RE: K20D as Scanner
with a dslr and its instant results review, it should be fairly easy to use a pair of flash and be able to adjust them for even lighting. that way you eliminate possible motion blur from long shutter speeds and will be able to use smaller fstops most likely too. But flatbed scanning is better I would think. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 10:48 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner - Original Message - From: Bob Sullivan Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner That's interesting Ken. I've used the A100/2.8 macro to shoot artwork onto slides for projecting at focus groups. My methodology was similar, insure perpendicular and use available light (living room window). Results were very acceptable. From what you say, I'll have some copy work to do for my sister the family's genealogist. Here's a little trick. Now that darkroom stuff is being given away for the cost of hauling it, look for something like a Beseler 6x7 or 6x9 enlarger. If you take the head off of it you will find a 3/8x20 screw just waiting to take a tripod head. Enlarger chassis' are really good copy stands. If you can get a colour one, the head can often be coaxed into working as a light source for copying slides. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: K20D as Scanner
mmm, I have had and used a flatbed scanner for over 12 years and couldnt imagine not having one on my pc. They are very cheap and very useful for doing an occasional fax, making a copy of document for archives, etc. Flatbeds are good to have. Film scanners were expensive, but basic document only scanners are not. The quality of the scans are amazing from my epson scanner with typical 8.5x11 documents. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Ken Waller Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner The whole point was I wasn't going to purchase a flatbed scanner for a few prints! These reproductions totally exceeded my expectations. It would be interesting to see how these digital images from my K20D compare to those from a scanner. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner as good as that worked, using a decent flatbed scanner would probably be even better! scanners can be super critical sharp too. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Ken Waller Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: K20D as Scanner I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that I didn't have the negs for. I don't have a flat bed scanner decided to shoot them with my K20D my 200mm f4.0 ED Macro. I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image plane, using available light being mindful to eliminate glare off the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small amount of unsharp mask) printed them (slightly larger than the original image) on my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer. The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. FYI Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. Your description makes it sound as if you pulled off detail that wasn't even there. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
I've done the same thing, Ken. It takes so long to scan a print or negative on a scanner, but I've used (for general use - family photos, etc) setting a print or Polaroid print on the bed of a copy stand; a tripod and an old glass contact print frame; an old Saunders contact sheet frame with the plastic torn off and Goo Gone cleaned (whew!). These options take much less than a minute per setup, shot RAW, minor corrections in Aperture, and I've been very pleased with the results, from those Polaroids to 100 year old deckled edge prints. On May 21, 2009, at 21:38 , Ken Waller wrote: The whole point was I wasn't going to purchase a flatbed scanner for a few prints! These reproductions totally exceeded my expectations. It would be interesting to see how these digital images from my K20D compare to those from a scanner. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian http://gallery.me.com/jomac http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: K20D as Scanner
The length of time it takes to scan a document is solely dependent on and proportional to the dpi setting and the size of the document, it would not take anywhere near the highest dpi settings to match an optical method of duplication IMHO and if you wanted the highest possible quality, a scanner could exceed any optical/camera method on large ( 5x7, 8x10 ) documents. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Joseph McAllister Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 3:27 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner I've done the same thing, Ken. It takes so long to scan a print or negative on a scanner, but I've used (for general use - family photos, etc) setting a print or Polaroid print on the bed of a copy stand; a tripod and an old glass contact print frame; an old Saunders contact sheet frame with the plastic torn off and Goo Gone cleaned (whew!). These options take much less than a minute per setup, shot RAW, minor corrections in Aperture, and I've been very pleased with the results, from those Polaroids to 100 year old deckled edge prints. On May 21, 2009, at 21:38 , Ken Waller wrote: The whole point was I wasn't going to purchase a flatbed scanner for a few prints! These reproductions totally exceeded my expectations. It would be interesting to see how these digital images from my K20D compare to those from a scanner. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian http://gallery.me.com/jomac http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
I just purchased an Epson Perfection V30 from NewEgg.com on sale for less than 50 bucks shipped. I have been using it for several days now making copies of old (50 years plus for some) 8x10 BW and Color prints for which the negs are long gone. I am very pleased with the quality and convenience. The quality is several stages better than what my old Canon 660U provided, and I thought it was a great scanner. But 8 years of technology go a long way! I have also copied old prints using my K20, as Ken did. The results were quick and painless, and the resulting images are as good as with the Epson. It would totally depend on the situation at hand. If I didn't have a scanner I seriously doubt that I would buy one if I seldom needed or wanted one, especially when I knew that the dslr would do just as well. Walt On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:59 PM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: The quality of the scans are amazing from my epson scanner with typical 8.5x11 documents. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: K20D as Scanner
