RE: filmscanners: Re: looking at the Sun

2001-02-03 Thread Frank Paris
The shots I mentioned where I do do this are always extreme wide angle which is no worse than looking up in the sky with the sun at the extreme periphery of our vision. Still, extreme care should be exercised, as you say. Usually what I do is compose with the sun just out of reach then shift sligh

RE: filmscanners: Eagle Creek on Velvia, scanned with VueScan 6.6 on an SS4000

2001-02-03 Thread Frank Paris
A glorious shot, if I don't say so myself :) In fact, my jaws dropped when I saw it. I've been photographing that bluff for 24 years, and this is the best it's ever looked, thanks to Velvia, the SS4000, and VueScan. Probably my favorite of the series also. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://alb

Re: filmscanners: Eagle Creek on Velvia, scanned with VueScan 6.6 on an SS4000

2001-02-03 Thread Hersch Nitikman
Thanks, Frank. You did a good day's work there. I did especially like your favorite EC 175. Very nice image. Hersch At 08:45 PM 02/03/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Here are 54 scans of Velvia at 1280X1024 so you can see some detail. Subject >matter: world famous Eagle Creek Trail in the Columbia Gorge

filmscanners: Re: looking at the Sun

2001-02-03 Thread Hersch Nitikman
I'm sure others will chime in on this one, but I can't let that advice go unanswered. Just because the image in an SLR viewfinder is replected up through a pentaprism and a ground glass screen is no reason for complaisance about looking at the sun with such a camera. The efforts to make the sc

filmscanners: Eagle Creek on Velvia, scanned with VueScan 6.6 on an SS4000

2001-02-03 Thread Frank Paris
Here are 54 scans of Velvia at 1280X1024 so you can see some detail. Subject matter: world famous Eagle Creek Trail in the Columbia Gorge on the Oregon side, taken 1/27/2001 on a sunny day. Total length of hike: 10 miles, 5 in and 5 out. http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=62684&a=1130498

Re: filmscanners: OT: dyesub printers (long)

2001-02-03 Thread Rob Geraghty
"John C. Jernigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Art, Rob, et al, > Have you, or any others, any experience with the Olympus P-400 dye sub? > The samples I've seen are superb and can print (almost ) 8x10. Not I, but then the reason I just bought an 1160 was to get to A3. :) Rob

Re: filmscanners: Vuescan has too much saturation

2001-02-03 Thread Rob Geraghty
"Alan Womack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now I did get WAY too much saturation and did have to back off the red a bit in PS. I don't think I've ever scanned anything in Vuescan which had too much saturation! (but maybe I like oversaturated images ;) Rob

RE: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?

2001-02-03 Thread Tony Sleep
On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 22:16:33 -0800 Tom Christiansen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. Now I just need to get some kind of idea of a > good value for gamma. Windows defaults to 2.2. My scanner software defaults > to 1.4. If I change the scanner software to gamma=2.2 imag

filmscanners: Vuescan has too much saturation

2001-02-03 Thread Alan Womack
Ed's really come a long ways with the last few versions of VueScan. Using 6.6.1 I was finally able to make a scan of one of the slides from the groupscan (the infamous bug hunter hat) that had realistic grass, full detail in the hat, and good contrast. I found settings gamma to 2.2 and brightn

Re: filmscanners: This Gamma thing version 2.0

2001-02-03 Thread IronWorks
Thank you shAf! I especially appreciate his articles A Profiling Primer at http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/0,1819,5710,00.html and Color-Accurate Inkjets Made EZ (review of 3 profiling software programs) at http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/5708.html Maris - Original Message --

RE: Future of Photography (was RE: filmscanners: real value?)

2001-02-03 Thread Shough, Dean
> "At the extremely high end, the KAF-16801CE CCD features 16.6 million > pixels > in a 4080´4080-pixel array. By using relatively large, 9´9-µm pixels, the > device delivers greater light-capturing ability, dynamic range, and SNR > than > possible with the commonly used smaller pixels. As a resul

RE: filmscanners: real value?

2001-02-03 Thread Shough, Dean
> Actually, I like the fact that inkjets are somewhat worse and better > than inkjets but not that inkjets might be equal to inkjets. > Some inkjets are more equal than others. Apologies to Orwell and the list.

