"J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > > 3. If so, does the scanner sofware pkg. let you save > > > different filter "packs" and call them up as needed > > > for film in use and hopefully run batch processing > > > on a number of scanned files? > > > > You can save configurations on most scanner software. > > Good, does that mean the color compensation I'm talking about > is automatically performed based on the custom configuration > when you perform the scan?
Yes, but you still may want to tweak the settings for another shot from the same roll or film type. What works best seems to be somewhat dependent on the subject and exposure: i.e. a backlit shot and crosslit shot on the same roll may call for slightly different tweaks of your scanner software. For example, you might want to add a bit more contrast to the backlit shot by adjusting your RGB curve prior to scanning. It's good to play with the controls and figure out what works best for you. > > > > > 5. Is it easier to just shoot slides to get > > > color accurate scans? > > > > > > > Negatives yield great scans. I do shoot a lot of slide film, because > > it's easy to manage and it gives you a color reference. But I think > > negative film is actually easier to scan. > > > > Another good thing, I shoot color neg alot and I like its wide > exposure latitude. BUT, there is still a place in my heart > for kodachomes projected at 4 by 6 FEET! > > > > > > > 6. Is 4000dpi really needed? Most were 2800 > > > a couple of years ago. > > > > 4000 dpi is really needed. A 4000 ppi scan of a 35mm neg or transparency > > will give you a 7 x10 print at about 550 ppi. That's about the right > > number to get a truly excellent print from a high end inkjet printer. > > How much does a "high end" injet printer cost that will do a 8.5" X11" > print that matched a wet print MADE FROM A 6X7 Neg? Any recommendations? An Epson 1280 can do it, although it will require a perfect scan well handled in PhotoShop. The 1280 sells for about $450. It's the best bargain in photography. > > > > It > > will produce good 11 x15s as well, but you're pushing the limits there > > -- even at 4000 ppi. At approximately 11 x 15 (full frame), a 4000 ppi > > scan will give you a print of about 340 ppi. If you're scanning medium > > format, you could get away with 2800 ppi scans, but for 11 x15 or > > bigger, 4000 is still desirable. > > Paul > Now I'm confused. In order to get the higher resolution of a 6X7 neg > to show up in a print wouldnt the same scan resolution( 4000 ppi) > be needed? (i.e. a larger digital file) > Well, you have a lot more pixels in a 6x7 neg scanned at 4000 ppi than you do in a 35mm meg scanned at ppi, so when you blow up the 6x7 your picture sized file has more pixels as well. For example, when I scan a 6x7 neg at 4000 ppi, I end up with an 11 x 14 of approximately 750 ppi, which produces an awesome 11 x14 print. When I scan a 35 mm neg at 4000 ppi, I end with an 11 x14 of approximately 350 ppi, which produces a very nice print. The bigger your neg is to start, the higher res your blowup will be. I've found that 6x7 is ideal for working with a 4000 ppi scanner and a printer like the Epson. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7. VERY IMPORTANT - Are there photolabs which > > > can generate large (16X20) REAL photographic enlargements > > > from very high (large Mb) quality scans (digital files) on > > > CD-R? Seems like it would be very nice to minipulate > > > the image just the way you like it in photoshop > > > as a large RAW file and then just send it to the printer > > > on CD-R. > > > > Yes, but I don't know if you lose something in the process. Once you've > > perfected injet printing, you probably won't hunger for wet prints. > > > But Im talking about large 16X24 or even larger prints, a home > inkjet cant do that. Are large digital prints cheaper than wet ones > of the same size? That's a question for Aaron, perhaps he'll jump in. He produces large, commercial inkjet prints. > > > > > > > > > > > If they cant make real prints, how is the quality > > > of what they can do? (Laser inkjet, etc). > > > > Inkjet prints are awesome. As good as custom lab prints. Just ask Tom. > > > That's great, but who's Tom? Tom "Greywolf" Rittenhouse, who conducted the PDML printer challenge. He was an inkjet doubter but ended up quite convinced after seeing some inkjet prints. And I don't think he received any that started out as 6x7 negs. I know I can produce quite a bit better print now that I'm shooting 6x7 than I was able to do with 35mm. It's all those pixels! > > > JCO > - > 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 . - 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 .
