Rob Geraghty wrote:
I think that's an important point - we all have different standards. I
have a photographic print on my wall at home which everyone I know loves,
yet it was made from ordinary 100ASA Kodak print film back in about 1982.
It's quite grainy! The point is you would normally
(still chuckling :) Thanks for the very refreshing posts, Wire! Makes me glad I came
back..
Hey, Austin.. Drop the loupe, hop up from your desk, stick an 11 x 17 300dpi print
on the wall next to a 200 and a 100 - and then take 2 steps backward..
It is generally agreed that your average
Not a lot of 30deg 90% RH around here in Scotland!
Ian
- Original Message -
From: Yuri Sos [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 3:47 AM
Subject: filmscanners: OT: edible CDs?
Off topic, but this was an interesting story aired on an ABC
(Australian
I'll see if I can OCR it, if not I'll try to scan it and put it on ftp
somewhere as a PDF --- but this will not be until tonight at the earliest
:-)
-Original Message-
From: Bernhard Ess [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 7:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wiping the tears from my face, after a really hard laugh... ;-)
More seriously, this idea is not only not funny, but indeed is produced
by many scanner manufacturers. AT one time it was an option that one
could by separately (often at a way too high cost).
The main problems with using a
Seriously, I mean 100 ppi sent to the printer, not a 100 pixel
wide image! I
have standards.
I knew you meant 100ppi sent to the printer...and as I said, I can't imagine
how you are getting quality images at 100ppi, unless they are small images
like 4x6 or very poor negatives that don't have
The original HP Photosmart printer (the big boxy one), which at the time
produced some of the best photo-quality images that came out of an
inkjet printer, was designed around input of 100-150 ppi, and used 300
ppi output based upon a 6 color (CcMmyK) process. In fact, if memory
serves me, it
Hey, Austin.. Drop the loupe, hop up from your desk, stick an 11
x 17 300dpi print on the wall next to a 200 and a 100 - and then
take 2 steps backward..
I have a wall I use for print evaluation. It has a large magnetic white
board, and strip magnets on it, used to hold the prints. I put
Johnny Johnson wrote:
At 07:56 PM 10/25/01 -0400, Martin Greene wrote:
I'm amazed, but I just can't figure out how to open the filmstrip carrier.
Would appreciate help.
Hi Martin,
If you think getting it open is a pain - just wait until you try to load it
with film. ;-)
The
Thanks Johnny and Margaret
Thanks for the advice. I was reluctant to push too hard, fearing I'd break
it. But, following your advice, with much pushing, I got it open. It was
easier the next time. I also managed to load it. The Nikon Supercoolscan
4000 is, by comparison, a pleasure to load.
RogerMillerPhoto writes ...
Sharpen only in Photoshop and not at all in Silverfast. ...
Real World PS would imply something differently. Blatner Fraser
separate needs for sharpening into 2 separate phases ... early and late. A
need for a early sharpening might be because the input device
Austin wrote:
My largest print size is 17x22 from my 3000. I can see differences from
standard viewing distances that have
convinced me that 180+ is the minimum resolution that is acceptable to me
for the type of work I do, if not 240+ preferred. 100 is vastly degraded.
'Vastly'? Well, I bow
There really isn't that much to it when you realize (finally:) that
you should hold the carrier so that you're only gripping it by the
edges of the bottom part. This allows the top part to bow when you
push the release tab, and then it's very easy to open.
Dave
- Original Message -
I respectfully disagree - scanning inherently
results in unsharpness, which can be dealt with to some degree by initial
sharpening with Silverfast, Vuescan (which I use), or even in
Photoshop.
I follow the recommendations of Bruce Fraser as he
lays them out at
The process used a type
of overprinting - laying down more than one ink drop per location,
If true, that would be interesting. My understanding is the inks used in
these types of inkjet printers can't do that, simply because the (I believe
it's because they are pigmented?) inks don't mix. I
Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you very much for saving me the time money to mess with that idea.
As a follow-up, is there a scanner with light-lid that stands above the
rest?
That's an answer for someone else to field - after trying a couple and being
disappointed, I bought a
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's important to remember that film grain and pixels are not
interchangeable terms.