I seriously doubt you will ever get even close the quality of a 2000dpi scan of a full size super sharp 8x10 document/print with a camera and lens. It all depends on the dpi you use. For example at 2000 dpi, you get approx 4 MPixel per square inch, and using 8x10 print, that would yeild a 320 MEGAPIXEL image. Youll never get close to that with any current digital slrs even if you had a perfect lens. I have two epson scanners, one does 2400 dpi, and one does 3200dpi so at 2000dpi they are not even being pushed to their limits. Even if you only use 1200dpi nearly all scanners are capable, your still talking 115 MP image of an 8x10 with a scanner. The other factor to consider is when scanning photos or documents, they do not have nearly as great a dynamic range as film does, so getting a scanner to handle the dynamic range of the photo or document without clipping is not very difficult to do. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Walter Hamler Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:48 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner I just purchased an Epson Perfection V30 from NewEgg.com on sale for less than 50 bucks shipped. I have been using it for several days now making copies of old (50 years plus for some) 8x10 BW and Color prints for which the negs are long gone. I am very pleased with the quality and convenience. The quality is several stages better than what my old Canon 660U provided, and I thought it was a great scanner. But 8 years of technology go a long way! I have also copied old prints using my K20, as Ken did. The results were quick and painless, and the resulting images are as good as with the Epson. It would totally depend on the situation at hand. If I didn't have a scanner I seriously doubt that I would buy one if I seldom needed or wanted one, especially when I knew that the dslr would do just as well. Walt On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:59 PM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: The quality of the scans are amazing from my epson scanner with typical 8.5x11 documents. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
- Original Message - From: JC OConnell Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner The length of time it takes to scan a document is solely dependent on and proportional to the dpi setting and the size of the document, it would not take anywhere near the highest dpi settings to match an optical method of duplication IMHO and if you wanted the highest possible quality, a scanner could exceed any optical/camera method on large ( 5x7, 8x10 ) documents. Printer resolution is in the 300 ppi (Fuji) to 360 ppi (Epson) range. An 8x10 file optimized for an Epson printer will be 2880 x 3600 pixels. If your prints are being done at what passes for a photolab these days, the resolution requirements are much lower, in the 2400 x 300 pixel range (Fuji), Noritsu is slightly higher (320 ppi). The output from a K20 is 4672 x 3104, ample resolution to do a 1:1 copy of an 8x10 print. For the application that Ken was using the camera for, the K20 has ample resolution, and would likely be faster than a flatbed scanner in real terms. There's no real point in having a higher resolution file if all you are going to be doing with it is discarding unused pixels at the printing stage. There is little point in scanning a print at higher than 400 ppi, as few if any photographic prints will exceed that resolution. At Kodak school, I was told that photographic paper doesn't hold more then ~10-12 lpmm of resolution, and that scanning at any more than 300 ppi is not gaining much, if anything, in terms of real detail, but it does increase the amount of post processing you need to do as you scan more and more paper defects as scan resolution increases. Combine this with the fact that most prints aren't taken with the best cameras, the best lenses, or the finest grained film, and there really isn't any advantage to a flatbed scanner over a modern 14mp or greater DSLR in terms of image quality when copying prints. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: K20D as Scanner
this makes no sense, one has to assume these and most old prints where negs are lost are analog wet prints and the resolution of said prints is going to be higher than modern digital 300 to 360 dpi prints. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 9:48 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner - Original Message - From: JC OConnell Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner The length of time it takes to scan a document is solely dependent on and proportional to the dpi setting and the size of the document, it would not take anywhere near the highest dpi settings to match an optical method of duplication IMHO and if you wanted the highest possible quality, a scanner could exceed any optical/camera method on large ( 5x7, 8x10 ) documents. Printer resolution is in the 300 ppi (Fuji) to 360 ppi (Epson) range. An 8x10 file optimized for an Epson printer will be 2880 x 3600 pixels. If your prints are being done at what passes for a photolab these days, the resolution requirements are much lower, in the 2400 x 300 pixel range (Fuji), Noritsu is slightly higher (320 ppi). The output from a K20 is 4672 x 3104, ample resolution to do a 1:1 copy of an 8x10 print. For the application that Ken was using the camera for, the K20 has ample resolution, and would likely be faster than a flatbed scanner in real terms. There's no real point in having a higher resolution file if all you are going to be doing with it is discarding unused pixels at the printing stage. There is little point in scanning a print at higher than 400 ppi, as few if any photographic prints will exceed that resolution. At Kodak school, I was told that photographic paper doesn't hold more then ~10-12 lpmm of resolution, and that scanning at any more than 300 ppi is not gaining much, if anything, in terms of real detail, but it does increase the amount of post processing you need to do as you scan more and more paper defects as scan resolution increases. Combine this with the fact that most prints aren't taken with the best cameras, the best lenses, or the finest grained film, and there really isn't any advantage to a flatbed scanner over a modern 14mp or greater DSLR in terms of image quality when copying prints. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