Re: filmscanners: This Gamma thing version 2.0

2001-02-03 Thread shAf
Tom writes ... > Here I am. Spending hours trying to get the gamma just right so that all my > pictures will look great on any platform. And then I hit the print > button... Then what?? > > > In short: How does the gamma setting affect the output when the image is > printed out on paper? Should I

RE: filmscanners: Vignetting?

2001-02-03 Thread Frank Paris
Very true. For effect, I've taken a couple dozen wide angle pictures over the years with the sun somewhere along the top edge, usually in one corner or the other, and never had a malfunction. I wasn't even blinded. However, I wouldn't look through the viewfinder with a telephoto mounted and the su

Re: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?

2001-02-03 Thread Alan Tyson
Tom, A while back, I went through all the monitor calibration stuff on several different sites and found it very easy to make things much worse. Then I found that the best match between my Taxan Ergovision 735TCO99 monitor and HP710C printer (using Vuescan and PaintShopPro7 or Photoshop 5LE, mos

RE: filmscanners: This Gamma thing version 2.0

2001-02-03 Thread Frank Paris
I used ColorCal's Profiler RGB in manual mode to create a profile that creates printed images that match my monitor as closely as possible, even though my monitor is calibrated for the WEB (6500 degrees). It took a whole day, but I've gotten good results now for a couple months. Anyhow, with this

RE: filmscanners: The K in CMYK

2001-02-03 Thread Frank Paris
This is why K is called "process black". It is the black that is used in the printing industry's "process" of color printing. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behal

Re: filmscanners: Kodak RFS

2001-02-03 Thread OK Photo
>Do you know if he firmware upgrade allows the autofocus to operate when >negatives are scanned, as opposed to the usual operation where only slides >are autofocused and negs are fixed focus? There was little information presented to me other than that Kodak would be in touch with me in the next

Re: filmscanners: Vignetting?

2001-02-03 Thread B.Rumary
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart wrote: > But,of course ,no-one would do so while looking through the viewfinder as > this would be extremely detrimental to ones eyesight and if the shutter > was released would it not burn the blind ?? > I don't think this is true of SLR's, as the image is forme

Re: Odp: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value?)

2001-02-03 Thread B.Rumary
In <001901c08bba$9cc7eda0$9513a0d4@a6x4b5>, Fotografia - tomasz zakrzewski wrote: > 8-10 Megapixels=35mm format. > Hmm. 35mm enlarged to 4x6" or 8x10"? Or bigger? > No I am talking about the same amount of _detail_ as you would find on a 35mm film frame. Enlarging can't produce detail that is n

RE: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?

2001-02-03 Thread Austin Franklin
Thanks for all the great links that have been posted in association with this thread!

Re: filmscanners: x Stuart !! was .. Black Widow or Slidescan Transp'y Adaptor ???

2001-02-03 Thread Stuart
At 18:19 02-02-01 -0600, you wrote: >Stuart, > >Ezio is right. I got one of those little slide adapters with my HP 6300. >It's a real joke. I can't believe HP ever made it. I had the same >experience as Ezio, except I didn't have to get on my knees and make peanut >butter, because I gave up af

Re: filmscanners: real value?

2001-02-03 Thread Michael Wilkinson
- Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : I buy a lot of items secondhand, including a lot of technology which I : have saved tons of money doing. I would be very cautious about : considering buying a dye sub printer used, unless it came with a very : good service

Re: filmscanners: The K in CMYK

2001-02-03 Thread Stuart
At 19:06 02-02-01 -0800, you wrote: >Hello List, > >Just out of old fashioned curiosity: What does the K in CMYK stand for? > > >Tom > Hi-well would you believe BLACK Check this URL Stuart http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/C/CMYK.html

Re: filmscanners: Kodak RFS

2001-02-03 Thread Arthur Entlich
Wow, it's beginning to look Kodak has spies at Polaroid! Dave Hemingway, be warned, Kodak is trying to figure out the concept of customer service... you might finally have some real competition ;-) Art OK Photo wrote: > I thought some of you might know that just yesterday I received a call >

Re: filmscanners: OT: dyesub printers (long)

2001-02-03 Thread Arthur Entlich
Not to be too picky, but I did mention the issues you bring up in your first two comments later on in the posting, when I discuss the ALPS printer. As to point 3, I'm aware how the ALPS printers work. The problem was that the banding was noticeable when light reflected off the image, or if re

Re: filmscanners: Kodak RFS

2001-02-03 Thread Arthur Entlich
Steve Traudt wrote: It sounds like Kodak was not really ready for > prime time. > Now I know they have a spy at Polaroid ;-) Cast your mind back to when the SS4000 first appeared... Art

Re: filmscanners: real value?

