Re: filmscanners: Glass slide mounts

[Shunith Dutt]

On the subject

Would an anti-Newton Rings mount affect the quality of the scan?

Shunith



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 25/09/2001

Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: "Neil Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 3:37 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)


> and you thought this thread had died.. 
>
> Well, someone asked if the AN coatings of Glass Slides would show in a
scan
> and I can say that with Quickpoint slides of the type I have at least, it
> most certainly DOES. You get a sort of grassy looking star pattern that is
> terrible especially in skys or continuous tone areas. Huge yuk!

Yup... that was me... at least, i did ask and no one replied... till now :)

Well, asked about the Nikon 4000ED in this very forum... was told it was
great... no one mentioned the focus/sharpness problem... and now i'm
stuck what makes matters worse is that i run a W2K, dual processor
system and Nikon Scan keeps crashing configuring it run on a single PC
is of no use. There was a very helpful suggestion from an individual
(complete with all the necessary instructions) to boot as a single processor
system whenever i want to run Nikon Scan. I'm getting more and more tempted
to take him up on his suggestion. Its just a shame tho' that one expects so
much from a company like Nikon and even the software doesn't work

Shunith


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 25/09/2001

Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: "Svante Kleist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon film flatness (was Glass slide mounts)


>
> Supposedly, Nikon Scan 3.1.1 is round the corner.
>
> I can't imagine that Nikon would risk their reputation
> by _not_ solving the MP / Win2000 crashes.
> (Are you reading this Nikon? How could you release
> such a pile of crap as 3.1 ?)

Doubt it... there were a couple of links i've stumbled across in searches
and definitely Nikon has no plans to solve this problem...

http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk/msg14230.html

To quote from the above link... which, incidentally, is this very one! :

"It is known by Nikon that there are problems with Dual Processor PC's,
both
Windows and Mac.  Although the Product Brochures do not specifically say
the 2CPU machines will not work, neither do they say it does.  Dual
Processors are good but only for applications that are designed for them
like Photoshop.  Ours is not and probably will not be for the foreseeable
future"

The effing nerve






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 25/09/2001

Re: filmscanners: Question about Vuescan

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Question about Vuescan


> It's not auto-detect, but it has 16 (more than a "few") Kodak film types,
and each film type has settings under it for different speed film, etc. in
the bottom box.
>
> Maris


Actually, i think, Ken was referring to slide films... he's right on that
score... There's just an option for Kodak and Generic and under Kodak for
Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Reversal and RPC Copy Film.

Given the heavy slant towards the negative films, in terms of profiles,
makes one wonder if VueScan isn't primarily aimed at negative film scanning
rather than positive film?

Shunith


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.282 / Virus Database: 150 - Release Date: 25/09/2001

Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.1.1 update

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: "Mark Otway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:07 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.1.1 update

> James Grove's site was faster (thanks James) but still no resume, so I
> got a mate with a 'fat pipe' to download it for me and whack it onto a
> resumable FTP. A while (!) later, I have it installed and running, on
> XP, with the 1.10 firmware update installed on the scanner too.

James has "Resume" .. i know. 'cos i downloaded from there... agree with you
about Nikon -> SLOW and -> NO RESUME. They should be shot... Even more so
when you realise that 3.1.1 hasn't fixed the Dual Processor problem which
they are fully aware of...

Bye


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.295 / Virus Database: 159 - Release Date: 02/11/2001

Re: filmscanners: VueScan cropping

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: VueScan cropping

> You sometimes need to adjust the "Device|Frame offset" option with
> the LS-40 and LS-4000, especially if there's a bit of film leader.
> NikonScan does a prescan on the image and finds the beginning of
> the frame, but VueScan doesn't.

Is it there in 7.2.8? I just powered up the LS4000 & VueScan... cant see it
under devices... but then, i don't have any holder in place. JUst the
powered up scanner...

Regards...

Shunith


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.295 / Virus Database: 159 - Release Date: 01/11/2001

Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ and others

[Shunith Dutt]

"Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ and others


> All non flat film have a problem in Nikon scanners despite if you are
using
> manual film holder or the motor unit.. I prefer the manual film holder. (
> quick and easy and keep the film flater)

>From what i gather (and experience) the flatness problem is only there with
mounted slides that have curved...

> I have seen  new scratches in the film surface made by the motor unit in
my
> 2 Nikon scanners LS2000 and 4000..

Maybe bad handling? Otherwise it's impossible as no part of the Scanner,
except for the film holders, are directly in touch with the film.


> I don't know if 3.1.1 is stable on a IBM related computer. My pc is a MAC
> and if I allocate lot of memory to the software there are no problem with
> 3.1.1  or the PS plugin. I prefere to use Silverfast and
> Vuescan  who are faster than NikonScan..  Nikonscan are terrible slow with
> filters and CMS on.

NikonScan crashes on a dual processor machine (PC) - unless the machine is
booted in single processor mode... A lot of people say that it is stable on
a single processor machine

But, keep in mind that most scanner software do crash... Vuescan - by my
experience - is among the most stable

Cheers...



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.303 / Virus Database: 164 - Release Date: 24/11/2001

Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ and others

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 / 4000+ and others


> 1.Take a filmstrip 6 pictures, let the motor unit drag the film inside,
> normaly curved film hits the unit upper wall when it is mowing inside the
> unit.,
> 2. The film also curves inside the motor unit, where else to go? There are
> no opening in the back of the motor unit and the film now are curved in 2
> ways.
> So you are totally wrong that there not can be any new scratches when the
> motor unit are transporting the film inside a LS2000 and 4000
> Mikael Risedal

Ahh!

I use the film strip holder so don't have any problem... maybe you
should do the same...?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.303 / Virus Database: 164 - Release Date: 24/11/2001

Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30: High contrasts in slides cause halos!

[Shunith Dutt]

How d'you clean the scanner? Any ideas how i'd go about cleaning the LS4000?

I mean, is it easy or does it have to go to a service centre?

Thanks...

SD
- Original Message -
From: "Op's" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS-30: High contrasts in
slides cause halos!


>
>
> Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> > Rob wrote:
> > > I would check to see if the mirror is clean and that it
> > > has not got a build up of dust or as you mention exhaled
> > > solvent covering.
> >
> > Someone mentioned something in the past about a mirror in the Nikon
LS30/2000
> > as being extremely delicate and not something the user should touch.
But
> > I may be misremembering.
> >
>
> I had to clean mine due to dust no problems just be extremely careful as
you
> would a SLR mirror.  This gave me the same problem as mentioned.
>
> rob
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.306 / Virus Database: 166 - Release Date: 04/12/2001

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan file overwrite warning

[Shunith Dutt]

You know Ed I'm kind of getting tired of your "snappy responses to..."
:) It's incredible...  BTW... a friend of mine has one of the HP scanners
you don't support... how about supporting it? It's the HP 3400C

Cheers..

