Re: New Scanner Epson V700
Don't argue with frank, he's didgiboy now. Norm Baugher wrote: > Am too... > > frank theriault wrote: > >> On 6/29/07, Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If you think about it, I've now gone "digital"... >> >> No you haven't... >> >> ;-) >> >> cheers, >> frank >> >> >> >> > > > -- All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New Scanner Epson V700
Am too... frank theriault wrote: > On 6/29/07, Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you think about it, I've now gone "digital"... > > No you haven't... > > ;-) > > cheers, > frank > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New Scanner
Thanks Godders, I'll give it a try... Norm Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Vuescan is a scanning application, in the same vein as SilverFast. I > prefer using it as it lends more control of scanning specifics, is > less expensive, and is constantly being updated/tuned by its author. > And it's also 'generic' ... it drives a whole bunch of different > scanners rather than having to have the version targeting a specific > scanner. > > I've been using Vuescan for all my scanning since 1998 or so, > whenever it first came out. I drive the Nikon LS-40, Minolta Scan > Dual II, Epson 2450 and V700 with it. It does a great job. Takes a > bit to learn but works well. The author, Ed Hamrick, is very > knowledgeable and has some of the best scanning algorithms around. > > See http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html for more details. You can > download and experiment with an evaluation copy to see whether you > like it more. > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New Scanner
Vuescan is a scanning application, in the same vein as SilverFast. I prefer using it as it lends more control of scanning specifics, is less expensive, and is constantly being updated/tuned by its author. And it's also 'generic' ... it drives a whole bunch of different scanners rather than having to have the version targeting a specific scanner. I've been using Vuescan for all my scanning since 1998 or so, whenever it first came out. I drive the Nikon LS-40, Minolta Scan Dual II, Epson 2450 and V700 with it. It does a great job. Takes a bit to learn but works well. The author, Ed Hamrick, is very knowledgeable and has some of the best scanning algorithms around. See http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html for more details. You can download and experiment with an evaluation copy to see whether you like it more. Godfrey On Jun 29, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Norm Baugher wrote: > Can you extrapolate a little more on Vuescan? > Norm > > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> I drive the V700 with Vuescan. It just works. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New Scanner
Can you extrapolate a little more on Vuescan? Norm Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > I drive the V700 with Vuescan. It just works. > > G > > On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Norm Baugher wrote: > > >> Well, I'm now the owner of an Epson V700. I'm just using it mainly to >> scan B&W 6x7 negs. As a complete novice, I was just wondering if >> anyone >> could give me a few basic tips (other than don't slam your fingers in >> the cover). I'm using the SilverFast software that came with the >> scanner. >> > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New Scanner
I drive the V700 with Vuescan. It just works. G On Jun 29, 2007, at 8:56 AM, Norm Baugher wrote: > Well, I'm now the owner of an Epson V700. I'm just using it mainly to > scan B&W 6x7 negs. As a complete novice, I was just wondering if > anyone > could give me a few basic tips (other than don't slam your fingers in > the cover). I'm using the SilverFast software that came with the > scanner. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New Scanner Epson V700
Well, half way . graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- frank theriault wrote: > On 6/29/07, Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you think about it, I've now gone "digital"... > > No you haven't... > > ;-) > > cheers, > frank > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New Scanner Epson V700
On 6/29/07, Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you think about it, I've now gone "digital"... No you haven't... ;-) cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New Scanner Epson V700
It's waay cool Frankie. Just trying to figure out how to use the damn thing. If you think about it, I've now gone "digital"... Norm frank theriault wrote: > On 6/29/07, Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Well, I'm now the owner of an Epson V700. I'm just using it mainly to >> scan B&W 6x7 negs. As a complete novice, I was just wondering if anyone >> could give me a few basic tips (other than don't slam your fingers in >> the cover). I'm using the SilverFast software that came with the scanner. >> TIA, >> > > Cool. > > I can't help, but it's still cool. > > cheers, > frank > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New Scanner
On 6/29/07, Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I'm now the owner of an Epson V700. I'm just using it mainly to > scan B&W 6x7 negs. As a complete novice, I was just wondering if anyone > could give me a few basic tips (other than don't slam your fingers in > the cover). I'm using the SilverFast software that came with the scanner. > TIA, Cool. I can't help, but it's still cool. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New scanner
the Dalai Lama had this to say about believing things that one hasn't experienced but someone you know has: if there is no evidence that the person has any reason to lie to you and that they have the appearance of being rational then then you should believe them until you have evidence otherwise. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 5:19 PM Subject: Re: New scanner > Still, YOU didn't see the results, YOU didn't make a comparison ... you are > relying on what someone else told you. Let's end the discussion. It's no > longer serving any purpose.
Re: New scanner
Still, YOU didn't see the results, YOU didn't make a comparison ... you are relying on what someone else told you. Let's end the discussion. It's no longer serving any purpose. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. shel Herb Chong wrote: > he scanned some of my slides (for free) and said don't bother with going > higher than 4000dpi. there isn't anything to be seen except more film grain.
