I will try taking some reject slides or dupes and create a warp of
similar magnitude and see how the scanners respond. I may have to turn
off autofocus. This will take me several days to get to, I'm afraid.
Art
Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
From: Arthur Entlich
Well, that's hard to say without
FARE (the one in the film scanners) is indeed an IR cleaning method.
I'm not quite sure what they are doing in FARE 2 for reflective scans.
Art
Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
Does this technology employ an IR channel? I notice that they say it doesn't
work on BW and Kodachrome, which would imply it's
Remember when Polaroid remaindered the SS4000?
I bought one at the ridiculously low price... and it's still waiting to be
installed! My main activity is editing music, my computer is set up as a
digital audio workstation, and I simply haven't found the time to learn
scanning Photoshop.
Needing
Having just recently upgraded to Photoshop CS, I've been playing around
with the JPEG2000 plugin. I'm considering using that format to save
16-bit film scans from a Sprintscan 4000 Plus using the lossless
setting. This would help reduce the 115 Mb file size of those scans.
(I'm using NEF for my
On 10 Jan 2004 at 10:59, David Lewiston wrote:
Needing really good scans from a few significant 35mm images, I took them to
my preferred lab, the Light Room in Berkeley. Rob, the owner, has an
excellent track record with my work.or body
David--
the Light Room is literally down the street
Does this technology employ an IR channel? I notice that they say it doesn't
work on BW and Kodachrome, which would imply it's IR. But I also notice
that they put it in their top-of-the-line flatbeds--or is FARE 2.0 in the
flatbeds different from the FARE used in the FS4000 film scanner?
I'd also
With the big catch being that grain structure is different at a fixed ISO rating
between brands of films i.e. Portra 160 vs NPC 160 etc...
and with the observation
*our film scanners can scan an incredible range of colours at high bit depth
*digital photo editing tools are
Hi Paul,
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:48:42 -0800, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
Does [FARE] employ an IR channel?
Yes.
But I also notice that they put it in their top-of-the-line
flatbeds--or is FARE 2.0 in the flatbeds different from the
FARE used in the FS4000 film scanner?
That I don't know. I'd
[From a lurker on this list]
Well, I think so. Two simple examples--one from film per se, one from
scanning.
Last year I tested some film on a 4x5, comparing Velvia to Astia. Photos
were on the coast, mid afternoon, clear skies but high humidity, hence
the light was a little blue. The difference
On Saturday, January 10, 2004, at 12:27 PM, alan wrote:
Well, I think so. Two simple examples--one from film per se, one from
scanning.
Excellent points and examples Alan. Though I mostly use digital cameras
these days (Nikon D1X, Canon EOS 1Ds, and Kodak Pro Back) , I still
shoot film. And
10 matches
Mail list logo