SD


- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan file overwrite warning


> In a message dated 12/10/2001 10:52:52 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > PLEASE can you add this. I've just noticed that when I re-input my
> >  settings after installing v7.3, I forgot to add the 'plus' to the file
> >  path. I've lost the last 3 strips worth of film scans (about 1h30m in
> >  scanning time) because I didn't get a simple warning to say "This file
> >  is going to overwrite - are you sure?".
>
> I just finished getting this working in 7.3.1, and I'll release it in the
> next hour or two.
>
> Regards,
> Ed Hamrick
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.306 / Virus Database: 166 - Release Date: 04/12/2001

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC

[Shunith Dutt]

"James Grove" wrote to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:09 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC


> Hi Folks,
>
> At last Nikon Scan V3.1.2 With XP Compatibility also for the MAC

Where on earth did you find it?  in the UK section 3.1.1 is still the
only version available. dated Nov 20, 2001

Cheers...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 12/12/2001

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC

[Shunith Dutt]

James/Enoch

You know, i must have spent an hour hunting for it on the Nikon sites...
going in thru www.nikon.com and then following links... on the us site (it's
a black and white effect) couldn't even find a link to support... on the uk
site it was still 3.1.1... they're really strange and they still haven't
done anything about their stability you say? oh well

Thanks for the info and feedback

Cheers...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 11/12/2001

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: "Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC



> It's there. Honest it is:
> http://www.nikontechusa.com/Scan3_12.htm
>
> I just checked again, 7:45 EST -- I kid you not. I clicking on the link
> even as I write this and it's asking me to save the file. I got it and
> installed it last night. Works fine so far (Win2K/SP2). I scanned three
> slides last night and NS 3.12 didn't crash (yet).

:)

i don't doubt you for a moment :) have it now.. it's just that i read
James' post and went in to www.nikon.com and from there tried just about
every link... as i said... about an hour? including searches...  and just
couldn't find it... must bookmark nikontech BTW... you mentioned ages
ago that you weren't having hassles on a dual processor after doing a fresh
install(am i right?) of w2k and then installing NS just for your info...
last week i reformatted and did a completely fresh install of w2k also
installed NS 3.1.1 but too terrified to try it :) Now that i've downloaded
3.1.2 i don't know what to do... uninstall 3.1.1 or over install? How did
you go about it?

Cheers...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 11/12/2001

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom Scales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC


> http://www.nikontechusa.com/
> 
> and Nikonscan 3.1.2 is listed

Yup... thanks... Enoch and James clarified

Cheers


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 11/12/2001

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC

[Shunith Dutt]

Enoch

Thanks for the feedback...

Cheers...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 11/12/2001

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: "Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 7:23 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC


> environments. Having worked at Microsoft for six years I know enough to
> be cynical about everything that they do.


Thought you folks might enjoy these:

1/ "They say when you play that Microsoft CD backward you can hear satanic
messagesbut that's nothing. If you play it forward it will install
Windows."

2/ 'Think of this as a partnership,' Gates said. 'Like the ones and zeroes
of the binary code itself, we must all work together to make the promise
of the computer revolution a reality. As the world's richest, most powerful
software company, Microsoft is number one. And you, the millions of
consumers who use our products, are the zeroes.'"
--The Onion

Cheers...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 11/12/2001

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC IMPORTANT

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message - 
From: "James Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 2:38 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon Scan V3.1.2 For Windows and MAC IMPORTANT


> You should always uninstall the Windows versions and also run the
> regsweep utilitity in the Utils folder of that versions download, then
> install the new version after reboot.

OK...
Thanks...

Cheers...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.307 / Virus Database: 168 - Release Date: 11/12/2001

[filmscanners] Re: ADMIN: List charter alterations

[Shunith Dutt]

LOL!!
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 9:15 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] ADMIN: List charter alterations


Naturally I have received a complaint about my summary blockage of the Hard
Disk Speed thread. I concede it may have been a misjudgement on my part
that summarily deprived a large number of readers of invaluable
information.

I therefore propose a few revisions to the list charter.

(1)On Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, list discussion will be strictly
limited to topics intimately related to filmscanners, in plain text, with
neatly clipped quotes.

(2)Wednesday will be Hard Disk Day. All other subjects will be disallowed,
although messages discussing SCSI vs. IDE will be permitted up to a limit
of 2,000 repetitions per day. This is also gratuitous ill temper day.

(3)Friday will be Vuescan day. Just so Ed doesn't get bored over the
weekend, and can squeeze in a whole 3 betas before Monday.

(4)Saturday will be HTML, unclipped comments, MS Winmail, giant sig, 'I'm
sorry I am out of the office until Monday' autoresponders, Kanji, 'GET ME
OFF THIS LIST!' and virus attachment day. Any subject at all, nobody will
read them. An ideal time to revive the popular 'life of CD' speculations
too.

(5)Sunday will be Self Indulgence day, featuring
religious/political/ethical debate incl. Mac vs. PC, Nikon vs Canon, NASDAQ
tips, Bill Gates is/isn't dangerous, and 'my wife's divorced me because I'm
always on the computer' day. Or anything else. It won't matter because
generally I'll have the server in bits, fitting a new hard drive. Don't ask
what sort, it's not Wednesday.

I trust this new, enlightened structure meets the requirements of all list
participants.

Regards

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.320 / Virus Database: 179 - Release Date: 30/01/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: PMA 2002 - Orlando

[Shunith Dutt]

Hear! Hear!

It's a shame that just too many people are a__l minded


- Original Message -
From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 9:47 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PMA 2002 - Orlando




Norman Unsworth wrote:

> Give us a break, Art. It's a legitimate beef, newcomer or not, and
> responding to perceived presumptuousness with pomposity isn't helpful.
>
> Now let's please drop it before it becomes another irrelevant OT thread.
>
> Norman
>
>

If you really wished to stop this thread, you would/could/should have
commented to me off-list. For that matter, Rodger could have done so to
the people he found so annoying.

I know you have been on this list for some time now, at least half a
year or more.  I signed up in late 1999, and have been a continual
member since.

All lists develop a certain type of "culture" and interactions among
regulars occur which often include a certain amount of off topic
discussion.  It is, in part, what probably keeps people involved.

Certainly off topic comments can become annoying when they get profuse,
and Tony often steps in on those occasions. But a few humorous comments,
even if not everyone gets the humor, shouldn't prove harmful.  It is
pretty easy to skip or delete messages of that nature if they aren't of
interest.

So, I'm not sure it is a "legitimate beef".  Sure it might be in
"violation" of the rules and charter of the list, but even the list
owner violates those same rules.  In part, occasional humorous threads
keeps lists like these sane.  In over two years, I can't count how many
times have I read (and responded) to new people asking the same
questions about scanners?  If someone recently joining comes to such
quick judgment about the value of a poster, then is it not fair to point
out that those same people who he characterizes as contributing "prattle
might be the same people who provide some of the enlightenment he is
seeking?

Yes, he certainly has every right to make comment and even complain, but
then, I think deservingly so, I do as well.

Art



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?

[Shunith Dutt]

There was reference by someone here... ages ago... with regard to cleaning a
Nikon 4000ED. I posted a question as to how it was done and never got a
reply... so, just in case someone here knows the feasibility of cleaning
that particular scanner... would appreciate a feedback (it's a major
hassle for me to send it to a Nikon service centre as there's none where i
live)

Thanks

SD
- Original Message -
From: "Op's" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?