Re: New scanner
the only lens i have that i know delivers the resolution to make it obvious that 4000dpi isn't enough is my FA 50 f2.8 macro. the next closest is my FA* 80-200 f2.8, but it's marginal as to whether it really has higher resolution or not. this is on Provia 100F. using Velvia, the macro has easily visible higher resolution. none of my other lenses push the envelope using Provia 100F, and that includes a couple of lenses with "tack sharp" reputations here, but they are all zooms. this is at reasonable shutter speeds (at least 1/60) on a tripod. i haven't tried any of the mid range primes or the Limiteds, but since several lens testing sites place them at about the same resolution as the my FA* 80-200, i would expect the same as it. Herb... - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 12:39 AM Subject: Re: New scanner > That still doesn't show that there's more than 4000dpi of useful detail in the > film. I think there may be - back when I researched this issue my experiments > led me to believe that a scan of Provia may continue to deliver increased detail > to around 5000dpi, and there are films with better performance than Provia. > And, of course, you've got to be using glass that can deliver that resolution, > attached to a rigid shooting platform, etc., etc.
Re: New scanner
the only one of my friends to own an Imacon uses it at no higher than 4000dpi and says that its a waste of resolution too. going to true 16-bit mode instead of adding the bits from 14-bit mode is the only major thing i would like changed. have you compared a Nikon 4000ED to the Imacon? there are 4000dpi scanners and there are 4000dpi scanners. is it a drum scanner that extracts the last bit of sharpness from the slide? no, but given that the only lens i have that pushes the limits of 4000dpi is my FA 50mm f2.8 macro, and only when shooting with Velvia on a tripod, i'd say that the times when the difference even has a chance of showing up isn't as high as you would like. Herb - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 10:08 PM Subject: Re: New scanner > There's more to it than "details of the grain." > > One of the things I noticed was increased sharpness on most scans, due, I'm > sure, to the way the Imacons hold the slide against the drum and the more > even scanning the drum scanner provides, as well as better shadow detail and > better separation in the shadows (between zones 1,2,3). Is it enough to > make a difference to some people? Probably not. However, I happened to see > a very interesting demonstration of where this difference became quite > significant, and that was when making a very large print from a 4 x 5 slide > (abt 40 x 50 final print). That's not to say the differences aren't > observable in smaller sized prints - they are - and even more so when making > large transparencies.
Re: New scanner
Herb Chong wrote: well, i bought a Nikon 4000ED and i have done about 1000 scans with it so far. every now and then, i wish i had bought the mounted slide feeder, but i haven't, so i have to do it the hard way, one at a time. it takes about 40-50 mounted slides at once. i experimented some turning off the Digital ICE but that led to so much work, even from visually clean slides under an 8X loupe, that i quickly turned it back on and leave it that way. there is some softening, but the alternative is a lot more work in front of the monitor. also, the softening is losing detail only when i am scanning Velvia taken with my macro lens. the Coolscan and other LED scanners have a terrible time with Kodachrome so i gave up on that almost right away. shot the last of my Kodachrome 25 and got some interesting but not really intended effects because of the heavy color casts that resulted and then my attempts to correct them. i don't shoot B&W anymore. if a slide looks like it might be interesting as B&W, i convert using the Channel mixer. Herb Speaking of Kodachrome. Are there any scanners out there that handle Kodachrome well? I need to send out a bunch of slides to scan and am afraid to send it to the wrong place. I tried one outfit with some test slides and the color + dynamic range were terrible. rg
Re: New scanner
I just wrote Paul that you'd probably jump in with a criticism of my position, and bingo, here you are. OK, let's leave it at this: you're right for what you do, and I'm right for what I do and from what I've seen. IMO, the Nikon is a consumer scanner, although a good one. One thing that's of interest in your reply: I asked if YOU had ever made the comparison, and you're telling me about what your friends SAID Did you see comparisons yourself? Did you see how the scans and prints were made? Are you aware of what other equipment was in the processing chain? Have you done, or have you read, a accurate survey on scanners used by professionals? shel Herb Chong wrote: > the Nikon isn't a consumer scanner except to those owning Imacon's, and > there are a lot more professionals using Nikons than Imacons. i have some > friends who did the comparison and decided that Imacon's were a waste of > resolution. if i can see film grain clouds clearly, then more highly defined > clouds are not going to help me in any way.
Re: New scanner
There's more to it than "details of the grain." One of the things I noticed was increased sharpness on most scans, due, I'm sure, to the way the Imacons hold the slide against the drum and the more even scanning the drum scanner provides, as well as better shadow detail and better separation in the shadows (between zones 1,2,3). Is it enough to make a difference to some people? Probably not. However, I happened to see a very interesting demonstration of where this difference became quite significant, and that was when making a very large print from a 4 x 5 slide (abt 40 x 50 final print). That's not to say the differences aren't observable in smaller sized prints - they are - and even more so when making large transparencies. Is it overkill ... perhaps to some people or in some situations. But, if you want the utmost quality in a print, then perhaps a higher dpi scan is appropriate. Hey, there are still lots of people who are very happy with the results from a 2700dpi scan with a range of 3.6 or so, while others feel that 4000dpi and a range of 4.2 gives better results. Anyway, just my dos centavos ... I suspect Herb'll tell me I'm being foolish and that a 4000dpi scan is about as good as it gets shel Paul Stenquist wrote: > I can see details of the grain when scanning 6x7 film on my Epson 3200. > When printing it out on my Epson 1200 printer, the resolution is as > good as I can get from the local pro labs on a C-Print. But perhaps the > labs aren't all that good. (They do produce most of the work for some > local big name studios and for the car companies in-house studios.) > On Saturday, November 29, 2003, at 09:40 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Re: New scanner
the Nikon isn't a consumer scanner except to those owning Imacon's, and there are a lot more professionals using Nikons than Imacons. i have some friends who did the comparison and decided that Imacon's were a waste of resolution. if i can see film grain clouds clearly, then more highly defined clouds are not going to help me in any way. Herb - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 9:40 PM Subject: Re: New scanner > Have you ever scanned at 8000dpi with an Imacon or similar scanner, and then > compared the results to a consumer scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 4000?
