclusions were ambiguous then. Like Michael Wilkinson who's reported here lately, I've been suffering from scratches and muck on my negs, but also grain/aliasing on my 2700dpi Scanwit. Ed Hamrick's website actually recommends Kodak Supra 400 with a link to an enthusiast's website. My local Jessops' photographic chain store doesn't stock Supra 400, but will order it up at about 25 ukpounds for a 5-pack of 135-36. This is several times the price of the cheapo supermarket 400ASA neg film I generally use. Despite the 'grain' problems I'm usually happy with the results, but I hate the scratches muck. Many of the scratches look to me as though they're due to post-handling of the negs (enprinting bagging). Since our last discussion, has anyone here been using Kodak Supra 400, and scanning it? Does the extra hardening work as scratch protection? Regards, Alan T
Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)
Tony: As I have posted on this same subject, you know I have felt your pain... what I would suggest checking out the following possibilities; 1. Have you taken a good look at the new Olympus dye-sub printer... my local pro supplier has one with sample prints they made from their shots and they look d..n good... and they are true continuous tone, not any kind of dot stuff... 2. The other alternative is to find a good pro or consumer lab which is using either a Fuji Frontier or the new Noritsu digital printer to make 8x10's... these things will take your digital file or color neg and give you a real silver photo print... The main trick would be to make sure you calibrate your output to their printer... I agree about the sep houses and art directors (most of those lazy ignorant f..ks still want chromes cuz they like to look at 'em on a light box)... I am giving my clients scans along with prints right now so they can get used to the idea, but I tell 'em this is a temporary situation until I get my whole system debugged and they can see how useful the scans on CD are... I may just work the scan price into my shooting time, or I may quote is an optional post production time charge... I think it's just a matter of a year or so until most pubs and true pro A.D.'s get the message Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: OK, here's a legitimate target for spite and bile, and it's decidedly ON topic. I have said some very bad words in their direction already, as I just don't know what to do about this. My main use for scanning is so I can shoot col.neg. in uncontrolled conditions, then scan it and tart it up later on screen. This is an extension of what I have been doing with BW in the darkroom for years. However I end up with a digital image. That is when the trouble starts, because although the client(s) can cope, and the designers can cope, the goddam repro houses are stuck in 1985 and have no intention of changing to accomodate photographer-supplied scans which will rob them of their bread and butter. This last week I have had 2 separate disasters because of this. The first was a set of live interview shots of an elusive MD, horrible room, rotten light. I shot it on CN, no problem. I explained this to the commissioning magazine and asked if they could cope with dig. They said yes, I shot it... and then they changed their minds and asked for prints. I got a bunch of prints done by my lab, and sure enough, they were not very nice. Sent 'em off to client, but with a sample scan to prove the point. Client phones back, gosh, yes, the scan is miles better, stuff the repro house they will just have to cope, send us 8 scans. I do this overnight (the whole job is now up against deadlines), send in bill, and 2weeks later client phones whingeing about the cost. Why have I charged 15GBP/scan? He seems to have expected them to be 'free', since they are when done by their repro house. If he'd known he would have asked for the negs and had the repro house do it. Well, yes, except it was about 4hrs work for me, plus CD etc, and besides, what the repro house would do would be 'straight' reprography whereas what I am doing is interpretive. Client too thick to see the difference, now in my bargepole file. The underlying problem (apart from the client - who had 2 weeks previous been telling me how he had just spent 14,000GBP converting his Ferrari to run on unleaded) is that many repro houses involved in UK magazine production are determined to hang on to scanning, and the standard contract now bundles scanning with everything else for a fixed cost. It has other advantages for them too: they don't need to invest or train to cope with photographer-supplied scans. They can just stick their heads in the sand and lock me (us) out of a very useful *photographic* technique. Like I say, I have another client who often messes about getting negs hand printed at vast expense to work around the obduracy of the repro house they actually pay tons of money too. He has his own reasons, reluctance to learn and fear of horrible mistakes. And that was the second nightmare, a truly horrible mistake. Yet another client, whom I've been around this loop with previously - see my sorry tale about this at my website. They just relaunched a title, and, asked to produce a cover and inside shots during the usual 5min session in the rain, asked if dig was OK. Yes, said the designer - it's not First Impressions doing the repro any more. Did the job, did the scans, sent 'em off. Designer happy, client happy. I got a copy on Thursday. Absolutely dreadful. God only knows how it got signed off and went to print like that. It's so embarassingly terrible I am ashamed to mention it - no saturation and just underwater/vile. What I supplied was a tagged TIF which looked great to everyone on calibrated screens. What came off the press was excrementally awful. This client is mortified and embarassed too, but
Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)
What is PQPP? Mike M. Dave King wrote: Dan Margulis has a mailing list called Color Theory at Egroups with interesting threads on this topic, but I doubt it will help solve the problem. Time will do that, as the trend is inevitable with digital capture coming like a freight train. Meanwhile the question is what's the best repro print to send along with the CD, hoping still they've pulled their heads out by now and use the file (correctly) anyway. 1200 prints can work I think, but they should be at least 2x the final size to avoid screening interference problems (you'd do the same with an analog C print though), and the color anomalies can be reduced to insignificance with oem dyes, PQPP, Profiler Pro and a DTP-41 to make the profiles. It's an expensive time consuming pain, but I think it will get you the quality you're after. I'm setting up an 1160 at the moment I hope to replace the 1200 with for this sort of thing, my initial tests of the oem driver with oem ink and PQPP are promising. It appears to be considerably more linear all through the shadow range, and nearly indistinguishable everywhere else from the 1200. Not finished testing yet, but if the profiles and prints are better than the 1200 is capable of (driver is the problem really), I'll stick 3rd party dyes in a CIS and test again, hoping I can use that instead of oem. If not I'll go back to oem dye. The only alternative is service bureau light jet or Fujix, but I'd rather be able to make the repro prints myself. Dave OK, here's a legitimate target for spite and bile, and it's decidedly ON topic. I have said some very bad words in their direction already, as I just don't know what to do about this. My main use for scanning is so I can shoot col.neg. in uncontrolled conditions, then scan it and tart it up later on screen. This is an extension of what I have been doing with BW in the darkroom for years. However I end up with a digital image. That is when the trouble starts, because although the client(s) can cope, and the designers can cope, the goddam repro houses are stuck in 1985 and have no intention of changing to accomodate photographer-supplied scans which will rob them of their bread and butter. This last week I have had 2 separate disasters because of this. The first was a set of live interview shots of an elusive MD, horrible room, rotten light. I shot it on CN, no problem. I explained this to the commissioning magazine and asked if they could cope with dig. They said yes, I shot it... and then they changed their minds and asked for prints. I got a bunch of prints done by my lab, and sure enough, they were not very nice. Sent 'em off to client, but with a sample scan to prove the point. Client phones back, gosh, yes, the scan is miles better, stuff the repro house they will just have to cope, send us 8 scans. I do this overnight (the whole job is now up against deadlines), send in bill, and 2weeks later client phones whingeing about the cost. Why have I charged 15GBP/scan? He seems to have expected them to be 'free', since they are when done by their repro house. If he'd known he would have asked for the negs and had the repro house do it. Well, yes, except it was about 4hrs work for me, plus CD etc, and besides, what the repro house would do would be 'straight' reprography whereas what I am doing is interpretive. Client too thick to see the difference, now in my bargepole file. The underlying problem (apart from the client - who had 2 weeks previous been telling me how he had just spent 14,000GBP converting his Ferrari to run on unleaded) is that many repro houses involved in UK magazine production are determined to hang on to scanning, and the standard contract now bundles scanning with everything else for a fixed cost. It has other advantages for them too: they don't need to invest or train to cope with photographer-supplied scans. They can just stick their heads in the sand and lock me (us) out of a very useful *photographic* technique. Like I say, I have another client who often messes about getting negs hand printed at vast expense to work around the obduracy of the repro house they actually pay tons of money too. He has his own reasons, reluctance to learn and fear of horrible mistakes. And that was the second nightmare, a truly horrible mistake. Yet another client, whom I've been around this loop with previously - see my sorry tale about this at my website. They just relaunched a title, and, asked to produce a cover and inside shots during the usual 5min session in the rain, asked if dig was OK. Yes, said the designer - it's not First Impressions doing the repro any more. Did the job, did the scans, sent 'em off. Designer happy, client happy. I got a copy on Thursday. Absolutely dreadful. God only knows how it got signed off and went to print
Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)
FYI: I use Kodak's Glossy Paper on my Epson 740, set it to Photo Glossy Film or somthing like that, anyway it gives great results that are hard to tell from a photo print, plus the Kodak paper has the weight of a real silver print.. Mike M. Rob Geraghty wrote: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is PQPP? Premium Quality Photo Paper. I've mostly seen it referred to as EPGPP; Epson Premium Glossy Photo paper. It was mainly designed for use with the 1270. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Grain in Color negative Film
That's what I thought as well and the minilab I used is one that (to the naked eye) runs a clean process... however, what I noticed was that the grain pattern in large areas of uniform density was much tighter and smoother in the film from the custom lab... Mike M. Roman Kielich wrote: At 22:45 21/03/2001 -0700, you wrote: My Point? We had a discussion on this forum last fall, and I just wanted to remind everyone... we are scanning film... same rules apply in this game as in the darkroon prints game... the film processing is the key to everything that happens afterward... if at all possible, have your film processed by a good Custom Lab... not a mall mini lab... the difference in your negs will be like night and day.. and you won't have to worry as much about ICE and GEM and ROC :) my 2 pesos... Mike M. it may be true regarding dirt, scratches, fingerprints, but in both cases you should get the same grain, resolution, etc. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: OT more copyright questions
Richard... This is no place for flame wars... The thing I like about this group (and it is the only one I am on for this reason) is that the regular participants seem to be possessed of a modicum of good manners and willingness to help others out who may not be as experienced as some of the rest of us... I agree that sometimes the threads on certain topics, both OT and ONT, run a little longer than I care for, but that is what my delete key is for... or I can politely send a message (which I did once) stating that IMHO the OT thread has gone on for too long and could we discuss something else... Another thing to keep in mind is that many of us shoot pictures to money, and the questions about copyright, or printers, or memory management, are all germane to our daily bread... I also welcome posts such as Larry's on Jay Maisel... This whole rush into the digital era is happening so fast, I need all the help and inspiration I can get... Mike M. Dicky wrote: - Original Message - From: "Laurie Solomon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:35 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT more copyright questions Yet another idiot. this is a SCANNING group. If you must discuss coptright then go soewhere else to do it you numbskull. Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: RE: OT UK Copyright Issues
