At 12:48 AM 3/27/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Thanks to everyone who replied to my questions. :-)
My conclusion is that sharpening is not really needed for sky/clouds, but
that a
small amount may be beneficial to offset scan-induced softening and/or to help
minimize the effects of downsizing to jpegs.
If I understand what you are saying, I think that I cannot agree with your
explanation. Your analogy appears to be confounding halftone dots with
halftone cells. Moreover, it is not necessarily the case that either
translate one-to-one into pixels or into samples. Also I believe that if
your
Always appreciate your butting in and corrections. :-) If your remarks are
based on the paragraph quoted alone, I will defend myself by noting that I
was only extrapolating from the orgianal statement of the analogy by the
preious poster using their language and argument structure.
If you are
Hi Laurie,
Always appreciate your butting in and corrections. :-)
You are too kind ;-)
If your
remarks are
based on the paragraph quoted alone, I will defend myself by noting that I
was only extrapolating from the original statement of the analogy by the
previous poster using their
Ed--
I'm pretty sure you can create a simple Photoshop action for this
kind of batch processing.
--Bill
At 2:12 PM -0700 4/21/04, Ed Lusby wrote:
Bob,
I have thousands of slides to scan, archive, and create slideshows.
Whatever I do has to be as automatic as possible. ... If the the
profiles
In case you didn't know... You can speed up VS appreciably by avoiding the
need for the scanner to make a second pass after the preview scan. Set
preview to the target resolution (eg 4000ppi), then set 'scan from
preview'. When you hit 'scan', VS then processes from memory rather than
scanning
The Archive at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] has not
been working properly lately, with this list. This is a test of a fix by
the owners.
Regards
Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk
Unsubscribe
Bill Fernandez wrote:
I made
using a Kodachrome IT8 target and the ICC Scan software from
profilecity.com
I haven't heard of this software. It's not clear from the site (now
http://www.chromix.com/profilecity) whether the free software download can
work with 3rd party targets. It would be
I recently obtained the Nikon LS5000 scanner and began to try to obtain a
profile for Kodachrome scans. The Nikon Scan 4.0 software has 4 profiles,
one specifically for Kodachrome. Probably to no surprise to anyone on this
list, it doesn't work very well. Reds and greens are dull, scenes with
Hi Ed--
I scan Kodachrome with a Nikon 4000, and am running NIkonScan 3.x on
MacOS X, so my experiences may or not help you, but here goes:
(1) I found that I get greater dynamic range and more accurate color
by scanning with Nikon color management turned off, generating a raw
scan, opening it
Ed,
The profile generated by Vuescan was a icc extension. As a raw rookie, I'm
ICC stands for Internation Color Consortium, ICM doesn't stand for
anything, the M is just for module I guess, without any
correlation to the IC. Files with these extensions are both ICC
profiles. I'd prefer .icc as
I believe that ICM does refer to the the color management module that the
operating system uses for its system level color management, which in the
case of Windows systems, I believe, is the Kodak module that uses the Kodak
color management engine as opposed to Mac systems which use Colorsync.
Thanks for the comments, Bill. Your experiences seem to be identical to mine.
I'm a little dismayed that Nikon and others are inventing their own
proprietary color
management systems. Kind of defeats the original purpose of the ICC, as I
understand it.
Ed
Ed,
Surely you can turn the color management off in NikonScan, scan your slide
or neg into PS, and then assign whatever custom profile you like to the scan
and convert that to your working space?
With NkScan 3, I regularly did this to get my scan in working spaces other
than those selectable in
Bob,
I have thousands of slides to scan, archive, and create slideshows.
Whatever I do has to be as automatic as possible. Vuescan is working
extremely well. After a little tweaking this morning, even skin tones are
dead on. If the the profiles could be converted in Photoshop in a batch
mode, that
Ed Lusby wrote:
Whatever I do has to be as automatic as possible. Vuescan is working
extremely well.
In case you didn't know... You can speed up VS appreciably by avoiding the
need for the scanner to make a second pass after the preview scan. Set
preview to the target resolution (eg 4000ppi),
Howdy--
There must be an awful lot of dust inside your refurbished scanner if
it gets on the film when you scan!
I'd recommend against just randomly spraying compressed air into the
scanner, but it should be fairly easy to remove the outer casing of
the scanner, and that should be enough to
Hi Paul,
I came across a great tutorial for cleaning the new LS-5000
here: http://www.pearsonimaging.com/ls5000cleaning.html
It comes complete with a lot of photos to guide you. It also says the
method works on a 4000.