Sounds its most likely a dirty mirror which needs cleaning which is what
happened to mine. I have cleaned mine which resolved the problem. Heaps of
dust collects on and in the scanner if you like it or not.

rob

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> When you use the term "flare" do you mean that light areas near dark
> ones tend to be washed out around the edges, almost like a soft focus
> halo around the very brightest areas?
>
> If so, you've brought up an issue that has been discussed before in this
> group and the other scanner group without resolution.
>
> Since i never got a straight answer for the other people who discussed
> this (and I don't own an LS2000), I was wondering if this problem is
> relatively new, if it manifested over time, or if it was there since new?
>
> I have a suspicion, like you, that it is due to dirt or oils that got
> deposited on some of the optics causing this blooming, but others are
> suggesting it is an inherent CCD design issue.
>
> I can't answer how involved a cleaning is, but I would be interested if
> you can tell me if this problem is one which has developed over time.
>
> Art
>
> Joe B. wrote:
>
> > I am passing my LS2000 on to my daughter but i want it to be in good
order before I do so, and I've noticed it flares visibly with some scans- I
assume the lens needs cleaning. Can anyone tell me anything about this- is
it straightforward? Is it as simple as removing the cover and there the lens
is in front of you, visible and accessible? TIA for any info.
> >
> > Joe B.
> >
> >
> >
>



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?

[Shunith Dutt]

Major A...

Grateful if you could copy that to me...

TIA...

SD
- Original Message -
From: "Major A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?




> There was reference by someone here... ages ago... with regard to cleaning
a
> Nikon 4000ED. I posted a question as to how it was done and never got a
> reply... so, just in case someone here knows the feasibility of cleaning
> that particular scanner... would appreciate a feedback (it's a major
> hassle for me to send it to a Nikon service centre as there's none where i
> live)

Please read my reply to Joe. Assuming that the hardware of the LS-4000
is not much different from that of the LS-30/2000, cleaning should not
be a big problem. Just a lot of patience and a bunch of containers for
storing the small bits and pieces (mostly screws of various kinds)...

  Andras

===
Major Andras
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www:http://andras.webhop.org/
===



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?

[Shunith Dutt]

Or is this the post you were talking about?

Cheers...

SD
- Original Message -
From: "Major A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 10:43 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?



> I am passing my LS2000 on to my daughter but i want it to be in good
> order before I do so, and I've noticed it flares visibly with some
> scans- I assume the lens needs cleaning. Can anyone tell me anything
> about this- is it straightforward? Is it as simple as removing the
> cover and there the lens is in front of you, visible and accessible?
> TIA for any info.

I have dismantled an LS-30 before, which is (at least mechanically)
identical to the LS-2000. It is not particularly difficult to take
apart, but you need a lot of patience to get to the lens. The only
screws you should NEVER touch are the ones that hold the CCD in place
(they are pretty difficult to get to anyway).

While you are at it, make sure the lens is properly seated, because it
can come loose over the years (mine has done just that).

If you're not sure whether or not you can do it, at least try taking
the two halves of the outer case off by undoing the four screws on the
back. Then you can see almost everything and make up a plan...

Have fun,

  Andras

===
Major Andras
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www:http://andras.webhop.org/
===



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?

[Shunith Dutt]

Yes... chamois is excellent... you just have to be careful that it's clean..
wash... and rinse really thoroughly and then work it till it's soft again.
The other option is well washed/used pure cotton like an old 100% cotton
handkerchief

:)

SD

- Original Message -
From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 10:03 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?


Vegetarians please ignore: One of the best things I've found to clean
front surfaced mirrors (and it is also good for lenses) is a CLEAN
chammy (chamois).  I found even lens tissue was too abrasive for the
mirror unless extreme care was taken.

Art

Op's wrote:

> The mirror is a top coat type like a camera's which does scratch easily
with this in mine
> what ever you clean it with should be soft. camera lens tissues is what
I've used without
> scratches.
>
> Thats all the service agents do
>
> rob
>




Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?

[Shunith Dutt]

But..  :)

1/ Is it easy to open?
2/ Is it easy to put back together?

Cheers...

SD


- Original Message -
From: "Op's" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 8:14 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?


The mirror is a top coat type like a camera's which does scratch easily with
this in mine
what ever you clean it with should be soft. camera lens tissues is what I've
used without
scratches.

Thats all the service agents do

rob

Shunith Dutt wrote:

> There was reference by someone here... ages ago... with regard to cleaning
a
> Nikon 4000ED. I posted a question as to how it was done and never got a
> reply... so, just in case someone here knows the feasibility of cleaning
> that particular scanner... would appreciate a feedback (it's a major
> hassle for me to send it to a Nikon service centre as there's none where i
> live)
>
> Thanks
>
> SD
> - Original Message -
> From: "Op's" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 7:05 PM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?
>
> Sounds its most likely a dirty mirror which needs cleaning which is what
> happened to mine. I have cleaned mine which resolved the problem. Heaps of
> dust collects on and in the scanner if you like it or not.
>
> rob
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> > When you use the term "flare" do you mean that light areas near dark
> > ones tend to be washed out around the edges, almost like a soft focus
> > halo around the very brightest areas?
> >
> > If so, you've brought up an issue that has been discussed before in this
> > group and the other scanner group without resolution.
> >
> > Since i never got a straight answer for the other people who discussed
> > this (and I don't own an LS2000), I was wondering if this problem is
> > relatively new, if it manifested over time, or if it was there since
new?
> >
> > I have a suspicion, like you, that it is due to dirt or oils that got
> > deposited on some of the optics causing this blooming, but others are
> > suggesting it is an inherent CCD design issue.
> >
> > I can't answer how involved a cleaning is, but I would be interested if
> > you can tell me if this problem is one which has developed over time.
> >
> > Art
> >
> > Joe B. wrote:
> >
> > > I am passing my LS2000 on to my daughter but i want it to be in good
> order before I do so, and I've noticed it flares visibly with some scans-
I
> assume the lens needs cleaning. Can anyone tell me anything about this- is
> it straightforward? Is it as simple as removing the cover and there the
lens
> is in front of you, visible and accessible? TIA for any info.
> > >
> > > Joe B.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --
--
> 
> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002
>



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning LS2000 optic?

[Shunith Dutt]

Thanks it doesn't seem to difficult :) Just hope the 4000 is as easy as
the 2000!

Regards...

SD
- Original Message -
From: "michael shaffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 4:07 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Cleaning LS2000 optic?


Shunith writes ...

> 1/ Is it easy to open?
> 2/ Is it easy to put back together?
> ...

  See this post, and the one that follows (... credit the "Leica" list ...):
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v20/msg04336.html

cheerios ... shAf  :o)
Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland
www.micro-investigations.com



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.325 / Virus Database: 182 - Release Date: 19/02/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: VueScan FIY (was: Polaroid's future)

[Shunith Dutt]

Yup... the Nikon 3.1 used to stink...