Julie... I am going to risk Dickie's wrath and reply... I don't know the anything about U.K. law... however, the distinction that needs to made here is the difference between copyright (which applies to an original work of art, literature, film, photos, etc) and the rights to use images of a physical object, person or place. Any person or place can be photographed, but that does not mean that you can use the image in any way you like, particularly for commercial gain... that's what model releases are for... However, there is a distinction made for uses that are considered editorial or news, and uses that are for commercial purposes (such as an ad). Many stock photogs have libraries of what they call editorial use only shots, which are photos witout a model release... The Loyds building and Formula One race cars would probably be fair game to use as editorial shots, but definitely off limits for advertising, post cards, etc. I have an idea the poor guy with FOne site was sandbagged by legal bullies who could have been held at bay by his own legal pit bull if he had the resouces to pay for it... He should have made it look like an on line magazine... he also may have been using other people's shots (which brings us back to copyright).. Anyway... enuf said on this OT thread... Mike M. "Cooke, Julie" wrote: Does anyone know about UK copyright regarding buildings/land marks. I've heard that the Lloyds Building is copyrighted and you are not allowed to sell photographs of it. Although I've been unable to find any information which tells me this? I've also heard recently of a Formula One web site being sued for having photos of Formula One cars on it. The site is not commercial and was set up by someone who is a fan of racing. I've read the book Beyond The Lens, which has a chapter on copyright but where is the specific information about buildings/places that cannot be photographed? I'm sure the Formula One fan would not have set up his site if he had known. Julie -Original Message- From: Laurie Solomon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 5:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Jay Maisel Interview with Pictures and Link... Is there any exact specification for copyright presentation? Yes, for legal purposes, I think there is both a proper form for the copyright notice, if it is used, for the contents of the notice, if it is used, and for the date that should be used. The date, I believe, is the date of registration of the copyright, if it is registered, or the date of publication, interpreted very broadly to include any public display of the image. However, as to the dates used on a copyright notice, the situation does get a little murky when there are transfers of the copyright from one party to another which might result in the use of the date of the transfer; but I am unclear on this. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 11:07 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Jay Maisel Interview with Pictures and Link... The copyright that Jay Maisel requested was in his cover letter. We've all seen copyright stated in various ways. Sometimes with two years, the year of origin and year of publication. Sometimes just the year of publication. If you've seen older single year copyright, it has probably been that the images was published in that year. On the web it might mean that the site hasn't been updated. Is there any exact specification for copyright presentation? Larry Berry wrote: "If Jay Maisel has not shot film, except for one roll, during the past year, how is it that all of the images are copyright 2001, yet most are from film? I guess the copyright does not correspond to the date the image was shot?" I noticed that too. The copyright definitely does not correspond. Some of those images are 15+ years old. Cathy ::: Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com :::
Re: filmscanners: I Apologize
Larry: Please don't fall into Dicky's trap If all we want is absolute technical info on our scanners, then we should read the manuals... I have stayed on here because of you and Lynn and others who have things to say that may only be peripheral to the act of scanning but quite germane to my job of making the jump into the digital era... If someone gets OT once in a while, then we should remind that person that maybe the discourse should be shortened... what this group does not need is someone like Dicky who feels absolutely free to insult anyone he pleases with epithets and obscenities... I would hope that no one is stupid enough to kick a skunk, as they say in Texas, but I do think that if anyone doesn't like yours and Lynn's and Sumtingwong's company, they should go elsewhere... Mike M. Larry Berman wrote: This is one of the most informative and helpful forums I participate in. I want to apologize to everyone for starting two of the recent off topic threads; The Jay Maisel interview which led to the copyright discussion. Sincerely, Larry ::: Larry Berman Digital Infrared at: http://IRDreams.com Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com :::
filmscanners: Grain in Color negative Film
I shoot Fuji Reala 35mm and scan with a Minolta Svan Elite into PShop 6... I have discovered something I already knew, but now that I have had my eyes rubbed in it, I am definitely changing my habits.. I am referring to grain... specifically the grain you see when you shoot a broad expanse of any even toned area, such as a cream colored wall or a light blue sky... I have been scanning and printing out 8x10 prints of some interiors I shot for an architect client... I discovered that the shots I had the least (as in almost no) trouble concerning grain and spots, stains, etc. were froim the negs that a top quality custom lab processed... same subject, same film but a "good" one hour mini lab gave me negs that 1. showed definitely more grain in the large wall areas... 2. had more trouble with microscopic spots that only show up when you examine the scan at pixel magnification 3. had streaks and stains, again too small to detect on a 4x6 print or with the naked eye, but definitely visible My Point? We had a discussion on this forum last fall, and I just wanted to remind everyone... we are scanning film... same rules apply in this game as in the darkroon prints game... the film processing is the key to everything that happens afterward... if at all possible, have your film processed by a good Custom Lab... not a mall mini lab... the difference in your negs will be like night and day.. and you won't have to worry as much about ICE and GEM and ROC :) my 2 pesos... Mike M.
Re: filmscanners: cleaning neg's, sharpening
Ezio : In case you missed my earlier posts DO NOT TOUCH THAT EMULSION... it was made and developed long before hardening fixers were used... the compressed air could blow it off the plate, the cotton will almost certainly scrape it.. if you feel you must, try your cleaning on a plate that you can aford to lose... This from my earlier post Ezio: I just did a little checking on Google the search engine (www.google.com) under the term "glass plate photographic preservation". I got a lot of references... this is one of them that sums up what most of the other say in regard to storage and handlinghttp://slisweb.lis.wisc.edu/~hamuir/678/glass.html Ezio wrote: Oh ! Friends ... I am Italian and thus my family and myself ... everybody is drinking carbonated water either industrial either home made (I've got all the equipements to inject CO2). I have also a micron filter carbon filter active ... to remove all the stuff provided by the public water agencies i.e. clorine, atrazine, ddt etc. etc. etc. the water in my house is treated through system to remove any particular part of CaCO (Carbonated Calcium) producing those white rocks inside the pipes and inside some kidneys ... I was thinking to use truly distilled water and demineralized. Then I saw many doubts rising ... following your advices and I am thinking to use compressed air and very soft material (cotton) only . I am scared to see the emulsion/gelatine melting down under the action of water ... Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 8:51 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: cleaning neg's, sharpening Mark Thomas wrote: Just a couple of quick comments.. 1. Cleaning neg's with water Bear in mind that if you use anything but 'unexposed' distilled water as a cleaning agent, you are in fact using carbonic acid..! I used to work in a oceanographic lab, and while checking the pH levels of a distilled water producer, I was surprised to discover how acidic the 'pure' water was. The resident chemist gently explained that H20, when exposed to air, absorbs CO2 and degrades quite quickly to a carbonic acid solution, of about pH 5.0-5.5 I think. (I'm flying by memory here - any chemists on the list feel free to correct..) Keep that in mind if considering water for cleaning fragile items!! Well, I think he was giving you a bit of a jest. As you probably know, water is supposed to be neutral, or pH 7. Drinking water, at least here in Canada, cannot be beyond pH 6.5 (it can go alkaline to 8.5). Although it is true that water does absorb minimal amounts of CO2, the pH is not likely to vary much, and the amount of acidity is minimal. However, if you live in an area with severe acid rains, it could get as acidic as a tomato, but this is due to the rain going through sulfur dioxide and becoming sulfuric acid when the rain goes through it. If your water to begin with is fairly neutral, the amount of CO2 absorption to standing water will not do much... if it did, most fish could not survive in it. Soda pop is created by bubbling CO2 through cold water and it has to be kept under pressure in order to keep it there. Art
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan sharpening ( reflection on sharpening in general)
No flames here... But, every book I've read on working with PhotoShop (and I have more invested in books than I care to think about) states that the application of sharpening (actually Unsharp Mask in PShop) should be the last thing you do before printing the image on the inkjet or whatever printer you use... If I going to send the PSD or TIFF or JPEG to a regular printer (as in newspaper or magazine), I never sharpen or Unsharp Mask the image... I make sure the graphics person or printer knows it is not sharpened, as they generally apply some sharpening as a matter of course on all the images they print... Try an experiment and see what happens to your image if you sharpen it right after scanning, then later after doing your corrections... I guarantee the results will not be a pro quality image... M. Moore Erik Kaffehr wrote: Hi! This is not really about sharpening in vuescan, but a reflection on sharpening in general. 1) Sharpening should be done before retouching the image, because sharpening causes many details to show up which have to be retouched. 2) Scanning itself introduces some unsharpness, I think it may be reasonable to apply some sharpening early in the process to compensate for this. Looking forwards to comments, but please no flame war :-) Regards Erik Kaffehr On Sunday 18 March 2001 14:44, you wrote: It's generally advised that sharpening should be the final step on a file before printing or publication, but Vuescan, like most scanning software, has a sharpen filter. Since I always end up doing some work in Photoshop I never use sharpen filters in scanning software. However, I'm curious: just how much "damage" does the Vuescan filter do to the image? Since the amount is fixed, I assume the effect is less noticeable on larger files. Jeremy Nicholl -- Erik Kaffehr[EMAIL PROTECTED] alt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mariebergsvgen 53 +46 155 219338 (home) S-611 66 Nykping +46 155 263515 (office) Sweden -- Message sent using 100% recycled electrons --
Re: filmscanners: To clean/wash old negatives on glass ?
Ezio: I will also be checking with some museum types I know... meanwhile my suggestion is to NOT CLEAN the negs... leave them alone for now... if you have a darkroom, make paper contact prints from them and work with those until you get more info on how to deal with your glass plates... you could also scan them and do your retouching in PhotoShop... but DO NOT try to clean them until you have them checked by an expert in photographic preservation... Mike M. Tim Atherton wrote: Start with the distilled water and cotton buds, cleaning very gently. If the emulsion is flaking in any way, there isn't much you can do about it. Avoid the chemicals if at all possible. I'll try and check for more with our Museum Conservator on Monday or Tuesday for more. Tim A -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris Hargens Sent: March 17, 2001 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: To clean/wash old negatives on glass ? Ethol sells an anti-static film cleaner. I use it on my negatives and get good results. I'm not sure how effective it would be with glass negatives, but it is gentle and evaporates cleanly. For scratches or water residue stains/deposits, I've found Edwal's No Scratch to be effective. It works best if you spread it very thinly (a small amount goes a long way) over the scratch or "stained" area. If there are multiple areas (unfortunately, this sometimes happens) you can also spread it over the entire surface of the negative, again very thinly. To wash off the No Scratch, I use Ethol's film cleaner -- usually about 2 to 4 applications. Chris -Original Message- From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, March 17, 2001 8:06 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: To clean/wash old negatives on glass ? NO - NO - NO - not the chemical products for the windows. You might check the archives as cleaning film has been discussed here recently, but the suggestions essentially were: Photo cleaning fluid - Kodak's was found to be not particularly effective but a product called PEC-12 was. If you photo store does not carry it I have saved the message where the manufacturer (a Mom-and-Pop operation) was listed. Dry anti-static cloths - but be very careful with these and test the on something else first. Cloths for household cleaning were being used but many of them have chemicals in them which could smear and/or further damage the negative. They are essentially for cleaning dust off, not the stuff you found. Compressed air - again for dust. A sticky roller especially manufactured for film cleaning. I guess, for your situation, I would try the PEC-12 if available or the Kodak or other film cleaner if not. Maris - Original Message - From: "Ezio" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Film Scanners News Group" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 4:24 AM Subject: filmscanners: To clean/wash old negatives on glass ? | Dears, after many months of 0 activity on digital photography ... I have | started again and hence here I am to bother you all ... I beg your pardon, | but I need your valuable help and advices. | | I have found some negatives (B/W) on glass 4'x6' (inches) and I am trying to | scan them using a flatbed HP 6200 and Vuescan 7.0 . | The very first problem I have found is that the negatives are particularly | DIRTY , spots, shadows of liquids (humidity condensed ? ) etc. ... | SO ! how do you suggest to clean/wash them ? | | May I use some chemical products I have at home to clean/wash the windows ? | ... alcool , and some other shining chemicals + soft paper ? | OR should I try to used distilled water only ? | | I want to avoid to waste these old glasses they are family portraits | and I am sentimentally involved with this stuff. | | My goal is to print them after having scanned and worked with PS. | | Sincerely. | | Ezio | | www.lucenti.com e-photography site | | |
Re: filmscanners: To clean/wash old negatives on glass ?