I didn't mean to imply that they were. I was simply trying to make an
analogy
about expected viewing distance.
I think that part of it, is that pixels are
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
side by side and evaluate them. My largest print size is 17x22 from my
3000. I can see differences from standard viewing distances that have
convinced me that 180+ is the minimum resolution that is acceptable to me
for the type of work I do, if not
I have a perfectly fine Duoscan T1200 which is, according to Agfa,
apparently SCSI only, which I would like to continue to use with my
new PowerBook TI which has only Firewire and USB, but which will be
using OS 9.1. Any suggestions?
--
I hope this will permit us to prevail against
I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently provides more
information
than a pixel.
Actually, FAR more. It's their position and size, not their color, that is
far more information than pixels are. Pixels (in current implementations)
must fall on a grid pattern, and are a
Hi Austin,
Do you have another printer?
Yes. Another 3000 ;-) and two 1160s.
The reason I ask is that the 3000
is very long
in the tooth.
Well, it ends up that it's still the absolute best printer for Piezography,
much to my delight!
I'm just wondering how the output from an 1160 or
Art,
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand what you are trying to say
with the below post
relative to film grain.
Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering pattern to
represent pixels that film
grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are
My alibi is that I stated, As a general rule, sharpening shouldn't be done more than
once and even Bruce Fraser indicates that my comments are in agreement with
conventional wisdom. Nevertheless, you and Michael Shaffer are quite correct in
pointing out that there are more sofisticated
If you want to experiement, here's a hint:
http://www.afn.org/~afn11300/slides.html
Bob Wright
- Original Message -
From: Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 6:08 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Gizmo to make flatbed scan large format film?
Johnny
Thanks much. Your method works very well and seems to be the easiest.
on 10/26/01 6:16 AM, Donald Denburg at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johnny Johnson wrote:
At 07:56 PM 10/25/01 -0400, Martin Greene wrote:
I'm amazed, but I just can't figure out how to open the filmstrip carrier.
Steve--
That's interesting. I'm running MacOS 8.6 successfully with FireWire
hard drives and scanners (including my LS400-ED) using other
applications. I was excited when Ed announced that VueScan would work
with FireWire on MacOS 9.x, and was hoping it would work with 8.6
too, but it
Hi everyone Is it best to scan at 12 bits or 8 bits using the Polaroid sprintscan 4000 Polacolor Insight software? When I do scan at 12bits and is sent to Photoshop the image is dark. Is this normal? Setting the white and black points is very difficult. Does it make any sense to do any
When you scan at 12 bits you are basically doing a "raw" scan without making any corrections to the image. The expectation is that all corrections will be made in Photoshop. It would be normal for the image to look dark until you process it in Photoshop, where you'll eventually convert it to an
Hello Rob,
I believe I'm starting to get the message. I've see very nice results at a
list member's site, and I believe for web pictures a flatbed with
transparency lid would work on medium format and larger slides, but it is
perhaps a bit limiting after a while.
Thank you everyone!
Herb
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it ends up that it's still the absolute best printer for
Piezography,
much to my delight!
Ah, but the Piezo printer driver completely replaces the Epson one.
For BW (Piezography) the 3000 is FAR better than the 1160. Even the Cone
boys make
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob wrote:
I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently provides more
information than a pixel.
Actually, FAR more. It's their position and size, not their color, that
is
far more information than pixels are. Pixels (in current
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering
pattern to represent pixels that film
grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are equivalent in regards to the
amount of information they impart
to an inkjet printer?
I think
Stephen,
In the
scan tab there are three bit selections. It sounds like you are using the raw
option which will give you the data just as it comes from the CCD which is
dark and this is normal. Without
going into the gory details do not use this selection until you have more experience
in
Chapter 14 of Professional Photoshop - Resolving the Resolution Issue:
printed dots per inch consist of grids of spots per dot - of differing picoliter sizes
depending on the printer.
Apples and oranges?
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
At 06:44 PM 10/26/2001 -0600, you wrote:
Hello Rob,
I believe I'm starting to get the message. I've see very nice results at a
list member's site, and I believe for web pictures a flatbed with
transparency lid would work on medium format and larger slides, but it is
perhaps a bit limiting after
35 matches
Mail list logo
