OT: Some interesting info about Photoshop Scratch disks

While trying to find information at the Adobe site about the posterization problem I was experiencing with 16 bit/channel scans, I happened upon some information I was totally unaware of regarding how Photoshop uses scratch disk space. I have yet to read this information anywhere else, and it m

Re:

"Hemingway, David J" wrote: > > What scans 35mm through 6x9 at 4000DPI, has a SCSI and firewire connection, > does medium format strips and will be announced at Photokina > :) > HP's apology for its last scanner? Nikon's replacement for the LS 2000? The Acer Super Scanwit II? Another M

Re: labelling archive cdrs

Tony Sleep wrote: > > > I used Neato labels, applied with the supplied polycarbonate > > centring device, on over a hundred CDRs sent in 1997-99 to > > a wide range of users. All them will have been used at least > > once . No-one has complained about unplayable disks, and > > this doesn't sur

Re: OT: Some interesting info about Goldfish ;-)

photoscientia wrote: > > I'd already given PS5.5 over 4 gigs of space, spread over 4 scratch > disks, and it's still as light on its feet as a sow in labour. > How the heck it can run out of space, and come to a grinding halt > doing a batch scan of only four 54meg files I don't know. (And I'v

Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner?

bjs wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Mikkel Høj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 10:01 AM > Subject: Sv: Real resolution of a 4000 dpi scanner? > > > Have a look for yourself at the attached image. It is the Kodak Q60E3 to the >

Re: OT: Some interesting info about Photoshop Scratch disks

ch disks, while Photoshop 5 can have 4 scratch disks. > > >This information was, as I recall, in the Windows section, so it might > >not apply to Mac versions. (Arthur Entlich) > > You may be right about it being a Windows thing - here's a quote from the > Msc PS 5.5 He

Re: experiencing the 1270 orange shift

Urmas Tartes wrote: > > Maybe Epson did a fault pointing out too loudly that prints will last as > much as common photographs. Actually they always added (somewhere with > smaller text), that prints should be framed under glass or stored in album. > They never claimed, that unprotected prints

Re: New scanners rumor ?

I spoke to a Nikon Rep who was at one of our local photo supply stores just last week, and he told me he knows of nothing coming through the system, but he also admitted they never tell him, so he can continue to blissfully sell the current models without feeling guilty with the knowledge that a n

Re: experiencing the 1270 orange shift

Urmas Tartes wrote: > >Art wrote: > >I know we are way off topic here, but Epson made no such claims about > >need to laminate, or place under glass, or keep in the dark, or spinning > >around three times chanting "perfect perpetual prints". ;-) > > > >Epson certainly did state (in fact, until ve

Re: Measuring resolution (was Re: Real resolution of a 4000 dpiscanner?)

"Hemingway, David J" wrote: > > God I hate to allow the film recorder demons out of the bag but here goes. > The actual resolving power of a HR6000 is probably along the lines of 1000 > lines and with a totally white background probably less. Addressable > resolution means you can hit the exact

Re: New scanners rumor ?

Marek Moi wrote: > > Arthur Entlich wrote: > > > > [...] a newer, cheaper better model is just around the corner. > > Newer? - of course. > Cheaper? - probably not. > Better? - definitely YES. > > There are some rumors on the Nikon Mailing List about

Re: OT: RE: Processor speed with the Nikon LS30

Bruce Roberts wrote: > > OT: > > > -Original Message- > > > > I'd say that your hard drives help a *great* deal. Once I get my computer > > working with UDMA66 > > Now that's my area of expertise! Can I help? > > The most obvious thing that most people don't realise is that DMA must

Re: OT: RE: Processor speed with the Nikon LS30

Bruce Roberts wrote: > I was a bit confused by the "all" devices that you mention so I checked > their site. I use the same software but my CD-RW is a SCSI device so I don't > have this problem. What they say is to disable DMA on the IDE channel that > the CD-R is on. This is OK for most people

Re: Cleaning negs/transparencies

Jim Karr wrote: > > Geoff, > > Go out and buy a StaticMaster brush. It comes in handy! I picked one > up yesterday and my dust problem has almost gone away. Basically the > staticMaster brush has Polonium 210 in it, which is a radioactive element > (Safe for humans since it can not pene