However, the latest version 3.12 is pretty ok have been using it quite a
bit of recent and must admit... no problems... of course, i don't try to do
too many scans at one time... but then my work methods are such that any way
i usually take one frame... scan in several variations... then in the photo
imaging application, do rough coreections or previews and then save the
one/s i like best to disc. Reopen nikonScan thru File/Import scan the
next two or three variations of the same subject etc... haven't tried it
for batch scanning but then, my workflow doesn't call for that kind of
stuff...

I'm a die hard VueScan fan... i do think that value for money and with all
Ed's inputs it's about the best piece of product going on a like to like
basis However, now that Nikon have solved their crashing problem with
the 3.12 release... i feel that the NikonScan is also pretty damn good...

My two bits worth... for what it's worth :)

Cheers...

Shunith



- Original Message -
From: "Ezio c/o TIN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:28 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: VueScan FIY (was: Polaroid's future)


YEP !

A bunch of problems ! That's a lot more .

Sincerely.

Ezio

www.lucenti.com  e-photography site

ICQ: 139507382
- Original Message -
From: "Julian Vrieslander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:41 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: VueScan FIY (was: Polaroid's future)


On 3/13/02 3:02 PM, Mikael Risedal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote:

>If you use Nikon scanners the NikonScan sofwares is  free to download  and
>includes lot more compare to Vuescan .
>Mikael Risedal

Yep.  More crashes.  More time per scan.  More errors in color balance.
More hassles.


--
Julian Vrieslander 





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.336 / Virus Database: 188 - Release Date: 11/03/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Digital Ice - ROCKS!!

[Shunith Dutt]

Was scanning a friend's slides today... one of them had a lot of fungus on
it... the thought of touching it up was too much for me so, i thought i'd
give Digital Ice a try

Wow! It really rocks!!! All fungus gone... image nice and clean more
than sharp enough for our/his purpose. On screen, couldn't actually see too
much - in fact, any -  of a sharpness difference between using ice and not
using it...

It's definitely got my vote.


Cheers...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.343 / Virus Database: 190 - Release Date: 22/03/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Yahoo Automatic Spam Generator

[Shunith Dutt]

I don't think he ever said that this was a Yahoo Group. i gather it's
just a general warning and a solution:)


- Original Message -
From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 2:20 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Yahoo Automatic Spam Generator


Very interesting; but I believe that the Filmscanners list is not a Yahoo
group.  It is not owned or run by or through Yahoo (although Yahoo may very
well have pirated the postings on the list and put them out as if the group
was one of theirs, which constitutes both theft and copyright violation.  I
am sure Tony Sleep, the Filmscanners owner and moderator could take legal
action against Yahoo if he so desired for appropriating his list and the
post on it without authorization or permissions; and he and the individual
posters on the4 list could file copyright violation actions against Yahoo
for reproducing  copyrighted materials (in general but in this case
commercially for profit) without permission of the copyright owner (i.e.,
the writer of the post and in some cases the list owner).

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 1:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Yahoo Automatic Spam Generator
>
>
> Hi Group -
>
> I've just learned this from another list and I encourage everyone to
> pass
> this on to any other Yahoo Groups they belong to. Yahoo has changed
> everyone's "marketing preferences" to "yes" so everyone will get loads
> of "offers." I just checked mine and it was true.
>
> To undo this, go to the main YahooGroups page and click on "Account
> Info" at the top right.
>
> When your account comes up (you will probably have to enter
> your password again), scroll down to the e-mail addresses portion and
> click on "Edit Your Marketing Preferences" where you will probably
> find a check in the `Yes' column by each and every thing.
>
> Then go to the bottom of the page and make sure you uncheck the places
> where you give them permission to mail stuff or call you (unless you
> want them to, of course). Make your changes and click on
> "Save Changes."
>
> Hopefully this will help cut down on the amount of spam people get
> and more importantly, help keep people from quitting our group.
>
> Rodger Kingston
> www.rpkphoto.com
>
> --
> --
> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with
> 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the
> message title or body
>



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.343 / Virus Database: 190 - Release Date: 22/03/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro!

[Shunith Dutt]

No problems here... had terrible luck with 3.1 and 3.1.1... version 3.1.2 is
fine... the problem with the earlier versions was my dual cpu... Nikon
couldn't handle it... yes, it was a Nikon Software problem... a solution was
to reboot in single cpu mode... which i refused to do... so used VueScan.
With 3.1.2 the problem has been rectified. And, touch wood, NikonScan...
just hums along... BTW am using W2K Pro.

SD

- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 3:27 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN: Nikon
LS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro!


Alex writes:

> I was wondering why people continue to
> complain heavily about Nikon Scan after
> ver. 3.1.2 became available.

Version 3.x doesn't run on some versions of Windows (e.g., NT).





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.345 / Virus Database: 193 - Release Date: 09/04/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: LS-8000 on Win98?

[Shunith Dutt]

Don't know what your hardware (PC) set up is but if you have the RAM,
definitely recommend that you move to W2K it sings... is stable... much
better memory handling... and the great thing is, with Firewire... you don't
need to reboot or refresh or any such nonsense... just turn the scanner on
and the system recognises it immediately

SD


- Original Message -
From: "Dave King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 4:44 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] LS-8000 on Win98?


I wonder if anyone else has dealt with this: the included firewire card did
not include drivers.  There's a driver updater on the Nikonscan 3 install
CD, but only for Win 98 SE, and I'm still running 98 orig ver.  I found a
Firewarden driver online at http://www.ratocsystems.com/english/ but it
didn't seem to integrate with the OS properly, and the NS3 install disk
would still not let me proceed saying the driver needed updating first.
This may be the time to upgrade the OS to Win2K, or does anyone have an
easier suggestion?

Thanks,

Dave




Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.345 / Virus Database: 193 - Release Date: 09/04/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE SHOWDOWN:NikonLS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro!

[Shunith Dutt]

Have an LS4000 ED... far more quiet than the Microtek ArrtixScan 4000T is
was using before... it does occasionally make grinding sounds... butas
mentioned less than the ArtixScan and often runs pretty silently... have no
other 35mm scanners to compare with...

SD


- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 3:52 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Re:GRAIN/ICE
SHOWDOWN:NikonLS8000vs.MinoltaScanMulti Pro!


Julian writes:

> My LS-4000 sounds like a meat grinder chewing
> on a tin can.  At first I thought something was
> horribly wrong with it, but others claim this
> is normal.

All the Nikon scanners seem to make a wide variety of bizarre sounds.

> As others have noted, NS frequently chops off
> shadow detail - you can see this as abrupt cuts on
> the left side of the histograms.

How do you know that this is not clear film (for negatives) or maximum
density (for transparencies)?

I have found with the LS-8000ED that shadows that appear to be completely
black actually _do_ have quite a bit of detail hidden within them, if I
lighten them up enough.





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.345 / Virus Database: 193 - Release Date: 09/04/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Scanning B & W

[Shunith Dutt]

Hi everyone...

Am just starting to scan B&W... now, i realise there are some obvious
issues... ICE for instance... but what i'd like are a few basic tips that'll
save me having to reinvent the wheel :) (Am using a Nikon 4000ED)

1/ Realise that Nikon scans in RGB and then converts to Greyscale. Question:
Therefore, would it be better to scan in RGB and do the conversion in
Photoshop, etc.?