Ezio: I just did a little checking on Google the search engine (www.google.com) under the term "glass plate photographic preservation". I got a lot of references... this is one of them that sums up what most of the other say in regard to storage and handlinghttp://slisweb.lis.wisc.edu/~hamuir/678/glass.html There is one that details how to store the plates... BUT... They all say that the emulsion is very fragile and you should consult a qulaified conservator BEFORE trying to clean them... In other words, ignore all the well intentioned advice as to PEC 12, distilled water and wipes... those plates are not made using the same processes as the film of tday (almost all b/w film processes uses a hardening fixer today... this protects the emulsion) you will likely cause far more damage than you have now... Good Luck Mike M. Tim Atherton wrote: Start with the distilled water and cotton buds, cleaning very gently. If the emulsion is flaking in any way, there isn't much you can do about it. Avoid the chemicals if at all possible. I'll try and check for more with our Museum Conservator on Monday or Tuesday for more. Tim A -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris Hargens Sent: March 17, 2001 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: To clean/wash old negatives on glass ? Ethol sells an anti-static film cleaner. I use it on my negatives and get good results. I'm not sure how effective it would be with glass negatives, but it is gentle and evaporates cleanly. For scratches or water residue stains/deposits, I've found Edwal's No Scratch to be effective. It works best if you spread it very thinly (a small amount goes a long way) over the scratch or "stained" area. If there are multiple areas (unfortunately, this sometimes happens) you can also spread it over the entire surface of the negative, again very thinly. To wash off the No Scratch, I use Ethol's film cleaner -- usually about 2 to 4 applications. Chris -Original Message- From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, March 17, 2001 8:06 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: To clean/wash old negatives on glass ? NO - NO - NO - not the chemical products for the windows. You might check the archives as cleaning film has been discussed here recently, but the suggestions essentially were: Photo cleaning fluid - Kodak's was found to be not particularly effective but a product called PEC-12 was. If you photo store does not carry it I have saved the message where the manufacturer (a Mom-and-Pop operation) was listed. Dry anti-static cloths - but be very careful with these and test the on something else first. Cloths for household cleaning were being used but many of them have chemicals in them which could smear and/or further damage the negative. They are essentially for cleaning dust off, not the stuff you found. Compressed air - again for dust. A sticky roller especially manufactured for film cleaning. I guess, for your situation, I would try the PEC-12 if available or the Kodak or other film cleaner if not. Maris - Original Message - From: "Ezio" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Film Scanners News Group" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 4:24 AM Subject: filmscanners: To clean/wash old negatives on glass ? | Dears, after many months of 0 activity on digital photography ... I have | started again and hence here I am to bother you all ... I beg your pardon, | but I need your valuable help and advices. | | I have found some negatives (B/W) on glass 4'x6' (inches) and I am trying to | scan them using a flatbed HP 6200 and Vuescan 7.0 . | The very first problem I have found is that the negatives are particularly | DIRTY , spots, shadows of liquids (humidity condensed ? ) etc. ... | SO ! how do you suggest to clean/wash them ? | | May I use some chemical products I have at home to clean/wash the windows ? | ... alcool , and some other shining chemicals + soft paper ? | OR should I try to used distilled water only ? | | I want to avoid to waste these old glasses they are family portraits | and I am sentimentally involved with this stuff. | | My goal is to print them after having scanned and worked with PS. | | Sincerely. | | Ezio | | www.lucenti.com e-photography site | | |
Re: filmscanners: Jay Maisel Interview with Pictures and Link...
Larry... Muchas muchas gracias... What a great way to start my day... Jay's eye, like a great brandy, only improves with age... Again, thanks... Mike M. Larry Berman wrote: I forgot to include the link. Sorry... Jay Maisel sent me a dozen images plus a portrait for use in promoting the interview on my web site. The interview is now scheduled as a cover story in Shutterbug Magazine. The text of the interview hasn't changed but you can now see 12 original Jay Maisel images, six shot digitally and six shot with film. http://www.bermangraphics.com/jaymaisel.htm Larry ::: Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com :::
Re: filmscanners: Yo Tokyo
Ah yes... the nervous Art Director... I'm surprised he didn't make you go back and shoot it all on chromes I ran into one of those yesterday... I offered him the negs, he looked liked I'd insulted his wife or his dog, then he called someone at his separation house to ask "You can't get very good scans off negs can you" then he turned down my offer of a set of 300 dpi RGB scans on a CD, and he finally took off with a handful of 3x5 proof prints all the while muttering about how real photographers only shoot chromes... Mike M. Mike Moore Tony Sleep wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:56:03 -0500 Harlee Little ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This is the second set of very nice Tony Sleep photographs that I have noticed in the Volvomagazine. What part did your desktop scanning and subsequent photoshop work play in the worklflow of the stories on Icleand and Tokyo. :-) Absolutely none for the Tokyo BW's - I printed them all on bromide, using one of those quaint enlarger things. I haven't seen what they published yet. The Iceand set was shot on colour neg (Fuji Superia 100 and 400) and I provided scans done on a Polaroid 4000 using Vuescan. There's a big 'however', however. The Art Ed also had the negs for a while, and I wouldn't put it past him to have had expensive hand prints done and then sent them to a repro house, because he is nervous of photographer-supplied scans. I have only seen the feature briefly and they certainly looked like my scans, but I don't know for sure. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Trying to Calibrate Monitors to Match
You're darn tootin' this is relevant! Please post your responses to Larry's question here so the rest of us can benefit. Thanks in advance. Mike M. Larry Berman wrote: Now that I've got my new Win2K system up and running (still waiting for a second Sony monitor from Dell), I'm finding that it's impossible to get the monitors to look alike (by eye) between my Win98SE system and the Win2K system. The grays on the Win2K are much colder and lighter in comparing Photoshop's tool bars and menus. I know that there's been a few threads in the past on calibration, and it something I now have to take a hard look at. I was looking at the ColorCal system: http://www.colorcal.com Monitor Spyder with PhotoCal Software for $224 Monitor Spyder with OptiCal Software for $399 optional RGB profile for an additional $199 or less as a bundle (because I'll probably be getting an Epson printer in a about two months). Is anyone using one of these calibration systems with Win2K? Which would you recommend to calibrate and match monitors across the two Windoze operating systems (Win2K and Win98SE), and across the dual monitors on each individual system. If you want me to keep this off the forum e-mail me privately ( mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ). I'll be happy to take all the responses and create a page for them on my web site where it can remain as a reference. But I know I consider it a relevant topic and would want to read them here. Thanks, Larry ::: Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com :::
Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
. Khalid: I don't use a Nikon, I have a Minolta Elite, but the processes are the same... 1. Use the highest resolution of your scanner to make your original scan (that is the scan res, make the output res higher than the largest size print you plan to make ). Example: my minolta has scan resolutions of 2780, 1440, etc. that is the res that the scanner will make the actual scan... I will then choose an output res of 300 dpi, which will give me an approx. 13"x9" print size. This is all at the pre scan stage... I also use at least a 2pass multi-scan... depends on the image...I TWAIN import this into PShop as a 16 bit raw scan... so it shows up in PShop as a neg (I am talking color neg ) where I then Invert (ImageAdjustInvert), after which I adjust Levels (I don't use AutoLevels, but that is a question of personal preference)... I then do whatever contrast, and other adjustments I can (saving my original neg file, 50 Mb, then my positive image after Levels and contrast adjust) and then I do ImageMode8bit to convert the 16 bit image to 8 bit for further tweaking with PShop's tools. I then save that image. As you can see, this stuff chews up hard drive space fast... that's why you need to offload it to CD.. Save all these files (your Master files) in PhotoShop PSD format... these are the ones you will keep and use like negs... 2. If you plan to distribute photos for publication, they should be at least 200 dpi resolution (240 dpi is better, some clients prefer 300 dpi). The preferred format for client distribution is TIFF, although I give my clients who know how to use PShop the PSD files... JPEG is best for Web publishing, altho some print publishers will use a 200 dpi high level JPEG. 3. There are several good image management programs... my personal choice is Extensis Portfolio 5 Destop Edition, which you can download for a 30 day trial from http://www.extensis.com/port_de/ There are other that other folks on this list like, such as ACDSee (?), Thumbsplus... One that is available in Europe is Armadillo Photo, which is used by a lot of museums... their web site is at http://www.armaphoto.com/ . 4.CD-R is the standard of the moment... DVD is on the horizon, and a lot of folks still use JAZ and ZIP drives... The consensus of the CD experts seems to be that Plextor makes the best CD writer, the best disks are the Kodak Gold Optima... I use an HP writer, with the bundled software, and use Sony or Fuji disks, but for archival stuff, I will use the Kodaks...My drive has a max write speed of 10x, but I use it at 2x to ensure the quality of the write session I hope this answers your questions. I am sure you will get some other points of view from the other folks on the list. Feel free to contact me if you have other questions. Michael Moore www.arcportal.com Javed wrote: I have recently bought a Nikon LS2000 for the purpose of scanning my old negatives and archiving them on CD's. Could anyone guide me on the following issues: 1- What resolution should I use for scanning? 2- What file Format should I use to save? 3- Any ideas on how to create a database like index to help search the archived negatives. 4- Is CD-R a good medium to archive on? Possibly this info is already available somewhere, in which case I would appreciate if you can point me to this information. Any Tips will be welcome Thanks Khalid Javed
Re: filmscanners: Scanning negatives for archiving
Lynn: I used the term Raw Scan to mean that I set my Minolta scan software to 16 bit linear for the color depth setting... this gives me a negative scan into PShop... is I set my scanner to a regular 8 or 16bit scan, then it imports a positive image into PShop... I find that working with the linear scan in PShop gives me the longest tonal range, etc. as opposed to letting the scanner software do the inversion I have not taken the time to work with Vuescan, so I can't comment on that product... My current climb up the learning curve is to experiment with the controls in the scanner software to see if they give me any control over the resulting curve of the neg... after that I will start doing scans of differently exposed negs of the same subject, with the end result to bring them into register to obtain an extremely long tonal range... but it all starts with that original scan of the neg... Mike M. Lynn Allen wrote: Mike wrote: ...I TWAIN import this into PShop as a 16 bit raw scan... so it shows up in PShop as a neg (I am talking color neg ) where I then Invert (ImageAdjustInvert), after which I adjust Levels... Hold it right there, Miguel. :-) I don't use either a Minolta or a Nikon, but you sure turned on a light bulb, here! I've really never really known what to do with a Raw Scan (they always looked too dark to work with, so after the first time, I didn't), but you seem to handle them in ways I didn't know was possible. It sounds like you're doing most of the work that a tweakable scan-driver does, in Photoshop, and getting great and publishable results! I've considered that (in desperate moments), but haven't worked up the courage (or time) to try. I, for one, would really like to hear more about this technique and how it's done. And anybody who complains it's "off-topic" ... is playing with fire, bigtime. ;-) Best regards, and thanks for the idea--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: OT but interesting - Interview with Jay Maisel
From what I know of Jay Maisel, and I am sure Larry will concur... Jay doesn't suffer fools or less than the best equipment for one minute (and a New York minute at that)... Jay's quest for perfection and zero tolerance of less than the best manifests itself in his work (his ratio of rejects to good takes is extreme... he and Pete Turner are merciless when it comes to their own work)... he may be getting paid by Nikon, but he wouldn't use their gear if he didn't beleive in it... he wouldn't have left K-chrome for Velvia or Velvia for digital if it didn't meet his standards... this is a guy who was probably pulling in a million or more year from his shooting in the mid-80's, who refuses to sell his stock for less than absolute top dollar and doesn't need Epson's bucks to use a 1270... it's probably his way of proofing... he says in the interview he's getting ready to buy a printer that will give him pigment based archival quality prints... when he shot film, his print method of choice was dye-transfer... not at all a cheap way to print... Jay is still one of the top photographers in the world, and someone to watch carefully and listen to what he says... Mike Moore Laurie Solomon wrote: Unless, of course, he - like many other big name photographers - is getting endorsement money or free ownership, leasing, or use of equipment from Epson. In so far as Epson did not openly or widely acknowledge the problem, it is also possible that he has not suffered from the problem and is (a) unaware of the problem's existence or (b) taking as what Epson's promotions and advertising literature says without questioning it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Larry Berman Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 6:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT but interesting - Interview with Jay Maisel Colin, I haven't been following the 1270/orange shift issue and never thought to bring it up to Jay. I assume he would have mentioned it had he felt it was a problem. He was very free with his feelings about all the issues we spoke of. Larry Larry Berman wrote: We've just finished an interview with Jay Maisel Yes, that was very interesting. He sounds to be a fan of inkjet prints off the Epson 1270, but no mention of the "orange shift". I am probably not up to date on this topic, but is that problem more or less solved? A similar colour shift, to reddish-brown, is even occuring on some of the prints off my Stylus Color 600, over only a few months, and they certainly are not exposed to much light, in fact they are in an envelope most of the time. It might be a particular batch of Epson Photo Paper, S041140, not sure yet, but more prints have been done on this and another brand of paper as a control. It's very disappointing to pull out one's prints and see these changes. They are only good for the rubbish bin. Colin Maddock ::: Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com :::
Re: filmscanners: OT but interesting - Interview with Jay Maisel
Larry: Thanks for sharing this great interview with us. I met Jay back in '74 at his studio/office/home which is a 19th Century bank building down in the Bowery. Great shooter, great teacher. Thanks. Mike Moore Larry Berman wrote: We've just finished an interview with Jay Maisel. For those who have never heard of him, he has always been recognized as one of the top natural light color photographers in the world. Shooting commercially since the mid 1950's, he has always considered himself a purist by not doing any in camera manipulation to only having dye transfer prints done of his images. His images and style have always defined the medium, and now years later, it's fascinating to see how current technology has changed his working style and his definitions. The entire text of the interview can be found at: http://BermanGraphics.com/jaymaisel.htm ::: Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com :::
filmscanners: Another Photo Website
A website for when you get to thinking that digital totally dominates these folks sell you everything you need to go back in photographic time and they give you directions on which less traveled road to follow... http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/ Mike M.
