At 23:07 08/06/01, you wrote:
>Do minilabs read the emulsion type before printing neg? No.
My lab once told me that my prints were not up to their usual excellence
"because we haven't got the Supra profile right yet". So I understand that
minilabs DO use individual film profiles for some purpo
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 16:37:55 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote:
>But over time things have become completely ridiculous;
>
>The 740, 750, 760 are 4 color (1440 dpi)
The 750 is in the "photo" class (a 6 color)
Still ridiculous anyway... :-)
--
Have a good day!
Raymond Carles
The "post-modernist" and "critical anlysis" folk argue that there is no
"valid" reasoning, only argument driven by political or economic
self-interest-interest.
Any competent lawyer can present an arguably plausible chain of reasoning
in support of any position, however ridiculous. The more rid
I find it a good idea to scan into a 48 bit file, spot with the cloning tool,
crop any border, and then archive. That doesn't commit to any approach to the
image but means that you never have to do the drudgery of spotting again.
In important cases I often save all the changes in order (not the s
Ramesh Kumar_C wrote:
>
> This is about 24bits & 48 bits:
>
> Scanner can deliver 36 bits; So I am in a dilemma whether to store the
> scanner output in 48bit TIFF file or 24bit TIFF file.
> I have thought of following 2 methods, let me know which of the following
> will be good.
> a) Store
Dave King wrote:
>
>
> Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed
> against other performance factors. How much sharper in real terms is
> the Nikon 8000 vs the Polaroid 120, if at all? And how much
> difference is there in the ability to scan Kodachrome and B&W with
tflash wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry that I gave the impression that "it's a bad idea". I don't think
>> it's a bad idea, I just don't see the merit in it, at least for me.
>
>
> The CO2 expelled to get to this point has just brought my lawn, and 3
> rhododendron back to life! ;-p
>
> Todd
Not t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 6/8/2001 12:32:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>> I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I
>> guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with
>> a LED light source and the SS
The fact that it occurs on multi-pass scans and not otherwise, seems to
suggest an alignment problem. The scanner might not be able to maintain
perfect alignment with multiple passes. Since I do not know if these
scanners were designed for multi-pass I can't comment whether this is
considere
Johnny Deadman wrote:
> Do minilabs read the emulsion type before printing neg? No.
>
I don't know exactly what you mean by "do mini-labs "read" emulsion
types before printing negs"
If you mean do they read for each subtle change of emulsion a
manufacturer makes, then your answer is corre
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> "Nick Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> my order for the Epson 1280.
>
>
> Does anyone know whether the 1280 in north america is the same as the 1290
> elsewhere?
>
> Rob
Oh gawd, Epson and their numbering system! I think I made an error in
my previous commen
Richard N. Moyer wrote:
> Well, you have identified two of them.
>
> On looking at the post header, which reads:
> From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; m18) Gecko/20001108
> Netscape6/6.0
Well, first of all, it just goes to show how mu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust
> than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000
> and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly
> the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, a
Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> I find it very interesting just how defensive most of the Nikon scanner
> owners are on this list.
>
> The question below was a reasonable one. Do the new Nikon scanners tend
> to amplify the dust and dirt when dICE is off, as they do on the older
> scanners?
>
> All
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My experience is that scanners with better focus show more dust
> than scanners without good focus. For instance, take a SprintScan 4000
> and a Nikon LS-4000 and compare the raw scans. They show exactly
> the same dust spots if you use the same slide on both, and bo
I hope some good reviews come out, otherwise I'll probably opt for the
SprintScan 4000. It's price has gone down and it's bundled with SilverFast.
Also,overall, I've heard good things about Polaroid's customer service.
Finally, I'm not sure that NOT having an onboard dust and scratch removal
optio
Counterpoint - everything you are doing in Silverfast I can do much better
in PhotoShop or PhotoPaint. All I want from the scan is to capture all the
details in it - Vuescan will do this for me very nicely and very easily.
If I need to further adjust white and black points, detail in highlights
does the nikon scan 3.1 work with ls-1000. thanks joanna
i guess the long wait for the improved canon was a waste of time. it
seems that i always wait for the next improved version of many computer
products and they wind up not being all that much better.
the nikon has a better advertised dynamic range but less resolution.
possibly this may be a bett
My Acer SCSI card worked great with my Epson Perfection 636 chained on the end.
It's not even necessary to have termination for the last device.
Alan
>> Not being a "Mac" person, I'm a bit out of my league, but Acer indicates
>> the SCSI card they provide is "proprietary", and will not
AR Studio wrote:
>
> Canoscan FS4000. but resolution is lower.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Helen + Andrew
Well, That's disappointing. I'm hoping you got a defective one ;-)
Sounds like it is little to no improvement over the 2700 FS 2710 then.