2/ I like grain one of the reasons i mainly shoot on TriX for my
personal stuff... what are the issues here? How do i keep the grainy look?
Or will it get overaccentuated?

3/ Eg. The screen seems to show a nice mix of black to white and greys...
but the histogram shows white peaking at the 255 level...ok... but the black
falls short of the 0 level. Am i therefore, setting the analog gain too
high?

Just a few questions, but any tips and further suggestions are very, very
welcome... :)

Thanks in advance...

SD





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: HP 5470C and 16 bit (NOT)

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 8:39 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: HP 5470C and 16 bit (NOT)


The 5470c scans at settings up to 16 bit, but the output from the resident
software, HP PrecisionScan Pro 3.1, is
only 8 bit max. HP's advertising and spec sheet for this scanner
unfortunately does not make clear that the 5470c is
16 bit scan, but only 8 bit out. Someday VueScan will be compatible with the
HP 5470c; at least it's my hope and
Ed says it is on his list of things to do.


Tony...

Thanks for the feedback but, this is crazy... HP makes a scanner that
can scan 16bit but can't output it They've totally lost the plot :) And
the strange thing is that at no point do they mention that the software will
not output 16bits why have the settings to scan at 16 bit if they can
only output 8 bit... sad part is i told my friend not to take the HP but
he'd already done so and couldn't return it... oh well

Thanks again...

Shunith


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: HP 5470C and 16 bit (NOT)

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 11:35 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: HP 5470C and 16 bit (NOT)



> Someone mentioned on comp.periphs.scanners sometime back
> that (pretty sure it was this scanner) WILL output a 48bit file with
> the Macintosh, and seems like even that was with a different
> software interface. Since I assume VueScan doesn't support this
> puppy for the Tosh either, maybe they were talking about
> SilverFast, I disremember.


Mac... he's using a MAc but with the HP software... which according to Tony
Johnson does not support 16 bit output... i mean HP is really weird... their
own software doesn't output 16 bit... crazy Yup and VueScan doesn't
support several HP models...

Cheers...

SD


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Need some tips on Vuescan

[Shunith Dutt]

Peder,

Thanks for the reply...

- Original Message -
From: "Peder Skyt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 2:10 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Need some tips on Vuescan


>> 1/ The preview looks like hell bears no resemblance to the actual
pic

> Set preview resolution to something like 500 dpi.

OK... but why? And. earlier (version 7.3.x or 7.4.x... can't remember which)
i used to have the preview at the same res as the scan and it looked fine...


> Then try this: Preview, select "Lock exposure", preview again. The point

OK... will try...


> To avoid auto-focusing twice, you can set focusing to Manual. You then
> just do a manual auto-focus (by pressing Ctrl-U as it says in the menu)
> before the first preview.

OK... but how do i set the focus point? i mean the slider is there but how
to set the part of the image i want to check for focus? And is there a
readout so that i can measure focus points across the image like in NS?

>> Saved as 48Bit Tiff file

> No, don't save as 48 bit RGB; save as 16 bit Gray.

One tip given here was to save as 16/48 bit RGB and then convert to B&W is
PS if i needed to...

Best regards...

Shunith



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Need some tips on Vuescan

[Shunith Dutt]

Peder wrote:

> No, I really mean the "raw" file, not the (Vuescan-adjusted) "scan"
> file.

> But *I* dont't use that option - after all, Vuescan has special
> knowledge about the input data (i.e. that it is data from a specific
> Vuescan-controlled scanner); an image editor knows only that it is
> working on an RGB image created by an unknown source.

> I always try to make Vuescan create the final result, or at least
> something that is very close to it.

Peder...

I tried opening the "raw" scan in an image editor a while ago...
couldn't make any sense of it... figure it's only of use to VueScan to save
you having to rescan the file

All the best,

SD



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues

[Shunith Dutt]

No problem here either :)

SD

- Original Message -
From: "Bruce M. Burnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 8:48 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Black and white scans onLS4000EDandotherissues


Austin,
You assume that everyone with a Nikon scanner has depth of focus issues.
But not me nor the three others that I personally know who use them.  No
depth of focus problems.  I am not saying that there isn't an issue with
depth of focus, but that some units(or maybe we just have flat film)do
not exhibit the problem.
Bruce Burnett

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 8:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Black and white scans
onLS4000EDandotherissues

Hi Todd,

> Most of the sources I've seen discuss the Callier effect show the same
neg
> printed through the two light sources. Unfortunately, what they've
done is
> taken a neg that was tailored to print well on a coldlight and printed
it
> with a condenser, then claim the highlights burn out...DUH.
> Likewise if they
> print a neg that was tailored to a condenser and print it with a
coldlight
> it will look flat.

Well, it has been well proven that you can get the same density range
from
the same negative with a cold light or a point light source, using
appropriate exposure time, aperture and grade of paper (or filter), so
that
is a non-issue.  The other issues are the "Callier effect", sharpness,
dust,
scratches and tonality (dynamic range).

> the
> Callier effect is predicable, and in some cases useful, and can be
> compensated for as needed.

What about the limited depth of focus, as well as scratches and dust?
How
do you compensate for that?

> Not sure if depth of focus is of any real relevance.

Snark, snark...ask people who own Nikon scanners if depth of focus is an
issue or not ;-)

> Anyway, just my experience, not out to tell anyone theirs is wrong.

Understood.  Me too.

Austin



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
title or body





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 13/06/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Win 2k? problems

[Shunith Dutt]

James...

1/ I find the best thing to do in situations like this is to reformat the
hard drive and reinstall windows 2k with all the hardware in place. Then
start installing programs one by one. (Of course you need to back up your
data.) Do you have partitions? i find that by having partitions, i can keep
all day on drives other than C:... so reformatting is never a problem

2/ Do you have NikonScan 3.1.2? Earlier versions than 3.1.2 caused problems
with W2K but, again, not of the type you describe.. they used to crash.

3/ Photoshop 5.5 & 7 that could also be a problem are they in
separate directories must be...

Seriously think your best option is to start with backing up data..
partitioning HDD (if not already partitioned)... and then doing a clean
reinstall

All the best...

SD

- Original Message -
From: "James Gaa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:21 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Win 2k? problems


My IBM PC, running windows 2000 has been acting up. After I installed
several pieces of software, the computer won't go into hibernate mode, and
worse, the cd writer (HP 9500) won't work. It seems as if one of the
scanning programs is messing with windows.

Can someone tell me what the problem might be, and what to do about it? If
it can't be fixed without reimaging, I don't know what to do since
re-imaging again isn't an option -- it was too much of a pain the last time.

The machine has been re-imaged, and worked fine. But when I re-installed
some of my photo software, the same problem recurred.

The software is:
nikonscan 3.0
vuescan
vueprint
photoshop 5.5, and also 7

The hardware:
HP flatbed scanner
Nikon Coolscan IV
Epson 1200 printer

The CD writer is "running" on HP CD-writer. When I try to burn some files,
it tells me that it can't initialize the printer. Before that, when I
re-installed the HP software, it told me that it couldn't locate an HP
CDROM, even though it's there physically, and worked properly after the
machine was re-imaged and before I re-installed the other software.