- Original Message - From: JC OConnell Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner this makes no sense, one has to assume these and most old prints where negs are lost are analog wet prints and the resolution of said prints is going to be higher than modern digital 300 to 360 dpi prints. Actually, you are completely wrong on that assumption. Apparently I should have written a shorter post to allow you to soak it all up. Older BW prints will not exceed 300 ppi resolution, the paper resolution just isn't higher than that, and as a general rule, resolution will be far less because few people used the best cameras and best technique, and the drug store printing that was done back then was all over the place for sharpness as well. John, there isn't much point in continuing this. This is, to a great extent what I did for a living up until a few years ago, I know of what I speak. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: K20D as Scanner
I aint buying it, quality glossy BW (wet) photo paper did better than 12 dots/lines per mm. (300dpi) 300 dpi is near the limit of human vision, the wet paper was way better than that. It wasnt marginal. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:17 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner - Original Message - From: JC OConnell Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner this makes no sense, one has to assume these and most old prints where negs are lost are analog wet prints and the resolution of said prints is going to be higher than modern digital 300 to 360 dpi prints. Actually, you are completely wrong on that assumption. Apparently I should have written a shorter post to allow you to soak it all up. Older BW prints will not exceed 300 ppi resolution, the paper resolution just isn't higher than that, and as a general rule, resolution will be far less because few people used the best cameras and best technique, and the drug store printing that was done back then was all over the place for sharpness as well. John, there isn't much point in continuing this. This is, to a great extent what I did for a living up until a few years ago, I know of what I speak. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
- Original Message - From: JC OConnell Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner I aint buying it, quality glossy BW (wet) photo paper did better than 12 dots/lines per mm. (300dpi) 300 dpi is near the limit of human vision, the wet paper was way better than that. It wasnt marginal. Whatever. I've copied thousands of old prints. I know what I'm talking about. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: K20D as Scanner
I made tons of BW glossy prints for 25 years, some contact prints and used loupes on them. The good glossy paper was not that crude in resolution even after development. I have some contact prints made from 8x10 negs that the details look really sharp even under a loupe, way beyond human naked eye vision in the range of 300dpi. The maximum paper resolution was not always an issue. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:47 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner - Original Message - From: JC OConnell Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner I aint buying it, quality glossy BW (wet) photo paper did better than 12 dots/lines per mm. (300dpi) 300 dpi is near the limit of human vision, the wet paper was way better than that. It wasnt marginal. Whatever. I've copied thousands of old prints. I know what I'm talking about. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
On 5/22/09, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: Apparently I should have written a shorter post to allow you to soak it all up. Mark! -- Scott Loveless Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008 http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
Man who argues with a fool is what Bill?Regards, Bob S. On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:46 AM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: - Original Message - From: JC OConnell Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner I aint buying it, quality glossy BW (wet) photo paper did better than 12 dots/lines per mm. (300dpi) 300 dpi is near the limit of human vision, the wet paper was way better than that. It wasnt marginal. Whatever. I've copied thousands of old prints. I know what I'm talking about. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: K20D as Scanner
Man who ignores the facts is the fool. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bob Sullivan Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 2:08 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner Man who argues with a fool is what Bill?Regards, Bob S. On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:46 AM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: - Original Message - From: JC OConnell Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner I aint buying it, quality glossy BW (wet) photo paper did better than 12 dots/lines per mm. (300dpi) 300 dpi is near the limit of human vision, the wet paper was way better than that. It wasnt marginal. Whatever. I've copied thousands of old prints. I know what I'm talking about. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