2001-02-03 Thread Arthur Entlich
I don't know if it is worldwide, but I believe ALPS has abandoned their dye sub product line, perhaps only supporting it with consumables. They weren't very popular in Canada, and I only saw one dealer who carried them for a short time. The main problems ALPS had were they took too long to g

Re: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?

2001-02-03 Thread Theo Heindl
Hello all I have been lurking for a while now but be very interested in the technical aspects of scanning. With the help of on of the URLs given I found this article which is written in a way where even I understand it (which means everyone else will

Re: filmscanners: This Gamma thing version 2.0

2001-02-03 Thread Rob Geraghty
"Tom Christiansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In short: How does the gamma setting affect the output when the image is > printed out on paper? Should I have two different files: One with gamma=1 > for printing, and one with gamma=2.2 for web publishing? Best to ask this on the Epson inkjet list

Re: filmscanners: OT: dyesub printers (long)

2001-02-03 Thread Rob Geraghty
> Arthur Entlich wrote: [stuff about dye sub] There seemed to be stuff on the Epson list that dye sub prints may not last as long as pigment based inkjet prints. Anyone have any ideas on dye sub longevity? Rob

Re: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?

2001-02-03 Thread IronWorks
In line with shAF's white and black point setting suggestion, there is an excellent site at http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/index.htm, very professional but understandable and lots of how-to-do-its. There is a monitor calibration section there, and a good walk-through of the white and black point sett

filmscanners: This Gamma thing version 2.0

2001-02-03 Thread Tom Christiansen
Hi Gang, No, I will not seize fire. My questions keep popping up and I demand answers!! :-)) Alright. This mysterious gamma controls the way colors are displayed on the monitor through some exponential function of some kind. Fine! Here I am. Spending hours trying to get the gamma just right

Re: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?

2001-02-03 Thread IronWorks
My understanding as to a short answer is that essentially the gamma curve is inverse to the curve of the phosphors' luminosity - one is concave, the other convex. I'm really not clear either, though. I've read a lot but it hasn't really hit home. Maris - Original Message - From: "Frank

Re: filmscanners: Kodak RFS

2001-02-03 Thread Steve Traudt
A friend of mine got the Kodak scanner when it first came out. It is a long story but he has had trouble all the way. Finally today, Kodak said he could return it and he is ordering the new Nikon. It sounds like Kodak was not really ready for prime time. Apparently there is a focusing problem whe

Re: filmscanners: The K in CMYK

2001-02-03 Thread shAf
IronWorks writes ... > It stands for black. The letter "B" was already taken for something else, I > don't recall what, in the printing industry. I won't argue it stands for "black" ... but do not think of it as "the" black. That is, cyan+magenta+yellow should be "black", but in reality it

Re: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?

2001-02-03 Thread shAf
Tom writes ... > Thanks for the explanation. Now I just need to get some kind of idea of a > good value for gamma. Windows defaults to 2.2. My scanner software defaults > to 1.4. If I change the scanner software to gamma=2.2 images look WAY too > bright... Why the difference? We need to be a

Re: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?

2001-02-03 Thread shAf
Tom writes ... > ... > It's something with the way monitors show images, but what exactly is it?? > I notice that my scanner software has a gamma adjustment and playing with > it I noticed that it changes the way the image appear on the screen. More than monitors, most devices have a specifi

RE: filmscanners: This Gamma Thing...?

2001-02-03 Thread Laurie Solomon
I will take a shot at responding; but there are others on this list who can probably give a much better answer to your question. Generally speaking Gamma represents the midtone setting. In digital cameras it represents the white light setting ( sort of like a light meters 18% gray reference poin