I have some other software, but the problem occurred before I had a chance
to re-install them.

I didn't have this problem on my older machine, running windows 98, without
the flatbed scanner or the Nikon scanner and software (I had a different
scanner then).

Thanks.
Jim Gaa





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Win 2k? problems

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: "Shunith Dutt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 10:08 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Win 2k? problems



all day on drives other than C:... so reformatting is never a problem

Ooops... that 'day' should read 'data'  :)



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Web home page writing software

[Shunith Dutt]

Alex

When it comes to doing the html don't use FrontPage... it's really crap...
use Dreamweaver MX but that's several hundred dollars... there are a number
of free html editors out there which are pretty good one that comes to
mind is 1st Page 2000 by Evrsoft... you can download it at www.evrsoft.com
As to bloated html... you'll always get that by using a WYSIWYG editor
notepad is the best... but is it worth th hassle and the learning curve?
Doubt it :) Once your page is done there are a number of free programs to
validate your code... there are also online sites that will do this for
you

Regarding you images... a combination of PS7, which you say you have and
ImageReady are more than enough

Cheers...

SD

PS: EvrSoft also offers domain hosting... just in case you want to check it
out http://www.evrsoft.com/giveaway_ad_live.html


- Original Message -
From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 2:33 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Web home page writing software


A little bit off-topic issue:
I intend to begin building my web site soon having gained reasonable amount
of images to be exhibited.
I'm quite novice in web design, have no idea how to do that myself.

I would be glad to hear any suggestion you have which simple-to-use software
can be utilized for web page design which would also allow building easily
manageable image galleries.
Also, JPEG image size for web advises are welcome.

I'm going to purchase a domain and will have to decide about purchasing web
hosting somewhere.
I think web hosting offer for 50 MB space would be fair for reasonable
amount.
Do you think it would be enough for starter ?

Thanks in advance,
Alex Z



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Web home page writing software

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Web home page writing software


> SD writes:

>> ... notepad is the best... but is it worth
>> th hassle and the learning curve?  Doubt it ...

> There is no hassle.  It takes a few hours to get used to writing HTML.
You
> can learn it in an afternoon.

If you say so... :)

> of Dreamweaver would pay for the hosting of your Web site for nearly four
> years.

Quite right... a fact i pointed out, in not so many words and suggested
using a freeware html editor... :)

Cheers...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Webhome page writing software)

[Shunith Dutt]

Quite right... anytime i find a site that disables right click... i usually
exit... forthwith.

By disabling right click you, as a website, are interfering with my right to
view the internet/site as i wish and as i find convenient. If you don't
respect my right, i'm not interested in your site.


- Original Message -
From: "Roger Eritja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:08 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Webhome page
writing software)


Hi Julie & all,

I totally agree. I knew how easy it is to copy a picture. I disabled the
right-click anyway only for education. Now my visitors get a copyright
notice, learn what it means and most of them write to ask permission. These
people are now aware that there are copyrights in Internet, too.
I had a strong argument, however, with a colleague on another list because
everything in the right-click menu is lost. He felt as if I had hacked his
mouse and I was treating him as a potential thief.

Roger Eritja
Nature Photography
http://www.eritja.com



At 10:39 03/08/02 +0100, you wrote:
>I was advised to disable the right click by another photographer who has
had
>problems with her images getting stolen and used on the web.
>
>I'm aware that people can do Alt Prt Scr to grab the images, or disable the
>browser. However another site that I used to run had a similar feature
where
>it displayed a copyright notice when the user moused over the image. This
>resulted in a lot of emails from people asking to use the image, rather
than
>just take it. It has to be said that most were from school children using
>the images for their homework!
>
>Julie
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
>Sent: 02 August 2002 18:49
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Web home
>page writing software)
>
>
>David writes:
>
> > ... there is code on the web that will encrypt
> > your pages so they are viewable with a
> > browser but not editable.
>
>A waste of time.  If you can see the image on the screen, you can steal it.
>
>---
-
>
>Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
>filmscanners'
>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
>or body
>
>---
-
>Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
>filmscanners'
>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
>or body



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Web home page writing software)

[Shunith Dutt]

Disabling right click will not stop any of the ones you mention from using
your pix if they so choose.

So, what's your point?

On the other hand, disbaling right click is an irritant... it stops me from
doing a whole lot of things easily... like, opening in new window... like
e-mailing the page or link to someone i think might find it interesting...
like... the list goes on...


- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 4:52 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Web home page
writing software)


> It has to be said that most were from school
> children using the images for their homework!

A majority of the requests for permission that I get on my site are from
schoolkids; analysis of my logs indicates that they probably represent only
a minority of visitors, but they seem to be more honest, or someone else is
compelling them to be more honest (by insisting that they get permission for
photos used, or whatever).  Unfortunately that doesn't bring in any money (I
routinely grant permission for free to students, unless they are preparing
something for publication), but it's nice to know that at least someone is
following the rules.

Others often ask for permission and expect it for free; I usually meet that
expectation if it is non-profit and non-commercial, but I'm surprised when
people running Web sites for profit or thick with advertising expect me to
give my images away for free.  Sorry, but "exposure" on their little sites
does not pay my bills, and with up to 200,000 visitors a month on my own
site, exposure is already not bad.  Worse yet are corporate customers who
obviously do have substantial budgets and nevertheless want everything for
free; today I just turn them down if they can't pony up with the cash.

There are probably a lot of people stealing my images, including things like
porn sites (one such incident having been pointed out to me), although I'm
not sure why a porn site would be interested in pictures of Paris.  There
are probably countless personal and business Web sites using my images
without permission.  My only consolation is that the images on the site are
still only pale shadows of the original scans, although they are vastly
better than the junk that a lot of other people put on their sites (I don't
believe in blurry, postage-stamp sized images).

On rare occasions, I actually license images at a fair price to honest
clients through the site.  That is always a pleasant surprise.



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Web home page writing software)

[Shunith Dutt]

So, what does that have to do with the price of fish?


- Original Message -
From: "Julie Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 3:09 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Web home page
writing software)


I was advised to disable the right click by another photographer who has had
problems with her images getting stolen and used on the web.

I'm aware that people can do Alt Prt Scr to grab the images, or disable the
browser. However another site that I used to run had a similar feature where
it displayed a copyright notice when the user moused over the image. This
resulted in a lot of emails from people asking to use the image, rather than
just take it. It has to be said that most were from school children using
the images for their homework!

Julie


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
Sent: 02 August 2002 18:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Web home
page writing software)


David writes:

> ... there is code on the web that will encrypt
> your pages so they are viewable with a
> browser but not editable.

A waste of time.  If you can see the image on the screen, you can steal it.



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Web home page writing software)

[Shunith Dutt]

Right on!

- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 5:52 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Disabling right-click, etc. (was: Web home page
writing software)


Shunith writes:

> Disabling right click will not stop any of
> the ones you mention from using your pix
> if they so choose.

I know.  I don't disable anything.