Re: New scanner
I can see details of the grain when scanning 6x7 film on my Epson 3200. When printing it out on my Epson 1200 printer, the resolution is as good as I can get from the local pro labs on a C-Print. But perhaps the labs aren't all that good. (They do produce most of the work for some local big name studios and for the car companies in-house studios.) On Saturday, November 29, 2003, at 09:40 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Have you ever scanned at 8000dpi with an Imacon or similar scanner, and then compared the results to a consumer scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 4000? Herb Chong wrote: having done a lot of scanning of Provia 100F and Velvia at 4000dpi, i don't seen anything except more film grain unless shooting with a macro lens on a tripod. i would much rather have higher bit depth, preferably the full 16 bits per channel like the new Nikon 5000 ED.
Re: New scanner
I certainly don't know. The magazines I shoot for want 40 megabyte files. The stock house I shoot for wants 40 megabyte files. My Epson 3200 will yield just about exactly that when scanning 35mm full frame. When I scan medium format, I still scan full frame at 3200, then downsize in PhotoShop. I haven't had any complaints, and I've sold quite a few 40 meg scans both to the mags and through the stock house. I did have one request for "very hi-res" on a stock image, so I supplied a 172 meg 24 bit file of a 6x7 scan. Again from my Epson. Paul On Saturday, November 29, 2003, at 09:37 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: What is a "professional image?" graywolf wrote: I read someones comment one that 385 megabytes was the minimum files size for professional images.
Re: New scanner
Have you ever scanned at 8000dpi with an Imacon or similar scanner, and then compared the results to a consumer scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 4000? Herb Chong wrote: > having done a lot of scanning of Provia 100F and Velvia at 4000dpi, i don't > seen anything except more film grain unless shooting with a macro lens on a > tripod. i would much rather have higher bit depth, preferably the full 16 > bits per channel like the new Nikon 5000 ED.
Re: New scanner
What is a "professional image?" graywolf wrote: > I read someones comment one that 385 megabytes was the minimum files size for > professional images.
Re: New scanner
No ... since a flatbed can't make hi-res scans. Yes, if all you're doing is counting scans, but if you consider the quality, then the fb can never be amortized ... apples and oranges, imo. graywolf wrote: > So basically 30 scans would pay for the scanner? > > > Herb Chong wrote: > > > how much do you pay for your high res scans? the places around me cost $20 > > minimum for 4000dpi for the scan,
Re: New scanner
> > The HP S20 is the old Hewlitt Packard Photosmart scanner. It was an > inexpensive, but surprisingly good scanner for it's time. > I had it's predecssor, the S10, which IIRC, wasn't improved on very much > with the new model. I'd question that. I, too, had an S10, which I eventually replaced with a Nikon Coolscan III. This was shortly before the S20 was released, I believe - or was the S20 a USB device? >From what I saw of scans from the S20 it was a significant improvement over the S10 as a slide scanner, offering greater density. I found that the S10, although perfectly adequate as a negative scanner, was not really up to the task of scanning slides. The S20 also delivered better saturation; it appeared to be pretty comparable to the results from the Coolscan III (which would also make it similar to the LS-1000 another poster mentioned). [For a comparison of the S10 to the Coolscan, see http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/chart.html ] The main drawback to the S20 is that, like it's predecessor, it was somehat compromised by being designed as both a film scanner and a print scanner (able to accept prints up to 5x7). This introduced additional complication in both the mechanical feed and the optical path. This sometimes led to difficulties on obtaining sharp images (either because of film curvature, or because the film transport didn't always move into quite the right position). It was also rather difficult to remove dust if it got into the optical path.
Re: New scanner
well, i bought a Nikon 4000ED and i have done about 1000 scans with it so far. every now and then, i wish i had bought the mounted slide feeder, but i haven't, so i have to do it the hard way, one at a time. it takes about 40-50 mounted slides at once. i experimented some turning off the Digital ICE but that led to so much work, even from visually clean slides under an 8X loupe, that i quickly turned it back on and leave it that way. there is some softening, but the alternative is a lot more work in front of the monitor. also, the softening is losing detail only when i am scanning Velvia taken with my macro lens. the Coolscan and other LED scanners have a terrible time with Kodachrome so i gave up on that almost right away. shot the last of my Kodachrome 25 and got some interesting but not really intended effects because of the heavy color casts that resulted and then my attempts to correct them. i don't shoot B&W anymore. if a slide looks like it might be interesting as B&W, i convert using the Channel mixer. Herb - Original Message - From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 7:33 PM Subject: Re: New scanner > So basically 30 scans would pay for the scanner? > > Of course that does not take into consideration your time learning to use it > properly and your time doing the scanning. I noticed a 50-100 slide batch > scanner in the new B&H Digital Catalog for $700, but it is only 3600 dpi. But > that may be a bagain for someone who had a bunch of slides to digitalize. That > is the cheapest I have seen a high capacity batch scanner selling for.
