Bruce Dayton wrote: > > Tom, > > I have thought about doing that also, but have never been brave enough to > try. Even though I scan all the time, I have felt that the time to deal > with an entire wedding would be just too much. You would really need to > have full roll batch scanning with automatic correction and then feed it to > a program that wou
Well, the idea was to have my lab do the scanning at around $12 per roll, then do the html myself. I did write a script that created the individual html pages, but it still took a lot longer then I thought it would have. I figure with a little practice I could get it down to 5 or 10 hours. I would need to rewrite the script to create the index pages. For comparison, it usually take me about 7 or 8 hours to put a proof album together. Another reason I'd like digital to work is that I'd have a copy af the proofs as well. Currently my clients get to keep them, and I keep the negs. > > As I looked of the images, I concur that the B&W is a bit rough. It > certainly seems very grainy looking. Is it really like that or is this what > happened during the scans? Well, they're TMZ at 1600, mostly, so those are on the grainy side. It's the bad contrast I object to, which happened mostly with the Delta 400. Some of them were unsharp as well, even though the negs look fine. I do develop a little hot, which is what my enlarger seems to prefer, so maybe that's the problem wrt the contrast problem. > I'm getting ready to scan some Kodak Black & > White Chromogenic film. I'll let you know how well it scans. Thanks for > sharing. I liked your pose of the groom and his attendents against the > fence. Something I haven't seen before. Actually, as one of the groomsmen pointed out afterwards, you probably saw it on the cover of a Beatles album....;) Ed wrote: > > Nice shots, Tom. Thanks. > I might also add that for anyone with a s-l-o-w > internet connection like me, it still might be faster to drive somewhere > and look at all the proofs. :) >From Phoenix? Leon Altoff wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 02:35:45 -0700, tom wrote: > > >Once I got the scans to a point where they weren't ridiculously heinous > >(they're happily mediocre now), I started working on the html...I soon > >realized that I'd have to come up with about 250 html files. Ugh. > > > >So I learned perl, and wrote a script to write most of them. > > I actually use Excel to create large numbers of near identical html > pages. Once I have the formulas all sorted out I just fill in what > specifics are required and run a macro. For your situation once you > have the standard formulas you could create pages for different > weddings quite easily. What I'd like to do, and my script is pretty close to doing, is read a directory of jpegs, create an index page of thumbnails, and an individual html page from a template for each one. Can excel do that? I didn't think to see if a spreadsheet could solve my html problems...;) > The first time is what takes the time. If you set up some automation > and get the scans right it should be quicker from now on. I think you're right, some automation will cut the time down a bit, but I'm still not satisfied with the scans. It seems to me you can develop your b+w and optimize for printing or scanning, but not both. Maybe I'll try a different lab....maybe I just need someone with a scanner that can handle more contrast. Anand DHUPKAR wrote: > > i think, it depends on how you take the shoot, but frankly, i don't feel the > snaps are that bad. I'm happy with the photos (though I can always find things that are wrong and want to improve), I'm disappointed with the scans. > btw, are you commercial photographer ? No, just weddings and portraits. > in that case i think if you would > have used digital camera straight way, it would have been far easier and > superior too. Find me one that'll do nice 11x14's at EI 1600 and I'll buy it. Thanks for all the comments. BTW, the clients say they're quite happy with them... tv - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