filmscanners: Digital Watermark
There was a note yesterday about Digimarc changing their pricing structure. I checked their web site this morn and it looks like you can still register for the basic free (0-99 images per year) creator i.d., which enables the Digimarc marking software that comes with Photoshop... the way I understand it, this allows you to embed digital copyright in as many images as you wish, which can be read by anyone who has a Digimarc reader (which is free). The pricey part happens when yopu want to put your pix on the Web and have viewers be able to click on the image and find out who created it, or link back to your web page, or (I am not 100% sure on this part) have it picked up by Digimarc's web spider while it hunts for Digimarc images to see if they are authorized. I typically Digimarc embed shots that I send out via e-mail as client proofs and on CD's of images I give to clients for their use (it puts a nice little copyright symbol in the file name). I've heard there is another system, but don't know anything about them. Mike M.
Re: filmscanners: Fw: digimarc watermarking service
It sounds to me like they will not reference anyone to the data they have file on you. It doesn't take away your ability to keep embedding watermarks (I registered mune after April 2000 for free) nor the ability for some one using a Digimarc reader to detect the fact that you have put a copyright notice in the image... It only keeps them from being able to contact you through Digimarc At least that's they way it seems to be working for me... Mike M. Jules wrote: FYI, i received this message from Digimarc today. - Original Message - From: "Mary Kuch-Nagle" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "'Jules'" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:49 PM Subject: RE: digimarc watermarking service Jules, Thank you for your interest in Digimarc. I understand your frustration and the position that you are in. We changed our pricing model in April of 2000, and hopefully you received that message notifying our customers of this change. You had asked if you need to regenerate your images without the Digimarc watermark. You will not have to do that. If you allow your subscription to lapse, you will simply remove the ability for another person reviewing your work to find out information about how to contact you. The image will not render themselves useless, nor will they "blow up" in anyway. It's very similar to that of a phone number. When you pay your bill, people dialing your number can reach you. When you have your phone disconnected, you can still give out your phone number, but those dialing your number will not reach you and will get a message notifying them that your number has been disconnected. The same is true of your watermarked images. We do offer a discount of 10% if you are a non-profit organization as defined by the US IRS. Again, I am very sorry that you are frustrated with our new pricing model. Best Regards, Mary Kuch-Nagle Customer Care Coordinator Digimarc Corporation Direct (503) 495-4623 Fax (503) 495-4003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
Me too... everything went fine till then, then it gave me the error and aborted the install.. My PS says 6.01 though... Mike M. Austin Franklin wrote: Has anyone had any errors when installing this? I got a "ComponentMoveData" error #-115.
Re: filmscanners: Colors in Neutral Gray
FYI: A great book on PShop (with section on filmscanning) for photographers... it particularly addresses the problems with balancing color from a practical standpoint... is Photoshop 5 5.5 Artistry, by Barry Haynes and Wendy Crumpler, published by New Riders, costs about $50 US and worth every penny... has a CD with examples to do the exercises in the book, which is full of color and b/w photos to show the steps and results... Mike Moore Doug Herr wrote: on 2/27/01 5:50 PM, Berry Ives at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 2/26/01 9:47 PM, Doug Herr at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Thomas wrote: At 06:17 PM 26/02/01 -0800, you wrote: I did do the individual RGB adjustments to the best of my abilities. It was fun seeing what could be done, but my result was still imperfect. Does the darkroom still rule? Or will I eventually learn to beat this problem? -Berry Experience will beat this problem and the darkroom most certainly does not rule. Doug Herr Is this really true? Note that I am not arguing with the point - I love my digital darkroom, and have no problems with most images, but I know I have a long way to go to really understand colour balancing, because it bites me every now and then.. Mark T. I can't claim to be an expert but I'm finding less reason to use color-correcting filters. An example of what can be done is at: http://www.wildlightphoto.com/technique/bluepika.html Doug Herr Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com I looked at your images, Doug, and the background grays, some just like the ones I had trouble with--beyond the depth of field and fading into the sky-- are certainly nice and clean. Very nice. Can you make a few comments about your film, film format, scanner, and image processing technique (e.g., 16-bit or 8-bit to Photoshop? have you encountered the same problem I was referring to, etc.) Thanks, Berry Berry, At this time my own scanner is on my wish list. I'm on the list mostly to absorb as much info as I can before I shell out my own (vaporware) dollars for the scanner that's going to make me rich and famous. I've been using Kodak PhotoCD and I had a lot of trouble getting the colors I wanted until I figured out how to convert the files' color space to Adobe RGB (1998) from the color space the Kodak Acquire module demanded I use (Image-Mode-Profile to Profile). My film is entirely 35mm, mostly Kodachromes, some as far back as 1971 Kodachrome X (i.e., the example posted above). I work in a 24-bit RGB mode, 8 bits per channel. Color corrections involve establishing the white and black points, then tweaking each channel to get the midtones right. It may take several tries on each channel before I'm satisfied. BTW I use an adjustment layer to make the corrections, not altering the original pixel data. Often I even need the discerning eye and impeccable taste of my 12-year-old daughter to get the colors right. I've been told that for the ultimate in color control I ought to adjust with Curves but for now I'm getting by adjusting Levels. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento www.wildlightphoto.com
filmscanners: Good Link to Photoshop Tips
I found this site while doing a little early morning surfing... It's a fairly good ste of to the point tips on using Photoshop from a photographer's (and a filmscanner) point of view... http://www.carlvolk.com/photoshoptips.htm Mike M.
Re: filmscanners: Good Link to Photoshop Tips
You're right as to Carl's demise... His family has an address on the home page of his site requesting contributions from those who are interested in keeping the site up Mike Moore shAf wrote: Michael writes ... I found this site while doing a little early morning surfing... It's a fairly good ste of to the point tips on using Photoshop from a photographer's (and a filmscanner) point of view... http://www.carlvolk.com/photoshoptips.htm ... I understand Carl Volk passed away last year, so this may be anyone's last chance to take advantage of his photographic and scanning experience. shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: PS v.6.01
I just downloaded it from the below ftp. They were probably overloaded with people trying to get there first. Mike M. Dale Gail wrote: Very Strange it was there this morning. - Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 4:59 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: PS v.6.01 You can get it at: ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/magic/photoshop/win/6.x/photoshop601up.exe That file doesn't appear to exist...would you please check the URL?
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Another comment to add to Roman's If it were true that the automation will replace the brain, then why do professional writers make so much money when we have word processors? These yechno auto toys are all meant to be extensions of and not replacements for the brain... the brain is the creative center that makes the decision of where to point the robot camera... The other thing is, the more programmed and creative these things get, the smarter the human using them has to be to figure out to overcome the stupid programming... My N90s is an example, another is my Minolta Elite scanner software, I never let that make the decision as to the exposure... Mike M. Roman Kielich wrote: At 19:35 22/02/2001 +, you wrote: "What does that mean squire?" I hear you ask... well what it means my son is that the photographers day's will be numbered, except for their legs and arms that istheir brain will be totally redundant as the appropriate software will do the job, faster, more reliably, with greater consistency, better quality, more imaginatively and finally.cheaper. it may work for a professional photographer, but it will fail with amateurs. The biggest amount of stuffed pics comes from Japan, with the highest number of full auto, super duper cameras. You can replace almost all members of your body, except one. "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia".
Re: filmscanners: Acer or Nikon?