Re: New scanner
having done a lot of scanning of Provia 100F and Velvia at 4000dpi, i don't seen anything except more film grain unless shooting with a macro lens on a tripod. i would much rather have higher bit depth, preferably the full 16 bits per channel like the new Nikon 5000 ED. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 7:29 PM Subject: Re: New scanner > Depends on the resolution and the equipment used. Prices start at about $25.00 > ... however, one lab may be renting their Imacons, so I can get up to 8000dpi > for only $20/hr or so. Minimum high res is 6000dpi for 35mm. 4000dpi is for > "hobby scanning" > > Herb Chong wrote: > > > how much do you pay for your high res scans? the places around me cost $20 > > minimum for 4000dpi for the scan, and that doesn't include the CD that they > > return the files to me on. places that charge less don't do a good enough > > job for me. colors are off or there is way too much dust. > > > >
Re: New scanner
I read someones comment one that 385 megabytes was the minimum files size for professional images. Maybe you ought to keep that in mind, Shel (GRIN). I also read where most of the folks who have a lot of achived images to digitalize have already dones so, and they are not going to redo all that work. Which they claimed is why film scanner sales are way down, and not the move to digital cameras as one might believe at first thought. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Depends on the resolution and the equipment used. Prices start at about $25.00 ... however, one lab may be renting their Imacons, so I can get up to 8000dpi for only $20/hr or so. Minimum high res is 6000dpi for 35mm. 4000dpi is for "hobby scanning" Herb Chong wrote: how much do you pay for your high res scans? the places around me cost $20 minimum for 4000dpi for the scan, and that doesn't include the CD that they return the files to me on. places that charge less don't do a good enough job for me. colors are off or there is way too much dust. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: New scanner
So basically 30 scans would pay for the scanner? Of course that does not take into consideration your time learning to use it properly and your time doing the scanning. I noticed a 50-100 slide batch scanner in the new B&H Digital Catalog for $700, but it is only 3600 dpi. But that may be a bagain for someone who had a bunch of slides to digitalize. That is the cheapest I have seen a high capacity batch scanner selling for. -- Herb Chong wrote: how much do you pay for your high res scans? the places around me cost $20 minimum for 4000dpi for the scan, and that doesn't include the CD that they return the files to me on. places that charge less don't do a good enough job for me. colors are off or there is way too much dust. Herb - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 6:47 PM Subject: Re: New scanner A big part of why I'm asking is that I want to get a scanner, but maybe an inexpensive one just for proofs, letting the nearby lab make the really hi res scans for final printing of those photographs I want printed via inkjet or other means other than in the wet darkroom. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: New scanner
Some comments on the S20 inline: William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: New scanner Is a 2400 dpi HP S20 a film scanner? What about comparisons with a 2800 dpi film scanner? Have you had a chance to compare? A big part of why I'm asking is that I want to get a scanner, but maybe an inexpensive one just for proofs, letting the nearby lab make the really hi res scans for final printing of those photographs I want printed via inkjet or other means other than in the wet darkroom. The HP S20 is the old Hewlitt Packard Photosmart scanner. It was an inexpensive, but surprisingly good scanner for it's time. I had it's predecssor, the S10, which IIRC, wasn't improved on very much with the new model. I am a lot happier with my Epson 2450 flatbed than I was with the HP. The scans are faster, and I think the bit depth is greater as well, though the scan is the same dpi. S20 is 24bpi or 48bpi selectable. The digital printer I use at work prints at 320 dpi, so I can get an 8x12 print from a scan off the flatbed without a heck of a lot of interpolation (which I don't think is the big evil people make it out to be). All you get from a greater dpi scan is the ability to make a bigger print before you start interpolating data (which I don't think is the big evil people make it out to be). The nice thing about these Epson flatbeds is their ability to scan a dozen 35mm negatives at a time. This is a huge time saver over what I used to use, which was limited to a strip of 4, and having to use 3rd party software to scan the entire film strip. Both the S20 software and Silverfast will scan a whole strip (up to 5 frames negative, or 4 slides) at once. However that does not seem to be documented in the manual. Just hold down the control key and select each of the images you want to scan, just like selecting multiple files in Windows in other words. Thef HP software is suprisingly good once you figure it out, I saw no reason to buy Silverfast after using the trial version for awhile. And it was slow. Don't know how the S20 speed is compared to newer film scanners but I think it is quite a bit faster than the S10 was. The Epson is fairly quick, though no consumer level scanner that I have seen matches the speed of a commercial scanner, such as the Noritsu strip scanners on their digital printers. OTOH, they are scanning at a mere 2000 dpi. William Robb -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com "You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway."