I'm of the Keep It Simple Stupid persuasion plus I'm cheap. Also I don't have an infinite amount of space around my computer. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner mmm, I have had and used a flatbed scanner for over 12 years and couldnt imagine not having one on my pc. They are very cheap and very useful for doing an occasional fax, making a copy of document for archives, etc. Flatbeds are good to have. Film scanners were expensive, but basic document only scanners are not. The quality of the scans are amazing from my epson scanner with typical 8.5x11 documents. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Ken Waller Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner The whole point was I wasn't going to purchase a flatbed scanner for a few prints! These reproductions totally exceeded my expectations. It would be interesting to see how these digital images from my K20D compare to those from a scanner. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner as good as that worked, using a decent flatbed scanner would probably be even better! scanners can be super critical sharp too. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Ken Waller Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: K20D as Scanner I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that I didn't have the negs for. I don't have a flat bed scanner decided to shoot them with my K20D my 200mm f4.0 ED Macro. I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image plane, using available light being mindful to eliminate glare off the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small amount of unsharp mask) printed them (slightly larger than the original image) on my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer. The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. FYI Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
Your description makes it sound as if you pulled off detail that wasn't even there. You'd have to see the prints to appreciate. What is easily noticed is the sharpness attained with the digital print compared to the typical commercial B+W print of 50 or so years ago ! I'm normally very careful in the application of unsharp mask it was during this step that the 'magic' happened. The details in the original were more precisely defined. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: mike wilson m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. Your description makes it sound as if you pulled off detail that wasn't even there. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
This was the first time I tried copying an old print with a digital camera. I've done this years ago with film cameras, even going to the extreme of using film specifically made for copying, the results then were barely acceptable to me and certainly not an improvement in the original image. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner I've done the same thing, Ken. It takes so long to scan a print or negative on a scanner, but I've used (for general use - family photos, etc) setting a print or Polaroid print on the bed of a copy stand; a tripod and an old glass contact print frame; an old Saunders contact sheet frame with the plastic torn off and Goo Gone cleaned (whew!). These options take much less than a minute per setup, shot RAW, minor corrections in Aperture, and I've been very pleased with the results, from those Polaroids to 100 year old deckled edge prints. On May 21, 2009, at 21:38 , Ken Waller wrote: The whole point was I wasn't going to purchase a flatbed scanner for a few prints! These reproductions totally exceeded my expectations. It would be interesting to see how these digital images from my K20D compare to those from a scanner. Joseph McAllister Pentaxian http://gallery.me.com/jomac http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
Bingo ! Thanks Walt. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: Walter Hamler hamlerwal...@gmail.com Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner I just purchased an Epson Perfection V30 from NewEgg.com on sale for less than 50 bucks shipped. I have been using it for several days now making copies of old (50 years plus for some) 8x10 BW and Color prints for which the negs are long gone. I am very pleased with the quality and convenience. The quality is several stages better than what my old Canon 660U provided, and I thought it was a great scanner. But 8 years of technology go a long way! I have also copied old prints using my K20, as Ken did. The results were quick and painless, and the resulting images are as good as with the Epson. It would totally depend on the situation at hand. If I didn't have a scanner I seriously doubt that I would buy one if I seldom needed or wanted one, especially when I knew that the dslr would do just as well. Walt On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:59 PM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: The quality of the scans are amazing from my epson scanner with typical 8.5x11 documents. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
they whom i call William Robb wrote: Combine this with the fact that most prints aren't taken with the best cameras, the best lenses, or the finest grained film, and there really isn't any advantage to a flatbed scanner over a modern 14mp or greater DSLR in terms of image quality when copying prints. i have some experience with digitizing prints with both scanners and with digital cameras; we did about 2200 of them a few years ago; using a so-so 4MP camera on a copy stand was definitely faster, and probably captured 90% of what was in the print; a decent scanner did a better job with the dynamic range, and delivered a much flatter field with no distortion; however prints on the scanner were harder to square up (many prints weren't square on the paper), and it took about 3x as long in production mode to scan vs. snap; which is all to say there are trade-offs, particularly if you don't have an appropriate lens on the camera -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