I disagree that a high end digital camera (which will cost at least US$1000 to get 3.3 MP and that still doesn't approach the information even a Scanwit can offer) will do the job for B/W. B/W is not just a matter of "dumping the color"... at least not if you are a serious practitioner of the craft... that may be ok for a press release but not for someone who knows the difference between TMax and Tri-X... I agree that a filmscanner should be looked upon as an investment...and that IR and Digital ICE are godsends... Maybe Rob G. down under can shed some light on the LS-30 as a B/W machine... I know that my Minolta Elite is allowing me to breathe life into Tri-X negs I shot 30 years ago under rock n roll conditions (photographer stoned and poor lighting)... The Nikons should be headed down in price with the news about to come into the marketplace. Mike M. Lynn Allen wrote: Graham wrote: it's come down to the Acer Scanwit 2720 as it's a great price, BUT I like Nikon stuff, is the LS30 really a better scanner for the extra cash? I did fancy the Minolta Scandual2 but here in the UK it's a full 33% more expensive then it is in the US and that I object to.. Seems like a "major sea change" between Acer and Nikon! ;-) What it boils down to is how much more you're willing (and able) to pay to avoid the hassles. I use an Acer, it's adequate, and I like it, but it sometimes drives me nuts. If my projects and means weren't of limited scope, I'd rather have a filmscanner with more power and features, and the IR track on the Nikons (and others)sounds like a bona fide extra bennie, with more possibility for expanding your horizons. Any way you slice it, a filmscanner is an *investment* and paying more to get more probably isn't something you'd regret. Another alternative, of course, is the high-end digital cameras, with a film camera in reserve. B/W is no problem--you just dump the color information with software. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan
Tony: Totally agree as for the complexity issue... I used a Pentax Spotmatic for years... I still keep a 1967 Nikon F in my bag... When the batteries on my N90 die (I am talking about the spares) and I am someplace like Macchu Picchu or an isolated construction site, the old F and the film box exposure meter come in mighty handy... it also helps to shoot color neg, so you got some room with the exposure... MikeM. Tony Sleep wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:34:31 -0700 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: BTW, I use a Nikon N90s, cost me $750 for the body new... uses the same glass as the F-5... It seems to me a camera is actually a more complex animal than a scanner, even a film scanner... Dunno. A camera is just a box with a hole on the front. Most of the addons apart from a viewfinder and shutter are voluntary complexity which *can* be enormously helpful or otherwise (there are times I hate my EOSin's:). You'd be pushed to see much if any improvement in ultimate image quality between a 1961 Pentax SV and your N90's both with standard lenses. when enough fotogs start to figure out they are going to have to scan or die, the market will get really competitive for their dollar, just like the pro camera market is... I think we just arrived about there. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: evolution (was Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Tony... I wasn't talking about a $200 scanner... I was talking about a scanner in the $1000 to $2000 range, same as those cameras you referred to... BTW, I use a Nikon N90s, cost me $750 for the body new... uses the same glass as the F-5... It seems to me a camera is actually a more complex animal than a scanner, even a film scanner... when enough fotogs start to figure out they are going to have to scan or die, the market will get really competitive for their dollar, just like the pro camera market is... Mike M. Tony Sleep wrote: On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:33:31 -0700 Michael Moore ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced scanner that will meet pro needs.. Ah, but the market determines the price. Why would a manufacturer charge less than they can achieve? A cheap pro quality scanner is therefore tautological. The same goes for Nikon F5, EOS1v, sundry Leicas and Contaxes etc. Of course I wish they were $200 too... However, as with cameras, mid-market filmscanners may start to acquire extra bells and whistles to entice buyers who aren't as interested in long-term durability or best-possible quality, but rather the overall blend of attributes. The profusion of brand new acronyms might suggest filmscanner marketing is already headed down this well-worn path. It's a sign of a maturing market where technological advance has rather reached a stalemate, or at least adequacy for the market, and is a standard way of making your products seem superior to rivals of otherwise equal performance. I think all the current generation filmscanners are, at a hardware level, basically competent and capable of good results in the right hands. That's why I think the donated-Q60 review methodology is past it's best-by date. When I started doing it, just about every scanner was grossly different and incapable of anything approaching neutrality. That has changed - like SLR's they're all pretty damn good now, and preferences come down to features, ergonomics, software and useability. And of course price. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
My last comment on this... Yes, I and almost every professional photographer I know are "Lone Rangers" with cameras... That would include almost all of the top shooters.. They may be doing enough volume to afford a couple of assistants (that's how I started) but they still have to deliver THEIR VISION and the "low cost" ($1,000 - 15,000) filmscanner is one of the most important tools on the market for ensuring that image gets created properly and on time.. it's really the new equivalent of the enlarger... any pro shooters who do not master this new technology do so at their own peril, unless they only plan to sell silver based collector's prints ... The industry you refer to is the printing/publishing industry and they will be going through their own revolution as prices come down and quality goes up... The danger in your comments as to these "low end" scanners (Nikon, Minolta, Canon) being for amateur fun is that the fellows from Polaroid, ASF, and the other manufacturers read comments like these and figure that they don't need to bother giving us the truly professional tools we need... that's why Ed Hamrick is beating the pants off Nikon's scanner software... I remember when people spoke of "real" computers as being the ones that needed their own climate controlled special rooms and we mortals had to go through a bevy of computer priests to call upon the digital gods... that was before Apple and IBM came along with what we now know as the Mac and The PC... Same thing will happen with scanning... it's only just begun. Mike M. Dicky wrote: ----- Original Message -From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 4:19 AMSubject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Richard: I have been a pro for more than 35 years, owned a lab and sold off my darkroom equipment long ago. I know where my time is most valuable. And no doubt you do...but... you are something of a one-man-band, or a solo operator if you like and I have been attempting to discuss professional scanning as a separate business where one man bands hardly exist if ever. You just keep on doing whatever you do and jolly good luck to you my friend, however the economics of high end drum scanners would mitigate against people like you simply because you would be unlikely to be able to finance such a device or obtain a reasonable return on capital.You might, of course, buy a reconditioned machine but, as is the way in such matters, it would probably be quite old and maintenance would cost a penny or two. Modern high end drum scanners are not made for clever tricks or creative people anymore, but for volume production where printing is the ultimate destination and page make-up the main purpose. The drum scanner is required in order to digitise analogue film or flat copy as quickly and as accurately as possible from any size original up to A3, with enlargement as high as 20X, so that high volume page make-up requirements can be satisfied economically. Output can be from A3 pages( two to view) up to eight to view film sets with screen rulings from 150line up to 300 screen i.e A1 film size. Imagesetters and RIP's are generally the processing tools these days and fancy creative work is costed out at a price - a high price - proportional to the labour time used and is carried out on either a desktop computer or a much more sophisticated page make-up workstation incorporating massive computer processing power. Sci-Tex from Israel being probably the best known creative workstation provider today although for really flashy creative work the Quantel Graphics Paintbox would turn a few heads and a few bank balances as well at around 300,000 a time.Mind you it does take in Dainippon modified files scanned at massive resolution such as to provide 300mb for an A4 image.Displayed on a 48" high res Japanese monitor one might be forgiven if one had something of a turn when observing the detail in a jewellery catalogue page. If you want photographic quality then that's the business and if you wish massive creative functions it would leave Photoshop standing. Mind you would have to be something of an artist - in creative terms - in order to avail yourself of all it's many facilities. You are confusing the issues related to single self employed photographers with another industry entirely. The book you refer to is of course John Paul Caponigro's "Adobe Photoshop Master Class" and as you have reminded me of something I had forgotten I thank you, because as a future solo operator myself I will almost certainly need to obtain a copy - once I have decided which film scanner to buy. Now I think we had better end this thread as it is of little or no interest to anyone else but ourselves and anyway I believe we may well have worked the theme to death. Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: Mounting fluid/flatbeds
Here is a URL for KAMI... http://www.kami-produkte.de/english/sc.html if this isn't the exact product, click on the type line in the upper right corner of the page to get to their products list, cuz they also list an anti-static fluid that they say is for drum scanners. Mike Moore IronWorks wrote: Excellent information, Michael. Thanks. Maris - Original Message - From: "Michael Wilkinson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 5:01 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Mounting fluid/flatbeds | Mounting fluid has been mentioned in connection with drum scanners. | It can also be used succesfully with flatbeds ! | We use both and using fluid with negs and trannies on the flatbed | definatley gives a visibly better scan. | Main improvement is in recording shadow detail and overall sharpness | seems to be marginaly improved,Ive also tried it with prints and there | were benifits there as well. | We use a product called Kami Fluid which leaves no mess on the original | as it evaporates. | Below is some information which may be of use to those of you chasing | the Holy Grail of perfection | Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk | For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files | ## | | Joseph Holmes wrote: | | KAMI USA Sales, Inc. | P.O. Box 1235, 104-1 L.M. Gaines Blvd. | Starke, FL 32091 | 904-964-3408 | FAX -3328 | as of May 1995 | I do not have a URL for KAMI. | | Here is an old file of mine covering PEC-12: | | PEC-12 is made by Photographic Solutions, Inc. at 7 Granston Way, | Buzzards | Bay, MA 02532. The phone is (508) 759-2322. David M. Stone and his | wife | are the only people. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (800) 637-3212 | |PHOTOGRAPHIC SOLUTIONS, INC. | 7 Granston Way Buzzards Bay, MA 02532 | |[800] 637-3212 | U.S., U.S. Territories | Canada |[508] 759-2322 | International |[508] 759-9699 | FAX - 24 hours | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | e-mail | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | e-mail | | It comes in a four ounce squirt bottle and I got it for $9.45 at the | local | discount photo store. $60 retail for a one quart bottle. Their film | cleaner is much more expensive than other people's because it says | Archival | on it, which means that they must purchase very high purity chemicals. | Their stuff, in a one-quart bottle, after sitting for a year (possibly | partially used) soaked up enough water to reach 0.06% water content, | not | enough to create problems, says David on 8/27/96. Isopropanol is | terribly | hygroscopic, and can severely dry out an emulsion, causing it to | crack! | Kodak will acknowledge this, even though they recommend 98% or higher | Isopropanol and even though they don't mention this problem when | recommending it! | | David is convinced that Kodak would recommend his stuff if they were | not | forbidden to ever recommend any other company's product. | | He is about to introduce a new produce for Leaf Digital cameras that | is a | super-high purity alcohol pad in a foil pouch (E-Wipe) with under 5 | ppm | impurity (maybe water) for wiping the glass that covers the CCD. | | He also has a product for cleaning processing tanks that is non-toxic | (relies on elbow grease). | | The reason that spots can sometime happen with PEC-12, is that there | is a | slight impurity in it that dries on the film if you put too much | volume of | PEC-12 on the film. Not if you rub it too many times! That is why | you | should spray it onto the PEC Pads, not onto the film. | | David suggested a cool way to clean 4 x 5's: | Take a smooth dowell about finger diameter and wrap it with about five | layers of PEC Pad, not in a spiral wrap but so that both ends of the | pads | are together and away from the dowell, then spray the pad, and wipe | the | full width of the chrome at one time. Rotate the pad 1/4" or more | between | each wipe to avoid areas of pad that have disolved crud in them. | After a | while, discard only the top pad, but don't get down to only two pads | or | however many are needed to guarantee perfect smoothness to prevent | damage | to the chrome. I would think that something inert should be chosen | for the | dowell--definitely not wood! | | PEC-12 contains no anti-stat compound, as it would not pass Archival | muster | at the IPI. Nor would it likely be an effective solution for dust | problems | anyway. | | They also sell PEC PAD photo wipes, 100 four by four inch
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Richard: I earn my living as a professional photographer... I do not scan for fun... I scan because I have to have a reliable source of scans that I can manipulate in Photoshop and be able to hand my clients a CD or photographic print made from a digital file that matches the iamge I visualized at the moment I shot the picture. I do not have the time to wait for PhotoCD Master scans to be made, nor am I inclined to trust my scans to lab scanner techs who are trying to meet production schedules. I have my 4x5 film scanned by a custom lab at $29 per scan...(I plan to buy a Linocolor 1400 very soon) I scan my own 35mm... that is why I, and a lot of other PROFESSIONALS are buying these Minolta and Nikon and Polaroid scanners... We must adapt and change in order to survive... I used to shoot film and leave it at the lab and then go back and explain to the counter person, who would hopefully explain it properly to the printer (who hopefully knew what I was trying to achieve, etc) and three or four or five days later, I would get a print... if it was close to what i wanted, great.. if not, back in for a redo... I had one lab tech do me the favor of giving me ragged black borders on what were supposed to be full frame prints from 35, no borders, for an architectural competition... this all on deadline.. the client was with me at the lab, he went ballisitic... Now I control this myself... I scan my own negs, I do the appropriate manipulations, I print out on my Epson or send them to a lab with a Fuji or Noritsu (for up to 8x12) printer that will spit out real silver based photographic prints... and I can hand my client a CD with those same scans as PSD or TIFFS and they can get all the prints they want, that look like I want them to look, and I can keep shooting... You may be retired, but I am still in the fray of this digital revolution.. Just as we saw the computers become smaller and into the hands of the end users, so we will see more pro photographers take the scanning into their own control... If you want to see one photographer who has already handled the whole deal, from taking the photo to making the final scans for his glossy coffee table show book, check out this link http://www.pointreyesvisions.com/index.html Mike Moore Dicky wrote: - Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:33 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? I don't know where these guys get the idea that everyone that uses a pro-sumer (Minolta Elite, Nikon LS2000, etc.) is an amateur... I see a lot of pros buying these to scan work to give clients... I've tried PhotoCD Master and Pro.. that's why I am scanning my own 35mm... To say that we don't need or can't use ICE and any other time saver we can get is flat wrong I never did a get a straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and upgrade ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or Scitex or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands... Mike Moore Frank Paris wrote: output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single product. This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore has little need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely to have any time deadlines to meet. Richard Corbett I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that saves time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. I would suggest that a professional photographer does not earn his living by scanning images. A professional in the repro division of the printing industry most certainly does. The pro scanner user operates under a division of labour principle where each specifically identified skill is carried out by separate individuals. Thus a scanner operator is looking for facim plus cast removal. Retouching, of all kinds, is carried out on a separate workstation. The professional scanner operator is outputting to data storage at around 4" per min horizontal and drum diameter vertically. He is also producing CYMK images, usually in TIFF with a low res composite image for "the mac" or PC if you will. He is paid to produce volume. The clever tricks are carried out elsewhere. The Amateur is doing all this for fun, one hopes, and is therefore fascinated by the process itself. The amateur therefore has more fun and the professional makes more money.