Re: New scanner
Depends on the resolution and the equipment used. Prices start at about $25.00 ... however, one lab may be renting their Imacons, so I can get up to 8000dpi for only $20/hr or so. Minimum high res is 6000dpi for 35mm. 4000dpi is for "hobby scanning" Herb Chong wrote: > how much do you pay for your high res scans? the places around me cost $20 > minimum for 4000dpi for the scan, and that doesn't include the CD that they > return the files to me on. places that charge less don't do a good enough > job for me. colors are off or there is way too much dust. >
Re: New scanner
I bought the 3200 scanner in August and I'm very happy with it. It's straightforward to use, and does great scans with negs or prints, with very good shadow detail. When scanning negs, particularly images with dark backgrounds, use "Normal" preview, rather than "Auto", as it may crop part of the image. This can cause some head-scratching. Flatbed scanners have come a long way, Shel (great to have you back). Pat White
Re: New scanner
> > - Original Message - > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > Subject: Re: New scanner > > > > You're going to use a flatbed scanner for 35mm negatives? Say it isn't > so, Joe! > > These Epsons have a light source in the lid, so there isn't the kludge of > adding an adaptor and mirrors and whatnot. > The 2450 does a surprisingly good job of scanning 35mm negs and slides, > though I was never able to get good scans from black and white negs. > I expect the 3200 is better. > > William Robb Weird,I find the opposite.35mm slides off,but the B&W better.Not great for print,but good for the site. I like what it does with the E100vs slide film. Dave
Re: New scanner
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: New scanner > You're going to use a flatbed scanner for 35mm negatives? Say it isn't so, Joe! These Epsons have a light source in the lid, so there isn't the kludge of adding an adaptor and mirrors and whatnot. The 2450 does a surprisingly good job of scanning 35mm negs and slides, though I was never able to get good scans from black and white negs. I expect the 3200 is better. William Robb
Re: New scanner
The Epson 3200 will produce nice scans from 35mm film. Scanned at 3200 and ized to 300dpi, you get a print of approximagely 10 x13. I've shown some of mine to the lab guys. They were sure I had shot them on 6x7. Paul On Saturday, November 29, 2003, at 01:44 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: You're going to use a flatbed scanner for 35mm negatives? Say it isn't so, Joe! "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: I bought a new film scanner, a Epson 3200 [...] What I like is I can scan everything from 35mm up to 4X5 and even do 4X9 crops from 8X10. Once I get it I will post a few sample pix.
Re: New scanner
I find the results from the 3200 better than my old HP S20. Bill - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 1:44 AM Subject: Re: New scanner > You're going to use a flatbed scanner for 35mm negatives? Say it isn't so, Joe! > > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > > I bought a new film scanner, a Epson 3200 > > > [...] > > > > What I like is I can scan everything from 35mm up to > > 4X5 and even do 4X9 crops from 8X10. Once I get it > > I will post a few sample pix. > >
Re: New scanner
That's what I use and no problems. I like it. Bill - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Spotmatic discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "SLR Manual Mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Pentax67 discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "pentax discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Graflex Discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Club M42" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 12:35 AM Subject: New scanner > I bought a new film scanner, a Epson 3200 to replace > my 3 year old 2450. The 2450 was nice but this one > is supposed to be much faster > > This model has gotten great reviews and only cost $350. > What I like is I can scan everything from 35mm up to > 4X5 and even do 4X9 crops from 8X10. Once I get it > I will post a few sample pix. > > Anybody else using this scanner? Caveats? > JCO > > -- -- >J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > -- -- > >
RE: New Scanner
no, the holder keeps the 4X5 neg off the glass but I found that thin negs sagged a little and did cause newton rings. I solved the problem by taping 4 quarters to the bottom of the neg holder to hold neg slightly higher off glass. Still get sharp results as the scanners optical system has plenty of DOF. JCO > -Original Message- > From: Mat Maessen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: New Scanner > > > Is the negative in contact with glass at all when doing a transparency > scan on the 2450? If so, any issues w/ newton rings, and keeping the > glass clean? > > -Mat > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > Could you guys please try a 4X5 tranny scan at max resolution > > ( which I assume is 3200 ppi) and report the scan time > > to me? With the 2450 (2400 ppi) it takes about 20 minutes > > which is quite annoying > > JCO > > > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:16 PM > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: New Scanner > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>> > >>>Just got home with a new Epson Perfection 3200 scanner. I'm > >> > >>looking forward to installing it and trying it out later today, > >>but in the meantime... Anybody know how it compares with the HP > >>S20 for 35mm? > >> > >>Gosh, I don't know, but I just ordered one myself from B&H. I once had > >>acces to an Agfa 2500T Duoscan at work, and it was excellent. But the > >>lease expired. Our new one at the office is an Epson 1640 Pro. A big > >>flatbed with limited resolution. What's more, I have to do more of this > >>at home. I'd love to have the Nikon 5000, but I can't afford one right > >>now. I guess I'll have to wait until everyone goes digital. In the > >>meantime, I'll use the Epson 3200. I'm sure it will be great for medium > >>format, and MF constitutes most of my important work. > >>Paul > >> >
Re: New Scanner
Yes it was to you Dave :D --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Bring a few 35mm slides over, we can > compare. > > > Not sure Brendan,was this directed at moi,or some > one else.If its moi i have a few i can > bring over. > > Dave > > __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: New Scanner
I've never seen a sheet of 4in x 5in film sag in a glassless carrier, but I'm not so sure that an unsupported sheet wouldn't pop due to heat in a condenser enlarger. That's not a problem I'd expect from a scanner. When you think about it, sheet film is barely supported in the film holder when an exposure is being made. I used a DeVere copy camera for several years and every exposure was tack-sharp even though, with the camera always vertical, the film was always horizontal and only held by the edges. regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You are correct about the carrier holding the neg above the glass. > Depending on the size of the negative, you can get some sag in the > middle. I am scanning 67 negs and find that strips do better than > single negs because the strip helps hold the neg more evenly. I would > guess that 4X5 would have more problems with sag unless the emulsion > was quite thick. > > Overall, it is a nice scanner - especially for the price. > > > Bruce >
Re: New Scanner
You are correct about the carrier holding the neg above the glass. Depending on the size of the negative, you can get some sag in the middle. I am scanning 67 negs and find that strips do better than single negs because the strip helps hold the neg more evenly. I would guess that 4X5 would have more problems with sag unless the emulsion was quite thick. Overall, it is a nice scanner - especially for the price. Bruce Thursday, June 5, 2003, 6:25:50 AM, you wrote: g> On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Butch Black wrote: >> A friend of mine gave me some MF and LF scans done on an Epson 2450. The >> files were 20-30MB PSD files (Photoshop) I was amazed at the quality. It's >> still not ideal for 35mm although it may compare favorably with the S20. g> All this talk finally inspired me to buy a 2450 off of ebay (plus my Astra g> 4450 won't work under MacOS 10). g> The 2450 doesn't have a newton ring problem as the neg isn't on the glass, g> correct?