Art
Paul
If you know what you are doing when you are scanning a negative or positive
film Silverfast is IMO superior to all other scanner software on the
market today..No other software have all the
features and parameters as Silverfast have (general color handling,
specific color handling, w
I find it very interesting just how defensive most of the Nikon scanner
owners are on this list.
The question below was a reasonable one. Do the new Nikon scanners tend
to amplify the dust and dirt when dICE is off, as they do on the older
scanners?
All the sudden all these Nikon scanner own
Ramesh writes ...
> ...
>
>
> This is about 24bits & 48 bits:
>
> Scanner can deliver 36 bits; So I am in a dilemma
> whether to store the scanner output in 48bit TIFF file
> or 24bit TIFF file.
> ...
> a) Store 36BIT Scanner output in 24 bit TIFF file. Edit
> this 24bit TIFF file in 8-bit
> > I guess my take is that the "adding" of dust is just a corollary to
> > having a really sharp scan... It's hardly the scanner's fault that
> there
> > is dust or damage to the film...
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Yes, I agree in principle, but sharpness gains have to be weighed
> against other performa
- Original Message -
From: Ramesh Kumar_C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 11:19 AM
Subject: filmscanners: 24bit - 48bit dilemma & Work flow suggestions
> Hi
> Sorry, for asking pre-discussed topic. Once I get following doubts
> cleared, I think
>
Hi
Sorry, for asking pre-discussed topic. Once I get following doubts
cleared, I think
I will be ready to take on the scanning world.
I am using Minolta Dimage II, VueScan. Scanner has 12bit/channel output & I
am using Adobe Photo 6.0.
This is about 24bits & 48 bits:
Scanner can deliver
In a message dated 6/8/2001 12:32:29 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I
> guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with
> a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that
LOL... Good god. Some people REALLY like to hear/read themselves speak
don't they?
Lawrence
>
> The CO2 expelled to get to this point has just brought my lawn, and 3
> rhododendron back to life! ;-p
>
> Todd
>
> In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
>
> > Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against
> > everything I've read and my own personal experience.
>
> Don't believe everything you read (including what I write ).
>
> > I guess all I
> > can sa
> I'm sorry that I gave the impression that "it's a bad idea". I don't think
> it's a bad idea, I just don't see the merit in it, at least for me.
The CO2 expelled to get to this point has just brought my lawn, and 3
rhododendron back to life! ;-p
Todd
> Dave writes ...
>
> > > The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust
> > > and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner.
> > >
> > > shAf :o)
> >
> > ... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa
> > T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches.
> > I suggest
> > you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of
> > profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the
colorsync
> > list.
>
> Thanks. I will take a spin through the archives...but would you
mind
> pointing me to where the list is?
http://www.lists.apple
> Derek Clarke wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote:
> >
> > > Rob Geraghty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dave wrote:
> > > > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether
scans
> > > > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same
problems
> > > > >with exc
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marvin Demuth
wrote:
> While waiting for my RA4 chemicals to come up to 35 degrees C, I had time
> to look up Ockham on the web. You live in an interesting area.
>
> I also had time to refresh my memory of my first introduction to Occam's
> Razor." John Bogel, the fou
Ed,
I have been biting my tongue throughout this whole dust conversation but I
guess I am finally baited out. I have done actual scans on the scanner with
a LED light source and the SS4000. It was quite obvious to me that there was
considerably more dust shown on the scanner with the LED light sou
At 09:07 AM 6/8/01 -0400, Johnny Deadman wrote:
>OK, here's my 2 cents on this.
>
>
>
>Now, once you can do all this you can add as many consumer-friendly bells
>and whistles as you like. But UNTIL you can do it... yeah, well, you get it.
>
>So, film profiles? Who cares? There's a lot of
Folks,
This may be a bit off topic, but I do believe that you can provide me some
useful info on this matter.
I'm seriously considering buying either Nikon LS-2000 or LS-4000 for my
digital darkroom. Which printer should I get to get the max out of one of
these scanners?
I'd like to be able
Raymond Carles wrote:
> You're comparing two VERY different beasts here!
>
> While the Epson is an inkjet printer, the Olympus is a fast dye
> sublimation (not inkjet) printer, one can use to print directly from a
> digital camera, no computer needed...