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Jack: I understand what you are saying... but why can't you make the pitch to the scanner OEM's that their including the IR and ICE as a basic set will allow them to have a minimal price scanner and the availability of GEM and ROC as accessories will only make their product more attractive? Mike M. Jack Phipps wrote: Mike-- This is a tough question to answer. It is important that we work with our existing customers (scanner OEMs) because it is important that they include an infra-red channel in their scanners (according to our agreed upon specifications). Without their help, we couldn't have the success we've had to date. The follow-on products are tuned to a particular scanner's specifications (scanner resolution, scan characteristics) and are distributed by the OEMs. We've also been busy integrating Digital ICE on scanners for digital minilabs. So far, Agfa, Gretag, Noritsu and Kodak have included our technology in their product with more on the way. End users are very important to us, and it is our goal to provide the best possible products to them through our OEM relationships. It was very gratifying to hear the testimonials at PMA. People came to our booth with before and after images showing the power of Digital ICE. We had an image on display from a professional photographer (George Barris) of Marilyn Monroe that showed what Digital ICE, Digital ROC and Digital GEM could do. This image was badly damaged and faded. We made a good sized enlargement and the before and after comparisons were impressive. I hope you understand our situation and will continue to consider our products. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] I never did a get a straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and upgrade ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or Scitex or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands...
Re: filmscanners: Workflow questions
I would not apply unsharp mask to a file I was going to distribute to clients or send for color reproduction because there may be further manipulation done and sharpening added once the image is out of your hands. I always save my archival tiff files unsharpened.If I am publishing to the web or making inkjet prints, then I will make a special repro file which I size first, then do UnsharpMask as the very last step. Mike M. Sumtingwong wrote: Noel, I don't think that you would have any problems upgrading your PC. The best thing to do is go on the net and see if the hardware that you own has upgraded drivers for the OS that you want to upgrade to. Windows also includes many of the drivers for older pieces of hardware. As for the scanning software, use what works best for you ;) For the web images, I have worked long and hard to get the best results from this one. I hava altered my process many times from tips that I have received from this list and from my experience. Here is what I do using Photoshop 6.0: 1) Scan at full resolution as a tiff 2) Crop and apply any color correction, if needed 3) Touch up using the clone tool 4) Apply any filters, i.e. Unsharp Mask 5) Save this image as a tiff (to be burned on CD) 6) Resize for the web (usually 600 height or 700 width, whichever is larger, in pixels) 7) Save for the web in Image Ready I hope that this partial list helps. Have Fun!!! Spencer Stone snip 1. Which of the three scanner software programs is the most likely to give me a usable scan? 2. For web images, should I set the final size pre-scan, and pick a 72 dpi resolution then, or is it better to scan at a higher resolution and then reduce it after editing? 3. For printing to the inkjet, I have read here and other places that the image I send to print should be about 1/3 of printer resolution. The Epson 860 is 1440 x 780, or thereabouts. Which number should I be 1/3 of, the 1440 or the 780? 4. Should I upgrade to Vuescan 6.7.2? 5. Can I upgrade my OS with losing the modem or scanner? It would be nice to be able to use the printer's USB connection, which I don't think is supported very well in Win 95 Any information would be appreciated, I have just begun to experiment in the digital darkroom, and hope the collective experience of the film scanner group will be able to help me along the way. Noel Charchuk Calgary, Alberta -- http://telusplanet.net/public/nhcharch
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Richard: I have been a pro for more than 35 years, owned a lab and sold off my darkroom equipment long ago. I know where my time is most valuable. I also recognize the handwriting on the wall. I shoot architectural exteriors and interiors. Anyone who creates images (as in food, fashion, products, architecture, nature, etc.) as opposed to snap shooting and taking what you get, all controlled by the limitations of the silver based technology, will have to move to working with their images in Photoshop or some other digital darkroom set... I still have prints made from negs, when the lighting is just right and there is no way I can improve the image with PShop... this is not something I can trust a lab tech to do... the client pays me for my vision... my ability to see their project in a special way, then deliver an image.. Right now, I have to do my PShopping myself... But I look at it as part of the learning curve I have to climb in order to develop a system that integrates my film based cameras and materials with the incredible tools available that allow me to reach the full potential of each image.. By making multiple exposures of the same subject, but placing my exposure at different mid-points (one for shadows, one for mid, one for highlights) them scanning each and superimposing in PShop, I can get ranges of light I could only dream of capturing a couple of years ago. I suggest you read the book that John Paul Caponigro wrote for Adobe press on that and other techniques... It's the logical quantum leap of the zone system... Mike Moore Dicky wrote: --- Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 6:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Richard: I earn my living as a professional photographer... I do not scan for fun... I scan because I have to have a reliable source of scans that I can manipulate in Photoshop and be able to hand my clients a CD or photographic print made from a digital file that matches the iamge I visualized at the moment I shot the picture. I do not have the time to wait for PhotoCD Master scans to be made, nor am I inclined to trust my scans to lab scanner techs who are trying to meet production schedules. I have my 4x5 film scanned by a custom lab at $29 per scan...(I plan to buy a Linocolor 1400 very soon) I scan my own 35mm... that is why I, and a lot of other PROFESSIONALS are buying these Minolta and Nikon and Polaroid scanners... We must adapt and change in order to survive... I used to shoot film and leave it at the lab and then go back and explain to the counter person, who would hopefully explain it properly to the printer (who hopefully knew what I was trying to achieve, etc) and three or four or five days later, I would get a print... if it was close to what i wanted, great.. if not, back in for a redo... I had one lab tech do me the favor of giving me ragged black borders on what were supposed to be full frame prints from 35, no borders, for an architectural competition... this all on deadline.. the client was with me at the lab, he went ballisitic... Now I control this myself... I scan my own negs, I do the appropriate manipulations, I print out on my Epson or send them to a lab with a Fuji or Noritsu (for up to 8x12) printer that will spit out real silver based photographic prints... and I can hand my client a CD with those same scans as PSD or TIFFS and they can get all the prints they want, that look like I want them to look, and I can keep shooting... You may be retired, but I am still in the fray of this digital revolution.. Just as we saw the computers become smaller and into the hands of the end users, so we will see more pro photographers take the scanning into their own control... If you want to see one photographer who has already handled the whole deal, from taking the photo to making the final scans for his glossy coffee table show book, check out this link http://www.pointreyesvisions.com/index.html I am quite prepared to believe all you say but that is hardly the point. You will, at some future stage, have to chose between taking the picture and reproducing it, simply because the time scale will eventually force you to decide between the two processes. One is creative and the other largely photomechanical and therefore technical rather than creative. No doubt there are photographers who will act as their own publisher and wish to have control over the whole job, well, unless they wish to work 24 hours a day for ever, at some stage they will have to prioritise and perhaps they will decide it is cheaper to put the work out. I must say your paying a lot for a 5X4 scan set. In the uk these sizes are usually called a "min" and where a batch are to be scanned, in my time they were usually priced at between 7-9 ster
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
P.S. You better believe I get paid for my scans as well as any other time or materials that go into creating an image. Mike Moore Dicky wrote: --- Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 6:42 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Richard: I earn my living as a professional photographer... I do not scan for fun... I scan because I have to have a reliable source of scans that I can manipulate in Photoshop and be able to hand my clients a CD or photographic print made from a digital file that matches the iamge I visualized at the moment I shot the picture. I do not have the time to wait for PhotoCD Master scans to be made, nor am I inclined to trust my scans to lab scanner techs who are trying to meet production schedules. I have my 4x5 film scanned by a custom lab at $29 per scan...(I plan to buy a Linocolor 1400 very soon) I scan my own 35mm... that is why I, and a lot of other PROFESSIONALS are buying these Minolta and Nikon and Polaroid scanners... We must adapt and change in order to survive... I used to shoot film and leave it at the lab and then go back and explain to the counter person, who would hopefully explain it properly to the printer (who hopefully knew what I was trying to achieve, etc) and three or four or five days later, I would get a print... if it was close to what i wanted, great.. if not, back in for a redo... I had one lab tech do me the favor of giving me ragged black borders on what were supposed to be full frame prints from 35, no borders, for an architectural competition... this all on deadline.. the client was with me at the lab, he went ballisitic... Now I control this myself... I scan my own negs, I do the appropriate manipulations, I print out on my Epson or send them to a lab with a Fuji or Noritsu (for up to 8x12) printer that will spit out real silver based photographic prints... and I can hand my client a CD with those same scans as PSD or TIFFS and they can get all the prints they want, that look like I want them to look, and I can keep shooting... You may be retired, but I am still in the fray of this digital revolution.. Just as we saw the computers become smaller and into the hands of the end users, so we will see more pro photographers take the scanning into their own control... If you want to see one photographer who has already handled the whole deal, from taking the photo to making the final scans for his glossy coffee table show book, check out this link http://www.pointreyesvisions.com/index.html I am quite prepared to believe all you say but that is hardly the point. You will, at some future stage, have to chose between taking the picture and reproducing it, simply because the time scale will eventually force you to decide between the two processes. One is creative and the other largely photomechanical and therefore technical rather than creative. No doubt there are photographers who will act as their own publisher and wish to have control over the whole job, well, unless they wish to work 24 hours a day for ever, at some stage they will have to prioritise and perhaps they will decide it is cheaper to put the work out. I must say your paying a lot for a 5X4 scan set. In the uk these sizes are usually called a "min" and where a batch are to be scanned, in my time they were usually priced at between 7-9 sterling each. Richard Corbett I hope you get paid for your scans, it is my impression that many photographers do not. Richard Corbett
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
I don't know where these guys get the idea that everyone that uses a pro-sumer (Minolta Elite, Nikon LS2000, etc.) is an amateur... I see a lot of pros buying these to scan work to give clients... I've tried PhotoCD Master and Pro.. that's why I am scanning my own 35mm... To say that we don't need or can't use ICE and any other time saver we can get is flat wrong I never did a get a straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and upgrade ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or Scitex or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands... Mike Moore Frank Paris wrote: output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single product. This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore has little need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely to have any time deadlines to meet. Richard Corbett I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that saves time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Nope... It is bundled with some scanners, and will probably be with the NEW Nikons and Minoltas, but my Elite has ICE and IR, but no GEM or ROC Mike Moore IronWorks wrote: Isn't ICE (and GEM and ROC?) already bundled with the only scanners that have the IR channel necessary for their use? Maris - Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:33 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? | I don't know where these guys get the idea that everyone that uses a pro-sumer | (Minolta Elite, Nikon LS2000, etc.) is an amateur... I see a lot of pros buying | these to scan work to give clients... I've tried PhotoCD Master and Pro.. | that's why I am scanning my own 35mm... To say that we don't need or can't use | ICE and any other time saver we can get is flat wrong I never did a get a | straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and upgrade | ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably priced | scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or Scitex | or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands... | | Mike Moore | | Frank Paris wrote: | | output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is avoided. | The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually likes | their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single | product. | This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the case. | He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore | has little | need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely | to have any | time deadlines to meet. | | Richard Corbett | | | I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a | filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that saves | time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning. | | Frank Paris | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 | | |
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
So when will you guys make your super software available to the end users? I have a Minolta Elite with DIce... Love it, but would also like to have the other goodies... Mike Moore Jack Phipps wrote: I wouldn't consider a scanner that didn't have Digital ICE. Not only that, but the Nikon scanner has Digital ROC (Reconstruction of Color) that does an incredible job of restoring color to faded images. It even works on certain new over/under exposed images as well. It also includes Digital GEM (Grain Equalization Management). This reduces the grain when you have to enlarge images and grain becomes apparent. This is one of the first scanners that bundles all three of these important features into one scanner. You can find more information on these features at: www.asf.com In my biased opinion, the Nikon is the clear choice between these two scanners. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: David Freedman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ?? Ah, isn't competition wonderful? In advance of the aggrssively-priced Nikon Coolscan 8000 ED, it appears that Polaroid has lopped approx. $1,200 off the suggested list price of their Sprintscan 120. It's now priced at $2,795 rather than the original $3,995. This according to a Polaroid press release coming out of PMA. So, here's the question: With prices now nearly equal, is there a compelling reason to prefer one over the other? I'm eager to get my order in for one of these scanners and am leaning toward the Nikon (ED glass, software bundle, etc) but I may have overlooked something significant that could tilt the balance toward the Polaroid. Any thoughts?