Re: New Scanner
My new 3200 is used with a PC with 800Mz processor, 382Mb RAM and USB 2.0. I just scanned a 6x6 tranny at 3200 and the times were; 2:31 for scanning, 0:27 for processing for a total time of 2:58. The film is not in contact with the scanner glass at any time. Bill - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 10:27 AM Subject: Re: New Scanner > > - Original Message - > From: J. C. O'Connell > > Subject: RE: New Scanner > > > > Could you guys please try a 4X5 tranny scan at max resolution > > ( which I assume is 3200 ppi) and report the scan time > > to me? With the 2450 (2400 ppi) it takes about 20 minutes > > which is quite annoying > > John, what have you got your 2450 hooked up to, and how is it connected. > On my old machine, the scan times were unbearable with my 2450, but on > the new one, the times are much more agreeable, around 5 minutes. > > William Robb >
Re: New Scanner
> Is the negative in contact with glass at all when doing a transparency > scan on the 2450? If so, any issues w/ newton rings, and keeping the > glass clean? > > -Mat Mat. The 2450,and i assume the 3200, have plastic holders for 35mm,120,mounted slides and 4x5.The neg sits up from the glass,at what distance i'm not sure.Looks like about 2-3mm.I thinks someone did a test raising the adaptor up the thickness of a coin,which helped in a focus problem, but i forget who it was. Dave
Re: New Scanner
Is the negative in contact with glass at all when doing a transparency scan on the 2450? If so, any issues w/ newton rings, and keeping the glass clean? -Mat J. C. O'Connell wrote: Could you guys please try a 4X5 tranny scan at max resolution ( which I assume is 3200 ppi) and report the scan time to me? With the 2450 (2400 ppi) it takes about 20 minutes which is quite annoying JCO -Original Message- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 7:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: New Scanner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just got home with a new Epson Perfection 3200 scanner. I'm looking forward to installing it and trying it out later today, but in the meantime... Anybody know how it compares with the HP S20 for 35mm? Gosh, I don't know, but I just ordered one myself from B&H. I once had acces to an Agfa 2500T Duoscan at work, and it was excellent. But the lease expired. Our new one at the office is an Epson 1640 Pro. A big flatbed with limited resolution. What's more, I have to do more of this at home. I'd love to have the Nikon 5000, but I can't afford one right now. I guess I'll have to wait until everyone goes digital. In the meantime, I'll use the Epson 3200. I'm sure it will be great for medium format, and MF constitutes most of my important work. Paul
Re: New Scanner
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: New Scanner > Could you guys please try a 4X5 tranny scan at max resolution > ( which I assume is 3200 ppi) and report the scan time > to me? With the 2450 (2400 ppi) it takes about 20 minutes > which is quite annoying John, what have you got your 2450 hooked up to, and how is it connected. On my old machine, the scan times were unbearable with my 2450, but on the new one, the times are much more agreeable, around 5 minutes. William Robb
RE: New Scanner
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Butch Black wrote: > A friend of mine gave me some MF and LF scans done on an Epson 2450. The > files were 20-30MB PSD files (Photoshop) I was amazed at the quality. It's > still not ideal for 35mm although it may compare favorably with the S20. All this talk finally inspired me to buy a 2450 off of ebay (plus my Astra 4450 won't work under MacOS 10). The 2450 doesn't have a newton ring problem as the neg isn't on the glass, correct? -- http://www.infotainment.org <-> more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com<-> photography and portfolio.