- Original Message - From: JC OConnell Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner Man who ignores the facts is the fool. When you come upwith some, perhaps people will pay attention, until then, you haven't said anything relevant to what we are discussing. You did try to change the subject, shame on you for not staying on topic, and you are famous for ignoring facts that people present to you, while you present nothing but bluster and nonsensical arguements. John, you are a fool. You are also back on my kill file. I had decided to give you the benefit of the doubt because I noted you had made a couple of worthwhile posts, but your drivel just isn't worth wading through. Regards William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
- Original Message - From: steve harley Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner Combine this with the fact that most prints aren't taken with the best cameras, the best lenses, or the finest grained film, and there really isn't any advantage to a flatbed scanner over a modern 14mp or greater DSLR in terms of image quality when copying prints. i have some experience with digitizing prints with both scanners and with digital cameras; we did about 2200 of them a few years ago; using a so-so 4MP camera on a copy stand was definitely faster, and probably captured 90% of what was in the print; a decent scanner did a better job with the dynamic range, and delivered a much flatter field with no distortion; however prints on the scanner were harder to square up (many prints weren't square on the paper), and it took about 3x as long in production mode to scan vs. snap; which is all to say there are trade-offs, particularly if you don't have an appropriate lens on the camera I expect your results would have been better with a more modern camera and good quality macro lens. This thread devolved rapidly unfortunately. I've seen thousands of drugstore prints from the 1930s, 40s and 50s, which is the topic of discussion, and they very rarely rose above the level of mediocre quality. In this situation, the scanner isn't going to give a better job than a camera, or if it does, it's going to be marginal. The time factor just isn't worth it compared to being able to slap them past a copystand mounted DSLR for what will be no practical gain in quality. Been there, done it myself. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: K20D as Scanner
the speed issue of this argument makes no sense, if the originals of are such low resolution then the dpi setting on the scanner can be turned down and the scans will be very fast. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:43 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner - Original Message - From: steve harley Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner Combine this with the fact that most prints aren't taken with the best cameras, the best lenses, or the finest grained film, and there really isn't any advantage to a flatbed scanner over a modern 14mp or greater DSLR in terms of image quality when copying prints. i have some experience with digitizing prints with both scanners and with digital cameras; we did about 2200 of them a few years ago; using a so-so 4MP camera on a copy stand was definitely faster, and probably captured 90% of what was in the print; a decent scanner did a better job with the dynamic range, and delivered a much flatter field with no distortion; however prints on the scanner were harder to square up (many prints weren't square on the paper), and it took about 3x as long in production mode to scan vs. snap; which is all to say there are trade-offs, particularly if you don't have an appropriate lens on the camera I expect your results would have been better with a more modern camera and good quality macro lens. This thread devolved rapidly unfortunately. I've seen thousands of drugstore prints from the 1930s, 40s and 50s, which is the topic of discussion, and they very rarely rose above the level of mediocre quality. In this situation, the scanner isn't going to give a better job than a camera, or if it does, it's going to be marginal. The time factor just isn't worth it compared to being able to slap them past a copystand mounted DSLR for what will be no practical gain in quality. Been there, done it myself. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: K20D as Scanner
that comment wasnt sent to WR, but the fact is that glossy high quality wet printing photo paper was capable of more than 300dpi resolution... JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:29 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner - Original Message - From: JC OConnell Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner Man who ignores the facts is the fool. When you come upwith some, perhaps people will pay attention, until then, you haven't said anything relevant to what we are discussing. You did try to change the subject, shame on you for not staying on topic, and you are famous for ignoring facts that people present to you, while you present nothing but bluster and nonsensical arguements. John, you are a fool. You are also back on my kill file. I had decided to give you the benefit of the doubt because I noted you had made a couple of worthwhile posts, but your drivel just isn't worth wading through. Regards William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
John, you are a fool. Mark ! Seems long over do. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: William Robb war...@gmail.com Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner - Original Message - From: JC OConnell Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner Man who ignores the facts is the fool. When you come upwith some, perhaps people will pay attention, until then, you haven't said anything relevant to what we are discussing. You did try to change the subject, shame on you for not staying on topic, and you are famous for ignoring facts that people present to you, while you present nothing but bluster and nonsensical arguements. John, you are a fool. You are also back on my kill file. I had decided to give you the benefit of the doubt because I noted you had made a couple of worthwhile posts, but your drivel just isn't worth wading through. Regards William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: K20D as Scanner