Re: filmscanners: storage
Larry, Thanks form the reply... My HP will burn at 10x, but I use it at 2x 'cuz I read somewhere that will give me less problems when I distribute the CD to my clients... I am about to hook up another PC with my image box to improve workflow, particularly as regard to using one only for scans and burns, the other for PShop work on the images... Any suggestions in that regard? Mike M. Larry Berman wrote: When I was using the HP burner, I think I was burning 2x. It took about 36 minutes for a full CD of images. When I started using the Plextor, I left it set to the default which now did the same thing in under 8 minutes. I haven't paid too much detail to the settings on the Plextor. Since it's gotten such a high rating in PC Magazine I felt I could trust it. I've probably burned about 300 CD's flawlessly since purchasing it in September. My investment of $239 (from Buy.com) has saved me countless hours of work. I make duplicate copies for my partner of all the work files that go into the web site images for our clients. Also, it's important to note that having two computers networked minimizes the amount of wasted time while burning CD's. Larry In regard tp speed of the burn, it is my understanding that it is best to use a slow burn speed (2x) as opposed to the higher speeds if one wants to minimize potential read errors on client's computers...any comments? Mike Moore ::: Larry Berman Web Sites for Artists: http://BermanGraphics.com Compare Image Compression from the top Graphics Programs: http://ImageCompress.com Explore the Art Show Jury process from a web site: http://ArtShowJury.com :::
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Jack... I thought Dolby was patented circuitry, ie: hardware... You guys sell software.. I think you are missing a big bet (and it has been commented upon previously in this forum) by not making your goodies available to those of us who are serious about filmscanning... I would hold up our esteemed guru, Ed Hamrick, as one who is working fervently to fill the niche you and the scanner manufacturers are leaving wide open... I can buy SilverFast bundled with or buy it separately, why not GEM and ROC, especially if my scanner already supports ICE? I haven't yet tried to contact Minolta support (my Elite works beautifully) but if they are anything like most customer support, it means hours on Ignore and generic answers from support droids, unless I want to scream and finagle to get ahold of someone who really knows something. I am serious about this.. I am not a hobbyist.. I am a pro.. I shoot film, I scan it and manipulate it and burn it on a CD to deliver to my client... there are a lot more like myself... we have a certain amount invested in a pro-sumer scanner and may not be ready to jump at the latest and greatest and untried offerings from Nikon, etc. Anyway, that's my two cent's worth... Mike Moore Jack Phipps wrote: Think of our software like Dolby(tm) for stereo equipment. You can't buy Dolby(tm) for your stereo, you have to buy a stereo with Dolby(tm). The software is custom designed for each scanner model and we have worked with scanner manufacturers to deliver the software to end users. I encourage you to contact your scanner manufacter. They may be able to provide our products to you. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: Michael Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] So when will you guys make your super software available to the end users? I have a Minolta Elite with DIce... Love it, but would also like to have the other goodies... Mike Moore Jack Phipps wrote: I wouldn't consider a scanner that didn't have Digital ICE. Not only that, but the Nikon scanner has Digital ROC (Reconstruction of Color) that does an incredible job of restoring color to faded images. It even works on certain new over/under exposed images as well. It also includes Digital GEM (Grain Equalization Management). This reduces the grain when you have to enlarge images and grain becomes apparent. This is one of the first scanners that bundles all three of these important features into one scanner. You can find more information on these features at: www.asf.com In my biased opinion, the Nikon is the clear choice between these two scanners. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction -Original Message- From: David Freedman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 4:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
Re: filmscanners: storage
I have an HP 9210i (10x burn) that I have put about 50 disks through and will put lots more in the coming months.. I checked out the reviews and user forums before I bought the HP... the Sony was rated along with HP as one of the tops.. So far, the HP does a great job and my clients have had no problems reading the discs... Mike Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/14/01 7:13:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ditto on the Phillips; I've found them unreliable. I don't think HP is OEM. My Sony is a bit slow, but doesn't give trouble and the price is right. --LRA From: jimhayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yamaha. Don't get a Phillips or an HP. I just got a settlement from a class action suit against Phillips CD recorder. In the interest of presenting both sides: my HP9110i burner has performed well, although I have not put many disks through it yet. Bruce
filmscanners: New Photoshop Program
FYI: For those of you who would like Photoshop but can't afford it, and don't like Photoshop LE's limitations, check out the latest offering from the photoimage gods at Adobe... it's called Photoshop Elements, runs on the PShop 6 color engine with color management, HAS A HISTORY PALETTE with MULTIPLE UNDOS and is reported to have a retail of US$95, with a US$30 reabate for registered LE users... check it out at http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopel/main.html Mike Moore
filmscanners: Refurbed Nikon LS2000
For those who are interested, www.publishingperfection.com is selling factory refurbed LS2000's for US$995 Mike Moore
Re: filmscanners: real value?
Ian, I totally agree. HP has fallen victim to the same short term marketing mentality that infects too many of today's manufacturers and service providers. That said, I do think that their printers at least are much better made than Epson's... What I would really like to see is the old HP mentality applied to their printers, etc., so that we would have truly professional equipment, both in manufacture and design... I will also reply to Art's comment about the price comparison between HP and Epson... wheteher it's the 740, the 870, or the 2000, they all have the print head as part of the printer, so if the darned thing clogs beyond repair, you're scr (my spell-checker just kicked in). As for HP, ain't nobody that I know making third party archival pigment/inks for the darn thing Just give me a Fuji Frontier... Mike Moore Ian Jackson wrote: Michael Moore wrote. Michael, I respect your comment about HP assuming you meant the same oscilloscopes, power supplies etc, that I also used. However HP's Computers, printers, software and service FOR THOSE PRODUCTS, are just not in the same league. Somehow I feel you would not disagree? Ian - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value? Michael Moore wrote: I cut my electronics teeth on HP when I trained as an electronics tech in Th US Navy... Their stuff was always built to last... Last summer I bought an HP 932C... it's built much better than my Epson 740... plus the cartridges come with the nozzles built in so if a print head clogs, you just replace the cartridge... I bought it to replace an Epson that had a clogged print head...(third party inks!)... I thinks it's a load of bull that things can't be made to last... Mike M Didn't the 932C cost a good deal more than the 740 (I'm not on top of the prices on these)? And yes, most anything can be made to last, it costs more RD and usually more in material and manufacturing expense to do so. That's not my point. Making a car last (say a Ford Model T) that can't go above 30 miles an hour, other than as a collectable, doesn't make good sense in a world that demands cars that can go 80 mph for practical considerations. The same is true (and more so) of high tech. If you owned a 10 megabyte harddrive and it was built to last for 50 years, would you still be using it today? Not likely. The darn thing has more value in aluminum and gold than in either practical use or resale value. BTW, I have a perfectly good 10 meg hard drive I'll sell you (weighs about 15 pounds -- you pay postage, too) And if you'd like that one, you'll really appreciate my dual drive Bernoulli with disks (which are 12" wide and hold 5 or 10 megs each... it weights about 50 pounds.) and is bigger than a tower computer ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.6 Available
I own a Scan Elite... have been using it with Minolta's software to take the 16 bit linear scans into PShop wher I invert them...That seems to give me the best tonal range with the Fuji Reala I shoot... Haven't really taken the time to learn how to run Vuescan... would appreciate your comments on how the two compare from your POV as well as maybe seeing a comparison of Minolta's software with Vuescan... Thanks Mike Moore Henry Richardson wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] However, I'd appreciate it if other people would do these comparisons and post their results. I suspect there's still a lot more room for improvement in this algorithm, even though it's already quite good. I have created a webpage that has some examples using Vuescan 6.6 and the new defect and grain removal algorithm. I also have a few comments and suggestions. http://www.geocities.com/hr1066/vuescan66.htm Comments are welcome. Henry Richardson http://www.bigfoot.com/~hrich _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
I realize we all get a little OT at times, but this thing has gone on for DAYS ... "Hornford, Dave" wrote: True electronic signature systems include three components - non-repudiation, authentication, and no-change. Like a pen signature, an electronic signature has to change the document not sit beside the document. -Original Message- From: Laurie Solomon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Eventually, through the use of bio-metrics, your electronic "signature" will be as "good" and as unique as your fingerprint. What you say may be true enough; but even that only guarentees the authenticity of the signature and not the content of the document that the signiture has been affixed to. Hence the problem of counterfeiting still is not solved when it comes to the authenticity of documents.
Re: filmscanners: Vignetting?
Rob, As you stated, the effect is fall-off due the nature of the polarizer I used to do a lot of landscape work, never had a publisher reject any polarized sky shots, but I also tried to cull the ones with too much drop off in the sky... Maybe you ought to submit digital files where you've corrected the sky with PShop... Mike Rob Geraghty wrote: Apologies to those who are using the digest, because the attached picture will appear as encoded ascii. A while back I was in touch with a guy from a stock photo company and I sent a low res jpeg of a photo of mine, which he claimed showed vignetting. Now to me, vignetting in the camera is caused by a wide-angle lens "seeing" the edges of a filter. Years ago I did make the mistake of putting a polariser on the end of a lens which already had a UV filter on it, and this certainly caused vignetting. But the effect I believe he was attributing to vignetting is caused by a polariser - the sky tends to be darker at the edge of the photo, sometimes on one side, sometimes both depending on the angle to the sun. Would anyone on the list call the variation in the sky in the attached jpeg vignetting? I don't find the effect objectionable, but are publishers really likely to? Obscanning: images which have this kind of effect may actually enhance it depending on the scanner settings used. Rob Name: 20010118 0332.jpg 20010118 0332.jpgType: JPEG Image (image/jpeg) Encoding: base64
Re: filmscanners: real value?