Re: New Scanner
Bring a few 35mm slides over, we can compare. __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: New Scanner
Bill, A friend of mine gave me some MF and LF scans done on an Epson 2450. The files were 20-30MB PSD files (Photoshop) I was amazed at the quality. It's still not ideal for 35mm although it may compare favorably with the S20. BUTCH Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hess (Damien)
Re: New Scanner
I'm using a 2450. I have gotten to where I don't use my Minolta Scan Dual II anymore for 35mm. I have found that the diffused light from the lid of the Epson produces a much cleaner (dust spots) scan than the Scan Dual II. Lot less cleanup than I used to do. While not perfect, it is quite acceptable. Bruce Wednesday, June 4, 2003, 7:41:37 AM, you wrote: dcsc> Hi Bill, dcsc> Congrats on the new scanner. dcsc> The Medium Format scanning is wonderful - I'm sure you'll have no issues dcsc> with it as Epson seems to continue to better their products with time. dcsc> I can't speak to the 35mm as I use a dedicated film scanner for that. dcsc> Cheers, dcsc> Dave dcsc> Original Message: dcsc> - dcsc> From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] dcsc> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:35:12 -0400 dcsc> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] dcsc> Subject: New Scanner dcsc> Just got home with a new Epson Perfection 3200 scanner. I'm looking forward dcsc> to installing it and trying it out later today, but in the meantime... dcsc> Anybody know how it compares with the HP S20 for 35mm? dcsc> How much better should I expect my medium format scans moving up from 1200 dcsc> to 3200 dpi? dcsc> Bill dcsc> dcsc> mail2web - Check your email from the web at dcsc> http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: New Scanner
> Just got home with a new Epson Perfection 3200 scanner. I'm looking forward > to installing it and trying it out later today, but in the meantime... > > Anybody know how it compares with the HP S20 for 35mm? > > How much better should I expect my medium format scans moving up from 1200 > to 3200 dpi? > > Bill Ahh our first 3200 test guy.lol Bill i use the 2450 for my MF scans,and although have only done a few,and printed out smaller than 8x10,they look marvy.As far as the 3200 with the 35mm format,it hopfully should be better than the 2450.I have hit a miss with colourneg and slide,semi ok results with the B&W. Keep us informed,i may upgrade now that i have the 6x7 Dave Brooks
RE: New Scanner
Hi Bill, Congrats on the new scanner. The Medium Format scanning is wonderful - I'm sure you'll have no issues with it as Epson seems to continue to better their products with time. I can't speak to the 35mm as I use a dedicated film scanner for that. Cheers, Dave Original Message: - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:35:12 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: New Scanner Just got home with a new Epson Perfection 3200 scanner. I'm looking forward to installing it and trying it out later today, but in the meantime... Anybody know how it compares with the HP S20 for 35mm? How much better should I expect my medium format scans moving up from 1200 to 3200 dpi? Bill mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: New scanner
I think how much RAM you have has an impact on that. Len --- Does anyone know how much data Win98 can address before going smurt? Thanks William Robb _ Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month. Try MSN! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
Re: New scanner
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less. For additional information about how to use the MaxFileCache setting, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base: Q108079 32-Bit File Access Maximum Cache Size< this is the workaround that has to be used and i use it in conjunction with using a video card that does its AGP aperture reservation correctly and a motherboard that does it correctly too. any one of the three not set correctly and Windows refuses to boot. the algorithms used by Vcache don't work for large cache sizes anyway and it is better to limit the cache size to no larger than about 128M or so or else you get cache thrashing. Windows 2000 and XP have better algorithms and don't need to be managed explicitly by the user. like i said in my earlier message, if you understand the all of article you are quoting from, you will understand that the magazine articles being cited are completely wrong. a group of us who need to run 1G or more of RAM on our Win98 systems to get our job done regularly have to debunk this one. the 700MB Photoshop files i sometimes have to work on are computer-generated and are not scans of photos. a 4000dpi scan of a 6x7 negative results would do it easily though. >Sorry can't find the part where it says I can use 1.5 GB on a Win'98 setup< the article is gone that explicitly states that Win9x/ME can address up to 2G of physical RAM and defines the conditions when you must have less. Win98 and 95 are no longer supported. one of the consequences of that is that MS deletes articles from their Knowledgebase. before this so-called 512M limit, there was the 128M limit, and then the 64M limit, all of which existed because of bad hardware design and not a limit of Windows 95 or 98. Herb
Re: New scanner
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Its not the board, its the way '98 was made. Optimum ram for '98 is 128MB, anything over that is overkill I have 2, one an Asus and one a Gigabyte, both have had a gig and more in it and only NT has been able to access it. It could be as simple as just having to run a defrag though, fat32 FS are know to fall to pieces with files like that. (I havn't even seen my post and you already replied?) Feroze< wrong again. sorry, but you guys don't even bother going to the source. there are instructions from Microsoft on configuring Windows 98 to run well with very large amounts of RAM, greater than 1G. the actual practical limit is 1.5G. none of you guys are doing it and none of the magazines you buy know. they are just quoting articles from magazines that all in turn quote from PC Magazine articles that use WinBench of various versions, none of which has a working set of greater than about 200 megabytes. if you know enough to understand this article, you will know enough to know that all the magazines are wrong: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q253912 Herb
RE: New scanner
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >From the SOYO support site (http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:xbI5pX5sZ_8C:www.soyousa.com/support/ index.php%3Fanswer_id%3D97+512mb+limit+in+windows+98&hl=en&ie=UTF-8): Win98/98SE/ME can't handle more than 512 megs of memory Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512MB (524,288 KB) or less." < i've omitted the rest of the quote. my graphics adapter memory aperture is located at the last 256M of the 4G mark and my disk cache size is 128M. this allows slightly over 1.2G of real RAM to be installed and use on a system. Microsoft's web site has detailed directions for doing this should anyone care but they obviously don't since it's cast in stone that Win9x can't use more than 512M of RAM. when the virtual memory overlap problem occurs, the system won't boot, it doesn't run slower. but since you guys all know this to be true without ever trying it, what does it matter? Herb...