Ed Lusby
I got a refurbished LS4000 via Nikon USA after my initial one died at 13 months. The
refurbished model been under a dust cover since I got it. The scanning operations seem
fine on this one, but it coats every negative with EXTENSIVE dust. Much more than the
first model ever did. I've cleaned
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I got a refurbished LS4000 via Nikon USA after my initial one
died at 13 months. The refurbished model been under a dust cover
since I got it. The scanning operations seem fine on this one,
but it coats every negative with EXTENSIVE dust. Much more than
the first
Hello all --
I have a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 (SCSI) with a defective lamp and I was quoted a $125
fee just to get an estimate and a minimum $400 fee for any repair. Then the rep
apparently forgot to fax the work order as promised and ignored an online query
quoting the RMA number.
This does
Hello, i have put up a new tutorial about scanning 35mm negative and
Kodachrome slides for maximum quality using desktop slide scanners. There
is some wet treatment with ultrasonic cleaning. I would appreciate any
comments about these techniques, or suggestions for improvement. thanks
Why did Ctrl+C as a shortcut for Scanner - Calibrate get dropped out of
Vuescan? Can we have it back please, Ed?
-
Stewart Skelt
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.netspeed.com.au/sgskelt
-
Anybody using VueScan with the SS4000 and the Linotype ELS-3000 on a
Mac with Panther 10.3?
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as
At 10:29 AM -0600 4/1/04, michael wrote:
Anybody using VueScan with the SS4000 and the Linotype ELS-3000 on a
Mac with Panther 10.3?
I have had good results using VueScan 7.6.78 on OS 10.3.3 with a
Polaroid SS4000.
Regards,
Roger Smith
The issue with multiple USB scanners on XP is still a vexing one for me.
See KB 324756 for details.
Going on 2 years, and no peep of a fix.
SP1 did not fix it, BTW.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Monday, March
Austin Franklin wrote:
Regarding your question, MS can afford much nicer fat than I can...
Actually, I was curious what the gist of the visit to MS was (as in, what
technical area).
Regards,
Austin
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. ;-) I am under some
fairly rigid
Yes! dICE is the culprit. I'd tried most settings before
posting but never turned off the ICE because the film is
rather dirty and scrathed.
As for David's suggestions,
it is scanned with the rotation glass holder, and I pref
er the setting as color neg in RGB mode.
Thanks to Lau
rie, David,
You cannot use dICE on silver halide based films. The silver is opaque
to IR light so it ends up trying to subtract your whole image, which it
assumes is dirt or surface damage.
Color films, of negative or positive types, chromagenic black and
white, have almost all silver left in them after
I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable
to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will
be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams.
I will attempt to get to any email in the order it was received upon my
return.
Art
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I think that he was asking more about if this causes an increase in the
image size and not the file size; but I could be wrong.
Yes I was talking about image size. All I really wanted to know was if a
4000ppi scanner was capable of producing a better outputted image
Hi Art,
I just wanted to inform the members of this list that I will be unable
to respond to email between about March 31st and April 12th, as I will
be down in Seattle/Redmond chewing the fat with the MS teams.
Out of curiosity, why?
Have you tried www.mail2web.com? I find it invaluable
Image quality is a multi-faceted subjective thing that cannot be measured in
quantitative terms which is why it is never refered to on spec sheets.
Obviously a optical 4000spi scanner will be sharper and have higher
resoution than a scanner that is capable of only optical resolutions of less
than
Make sure that they pay for the fat ylu chew; they can afford it.
Not a feature that I think you should ask them to creat but a suggestion
that you should suggest that they might want to monitor and participate in
this list if they do not already so as to facilitate communicatins between
users
Hi Austin,
Thanks for that link. It seems like a great service (I only hope they
are being honest about the mechanics they are claiming, and that indeed
they don't record passwords, etc). My ISP charges roaming fees on dial
up outside of the calling area, so this is a nice feature. I still
Hi Art,
Thanks for that link. It seems like a great service (I only hope they
are being honest about the mechanics they are claiming, and that indeed
they don't record passwords, etc).
I have not had any problem what so ever with them (mail2web.com). I do
suggest using the secure login, and
Hi List:
I'm facing problems scanning the Kodak 100TMX
black/white neg on the Nikon 8000, preview is somewhat o
k but not good, while the scan lost every detail, just bl
ack and white blotches, like severly solarized or that I
can't describe clearly in English. Please someone how to
cope with
I'm facing problems scanning the Kodak 100TMX
black/white neg on the Nikon 8000, preview is somewhat o
k but not good, while the scan lost every detail, just bl
ack and white blotches, like severly solarized or that I
can't describe clearly in English. Please someone how to
cope with this?