Re: film scanner mailing list

Austin Franklin wrote: > > > There is no way a hand-held shot at 1/8th second is going to be > > considered 'sharp' under any conditions and no matter what the > > experience of the user. > > I get shots that are very much considered sharp at 1/8, and I do it quite > frequently. I have quite

Re: 4000dpi (was film scanner mailing list)

Austin Franklin wrote: > > > I didn't mean to insult anyone and I apologise if it came over in that > > way. > > Apology accepted. > > > Certainly I can see a difference between shots taken on a tripod > > and those hand-held at 1/60th or 1/125th sec, with a 35mm lens. > > I can't imagine wh

Re: 4000dpi (was film scanner mailing list)

Austin Franklin wrote: \ Do you keep a little notebook with you and write > down 'frame 3 of roll 22 shot on 10/9/00 was shot at 1/15 f4.5". Sorry, I > don't. > 1) At the risk of further insult you, since you seem to be easily insulted, let me ask the obvious question. If you don't keep trac

Re: OT: 2000p was Re: questions

=shAf= wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 9:29 PM > Subject: 2000p was Re: questions > > > At 09:40 PM 08-10-00, you wrote: > > >any comments on the 2000p?? > > > > I have not had the privilege to see a

Re: 2000p was Re: questions

jeremy spence wrote: > > I just bought a 2000p and while I agree with everything said about the > quality of the picture, it is unbelievably fussy about paper stock. > > Jem > That's really interesting. The impression I got from reading Epson's info was that it would be relatively forgiving

Re: newbie question: what is scanner software needed for?

Tony Sleep wrote: > > OO Ed, you bitch!!! ;) > I'm reporting this to the list owner... really, such language! ;-) Art The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign,

Re: Negative film scanning - Polaroid SS4000+SilverFast vs. NikonLS-2000

Wei Hua wrote: > > I used to shoot negatives mainly because my old PhotoSmart scanner cannot > handle slides well. That's why I have many negatives and only a little > slides in home. If I have a good scanner, I will certainly shoot more slides > in the future. :-) > > BTW, for those who want

Re: Negative film scanning - Polaroid SS4000+SilverFast vs. NikonLS-2000

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 10/11/2000 10:33:05 PM EST, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > The LS30 has only a 10 bit A/D converter chip, and is a generation behind > > the LS2000. > > I've gotten e-mail from someone who took their LS-30 apart, and > it has exactly the sam

Re: got my SS4000

Al Bond wrote: > > Frank Paris wrote > > > However, I can't say that they are any sharper than the HP, which > > is either a testimony for the HP or it says something about the > > effectiveness of my Gitzo carbon fiber tripod and Nikon 28-70mm f2.8D ED > > IF AF-S lens. > > Or that the HP ap

Re: Copyright on images

Frank Paris wrote: > > I did resizing, changing color saturation, lightness, cropping, all failed > to remove the watermark. The only thing that did was stretching it quite > severely. Even stretching it a little did not remove the watermark. So > Digimarc technology is not totally fragile. >

Re: got my SS4000

Hi Frank, I just looked at your images on the website, and a few things come to mind. You state that you have scanned each of these images at about 850 dpi. Now, on the HP Photosmart scanner, which is a 2400 dpi scanner, that means it is doing some interpolating, since that is not an even numbe

Re: SCSI vs PhotoSmart

Austin Franklin wrote: > Well, most people think they (and this isn't a reflection on you) know what > they are doing WRT SCSI, but it ends up they are doing something wrong. It > could have been the cable, it could have been lack of active termination, > who knows...I run into people all the

Re: Copyright on images

Frank Paris wrote: > > We've found it very difficult to remove the digital watermark. You just > about have to destroy the visual appeal of the image to do it. It is > distributed all over the image, so cropping it does not remove the > watermark. > > No visible deterrent isn't necessarily a l

OT: CD-R Drives

photoscientia wrote: > > Hi Roman. > Did you ever get that damned Panasonic 7502 to write reliably at 4 > speed? > I tried mine with all of the firmware 'upgrades', and with every > system configuration I could think of. > I even tried it with several different SCSI cards, and always got a > b

Re: Copyright on images

Geoff Stafford wrote: > > >From what I can gather, they said that because digital copies can > be exactly the same as the first, that means there is no 'original' > and that copyright hinges on there being an original. > > If it is true then it IS ridiculous and the House of Lords has once > a

Re: Copyright on images

Laurie Solomon wrote: > > >>From what I can gather, they said that because digital copies can > >be exactly the same as the first, that means there is no 'original' > >and that copyright hinges on there being an original. > > They obviously do not know anything about the variability of monitor

Re: CDRS was LS30 BIOS

Rob Geraghty wrote: > Come to think of it, the issue may not be hard drive speed > but DMA - without DMA the hard drive steals too many CPU cycles from the > CDR and software. Nero seems to be the most reliable with the 7502 - of > the software I've tried. > Oddly, Adaptec states on tehir w

Interface Wars

Austin Franklin wrote: > > > The reason SCSI has, to a great extent, fallen out of favor, other than > > cost, is that, very simply, it is a large pain in the butt to configure > > correctly, and it is a pain for manufacturer's to implement correctly, > > and it has changed flavor dozens of tim

Re: Interface Wars

shAf wrote: > > Arthur writes ... > > > ... > > but I live in the *real* world. > > ... > > > I am not for a minute saying that SCSI isn't a superior > > system. ... [but] > > ... It is also more prone to bad cabling due to > > cheap cables or defective plugs, 25 pin cabling > > can cause

Re: Interface Wars

Since this is becoming OT, I'm going to be terse in my comments. I still stand by my original statement below: > > The reason SCSI has, to a great extent, fallen out of favor, other than > cost, is that, very simply, it is a large pain in the butt to configure > correctly, and it is a pain for

Re: Interface Wars

Bob Armstrong wrote: > > On Thursday, October 26, Art wrote: > > > Regarding driving licenses, I don't think something like understanding > > how to use one type of computer interface should require anywhere near > > the time it takes to learn the rules and laws of the road, the > > coordinatio

Re: filmscanners:

Tony Sleep wrote: > > > Just bought a Minolta Dimage dual II with USB. > > I hope someone can give me some clue why my scans are so dark. > > How do you know they are dark? Have you calibrated your monitor!? > Just a quick comment regarding monitor adjustment. Of course, it is possible some

Re: filmscanners: FS: virtually new SS4k...

Austin Franklin wrote: > > I have a virtually new SprintScan 4k for sale. It has very little use, has > an extra set of negative and slide holders...original box etc. Comes with > latest version of Polaroid Insight, latest firmware, latest drivers, > manuals, cables, SCSI card etc. Everythin

Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors

Guy Prince wrote: > > Tony, > > I have been forced into laptopdom because of space. We had to > buy a home about 1/4 the size of the rental home we had. My > computer/photography lab was sacrificed. > Although I do have a large two car detached garage with power, > w

Re: filmscanners: Best method for downsizing images

cd's to go wrote: > > Hello, > > I hope this isn't too much off topic. At the moment I am scanning both > slides and negatives with a Minolta Scan Dual II. I do the scanning at > maximum resolution (2820 dpi), open the files in Photoshop 6.0, crop the > photo slightly and do all my colour co

Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors

Guy Prince wrote: > > Art, > > Point taken. But the bright orange blazers and pants with the > bright orange background kept me mesmerized. I was helpless. > > Guy I have to admit I haven't seen the show since we got a color TV... (about 35 years ago??) Come to think of it, is tha

Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors

Johnny Deadman wrote: > > on 5/11/00 8:16 pm, Arthur Entlich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > But when I want to be warm and comfy, I sit in the living room > >> (big enough for 5 people on two sofas) with my laptop and pretend > >> everything is r

Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors

Bill Ross wrote: > Speaking of Epson tho, I didn't see the 1160 on their web > site - is it out of production? > > Bill Ross I did notice it being dumped recently at very reasonable pricing. Further Epson has just released a new series of very reasonably priced 2880 x 720 dpi printers in the

Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors

This issue is getting very muddied up. While everything Laurie says below is correct, there is one point which might be lost on some people. Changing the image size in Photoshop without checking the "resample" box, does absolutely nothing to the file outside of Photoshop. It is an internal funct

Re: filmscanners:

Tony Sleep wrote: > > > Just a quick comment regarding monitor adjustment. > > I don't disagree Art. It was just that it's something which should be got > out of the way at the outset, and mightn't have occurred to someone who is > new to all this. > Fair enough. My reason for making my comme

Re: filmscanners:

Guy Prince wrote: > > Pete, > > You've brought up several good points. First, many times it is > the person behind the keyboard making the mistakes and not the > equipment. (my neighbor at this very moment is using a gas > powered leaf blower right outside my window, I ca

Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors

Austin Franklin wrote: > > This is absolutely correct. You can send the printer driver any resolution > you want, and it has to interpolate the data into halftone screens anyway. > If you do leave the box checked, and resize, you will then be double > interpolating the data...once in PS and

Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question

Stephen Irving wrote: > > The Epson 1200 apparently prints best at an output dpi of 240 but what about > the best output dpi for the Epson 1270? > Why would you expect it to be different? Art

Re: filmscanners:

photoscientia wrote: > > The problem is, that you can get used to anything, even a poor monitor. > After a while, you don't notice the slight magenta cast, or the fact that > you can't see any shadow detail below a pixel value of 50, and it gets to > the point where you literally can't believe

Re: filmscanners: TIF file size - 1200 dpi

Guy Prince wrote: > > Okay, I am back at work and able to use the filmscanner again. > Thank goodness. > > I just scanned a mostly dark slide (supposed to be dark) at > 1200 dpi and, in picture publisher, changed the dimensions to > 7" x 4.66". The .tif

Re: Epson output dpi was Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question

Roger Smith wrote: > I examined the 3 prints using a high-quality 4x loupe. There > was a slight but visible improvement in quality from 240 to 360, > which didn't surprise me too much. What did surprise me was that > there was about the same degree of improvement from the 360 to the >

Re: filmscanners: Selective LCD masks in colour printing

Alan Tyson wrote: > It says their Agfa Dimax printing machines use a > computerised LCD mask to reduce local contrast... > > "Our Dimax printers overcome this problem by means of a > liquid crystal digital mask which preferentially selects out > dark, 'shadowy' areas, and prints them lighter-

Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors

Tony Sleep wrote: > > > Just to prevent reinventing the wheel, is this based upon personal > > experience? My assumption would be different (since Photoshop does a > > wonderful resampling job, and many printer spoolers do not > > I've tried printing same image at 240,300,360 and 720dpi. I re

Re: filmscanners: TIF file size - 1200 dpi

Guy Prince wrote: > > Art, > > You answered many questions. Thank you. > > I work in a small glue factory and I am the computer person. Is that plastic, casein or hide? (A-ha now I know where all those wild horses from California are ending up!) > My > needs for output va

Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors

Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > This is absolutely correct. You can send the printer driver any > resolution > > > you want, and it has to interpolate the data into halftone screens > anyway. > > > If you do leave the box checked, and resize, you will then be double > > > interpolating the dat

Re: filmscanners:

Tony Sleep wrote: > > > This is > > what is happening to you when you stare too long at the screen. You > > over saturate because your eyes have compensated for the colors in front > > of you. > > Fascinating, thanks! I know that when I spend a few hours in the darkroom, > emerging into brig

Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question

Austin Franklin wrote: > > > > The Epson 1200 apparently prints best at an output dpi of 240 but what about > > > the best output dpi for the Epson 1270? > > > Why would you expect it to be different? > > Why would you expect any DPI to be 'best'? I am not saying it's wrong (or even >silly

Re: filmscanners: TIF file size - 1200 dpi

shAf wrote: > > Arthur writes ... > > > Here's how I would suggest dealing with these situations > > (others might > > disagree). > > > > If you have access to Photoshop (...) I recommend ... > > Finally,add appropriate unsharp masking to sharpen > > the image. Again, unsharp masking done on

Re: Epson printing was Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question

Austin Franklin wrote: > > Do you know the algorithm Epson uses, when they call it 'error diffusion'? > > -- > From: Frank Paris > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 10:33 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject:RE: Epson printing was Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question >

filmscanners: OT: Weather, or not

WARNING: The following banter is only to be read by those who don't get completely bent out of shape when there is no on topic info in a post. (A sense of humor is also helpful). Guy Prince wrote: > > Art, > > > Is that plastic, casein or hide? (A-ha now I know where all those wild > > horses f

filmscanners: Re: Print dpi comparison

Roger Smith wrote: > > Hello Art, > As you may have read on the list, I have recanted some on my > original observations of the resampled vs non-resampled prints. > > Here are my comparisons, scanned at 600 dpi on an Epson 636. > I've enclosed the whole image so you can see how

Re: filmscanners:

Tony Sleep wrote: > > > That's from inhaling those chemicals! > > I never inhaled. > OK, then its from CO2 poisoning... ;-) (acidosis) Art

Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question

Hampton Childress wrote: > > With the old Epson Stylus I found that images far in excess of 2.5 times > the line screen produced blurry prints. I recall clear surprise at > printing a 600 dpi 5"x7" image and a 240 dpi 5"x7" and finding the 240 > dpi image noticeably sharper. > > Apparently, i

Re: filmscanners: Re: Print dpi comparison

Frank Paris wrote: > > > > As much as I like science and the scientific method, it is, when it > > comes down to it, just another religion, and I don't like science > > zealots (I'm not suggesting Roger is one, BTW). > > > > That is total bunk. Scientism may be a religion, but science isn't. S

Re: filmscanners: Selective LCD masks in colour printing

Alan Tyson wrote: > > I don't think I've made myself clear. > > I *think* they may be identifying relatively underexposed > *regions* & boosting the (printed) brightness locally in > just those areas of the image, giving the same effect as > wet-chemical-age dodging. Art suggested a means of d

Re: filmscanners: Slide scanners

Robert Buchanan wrote: > > I am new to the forum and most of the discussion I find fascinating, > realizing how much I have to learn. At present, I have a practical question. > I have a Mac G3, Adobe Photoshop, a Epson Stylus Photo 700, and a Microtek 4 > flat scanner. Most of my photo work are

Re: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000

Frank Paris wrote: > > Has anyone had trouble with their SS4000 producing horribly dusty and > scratchy negatives? I can't believe how filthy my negatives are and how much > time I have to spend cleaning them up. I never had this problem with my HP > PhotoSmart. Things seem to be getting worse,

Re: filmscanners: 4000 dpi question

Austin Franklin wrote: > > > I believe the 2000P uses dot size modulation on top of everything else, > so > > you don't need anything close to 6X6 dither cell to get 256 gray levels. > > Good point for the 2000P. I have both the 1160 and the 3000, and I believe > they are fixed dot size... I

Re: Science vs. religion (was RE: filmscanners: Re: Print dpi comparison)

Clark Guy wrote: > > Hi, Art! > > I wasn't going to get involved in this issue, but I vehemently disagree with > your assertion that > > "Science is whatever the ruling scientist claim is true now. " > Out of respect for both the list owner and other members, those silent as well as those

Re: filmscanners: Chemical Film Resolution.

Chris McBrien wrote: > > At risk of starting World War 3, what is the resolution of Chemical > Film? > > The National Geographic magazine used to ask for any photos to be > submitted using Kodachrome Film, so let's say Kodachrome 64 as a good > all round film. I've tried searching for the an

Re: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000

Rob Geraghty wrote: > > Geoff wrote: > > I'm not sure how labs manage to scratch negs so badly! > > Ever watched how they throw them around before they sleeve them? > > Rob Many labs have a very bad policy with film handling. The majority of people do not order reprints, and since the film

Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors

Austin Franklin wrote: > > > The only dimensions that matter are the number of pixels. The dpi and > > hence the "physical dimensions" are utterly meaningless. > > That's erroneous to say they are 'utterly meaningless'. They CLEARLY are > utterly meaningFUL to the printer driver, and, along w

Re: filmscanners: horribly dirty negatives from SS4000

Rob Geraghty wrote: > > Geoff wrote: > > I'm not sure how labs manage to scratch negs so badly! > > Ever watched how they throw them around before they sleeve them? > > Rob Many labs have a very bad policy with film handling. The majority of people do not order reprints, and since the film

Re: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.

HI Jerry, I'm sorry that I not going ton try to answer you earlier question concerning which procedure creates less loss (downsampling, then lowering bit depth or the other way around) because it will probably invoke too much back and forth conjecture based upon theoretical grounds, when probably

Re: filmscanners: Chemical Film Resolution.

Jonathan Buzzard wrote: > > Roman Kielich® wrote: > > > > At 20:22 15/11/2000 +, you wrote: > > [SNIP} > > > > if it is not visible, then it is not light. We call it radiation - > > infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, etc. Only light is visible, by definition. > > Absolute rubbish, I suggest th

Re: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.

"johnprendergast.freeserve.co.uk" wrote: > > Anti-aliasing layer , you wouldn't be referring to the "anti-halation" > layer, would you ? Darn that brain chemistry can slip yoou up when you're not looking, eh? Art

Re: filmscanners: Profiling, Ilford XP2 and Vuescan.

johnprendergast.freeserve.co.uk wrote: > This whole thread has been a farce, which I have been trying to pull to > pieces bit by bit, but it all seems to be going over everyone's heads, try > reading through it from near the start, and see how much mis-information has > been given out by the "s

Re: filmscanners: Re: Microtek Artix 4000T

NewLeaf Productions wrote: > Re Microtek Service: > Bought an Artixscan 4000t two months ago. Used it heavily for 3 days, > then unused until last week. Sadly it had failed! Perhaps I should have > turned it off during the period of no use? Is it just me, or is there a sudden rash of sick SS

Re: filmscanners: Re: Microtek Artix 4000T

I think this type of feedback is very useful and should be helpful for people evaluating different units. I'm glad to hear it is something you will be incorporating into your web site. I hope you don't plan on getting any commercial sponsorship from any of those companies ;-)(I think that wa

Re: filmscanners: Upgrading to Photoshop 6.0 from LE

Rob Geraghty wrote: > Edwin wrote: > >> Offer valid in the U.S.and Canada now through 12/31/00. > > > I wonder why so many US software companies limit their offers geographically? > Granted a large part of their market may be in north America, but don't > they realise that by giving the res

Re: filmscanners: What would you recommend?

Rob Geraghty wrote: > > A fellow gold coaster! Now, I thought everyone was saying the gold ones wouldn't end up coasters... only the silver ones, or non-name brand CDRs... ;-) Art

Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 Extended Service Contracts

Tony Sleep wrote: >> The fact that the service contract is so expensive tells you how reliable >> Polaroid thinks these things are. I have a similar contract for my >> Cornerstone p1700 21" monitor, which costs almost as much as the SS4000. The >> price of the contract? $35. > > > Yeah, but f

Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 Extended Service Contracts

Frank Paris wrote: I always get them for CD players > because they invariably pay for themselves, because eventually the > manufacturers don't have the parts to fix the old machines when they > inevitably break and they have to replace them with a brand new one. I > invested $60 in (two) three

Re: filmscanners: Polaroid SS4000 Extended Service Contracts

Edwin Eleazer wrote: > >> Service contracts generally seem bad value to me, as price must >> be based on statistical >> probabilities + a healthy profit element. My attitude is >> generally to believe that the >> company knows what it is doing, therefore I'd be more likely to >> come out ahead

Re: filmscanners: RE: cd storage

The adhesives in most CD label systems are no water soluble, so you will have a mess if you attempt to soak them off, since only the paper will rub off, leaving gooey adhesive behind. I have, on occasion, removed a label and repositioned or replaced it. It takes careful even peeling. Unfortun

Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.

One caveat, although you did mention "archivally processed". Wilhelm, the same guy now most noted for his work on inkjet inks and papers, has for years been researching the longevity of photographic materials. In spite of earlier reports to the contrary, it is now known that a large number o

filmscanners: OT: Looking for Canadian "free ISP"

Sorry to ask this off topic question... please respond in private e-mail. I recently lost my second "free ISP" service to bankruptcy. I'm wondering if anyone in Canada is using a free ISP and if so, if they can tell me who it is. The only one I have found is Netzero, which wants too much pri

Re: filmscanners: Scanner <-> notebook

If your laptop doesn't have either SCSI internally available, or a card slot, or a cradle which accepts PCI slot cards, there are two methods. I believe a company called Orange Micro (I think) has a USB to SCSI interface, and if not, there are several PCMCIA to SCSI cards made. However, all of

Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.