Re: New scanner
Its not the board, its the way '98 was made. Optimum ram for '98 is 128MB, anything over that is overkill I have 2, one an Asus and one a Gigabyte, both have had a gig and more in it and only NT has been able to access it. It could be as simple as just having to run a defrag though, fat32 FS are know to fall to pieces with files like that. (I havn't even seen my post and you already replied?) Feroze - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 4:13 PM Subject: Re: New scanner > Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Win98's main problem is that it > can't use more than 512MB of > real ram, its shows in the bios > and system but dosn't address > it above that. > < > > sorry, you are describing motherboards with flakey design. there are a > class that aren't and have no trouble with 1G-2G of RAM. if William has a > decent motherboard design, it will work. > > Herb > >
RE: New scanner
>From the SOYO support site >(http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:xbI5pX5sZ_8C:www.soyousa.com/support/index.php%3Fanswer_id%3D97+512mb+limit+in+windows+98&hl=en&ie=UTF-8): Win98/98SE/ME can't handle more than 512 megs of memory It transpires that Win ME, Win98 and Win95 cannot deal with main memory sizes in excess of 512MB. This problem may occur more readily with Advanced Graphics Port (AGP) video adapters because the AGP aperture is also mapped to addresses in the system arena. For example, if Vcache is using a maximum cache size of 800MB and an AGP video adapter has a 128MB aperture mapped, there is very little address space remaining for the other system code and data that must occupy this range of virtual addresses." And here are the three suggested workarounds: Physically remove any memory in excess of 512MB [!] Use the System Configuration utility to limit the amount of memory that Windows uses to 512MB or less. Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512MB (524,288 KB) or less." And the unspoken fourth solution: upgrade to Windows 2000. Knowledgebase also admits that the addressing restriction has been identified as a failing in Windows. Installing Win2K obviated the problem. All 768MB ran faultlessly.
RE: New scanner
This is also my understanding of Win 9x RAM usage. If one could generate a 550mb scan file, I'm not sure why they would do it. To get the entire file into RAM, along with the rest OS and app, would take GB's of RAM and still run very slow. If you want to see the best that it can do on a 4x5, try scanning a small section of it. BR -Original Message- From: Anton Browne [mailto:handmaid@;fsmail.net] Hello I too have read on several occasions - in computer mags - that Windows 98 will not benefit from more than 512 MB of RAM. You may have 1G installed but maybe it makes no difference; you would have to do a test to confirm. Certainly I found the move from 256 to 384 insignificant. 128 to 256 did make a noticeable difference though. Regards Anton
Re: New scanner
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Hello I too have read on several occasions - in computer mags - that Windows 98 will not benefit from more than 512 MB of RAM. You may have 1G installed but maybe it makes no difference; you would have to do a test to confirm. Certainly I found the move from 256 to 384 insignificant. 128 to 256 did make a noticeable difference though. As a final thought, are you sure your computer fell over? Sometimes with massive files it looks like it has crashed and is doing nothing and won't respond. However, if you go away and make and drink a cup of tea and come back in 15 mins it will have finished (sometimes it take in excess of half an hour!!!) Regards Anton< those computer magazines parrot this without ever trying it. the benchmarks that they use have working sets less than 512MB. of course they'll never show any benefit by hacing more RAM. try working with some 700 MB Photoshop files and see where it gets you. you also better reread the original message you responded to. nowhere was there any mention of crashing. Herb...
Re: New scanner
Hello I too have read on several occasions - in computer mags - that Windows 98 will not benefit from more than 512 MB of RAM. You may have 1G installed but maybe it makes no difference; you would have to do a test to confirm. Certainly I found the move from 256 to 384 insignificant. 128 to 256 did make a noticeable difference though. As a final thought, are you sure your computer fell over? Sometimes with massive files it looks like it has crashed and is doing nothing and won't respond. However, if you go away and make and drink a cup of tea and come back in 15 mins it will have finished (sometimes it take in excess of half an hour!!!) Regards Anton ___ Freeserve AnyTime, only £13.99 per month with one month's FREE trial! For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
Re: New scanner: first impressions
"aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Cool Elephant Whiskers Mark! Just kidding. The whole time it was loading I >thought it was part of an elephant. Quite nice. Ah, now I have a name for it! Since my leaf close-up was called "Dinosaur Skin" I don't see why this can't be clled "Elephant Whiskers". That's just a quick scan. Hasn't had any unsharp masking done, for example. (It's an amyrillis, by the way.) Mark - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: New scanner: first impressions
Cool Elephant Whiskers Mark! Just kidding. The whole time it was loading I thought it was part of an elephant. Quite nice. Tom C. - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 5:57 AM Subject: New scanner: first impressions > I've had a couple of days to play with my new Minolta Dimage (what a silly word) > Scan Multi so I thought I'd share my initial impressions. > > 35mm > Although, at 2820dpi, it's only marginally higher in resolution than my old HP > Photosmart S20, the image quality is *vastly* superior. I was just amazed. OK, > at around four times the price of the HP it damn well ought to be better but I > just couldn't quite believe it until I saw the scans. Obviously the Minolta has > a better DMAX, but the size of the detail and the texture of the film grain is > much greater than the resolution increase from 2400 to 2820 would lead you to > expect. > > Medium format > Because it only scans medium format at 1125dpi, scans from 645 negatives are > actually *smaller* than those from 35mm at full res. Still, it's great to be > able to scan MF at all. I can get a good preview of the images before going into > the darkroom (for B & W) or sending the chromes out to be printed. I shot a roll > of Plus-X with my 645, SMC-A 200/f4.0 and Sigma +1.6 diopter close-up lens as a > test and I'm very pleased with the results. I've uploaded an image to > http://www.robertstech.com/graphics/7d100442.jpg in case anyone wants to have a > look (the JPEG's about 170k). > > Look for more medium format in my PUG photos from now on! > > Mark > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