I am not sure about this, but it is quite possible that this is a result of
using LED based scanners, such as the Nikon, on silver halide films; it also
might be a side effect of trying to use digital ICE silver halide films - if
you happen to have this feature turned on.
As I said, I am
Thanks to everyone who replied to my questions. :-)
My conclusion is that sharpening is not really needed for sky/clouds, but that a
small amount may be beneficial to offset scan-induced softening and/or to help
minimize the effects of downsizing to jpegs. My workflow takes 55mb TIFFs down
to
I just received two copies of this email I posted, and am wondering if
others received more than one. I checked my 'sent mail' and it shows it
having only gone out once. I'm wondering if it is my mail server, or
something happening elsewhere.
I don't need everyone to reply, so if a few people
I have my scanner currently set to not do any software sharpening at
all. It is adjustable within its software driver. I prefer having
control over it in Photoshop, which appears to be more sophisticated.
The same with my little digital camera. I have it saving the images
(which are jpegged)
Well, if you insist then the answer is no.
But I could have, if you allowed me to ;-) to make an argument
otherwise. In general (I'm assuming these were captured with a CCD
sensor) some unsharp masking benefits the image. However, you're the
ones with the images, you know the application, and
Honestly, Ed, I would make up a few examples both unsharpened and
sharpened to different degrees and ask someone who you trust for an
opinion. I almost always use *some* USM even on softer edged subjects
because it changes the contrast ratios a bit, and defines some edges
where appropriate. But
Well, I did answer it ;-)
And basically, I said the same thing, just in a LOT more words... now
THAT's a slight reversal of roles ;-)
Art
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing
the various images.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I
From: Arthur Entlich
I just received two copies of this email I posted, and am wondering if
others received more than one. I checked my 'sent mail' and it shows it
having only gone out once. I'm wondering if it is my mail server, or
something happening elsewhere.
I don't need everyone
In general (I'm assuming these were captured with a CCD
sensor) some unsharp masking benefits the image.
Seems to be true for color, and for scanners that scan BW as RGB...since
they are using RGB filters, which are typically (more so the red, then the
blue) the cause of smear (crosstalk) and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color image?
Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that before...but it seems
like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't lose as much detail in the
sharper channels... Any thoughts on this?
Yes you did Art. the role reversal was refreashing. Apparently the posts
pasted each other like ships in the night. I may have written my response
the same time as you wrote yours; but for some reason mine took longer to
get on the list. By the way, I received this post the same time as I
Art,
While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did
not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a
misunderstanding.
A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then
only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the
Ëd, I can appreciate your requesting a third fresh opinion and am not
chastising you for doing so. My response is based on the fact that clouds,
as you suggest, typically are without sharp edges (blurry and fuzzy); but
there are some types of clouds and some types of lighting conditions which
Paul,
I did not realize that it could be used that way. I would think that such
use would be really limited and dependent on the subject matter and what one
wanted to do with it. While it might enhance localized contrasts, it is an
uncontrolled enhancement of all local contrasts in the image as
Yeap, you're right. My terminology was sloppy. Thanks for the correction.
Art
Laurie Solomon wrote:
Art,
While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did
not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a
misunderstanding.
A common
There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that
because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might
add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an
image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the
end
I'm a bit perplexed at what the dpi means on a film scanner. Trying to
compare apples to apples, will a 4000 dpi Brand X film scanner in theory
produce a better quality image outputted than a 2000 dpi Brand X scanner,
given that the output resolution is the same, say 1600 x 2400 pixels?
Or does
Laurie Solomon said the following on 3/25/2004 11:29 AM:
Paul,
I did not realize that it could be used that way. I would think that such
use would be really limited and dependent on the subject matter and what one
wanted to do with it. While it might enhance localized contrasts, it is an
Better is a relative term. Generally higher dpi (technically it should be
spi or samples per inch and not either dpi, dots per inch, or ppi, pixels
per inch) will produce a higher resolution and sharper image than lower
amounts of samples per inch. One has to be careful in making comparisons
Bob,
That has been refined and is now being sold as a commercial application by
Pixel Genius called Photokit Sharpener.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus
that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners
(and I might
That technique of individual channel sharpening is in an edition of the
Dan Margulis Professional Photoshop book. He advocates sharpening the
weakest color channel in certain situations such as facial portraits.