Furthermore, it seems a bit egotistical to me when photographers go to
extreme lengths (downloadable ActiveX controls and plug-ins, etc.) to
prevent people from stealing their work.  Has it occurred to them that their
might not be worth stealing in the first place?  There are plenty of cats,
dogs, sunsets, breaking waves, distant mountains, nudes, and touristy photos
in the world; most are not worth protecting, since they are a dime a dozen
anyway.

> So, what's your point?

That it's not something to worry about.  Don't put anything on your site
that you absolutely do not want stolen under any circumstances, and accept
that there will always be someone stealing the images that you do put on the
site.





Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 15/07/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening

[Shunith Dutt]

Alex..

You can always increase the font size on your desktop 1600x1200 gives
you a much larger area to play with...  (increase font size by going to...
Settings -> Advanced ->General).

Cheers...

SD

- Original Message -
From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 6:14 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: PS sharpening


You're certainly correct Henk, thanks for pointing out to this fact.
Frankly, so far I didn't notice any visible artifacts caused by that which
is the reason I wasn't aware about the problem. Strange.
I tried 1600x1200, both monitor and graphics card handle this resolution
well, but the text is too small for my eyes (I'm glasses wearer) though
still discernable.
I'll try the former one (1280x960) instead.

Regards,
Alex Z




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening

[Shunith Dutt]

- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Conversion to 72 dpi doesn't do anything, so you can skip that.

Anthony,

Could you kindly elaborate on that? Also, in a subsequent mail you said:

"If by "resolution" you mean DPI, you can forget about
that--DPI is meaningless for Web display.  If you really do wish to set a
DPI, though, set it to 2700 or 4000; if anyone downloads the image as-is and
tries to print it in a word-processing program (a common way of using stolen
images), the high DPI will cause it to reproduce at a very tiny size, and
many people stealing images in this way will not be able to figure out how
to fix that, thereby preventing them from using the stolen image."

Grateful if you could elaborate on that as well... specially the bit about a
dpi (ppi) of 2700-4000.]

Thanks

Cheers...

SD



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening

[Shunith Dutt]

Anthony...

On the subject of high res images for web use PS's Save for Web feature
automatically scales an image to the 72 dpi (ok...ppi for the purists here!)
resolution

100 x 100 pixel @ 4000ppi =  0.06 x 0.06cm. Saved by Save for Web option the
file is now a 100 x 100 pixel @ 72dpi/ppi for a print size of 3.53 x 3.53cm.
How d'you retain your high resolutions? D'you save directly as a JPG without
going thru the Save for Web?

Regards...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpening

[Shunith Dutt]

"Anthony Atkielski" wrote:

> An ordinary Save As does not change the DPI.

Correct...

> Save for Web sounds like just another gadget to me--another
> bloated feature that Adobe added in order to try to persuade people to pay
a
> few hundred dollars for their umpteenth upgrade of a product that already
> does more than they need.

Mm well it does have it's advantages

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] OT? -Stock photos...

[Shunith Dutt]

A recent thread has veered slightly towards stock photographs...

Just curious as to the present trend of "stock photographers"...

1/ Do they only give TPs to stock agencies?
2/ Do they retain the originals and give dupes to the agencies?
3/ Or do they, now, scan their own TPs and submit thefiles?
4/ If the latter (files) what's the file specs for stuff shot on 35mm?

Regards...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 02/08/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: Cleaning your monitor...

[Shunith Dutt]

Arthur Entlich" wrote:


> There is one part of Adobe Gamma, (and I don't recall which, as it has

Ok... that's correct... it's the White Point setting when you need to turn
off all ambient light

Cheers...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 09/10/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: B & W - Tips required...

[Shunith Dutt]

"Laurie Solomon" wrote:

> Am I reading non-existent sentences; or are the responders skimming over
> the information in the original post and answering what they assume the
> case is and what is being asked.  While advice may be gratefully
> accepted by Shunith, he did NOT ask how to convert the file from RGB to
> grayscale but he DID ask If he should convert the file.  Similarly he
> did not say that he was doing the printing of the files but that he was
> sending them to a friend who lives in New York who will get the files
> reproduced by some unknown method.

:)

Cheers...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 25/12/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: B & W - Tips required...

[Shunith Dutt]

Michael...

Thanks for reply...

"michael shaffer" wrote:

>> 1/ Should i keep the files as RGB or convert to grayscale?

>  Use Photoshop's "channel mixer" to create your grayscales.

So, basically, you suggest scanning in RGB and then converting to grayscale?
Why not leave it in RGB?

> 2/ What dpi/ppi should i keep the files (8 x 10 inch prints)?

>  What does your printer's manual recommend?

Michael... i'm not doing the printing... am sending files for the young lady
to get printed... anyway, Laurie and Bob and Bob have given me the ideal
solutions to res size.

Cheers...

SD




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 25/12/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: B & W - Tips required...

[Shunith Dutt]

Andre...

Thanks for the reply... but

1/ She's in NY so westcoast is a bit inconvenient
2/ Have checked their prices... seems a bit steep... after all she needs to
send out a couple of hundred prints... and while quality is important, in
this case think it'd be a bit of overkill.
3/ Conventional lab is out as the negs need a bit of working on... touching
up in the west costs a fortune!!!

Cheers and thanks for the reply...

SD


- Original Message -
From: "Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 11:06 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: B & W - Tips required...


Hi,
You can have your digital b&w prints done here:
http://www.westcoastimaging.com/
Check with them to know what they expect in term of digital files.

However, since it seems to be a one shot deal, why not have the b&w prints
made by a conventional lab. I fail to see what's to be gained by going
digital in this instance since you'r e not equiped to do digital printing
and neither is the person who needs the prints. (feel free to flame me!)
Cheers,
Andre


- Original Message -
From: "bob geoghegan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 11:42 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: B & W - Tips required...


In response to...
0)  Expect opinions to differ

00)  My experience is with Tri-X in a Polaroid SS4000; the Nikon may
respond differently.

1)  I'd scan them right into greyscale.  A BW scan with a Tri-X profile (or
other silver BW film) will probably do more justice to the film's tones
than an RGB scan based on a color neg profile.  35mm, 16 bit 4000 dpi TIFF
files are 40MB instead of  120MB.  You're not losing anything because
they're BW negs.  Since you're not printing them yourself, save them as 16
bit files to keep options open for adjustments by whoever prints them.  You
could do a 2nd save at 8 bits incase she won't have software available for
16 bit  .tiffs.

2) Stay with the scanner's 4000 dpi max resolution.  As with #1, it keeps
options open by retaining max detail.  If you want lower resolution, scan
at 4000 dpi & rescale the images afterward.  Tri-X scanned at 2000 dpi (in
the Polaroid at least) can give ugly grain aliasing.

3) A tough one.  If she'd have to learn a lot & burn through trial prints,
then a pro printer might be best.  It also depends on if her own monochrome
prints can be made with a neutral enough tone.

Good luck,
Bob G

At 09:41 AM 1/4/2003, you wrote:

>Hi List...
>
>Have done some B & W (Tri-X) portraits of a friend'd daughter which she
>needs to send out to agents... she's into theatre. She lives in NY and is
>here (India) on a holiday. I'll be scanning the negs - plan to scan in RGB
>at 14 (16) bit depth on a Nikon 4000ED - and touching up the pix. Putting
>them on a CD and couriering them to her in the US. She'll then get the
>prints made there. That's the background... the questions are as follows:
>
>1/ Should i keep the files as RGB or convert to grayscale?
>2/ What dpi/ppi should i keep the files (8 x 10 inch prints)?
>3/ Would it be better (cost effective and quality) for her to take them to
a
>service bureau or print them out herself on the proper paper? She's not so
>computer savvy but has contacts who could probably help her.
>4/ Any other suggestions are welcome :)
>
>Cheers...
>
>SD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 25/12/2002
>
>---
-
>Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
>filmscanners'
>or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
>or body



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 25/12/2002



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: B & W - Tips required...

[Shunith Dutt]

Laurie...

Thanks for the response sorry for my delay in replying... but i'm 5.5
hours ahead of GMT...

"LAURIE SOLOMON" wrote:

> If she plans to reproduce the publicity photos in any sort of quantity for
> distribution, she would definitiely need the file, since there is a
definite
> loss in quality if one generates a copy negative off a digital print and
> this is magnified if one then attempts to produce offset prints of either
> an analog photographic print from that copy negative or from the digital

Nope... as said i was sending her the file

> print.  Having said this, I would say keep the files in RGB since whoever
is
> going to print or reproduce the image can do the conversions to grayscale
as
> needed.

Bob Geoghegan had a good reason for scanning in B & W... i've always scanned
in RGB... will try the B & W as an original scan and see if there's any
improvement.

>Unless there is any possibility that the image is going to be
> cropped with the cropped area being enlarged to 8x10, I would use 300 dpi
>for the 8x10 image; if there is a possibility that the image is going to be
> cropped with the cropped area being enlarged to 8x10, then I would make
the
> file 600 -1200 dpi for the 8x10 image.  In both cases, I would try to
avoid
> engaging in any upward interpolation (e.g. a 300ppi scan being used to
> produce a greater than 300 dpi 8x10 image or a scan of a 35mm negative at
> say 1200 ppi optical resolution for enlargement  to 8x10 at 300 dpi).  If
> the dpi of the 8x10 sized image in the file has a larger dpi than 300 dpi,
> the person doing the printing can always down sample it with less negative
> consequences than if they had to upsample it.  I would advise against
giving
> her high bit files (16bit depth) since if she is not doing the
photoshoping
> herself or is giving the file to someone who is not going to convert the
> file to 8 bit she will have problems getting the files reproduced in that
> most printers use 8 bit files and cannot deal with high bit files without
> being converted.

Scanning 35mm at 4000dpi... 8 x 10 works out to about 470 dpi (with any
resampling). It's being cropped downwards... meaning 8 x12 cropped to 8 x
10. What i'll do is send her 300dpi versions as well as the unresampled
versions so that the service bureau has the flexibility. Keeping in mind
that the minimum work they have to do will save her bucks.

> If she is not savvy and if she is planning to do quantity printing, I
would
> suggest giving the file to a service bureau, a printing press printer, or
a
> digital photolab to make the reproductions.  Let them put the file into
the
> proper shape for their equipment's needs since not all equipment has the
> same requirements.  To be on the safe side, I would tend to start with a
300
> dpi  resolution, Adobe RGB, 1998 profiled, RGB file containing the
properly
> cropped and sized  for printing to 8x10 image.  This would meet  the
minimum
> requirements of many of the direct digital to photographic laser and LED
> printers, it will work with desktop lasers and inkjets; and it would meet
> the basic offset press requirements.

Right... thanks for the suggestions the only question that remains
really now is whether to go the RGB or Grayscale route... unfortunately, i
have no way of checking that out from here... meaning who she finally goes
to will have different equipment to what's available in Calcutta... maybe
i'll just give her RGB and Grayscale files?

Cheers...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 25/12/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: B & W - Tips required...

[Shunith Dutt]

Dear Bob...

Thanks for the response... sorry for the delay in my replying... time diff
and then the morning after the night before :)

"Bob Shomler" wrote:

>>1/ Should i keep the files as RGB or convert to grayscale?

> Look at each channel R, B, G).  In my experience they will be identical;

Bob, not possible... there's bound to be differences in the channels...

>>2/ What dpi/ppi should i keep the files (8 x 10 inch prints)?

> 300 ppi (2400 by 3000 pixels) if you don't know where they will be
> printed and have specific info for that service.  Some services, for a
> quantity of B&W prints, might make a negative from the digital file.

That's a good point... hadn't thought of that not possible to get the
info as you suggested but maybe just give her a set of files at the original
undownsampled resolution, whatever that happens to be... it's working out to
about 470 ppi...

>>3/ Would it be better (cost effective and quality) for her to take them to
a
>service bureau or print them out herself on the proper paper? She's not so
>computer savvy but has contacts who could probably help her.

> B&W grayscale is not the strong suit of most desktop computer printers.

Will suggest that to her then.

Thanks for the response...

Cheers...

SD
>Hi List...
>
>Have done some B & W (Tri-X) portraits of a friend'd daughter which she
>needs to send out to agents... she's into theatre. She lives in NY and is
>here (India) on a holiday. I'll be scanning the negs - plan to scan in RGB
>at 14 (16) bit depth on a Nikon 4000ED - and touching up the pix. Putting
>them on a CD and couriering them to her in the US. She'll then get the
>prints made there. That's the background... the questions are as follows:
>
>1/ Should i keep the files as RGB or convert to grayscale?
>2/ What dpi/ppi should i keep the files (8 x 10 inch prints)?
>3/ Would it be better (cost effective and quality) for her to take them to
a
>service bureau or print them out herself on the proper paper? She's not so
>computer savvy but has contacts who could probably help her.
>4/ Any other suggestions are welcome :)



Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 25/12/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body

[filmscanners] Re: B & W - Tips required...

[Shunith Dutt]

Bob,

Thanks for the response... Sorry for the delay in replying... time
difference :)! +Sunday am after Sat night :0

"bob geoghegan" wrote:


> 1)  I'd scan them right into greyscale.  A BW scan with a Tri-X profile
(or
> other silver BW film) will probably do more justice to the film's tones
> than an RGB scan based on a color neg profile.  35mm, 16 bit 4000 dpi TIFF
> files are 40MB instead of  120MB.  You're not losing anything because
> they're BW negs.  Since you're not printing them yourself, save them as 16
> bit files to keep options open for adjustments by whoever prints them.
You
> could do a 2nd save at 8 bits incase she won't have software available for
> 16 bit  .tiffs.

Will try scanning in grayscale was plnning on keeping the originals at
16 bits... good idea tho' will send her both 16 and 8 bit versions

> 2) Stay with the scanner's 4000 dpi max resolution.  As with #1, it keeps

> 3) A tough one.  If she'd have to learn a lot & burn through trial prints,
> then a pro printer might be best.

Guess i'll just have to leave it up to her...

Thanks and cheers...

SD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 25/12/2002


Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body