This is a good point, although the diff
Derek Clarke wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote:
>
> > Rob Geraghty wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave wrote:
> > > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> > > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
> > > >with excessive dust and sc
The film sizes for 120 and 620 are the same; it is only the spools that were
different and which accounted for the change in product number.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lynn Allen
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTE
Not being a "Mac" person, I'm a bit out of my league, but Acer indicates
the SCSI card they provide is "proprietary", and will not work with
other devices. I don't know if this is just a software driver matter,
or if they really have some unique SCSI protocols.
Maybe Ed Hamrick can shed some
Are you implying that the Nikon light source (or optics, or whatever)
do(es) not emphasize dirt, scratches and dust more so than other equal
resolution scanners using other light sources, or whathaveyou?
Art
shAf wrote:
> Dave writes ...
>
>
>> ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether
> Since any modern hi-end scanner will allow either approach
What other scanner have film profiles?
> I fail to
> see the reason for your original post.
I was questioning the reality of the usefulness of film profiles, given the
inability to actually control a number of the variables. Simple a
In a message dated 6/8/2001 6:14:53 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Not quite sure how to answer this assertion since it goes against
> everything I've read and my own personal experience.
Don't believe everything you read (including what I write ).
> I guess all I
> can say is scans on m
> I suggest
> you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of
> profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the colorsync
> list.
Thanks. I will take a spin through the archives...but would you mind
pointing me to where the list is?
This sounds suspiciously like the "ghosting" that another member was getting on
astronomy pictures with a different scanner. The jury's still out on what is/was
causing it.
I can't get my Acer 2027S to do this, although it will produce *other* curious
aberations. Of course, I don't have IR, ei
I've spent the past few days getting VueScan to work with the
Microtek X12USL. There was someone on this list who needed
this, but I lost their e-mail address. If you need a test version
of this, please let me know in a private e-mail.
I added a calibration function for all newer Microtek scann
Derek writes ...
> In a sense you could say that the Nikon scanners
> do add dust and scratches! To be exact any dust
> and scratches that are there are emphasised
> because of the LED light source that they use.
To say the Nikons add dust and scratches simply because the light
source em
B.Rumary wrote:
>
> Yes I heard about that on. Apparently the copyright on Mickey Mouse cartoons is
> about to run out and Disney are pushing the line that it would be un-American if
> a "national icon" could be copied by nasty foreigners, etc.! They want a special
> exception to copyright
Well, you have identified two of them.
On looking at the post header, which reads:
From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; m18)
Gecko/20001108 Netscape6/6.0
I note Windows 95, Mozilla/5.0. I would have to go back and check a
few things, but O
Dave writes ...
> > The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust
> > and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner.
> >
> > shAf :o)
>
> ... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa
> T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches.
> The Nikon "see
In light of some of the recent comments in regard to Acer scanners, and
being that Honda Lo, the Acer rep who was at one point monitoring this
list expressed interest a few months back in getting feedback about the
products, I thought it might be a good idea to repeat his email address.
People
Ed
Thanks for that! I think you're spot on. I took the thing off to
return to Nikon - then thought I'd try it on a different scsi bus
just to be sure so unpacked it & set it up again. That involved quite
a bit of rough(ish) handling due to the spaghetti nest on my desk.
And it worked!
I have
"Nick Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> my order for the Epson 1280.
Does anyone know whether the 1280 in north america is the same as the 1290
elsewhere?
Rob
The 120 and 620 film and backing paper are the same size but the spools are
very different in size and are not interchangable. 620 is no longer made by
Kodak.
Michael
- Original Message -
From: "Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Can you still get 620 film?
>
> AFIAK you can. It's what a
OK, here's my 2 cents on this.
First, Polaroid are not alone in offering this. Silverfast ships with a
bunch of profiles, as does Vuescan.
Are they helpful?
NO.
The first problem is that they don't keep up to date with the emulsions. It
is extremely confusing trying to work out which profile
Rich wrote:
>Can you still get 620 film?
AFIAK you can. It's what a Hasselblad uses or used to use, if I'm not mistaken. I
think 120 film is interchangable, but maybe not in all cameras.
Best regards--LRA
--
On 07 Jun 2001 16:01:12 EDT
Richard Starr wrote:
>--- You wrote:
>The Super Six-
> > Austin Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are
color
> > > managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer
> > etc. Those are
> > > all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from
> > deterministic.
> > > Too many va
Silverfast is at http://www.silverfast.com - the price is $307 USD
Vuscan is a http://www.hamrick.com - the price is $40 which includes Vueprint as well.
I've been using Vuescan for a over a year now. I bought Silverfast 5 for my Polaroid
SS4000 (before it was bundled) and consider it to be the
> Dave wrote:
> >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
> >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if
this
> >has been improved, and if so, by how much.