It's a very interesting discussion and he gives examples.
One-channel sharpening can
The use of edge sharpening is also sold as an action called Ultrasharpen
at www.ultrasharpen.com . Previous versions used the find edges though
the latest one uses glowing edges and two levels of simultaneous
sharpening...or something like that.
Stan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Most color film scanners use a CCD chip which has a series of three
lines across it each with a color filter over it, Red, Green or Blue,
which each are made up of a series of sensors. (Nikon uses a slightly
different method, but I don't want to confuse things).
That line contains a specific
Art,
That line contains a specific number of sensors across it. For
simplicity, let's assume a film frame is one inch across by 1.5 wide.
That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or pixels
per inch) resolution, the image dimensions when a file was created would
be 6000
Art,
I really am not trying to pick on you (ok, yes I am); scanners techically
measure resolution in terms of samples per inch or spi. Thus, Your
correction below is wrong.
That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or
pixels per inch) resolution
It is really 4000 spi and
Hi Stan,
I may have mis-spoken or at minimum, been misunderstood.
You are correct that sharpening should occur prior to printing. Saving
the image sharpened is not necessary, and may, in fact, be detrimental
since sharpening adjustments vary depending upon final output size and
other factors.
Art,
There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that
because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might
add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an
image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at
What you are saying makes sense, in terms of the progressive unsharp
masking process, and indeed my own workflow sometimes includes this.
One of the reasons I came to this was because I found occasional
upsetting artifacts showing up once I had completed the manipulation and
compositing work when
Are either of you allowing your scanner software to do the initial
slight sharpening, or doing it post-scanning?
Stan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 6:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
I have never let the scanner software do any sharpening or resampling if I
can avoid it; and as I am learning this seems to be in line with current
thought. The reasoning for not doing this and leaving it for post scan
editing programs are two fold, although there are other reasons as well.
Hello,
I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of
image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various cloud forms and
skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you think there is
any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject
I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing
the various images.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain
type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various
cloud forms and skies. In most
From: Ed Verkaik
I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of
image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various
cloud forms and
skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you
think there is
any merit to doing any sharpening to this
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing
the various images.
Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue sections,
or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy sky). Surely
there
From: Ed Verkaik
Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and
blue sections,
or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy
sky). Surely
there are generalizations we could apply to such subjects? I
always assumed
that since clouds have no natural
Traffic has been very slow lately so I hope you don't mind a somewhat off
topic question. I want to replace my ageing Umax 1200S which is starting to
fail. I already have a SS4000, so I don't need film scanning capability. I
want an inexpensive flatbed for general scanning: scanning photos where
A while back, Art mentioned sharpening a scanned transparency image
before saving it--to restore some of the loss of sharpness inherent in
the SS4000 scan. I am curious to know what degree of sharpening you use,
in Photoshop terms re: %,radius and threshold, for this task.
I've usually reserved
Hi Tony .. I haven't been receiving my dailies from [filmscanners].
Are you still in business with this effort? If so I'd appreciate being
(remaining) on the list.
Frank Keresztes-Fischer
Last night at 04.00+5.00 GMT a mail was distributed as a filmscanners_digest
list mail. The mail contained W32Beagle/Bagle variant virus. The message
title was 'Site changes'. I received a copy myself.
DO NOT OPEN THIS MAIL, DELETE IT IMMEDIATELY.
I have had a couple of mails from concerned list
HI, Frank!
I think that the list is just not too busy right now. Maybe everyone's out
shooting pictures to scan later! (and I'm stuck at work... :-/ )
Guy
-Original Message-
From: Frank K-F [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:30 AM
To: Clark Guy
Subject:
Nick,
That may be the only one around that has legal size scanning capabilities
within that price range. I do not now what the maximuim scan size is for
the Epsons; but you might want to check and see what they have in their line
of models.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Traffic has been very slow
I believe the Epsons are all 8.5x11. I just bought a 3170 and love it. The
included profiles seem very good, better than I could generate with Monaco
EZ Color. If you don't have too much large scanning to do, perhaps you
could stitch scans together.
Ed Lusby
on 3/23/04 2:07 PM, Ed Lusby at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the Epsons are all 8.5x11. I just bought a 3170 and love it. The
included profiles seem very good, better than I could generate with Monaco
EZ Color. If you don't have too much large scanning to do, perhaps you
could stitch
Hi.