I cut my electronics teeth on HP when I trained as an electronics tech in Th US Navy... Their stuff was always built to last... Last summer I bought an HP 932C... it's built much better than my Epson 740... plus the cartridges come with the nozzles built in so if a print head clogs, you just replace the cartridge... I bought it to replace an Epson that had a clogged print head...(third party inks!)... I thinks it's a load of bull that things can't be made to last... Mike M Arthur Entlich wrote: Art ,we all have our own approach to acquiring those items we want,your way is a good way foreword,but don't misinterpret what I was endorsing. When I purchased my current Flatbed scanner in 1995 (its 7th birthday is around the corner) You obviously did a great deal of research and discovered an unusual product. I can think of very few models of anything in the PC marketplace that have been manufactured for nearly 7 years, even if they were not superseded by newer product. Quality certainly has its place, and its cost in high tech markets. The life cycles most PC peripheral devices are tested for is way below seven years, today. Until very recently, however, I was using a HP Laserjet II, which I am sure HP wished they never made, because it is not only still a reasonable quality laser printer, but it also lasted for years, keeping people from considering newer product. Art I wrote down my current and perceived future requirements. I found only one scanner that fitted the bill and I bought it. within 12 months there was a scanner from another manufacturer being demonstrated ,I checked it out and sure enough it was better than mine in many respects. But ,7 years on and my scanner works every day,its built like the proverbial out house and produces scans which, whilst soft and lacking in shadow detail compared with current high end kit,sell. I expect to be using it for at least another 5 years. Now this suits me as to be fair it was a major investment. Had I paid 10 percent of its original cost I would be looking for a replacement maybe,but only because the magazine reviews and the glossy brochures would be seducing me. The bottom line for me must be Is it still doing its job properly if the answer is yes then there is no need to pension it off.The manufacturer is still selling them !! best wishes Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.infocus-photography.co.uk For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files
filmscanners: Great Photo Web Site
If you want to see what some of the best photogs are up to with the traditional/digital crossover, check out www.zonezero.com It is run by the renowned Pedro Meyer, has great exhibits, an online magazine, a section where you can place your portfolio, chat, etc. Best of all, it costs zero Mike Moore
Re: filmscanners: Great Photo Web Site
It's probably because he uses a Mac shAf wrote: Mike Moore writes ... If you want to see what some of the best photogs are up to with the traditional/digital crossover, check out www.zonezero.com It is run by the renowned Pedro Meyer, has great exhibits, an online magazine, a section where you can place your portfolio, chat, etc. Best of all, it costs zero Curious!? ... on his "calibration wwwpage, he claims "Most photographer's web pages are designed for 1.8 Gamma."(?) shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: real value?
I live in Salt Lake City, Utah as in Sundance Film Festival I have also worked as still photog on a few features as well as shot a few documentary in my hoary past lives... the digital versus film debate gets endlessly argued here every year... when video tape came out, it was also looked upon as the death knell of film... the fact is, the DP's (directors of photographer) much prefer to work with film because they can "paint with light"... that is create all kinds of moods that the silver based film seems able to capture with great subtlety and nuance it is difficult to light video and get the same effect... digital isn't much different... the digital divide at Sundance is between the young wannabe's who prefer digital 'cuz it's cheaper to shoot and edit (no processing, no work prints, no a/b rolls, etc.) and the established film guys and gals who can afford to do it the ol' fashioned way... that said, I should also note that Lucas Digital just came out with a whole digital system for projection, but that is after the film has been shot... so editing is also done digitally, but the original is still film... we'll know digital has arrived when we see Panavision quit making film cameras... Mike Moore Hart or Mary Jo Corbett wrote: There are a great many movie theaters in the SF Bay Area, and not all are multiplexes, either. Hart Corbett -- From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value? Date: Tue, Jan 30, 2001, 4:42 AM 35mm film will go the way of the do-do, just as movies theaters did when television started showing films, and later when videotaped movies came out. I haven't seen a movie theater in decades, have you? However, in fairness, 8mm movie film has become a rarity since video camcorders. What gets to live or die does, in part, depend upon how successfully the new technology replaces and if possible improves upon the old one. Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: computers, scanners
Here is a link to Kodak's professional pages on Photo CD... I learned something new here this a.m. Kodak is now offering the ProPhotoCD II... which is for digitally originated files... you can do it yourself on PhotoCD discs with their software. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/storage/pcdMaster/aboutPCD5.shtml Mike Moore Alan Tyson wrote: This is what our esteemed Tony's web site said when I saved it last on 11th October PhotoCD is a cross-platform format, and film sizes from APS to 5x4" may be scanned in a variety of resolutions from 128 x 192 pixels (Base/16) to 2048 x 3072 (16 Base). A higher resolution and more tightly controlled variant, Pro PhotoCD is available via many Kodak-accredited Professional Labs at much higher cost, and additionally provides scans of 4096 x 6144 (64 Base). Costs are fixed by local operators, not Kodak, so vary. So the answer is yes, just, if you're not too fussy and you want the whole frame - 186 or 236 ppi to the printer at 11" high or 13" wide. Alan T - Original Message - From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 12:03 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: computers, scanners Would the highest resolution scan on the consumer grade photo CD be good enough to produce a high quality print as large as 11x13" I think so, yes, but define "high quality". :)
Re: filmscanners: Re: computers, scanners
Amen brother. The only consoling thought is that if I can get this system (film, scanner,calibration,output) working, it will allow me to have more control over the final image I hand my client. Problem is, everytime I think I see a light at the end of the tunnel, it turns out to be another train coming my way!! Mike Moore Rob Geraghty wrote: Alex wrote: RG Define "quality". The Nikon IV ED is 4000dpi which is higher resolution RG than a standard Photo CD. Sorry, but it is 2900dpi. Coolscan 4000 ED is 4000dpi, but IV ED unfortunately is not. Oops. I had it stuck in my head that *all* the new Nikons were 4000dpi. Sorry! Anyway, there's arguments for and against doing the scanning yourself or using Photo CDs, regardless of the resolution of the scanner. Ultimately it's probably most significant how much *time* you can devote to scanning, because paying dollars and sending films away to get CDs back requires a lot less effort. I've spent enough sleepless nights feeding my scanner already! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com Rob Geraghty wrote: Alex wrote: RG Define "quality". The Nikon IV ED is 4000dpi which is higher resolution RG than a standard Photo CD. Sorry, but it is 2900dpi. Coolscan 4000 ED is 4000dpi, but IV ED unfortunately is not. Oops. I had it stuck in my head that *all* the new Nikons were 4000dpi. Sorry! Anyway, there's arguments for and against doing the scanning yourself or using Photo CDs, regardless of the resolution of the scanner. Ultimately it's probably most significant how much *time* you can devote to scanning, because paying dollars and sending films away to get CDs back requires a lot less effort. I've spent enough sleepless nights feeding my scanner already! Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: computers, scanners
Paul: I think the answer to your question depends a lot on what you are trying to achieve... I agree that you should maybe take a little more time to look at your scanner choice... There are a number of excellent scanners out there... I personally use a Minolta Scan Elite... it has ICE and gives me excellent scans of color negs and transparencies... I paid $995 new for it at Picutreline in Salt Lake City... they cater to pros, and sell Nikon and Ploaroid scanners as well. The word from the the pros that had used both the LS2000 and the Scan Elite was that they preferred the Scan Elite... I can't batch scan with this machine, but then I don't need to... My personal advice would be to buy a G4, you'll find it way easier to expand (and you will want to expand once your scientific mind latches onto what is really happening here... there is never enough RAM or a large enough hard drive...) You can use the few hundred bucks difference from the Powerbook price t invest in a better scanner.. My only hesitation on the Nikons is that the new ones are new... from what I've seen on this forum, the LS30 owners wish they had an LS2000 (witness Rob and the jaggies) and the LS2000 owners like their machines except for when they have problems that Nikon doesn't seem to be very responsive in taking care of... The hesitation on the new Nikons is that I would not want to be part of their field test program... I always buy behind the curve... it took me years to upgrade from Nikon F's to the N90s and F5 that I use Your monitor will work just fine unless you really need a Radius or some other pro level graphics monitor... Your other major investment will be software, altho you can Photoshop6 at education prices... you might want to check out a program called Picture window at www.dl-c.com They have a 30 free trial, the program costs $90 to register if you want it and it looks like it will do everything PS6 will do (for photogs) plus a bit more Again, that will mean money saved that can be put into the best scanner you can buy... I emphasize that again, a scanner is like a camera... buy the best you can right off the bat, or else you're going to have to go back and buy the one you should have bought in the first place... As far as printers... there ain't no easy answer.. I use an Epson 740 right now as well as an HP 932C... they both give me great results for inkjest... There are third party pigments I can buy for the Epson that will give me more archival results... As to PhotoCD... a great system, but it will add up quickly if you have the entire roll scanned... the cheapest is probably ok if all you want are low res files for 8x10's... the next level up, the Master, is what I recommend from 35mm, the scans cost about $3.00 and work great... the only problem is that you are controlled by whoever they have running the scanner... Hope this helps... Mike Moore www.arcportal.com If you don't really need all the bells and whis patton paul wrote: On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Michael Wilkinson wrote: Hi Paul. First priority to me would be the input device. Once you have bought it will last years and still be making good scans when you have gone through several computer upgrades. Any computer, Mac or PC will do what you want with your digital files but your digital files need to be the best you can get to start with. Have a look at the Kodak 3600 scanner. You need to get a monitor which you know you can calibrate so your on screen colours match your output,or visa versa. The external monitor port on the G3 powerbook can drive any monitor. Can any monitor be calibrated using Apple ColorSync? Or does that require an Apple monitor, or a third party monitor designed specifically to work with ColorSync? I was planning to use a Gateway 2000 monitor which I already have at home on loan from work. Would this be suitable? Thanks. __ Dr. Paul Patton Beckman Institute Rm 3027 405 N. Mathews St. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, Illinois 61801 work phone: (217)-265-0795 fax: (217)-244-5180 home phone: (217)-344-7863 homepage: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ppatton/index.html "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." -Albert Einstein __
Re: filmscanners: Scratched Negs Home C-41 processing
A good place to start is the Jobo website... www.jobo.com They make a great line of rotary drum processors for film and prints... you can start with one of the low end units... it will give you temp controlled water bath for your drum and chemistry, plus the advantage of the constant rotation.. they are perfect for use with one shot chemistry, which is the only way to go with color for consistent results as well as no hassling with replenisher... If you are on a budget, then figure what the Jobo models are that interest you, then head on over to ebay... they usually have several jobos at far less than new.. I picked mine up with drums and reels at yard sale for $20... But I still send my film to a custom lab...process only, sleeve, don't cut... less hassle Mike Moore Edwin Eleazer wrote: I like that answer, at 2AM if I want. Is there a decent website or book that you could recommend for someone that might be interested in developing his own film also. I'd never miss the cheap prints, and developing my own is something I have always been scared to try. I always made A(s) in chem lab, I'm a Pharmacist, and even though the drugstore is very accessible to me (too much so actually), I don't work at a 1 hour photo type pharmacy (although that would have obvious advantages), and I might want to try it at home. Edwin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tim Victor Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 9:59 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scratched Negs Home C-41 processing On Tuesday, January 23, Eli Bowen wrote: When it is so cheap to get color film developed by a lab (even a top quality professional lab) it seems hard to justify the trouble and expense of C-41 or E-6 processing at home, Sometimes things that seem hard really aren't so hard. grin I've had little difficulty justifying the trouble (minor) and expense (no additional) myself. The fact that I can process a roll at 2AM if I want to, and often have, is enough reason for me. I've also learned an awful lot by going through the process, and that's the highest possible value for me. Like I said before, I'm not telling any others that they should be processing their own color film. I just get a little bugged when others try to tell me that I shouldn't be doing it. especially if a formaldehyde-based stabilizer is used. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen with other bad health effects even at relatively low exposure levels. I appreciate the health warning. As I mentioned in a previous message, Kodak is phasing out their C-41 stabilizer in favor of a final rinse for the 4th bath. I'm not sure about the other brands. Best wishes, Tim Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED]