Tomasz Zakrzewski wrote:
Since I'm still a filmscanning theoretician :-) I have a basic question
about the conversion of negatives that is made by VueScan or SilverFast, for
example.
Negatives have different qualities, some render blues with slight magenta
cast, some give you a little
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Larry Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You failed to mention which camera brand you're using. If Nikon, all their
lenses are color matched. On other forums, like the D1/D1x, it's one of
the
things that come up for discussion from time to time.
It wasn't actually
Moreno Polloni wrote:
I see, and how long have you been in the business? If by fair profit
you mean 0-5 percent, I guess you're right. They can make some decent
profit on gray products, but not on most Nikon USA products.
The mail order places might be able to survive on 5% if they
Stephen Kogge wrote:
Re the banding problem
My first reaction was that the scan is being done off a native
resolution 4000 dpi, 2000 dpi, 1333.333 dpi, 1000dpi etc and that software
interpolation was/is being done.
After a few of the other comments about
Frank Nichols wrote:
I am using PEC-12 with PEC PADS on dirty negs as a first step.
I found an anti-static brush (StaticMaster) which is plutonium charged.
Just for clarity, its polonium, not plutonium... I don't think there is
a safe qty of plutonium...:-)
Isaac
It
seems to
Hersch Nitikman wrote:
For all the concern about the lifetime of CDs, I have been scanning my
personal archives of slides and color negatives ranging mostly from
the past 30 years, with a few older. I have to say that most of my
30-year old slides and negatives need Digital ROC (Restoration
Tony Sleep wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital.
For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to an AP
photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot
Cliff Ober wrote:
Austin,
Please forgive my comment; you're right, it was out of line, and I'm sorry
to have offended.
Cliff Ober
I've got an even better idea, let's take this whole LED business, which
was once interesting and is now degenerating into Did not Did too
silliness,
Austin Franklin wrote:
In fact, their typical MTBF is rated
for 1000
hours.
Not only is the typical life of LEDs far longer than what you have
asserted,
You are right, ALL LEDs are not typically rated for 1000 hours. The typical
was meant only for the LEDs I was
Lynn Allen wrote:
Uh, this is probably a really dumb question, but what steps would you use to
get this pushed-film processed, given the technology likely available in a
small town? The last time I pushed film, I lived in a large metro area--I
don't presently. At that time, I found that the
Austin Franklin wrote:
Some of your recent statements of technical fact seem to be
casting a bit
of a shadow on your own credentials as an engineer;
That comment is really out of line. If you want to question my credentials,
please do so privately. There is only ONE statement I made
Austin Franklin wrote:
http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/1990.htm
BTW, thanks for that link! I did find it most interesting, and certainly a
great source for information on LEDs. I would never have imagined that
someone would devote so much time and thought to LEDs.
As a side note, when
Johnny Deadman wrote:
on 6/19/01 11:56 PM, Dan Honemann at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I seem to remember watching American Football for the first time in the UK
some time back and thinking how fantastic the image quality was. I then
found out that its shot on film. Is this still the
Austin Franklin wrote:
A couple of years ago someone on the darkroom newsgroup was working on an
LED light source for enlarger heads, utilizing clusters of high-intensity
LED's. I don't know what happened to the project, but at the time a lot of
people were really excited about the
Austin Franklin wrote:
Austin Franklin wrote:
A couple of years ago someone on the darkroom newsgroup was
working on an
LED light source for enlarger heads, utilizing clusters of
high-intensity
LED's. I don't know what happened to the project, but at the
time a lot of
Tom Christiansen wrote:
Another film you may want to try is Fuji NPC 160. It's a professional high
contrast negative film rated at ISO 160. It prints similar to Reala -- it's
just 2/3 stop faster.
Tom
Not to pick nits, but I thought that Reala and NPC were considered low
contrast
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
deterministic.
Too
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.
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 scratches as on the old
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 performance factors.
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 variables, lighting, exposure,
PAUL GRAHAM wrote:
Update on trying to get a good Lamda print done:
Went to a repro lab recommended by Fuji, and after carefully explaining what
I wanted from them - highest quality, finest detail and optimum resolution
from my 5x7 inch negative, to output a 45 print, I came back the next
TECK wrote:
Since Pec 12 has come up so often, has anyone used Pec 12 on mounted slides?
I use only a very small amount and have tried both the Pec Pads and lintless
cotton and I can not get the Pec 12 off, it leaves white streaks on the
slides and I have not found a way to use it with
23 matches
Mail list logo