Would be interested to hear your opinions about both models, their
real-world comparison specifically.
I used to have IV ED (LS-40) using it intensively for over 2 years so
far.
Generely satisifed by it, but recently, made an endeavor to start
wotking with image stock agencies and their
Maybe and maybe not. It certainly is a definite possibility but not a
certainty. However, the question was what would keep the film chip flat.
:-) But your advice on the possible limitation, which I neglected, is a
welcome addition. Thank you.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Can anyone please recommend slide mounts that are good for scanning?
TIA,
Tom Maugham
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as
What do you mean by good? Oversized full frame windows, rigid mounts that
do not bend or bow, mounts that keep the film chip flat, or something else?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone please recommend slide mounts that are good for scanning?
TIA,
Tom Maugham
To do all the things that Laurie mentioned, find some Wess full frame mounts
with pegs in them the sprocket holes fit over. This mount will show the
whole frame and will hold it very flat. I have used them in the darkroom
when masking 35mm slides. I believe that someone has bought out Wess but is
Mounts that keep the frame as flat as possible.
Thanks...
Tom
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
Sent: March 15, 2004 10:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 35mm slide mounts for scanning
What do you
Those that keep the film chip the flattest would be glass mounts where the
film chip is sandwiched between two pieces of anti-newtonian glass; but
there is always the possibility that (a) it will be too thick for your film
scanner, (b) you will get newtonian rings despite the anti-newtonian glass,
Those that keep the film chip the flattest would be glass mounts
where the film chip is sandwiched between two pieces of anti-newtonian
glass;
Anti-Newton glass will show extra grain in the scan, because of the roughed
glass surface.
With kind regards,
--
Henk de Jong
http://www.hsdejong.nl/
Hi,
I have a problem with my Nikon LS30 scanner now and then but it happens more
and more. The Nikon LS30 has 2 motors, one to push and pull the
scanning-unit up and down to set the focus and one to drag the scanning-unit
forth and back to scan the negative or slide. When I switch the scanner on
I want to inform all my friends and enemies that I am changing my
Internet Provider on March 15th. Until that date, all regular addresses
should be functional.
I am switching from cable to ADSL (fingers crossed).
I do not yet know my new ADSL address, but both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL
This post from Art is the first I've received since on this list since 1
March. Has the list been down? Have I missed much?
Tris
At 04:36 AM 3/11/2004 -0800, you wrote:
I want to inform all my friends and enemies that I am changing my
Internet Provider on March 15th. Until that date, all
Hi Tris,
I think its been a slow time. Looking at prior email (and I don't keep
everything that shows up on the list) my last saved email from
flimscanners was also March 1.
It might just be quiet time in the filmscanner list.
Art
Tris Schuler wrote:
This post from Art is the first I've
...and I bet you didn't even notice:) New mobo/faster cpu/more RAM/new OS
(XPPro). And thankfully it has stopped falling over then refusing to reboot
Regards
Tony Sleep - http://www.halftone.co.uk
Bob Frost wrote:
Surely the whole purpose of collimated light sources is to achieve
maximum
resolution (I seem to remember this from my light microscopy days many
years
ago).
Actually, not really. You achieve higher contrast and higher apparent
sharpness at boundaries with collimated light,
Hope it serves you well and gives you little trouble in the future.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 7:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] ADMIN: server upgrade completed Saturday
..and
Tony,
Thanks for bringing me up-to-date - I did say my 'knowledge' was of light
microscopy many years ago. ;)
Bob Frost.
- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Frost wrote:
Surely the whole purpose of collimated light sources is to achieve
maximum
resolution
But isn't that the best type of upgrade, where the outside world doesn't
even see the blood. sweat and tears that you suffered through?
Computer upgrades are like sausages, you really don't want to know what
went into making them when you're eating them. ...and this coming from a
vegetarian.
Bob Frost wrote:
Thanks for bringing me up-to-date - I did say my 'knowledge' was of light
microscopy many years ago. ;)
Mine's mostly from enlargers, many years ago:) All I can say is that I
bought a condenser head for a Durst which already had a diffuser
head, because I wanted sharper,
At 1:10 AM + 3/2/04, Tony Sleep wrote:
I could see no benefit at all from the condenser head even using a
magnifier. All I could see was marginally more blown extreme highlights,
already a problem with the (then new) straightline films like TMax, more
scratches and marks. The condenser head
1001 - 1100 of 17967 matches
Mail list logo