There are so many issues involved in the current state of digital storage, and as stated below, only one of them is capacity. I used to create a lot of paintings and drawing, and those that I have kept are obviously paintings and drawings, and I suspect most will end up being saved by whomever

Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.

I think the issue here is not that people were unaware that RC papers were less archival than fiber based. I think this was pretty much a given, although I do recall reading at one point about the advantages of RC papers because they did not (in theory) absorb the thiosulfate radicals into th

Re: filmscanners: Archiving

Rob Geraghty wrote: > Art wrote: > >> However, I have floppy disks, (5.25, 3.5, zip) PD, CD-R, >> CD-RW, etc etc, all over the place here. Some are from >> Mac, PC, Amiga and Atari and even Commodore. Some >> contain graphics, some photos, some poems, short stories, >> letters, some mu

Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.

Digital storage is both a blessing and a curse. The ability to make "virtually" identical copies means the ability to make nearly perfect copies without generational loss, which is a great advantage in video, for instance, where editing and copying require several generations to be produced u

Re: filmscanners: Do any scanners have what I need?

Hi Dave, I don't know that I have any "good" advice for you... but I can tell you that in terms of desktop film scanners, the majority do not have the type of design you need to thread long film lengths through. The new Kodak model, the RFS-3600, is designed to accept film across the bed, so

Re: filmscanners: infos on Nikon LS 2000 or Microtek 4000T

There seem to be some Photoshop tools which don't quite work in "real time". The tool I typically find that makes me feel like I'm in "delay" mode, is the smudge tool. I'm using a Celeron 500 with 384 megs. I've just learned to avoid that tool. Art Mike wrote: > I've just had a film scann

Re: filmscanners: Do any scanners have what I need?

Clark Guy wrote: > HI, Dave! > > One option that I haven't seen mentioned here is one of the less expensive > film scanners, the > PrimeFilm 1800U. I have seen these on Ebay for a couple of hundred USD. > For example: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1201951441 >

Re: filmscanners: Archiving

Rob Geraghty wrote: > Art wrote: > >> However, I have floppy disks, (5.25, 3.5, zip) PD, CD-R, >> CD-RW, etc etc, all over the place here. Some are from >> Mac, PC, Amiga and Atari and even Commodore. Some >> contain graphics, some photos, some poems, short stories, >> letters, some musical

Re: filmscanners: an unbelievably stupid question about the Epson

The HD SCSI II connector is rather common, in my experience, often in the more consumer side of things, since it is a nice small lightweight plug. It was used by HP for their original SCSI PhotoSmart scanner, and can be found on a number of the more recent SCSI cards which have external conne

Re: filmscanners: Nikon Scan 2.5 troubles

John Elftmann wrote: > Hi gang. > > I was up late last night watching trash t.v. (Cops, Change of Heart, Blind > date, etc. ) and scanning some old negatives with my Nikon LS-30. Near > the end of the session, I lost the "icon window" for my scan sessions and am > now unable to select which sh

Re: filmscanners: orange mask

There is a direct relationship between the color mask characteristics and processing. The dye masks are directly related to how the color development of the film occurs, since both the actual color negative image and the visible dye layers are related inversely. Indeed, errors in processing

Re: filmscanners: orange mask

Roman Kielich® wrote: > you sound like a first class US lawyer. Indeed, the negative films were, > are and will be designed primarily to be copied onto a positive medium, > to wit a photographic paper. > The reason for the orange mask is an unwanted absorption of a cyan and a > magenta dye i

Re: filmscanners: orange mask

Laurie Solomon wrote: >> Bear in mind that it is not important, how does the mask look to your eye, >> but how the paper emulsion sees it. and for the paper the differences may >> be negligible. > > > So would one be wrong to interpret what you are saying here in a fashion as > to infer that

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >