I'm of the Keep It Simple Stupid persuasion plus I'm cheap. Also I don't
have an infinite amount of space around my computer.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
----- Original Message -----
From: "JC OConnell" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner
mmm, I have had and used a flatbed scanner for over 12 years and
couldnt imagine not having one on my pc. They are very cheap and
very useful for doing an occasional fax, making a copy of document for
archives, etc.
Flatbeds are good to have. Film scanners were expensive, but basic
document only
scanners are not. The quality of the scans are amazing from my epson
scanner with typical 8.5x11 documents.
JC O'Connell (mailto:[email protected])
"Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom" - Thomas Jefferson
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Ken Waller
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:39 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner
The whole point was I wasn't going to purchase a flatbed scanner for a
few
prints! These reproductions totally exceeded my expectations.
It would be interesting to see how these digital images from my K20D
compare
to those from a scanner.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
----- Original Message -----
From: "JC OConnell" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner
as good as that worked, using a decent flatbed scanner
would probably be even better! scanners can be super
critical sharp too.
JC O'Connell (mailto:[email protected])
"Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom" - Thomas
Jefferson
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Ken Waller
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:49 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: K20D as Scanner
I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures
that I didn't have the negs for.
I don't have a flat bed scanner & decided to shoot them with my K20D &
my
200mm f4.0 ED Macro.
I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the
image
plane, using available light & being mindful to eliminate glare off
the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a
small amount of unsharp mask) & printed them (slightly larger than the
original
image) on
my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer.
The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final
results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper.
I seriously
doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the
digitally produced images.
FYI
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