as good as that worked, using a decent flatbed scanner would probably be even better! scanners can be super critical sharp too. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Ken Waller Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: K20D as Scanner I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that I didn't have the negs for. I don't have a flat bed scanner decided to shoot them with my K20D my 200mm f4.0 ED Macro. I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image plane, using available light being mindful to eliminate glare off the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small amount of unsharp mask) printed them (slightly larger than the original image) on my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer. The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. FYI Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
Excellent. You apparently did everything right. Paul On May 21, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Ken Waller wrote: I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that I didn't have the negs for. I don't have a flat bed scanner decided to shoot them with my K20D my 200mm f4.0 ED Macro. I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image plane, using available light being mindful to eliminate glare off the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small amount of unsharp mask) printed them (slightly larger than the original image) on my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer. The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. FYI Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 09:30:25PM -0500, Bob Sullivan wrote: That's interesting Ken. I've used the A100/2.8 macro to shoot artwork onto slides for projecting at focus groups. My methodology was similar, insure perpendicular and use available light (living room window). Results were very acceptable. From what you say, I'll have some copy work to do for my sister the family's genealogist. There's a whole chapter on doing this sort of thing in Light, Science and Magic. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that I didn't have the negs for. I don't have a flat bed scanner decided to shoot them with my K20D my 200mm f4.0 ED Macro. I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image plane, using available light being mindful to eliminate glare off the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small amount of unsharp mask) printed them (slightly larger than the original image) on my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer. The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. FYI Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- The fastest way to get your question answered on the net is to post the wrong answer. Larry Colen l...@red4est.comhttp://www.red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
That's interesting Ken. I've used the A100/2.8 macro to shoot artwork onto slides for projecting at focus groups. My methodology was similar, insure perpendicular and use available light (living room window). Results were very acceptable. From what you say, I'll have some copy work to do for my sister the family's genealogist. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that I didn't have the negs for. I don't have a flat bed scanner decided to shoot them with my K20D my 200mm f4.0 ED Macro. I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image plane, using available light being mindful to eliminate glare off the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small amount of unsharp mask) printed them (slightly larger than the original image) on my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer. The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. FYI Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
- Original Message - From: Bob Sullivan Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner That's interesting Ken. I've used the A100/2.8 macro to shoot artwork onto slides for projecting at focus groups. My methodology was similar, insure perpendicular and use available light (living room window). Results were very acceptable. From what you say, I'll have some copy work to do for my sister the family's genealogist. Here's a little trick. Now that darkroom stuff is being given away for the cost of hauling it, look for something like a Beseler 6x7 or 6x9 enlarger. If you take the head off of it you will find a 3/8x20 screw just waiting to take a tripod head. Enlarger chassis' are really good copy stands. If you can get a colour one, the head can often be coaxed into working as a light source for copying slides. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
HI, Ken I'm not surpriised that you got good results. I think proper use of a digital SLR is a very cost-effective way of reproducing old photographic prints for all but the most critical applications. I've often done it myself with materials too large for a scanner. However, speaking as someone with 20 years of professional experience working with a collection of half a million archival photographs, I must point out that there is no substitute for an original negative or slide in terms of potential image quality, whether as a darkroom print or as a scan. In particular, with negatives the quality difference can be enormous. Achieving that quality requires more technical skills than copying a print but the potential is most certainly there. ( That's not a criticism of you, Ken. I really admire your work. But I am a seriously experienced geek in this area.) My main message is: Don't get rid of your old negatives just because you think you can do better copying priints with a digital SLR. Copying prints with a camera is OK if you don't have the means to work with film, or all you have for an original is a print, but if the pictures are important hang on to those little bits of film. They carry a lot more information in terms of detail, tonality and colour than prints. Now I'll go back to lurking.. John Poirier - Original Message - From: Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:48 PM Subject: K20D as Scanner I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that I didn't have the negs for. I don't have a flat bed scanner decided to shoot them with my K20D my 200mm f4.0 ED Macro. I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image plane, using available light being mindful to eliminate glare off the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small amount of unsharp mask) printed them (slightly larger than the original image) on my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer. The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. FYI Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
Thanks for the comments John. These were photos taken when I was a kid - I have no idea where the negs are, so that wasn't an option. It would be interesting to see how my copies compared with new prints from the negs. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: John Poirier peartr...@shaw.ca Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner HI, Ken I'm not surpriised that you got good results. I think proper use of a digital SLR is a very cost-effective way of reproducing old photographic prints for all but the most critical applications. I've often done it myself with materials too large for a scanner. However, speaking as someone with 20 years of professional experience working with a collection of half a million archival photographs, I must point out that there is no substitute for an original negative or slide in terms of potential image quality, whether as a darkroom print or as a scan. In particular, with negatives the quality difference can be enormous. Achieving that quality requires more technical skills than copying a print but the potential is most certainly there. ( That's not a criticism of you, Ken. I really admire your work. But I am a seriously experienced geek in this area.) My main message is: Don't get rid of your old negatives just because you think you can do better copying priints with a digital SLR. Copying prints with a camera is OK if you don't have the means to work with film, or all you have for an original is a print, but if the pictures are important hang on to those little bits of film. They carry a lot more information in terms of detail, tonality and colour than prints. Now I'll go back to lurking.. John Poirier - Original Message - From: Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:48 PM Subject: K20D as Scanner I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that I didn't have the negs for. I don't have a flat bed scanner decided to shoot them with my K20D my 200mm f4.0 ED Macro. I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image plane, using available light being mindful to eliminate glare off the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small amount of unsharp mask) printed them (slightly larger than the original image) on my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer. The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. FYI Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
The whole point was I wasn't going to purchase a flatbed scanner for a few prints! These reproductions totally exceeded my expectations. It would be interesting to see how these digital images from my K20D compare to those from a scanner. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner as good as that worked, using a decent flatbed scanner would probably be even better! scanners can be super critical sharp too. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Ken Waller Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: K20D as Scanner I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that I didn't have the negs for. I don't have a flat bed scanner decided to shoot them with my K20D my 200mm f4.0 ED Macro. I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image plane, using available light being mindful to eliminate glare off the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small amount of unsharp mask) printed them (slightly larger than the original image) on my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer. The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. FYI Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D as Scanner
If you've wrung the most out of your lens, I wouldn't expect much difference for purposes such as viewing on a monitor or prints up to about 8x10 at normal viewing distances. If you're looking for teeny tiny dust spots on the original, they won't be as sharp as with a flatbed.running at, say, 400 ppi or higher depending on original size. A high bit depth flatbed scan may offer some advantages over the K20 for salvaging badly faded prints, but I couldn't confirm that without careful testing. My comments are based on many shots with a Kodak DSC14N (13 megapixel full frame) and a Micro Nikkor 60mm. I'd expect about the same from a K20D with a good lens. With a really good copy setup it's possible to crank through several hundred decent(magazine quality with minor editing) black and white copies versus maybe two or three dozen equivalents on a flatbed - Original Message - From: Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 9:38 PM Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner The whole point was I wasn't going to purchase a flatbed scanner for a few prints! These reproductions totally exceeded my expectations. It would be interesting to see how these digital images from my K20D compare to those from a scanner. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner as good as that worked, using a decent flatbed scanner would probably be even better! scanners can be super critical sharp too. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Ken Waller Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: K20D as Scanner I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures that I didn't have the negs for. I don't have a flat bed scanner decided to shoot them with my K20D my 200mm f4.0 ED Macro. I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the image plane, using available light being mindful to eliminate glare off the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a small amount of unsharp mask) printed them (slightly larger than the original image) on my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer. The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. I seriously doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the digitally produced images. FYI Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