>
> What problems did the o
In a message dated 6/7/2001 2:32:02 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Running my new 2740S with the latest VueScan, when I try multiple passes or
> the extra-long IR scan, I see a ghost image displaced slight upwards.
Yes, the hardware in the ScanWit doesn't always accurately reposition
the f
> Dave writes ...
>
> > ... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> > performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the
> > same problems with excessive dust and scratches as
> > on the old scanners, ...
>
> The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and
> scratches
> > Austin Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are
color
> > > managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer
> > etc. Those are
> > > all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from
> > deterministic.
> > > Too many va
> Rob Geraghty wrote:
> >
> > Dave wrote:
> > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same
problems
> > >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if
this
> > >has been improved, and if so, by h
Mistaken???!!! You??
Lawrence
>Anyone know if I mistaken about this?
>
> > With one film term for transparencies and color management,
individual
> > film characteristics is exactly what you do get. *Effective* film
> > terms for color negative films will get closer to a specific
films'
> > characteristics, not further away, and the problem to solve is
> > ineffecti
You are confusing Acer with Microtek, who is the manufacturer of the
Polaroid SS 4000 scanner. I'm fairly sure not even the Microtek and
Polaroid versions can use interchangeable software, due to some built in
code that is checked for.
Art
Richard N. Moyer wrote:
> I could be wrong, but doe
In a message dated 6/8/2001 3:45:11 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> My LS2000 (running on a beige G3 rev 1 desktop system 8.6 384 meg
> ram) has just begun producing unsharp scans. The blurring seems
> mostly to be in the direction of scanning (parallel to the long side)
> & sometimes t
At 11:54 PM 6/7/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Friends,
>
>I have and love the new Nikon LS4000 scanner. According to some on this
>usergroup and others I know, the software that comes with the scanner is
>inferior. Some say Silverfast, some say Vuscan. Where do you get these
>software packages and how
I have not tried Vuescan on LS4000 but its a good basic software on
LS2000. If you want a pro software and know what you are doing or will learn
to scan
pictures Silverfast is the best software to have IMO. And its very fast
scanning software even with different filters on. In Europe we get
Sil
Write to Silverfast or read at http://lasersoft-imaging.com/english/
Mikael Risedal
Photographer
Lund Sweden
>From: "Robert Kehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.1-Silverfast 5.2
>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 21:53:01 -05
Richard N. Moyer wrote:
> One of the things to remember is this: Not all so-called PCI (SCSI)
> cards are really SCSI cards. What I mean is that many companies include
> "SCSI" cards which are/were not conformant with the standards. This is
> very important (conformance with the Standard), a
My LS2000 (running on a beige G3 rev 1 desktop system 8.6 384 meg
ram) has just begun producing unsharp scans. The blurring seems
mostly to be in the direction of scanning (parallel to the long side)
& sometimes the scan dissolves from poor image into long (artistic!)
streaks.
I am also gettin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote:
> Rob Geraghty wrote:
> >
> > Dave wrote:
> > >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> > >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
> > >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if
> David, concerning Polaroid's negative profiling plans for the SS 120,
you've
> received some "why bother" and "it's a bad idea" comments from Austin
> Franklin while Isaac Crawford defended the idea.
I'm sorry that I gave the impression that "it's a bad idea". I don't think
it's a bad idea, I
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> Dave wrote:
> >Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
> >performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
> >with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this
> >has been improved, and if so, by how much.
Thanks to all for your input. After looking at the print quality in
a local (an hours drive away) I decided that the P-400's quality
didn't justify the large price increase ... so I'm going to place
my order for the Epson 1280.
Regards,
-Nick T.
Nick Taylor wrote:
>
> Sorry about the off top
Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > Austin Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are color
> > > managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer
> > etc. Those are
> > > all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from
> > determ
> > He paraphrases Sir
> > William's insight with the phrase "that the simpler the explanation, the
> > more likely it is to be correct."
...
> So the Earth is flat? But simple is not simple to define. I prefer
>"Entities should not be unnecessarily introduced." I don't think the
>universe is b
> >
> > I guess for someone who doesn't want to go beyond pushbutton
> scanning (or as
> > I said above, as a starting point), it is probably better for them. I'd
> > prefer to lessen the automation, and teach people how to do the
> basics, that
> > way they can get a perfect scan most every time
David, concerning Polaroid's negative profiling plans for the SS 120, you've
received some "why bother" and "it's a bad idea" comments from Austin
Franklin while Isaac Crawford defended the idea.
I, also, think there's merit in your plan and I hope it works. Do you think
it will work well enou
82 matches
Mail list logo
