Re: filmscanners: Re: Vuescan gripes
Ed: Please leave the + feature alone. I usully leave the scan in vuescan and move it later. Gordon Tim Atherton wrote: I'm guessing that you don't like the way file names are entered. I can't use standard file dialogs to enter file names that have the letter + in them, but I suppose I could drop this feature (specifying the plus after the digit(s) to be incremented) and use standard file dialog boxes. Would anyone object if I did this? It would only take me 5 minutes to do, but I suspect it would annoy thousands of people. Don't you dare Ed!! I use it almost every day.. :) Tim A
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: When is Provia 100F a poor film to scan...underwater :-7
Rob: I once had a roll with about 3 frames that looked like they were full of flyspecks. I ran it through Vuescan to see if it would remove the dust. I wasn't dust. It was in the emulsion, probably done in the devolempent process. I then used the remove blemish tool in Photo Suite 3 and it remedied the situation My guess is that your problem is in the emulsion and is not dust. Gordon
Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
I did not receive it either. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Jack Phipps wrote: . The attached file has several very fine lines at certain angles. Jack Phipps Applied Science Fiction I didn't find the attachment with your post, am I the only one? Art
Re: filmscanners: CD from Scanner
Burt: Though I do not have a Dell I do have the same software. I have found that the CD writer software woorks a lot better if you go through the workflow the Dell rep. suggested. It may be cumbersome but it does work best. I have usually done some cleaning and sharpening and sometimes croping in PS before placing the image(s) on the CD. Going to Windows Explorer to delete the files, to me, is only a minor inconvenience unless your HD has a very low storage capacity. I usually scan only as a tif and I have lots of room with what is now a relatively small (6 gig) drive that really has about 1 gig free to work with. I definitiely do not deal with the images one at a time. That would really make the process cumbersome. Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am just starting to get into digital imaging. Computers to me are not intuitive (to put it mildly) and I am not being modest. I am trying to create CDs from images on my flatbed scanner (Epson 1200U) to the CD. I follow the steps but I am unable to read the result. I have a Dell computer with Windows Me, 256 mg of RAM, a CD ROM bay and a CD RW bay, and an Adaptec CD writer system that came with the computer. I called Dell and I received that did not seem right to me, so I am hoping I can get some other thoughts. What I was told is that the Adaptec does not do well copying from the scanner and that my best procedure with the Adaptec software was to copy to the hard drive and then copy to the CD. It was also suggested that I might acquire another CD burner software that would do a better job. It seems to me that the whole idea of CD burning is to avoid having to fill up the hard drive with images. I realize that I could erase the image, but the procedure of copying to HD then to CD and then erasing the image on the HD seems very cumbersome. The tech also suggested a ZIP drive. I thought the purpose of the CD was to avoid having to get a ZIP drive. I would appreciate any thoughts on this subject. Thanks in advance. Burt
Re: filmscanners: PS 6.0 v. PS 5.0 LE v. Jasc Paintshop Pro 7.02
Matthew: If you have PS 5.0 LE and you eventually intend to usr PS, I would suggest you at least load it and register it even if you use another imaging program. As Adobe upgrades the product, you will get offers to upgrade the product at a much lower price than the $500. I also think that you will get a magazine for the first year for free that will present information that will be useful in processing your images. Even if you do not use the program as much as a less costly one, the information is often transferable to another workflow. In the meantime you can play with both the PS and other program to see which provides the easiest interface for your use. Then, taking into consideration all the information you can read on this and other sites, you can decide what is best for you. Gordon
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
Lynn: I understand that the digital machines will also accept an image that is given to them on a disk and that the machine can make the print from it. Wouldn't this allow you to controll all but the actual print process. You do do all the adjustments in PS, or other similar program, first to get the control. Gordon Lynn Allen wrote: Steve wrote: *There's* one very good reason for retaining total control--the lab will do the better print for the same price as the bad one, but you pay for both of them. In your decision, you have to estimate how many of those you're going to have. Good luck. ;-)
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
I believe that my responses to your criteria are accurate, but, if they aren't you will certainly receive additional ones. Dan Honemann wrote: I want a dpi high enough that I don't run into grain aliasing; from what I read here, sounds like 3,000 dpi. This places you into the Nikon 4000 (though I believe it does not quite reach 4K), the Polaroid, and maybe 1 or 2 others. Let's say 3.6 DMax. Still the same products listed that match the dpi criteria. Some Minolta's are here but with lesser dpi. ICE could therefore be a big timesaver This is available in the Nikon and possibly Minolta but at a lesser DPI. ICE requires an Infra Red channel, not found in all scanners. These could be real timesavers for me. But I hate to use them at the expense of sharpness. ROC restores colors - I do not believe that it soften the pictures. GEM has a softening effect. This is correctable in a program like Photoshop using Unsharp Mask (USM).. I guess I want a scanner that will do my Leica glass justice. Is that asking too much in the $3k (US) price range? Home scanners are less than the 3k cost. Others will have to comment on the Leica glass like results. etc, what you will be doing with the output, Color work will go to an Epson 1280 for 11x14 prints. BW will go to an Epson 1160 with piezo drivers/inks for 11x14 prints. 3k dpi is better for this size print. and of course the price you want to pay. to me it is very much like the difference between the Leafscan 45 scan and the Nikon ED 4000 scan of the girl's face midpage at: http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html Whatever this difference is (contrast?), it seems very similar to the different look of slides shot through Leica vs. Nikon glass. I will leave others to comment here. I have no experience with a Leafscan. In fact what you want to get as a final output (to me at least) is probably the most important. My dream is to get final color prints that look as good as my projected slides; cibachromes have really been disappointing to me. I also very much like the look of the prints in Jim Brandenburg's _Chased by the Light_ (which I believe were shot with Nikkors! which is why I'm hoping digital imagery can give me the look I want). For bw, I'm looking for deep, dark blacks, true whites, and a rich tonal range inbetween. Guess I'm asking a bit much, eh?! Remember, very few scanners will give you results that cannot be enhanced by using PS, PSP, or some other program Once the field is narrowed, then ask again and the answers will really help you make the decision. I wish I could afford to send all my slides out to be processed by a place like West Coast Imaging (http://www.westcoastimaging.com/index.htm) using Tango drum scanners and Lightjet printers--but I can't. You may want to search for and test a local custom lab that has a Fuji Frontier or a Noritsu. These units will convert a digital image to a process that produces a C-41 print. This process, including what you are doing now, is the same process I went through about 2 years ago. This list really did the most help after I narrowed the field. Hope so. But I also believe that at some point I'll just to have to make a choice (flipping a coin if necessary) and dive in to discover on my own what works and what doesn't for my eyes. Sometimes that is what it takes I have to say that the Leafscan 45 sample at the pytolwany site is the first one that really caught my attention as to the look I'm after--and maybe that's all the pointers I need. You may want o check Tony Sleep's site and read his information and see the test results of the scanners he shows. There are also sites that users of this list have that can give you an idea of other scanners' capabilities. however, a 72 dpi screen picture is often very different from a print. Dan
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Time to upgrade: Opinions wanted
Rob Geraghty wrote: Peter wrote: I think there is only one happy scanner owner, Ed, in this forum. He is not using it mainly for slides though. I certainly have the impression that Ed's main use of the scanner is on colour neg film. I think you may have a skewed impression of the satisfaction levels because of the nature of the list. People post most often when they have a problem, so it looks like nobody is happy. I agree with Rob. The forum is necessary for problems and comparisons, each of which generate traffic and give the impression that everyone here would rather have a differnet scanner than they acquired. For those purposes, the forum is doing its job, in fact, quite well. The rest of people probably own drum scanners or do not own scanners at all. Ignorance is bliss? :) I would expect more input from people owning scanners in $600-$1500 price range. It is unfortunate. I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here, because there's no previous text for reference. Harking back to the post which started this thread, I think there's been a lot of useful feedback. Regarding the LS-30 I agree because I have one. Like most other scanners, they do a great job if the slide/negative is done correctly. In other cases, the scan allows you to manipulate it in another program (PS, PSP) and then improve it as much as possible. Sio they are doing their job. The automated cleaning in Vuescan, or ICE in Nikonscan makes scanning a LOT easier with a minor loss of sharpness. One of the reasons I got the LS-30 and it is very helpful Choosing a scanner has a lot to do with what the buyer wants to do with the results. There's no single answer that is right for everyone. In the price range you present ( in $ US) I think you pick up about 90% of the home use scanner price range - both the older ones and the newer models. In fact, your range is so large that it has to be confusing. Narrow it down, set up criteria based on what you think is important, like dpi, density range, ICE, ROC, GEM etc, what you will be doing with the output, and of course the price you want to pay. In fact what you want to get as a final output (to me at least) is probably the most important. Once the field is narrowed, then ask again and the answers will really help you make the decision. This process, including what you are doing now, is the same process I went through about 2 years ago. This list really did the most help after I narrowed the field. Gordon
Re: filmscanners: Magnification of light
Marvin: I hope this responds to what your questions. I scanned an old Kodachrome slide I took at the Grand Canyon and it had a section that was in deep shadow, but you could still see some of the detail in the shadow. I scanned it on my LS-30, moved it to PS 5 and the manipulation took away the shadow and pulled up the details. By the way, Vuescan's ICE cleaned up the Kodachrome's dust and a scratch nicely. Gordon Marvin Demuth wrote: Larry Berman, a list member, along with his associate, Chris Mayer, published their interview with Jay Maisel, the noted New York photographer who is rapidly moving to digital, in the June 2001 issue of Shutterbug http://bermangraphics.com/press/jaymaisel.htm. In my zeal to make the switch to the digital era, I have read the article three times. One section particularly caught my eye: Chris/Larry: I've read that it's an electronic shutter. (Referring to the Nikon D1) Jay: Yeah, OK. So I can hold down to a 15th now. I'm an old guy. I don't have the shakes but to hold down to a 15th hand held is pretty wild. So, with the fact that I'm now shooting 200 ASA, and all my life I've only shot 50 or a hundred, tops, and I never liked to push film, I'm now, effectively my shutter speed is always higher. Plus the fact that this sucker amplifies light. I'm sure you're aware of that. Chris/Larry: Well, I know that it certainly has the ability to work at different ISO's or ASA speeds. Jay: No no, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you take a photograph at the recommended ISO, in a bad light situation, you will look at it and be amazed at how much detail it pulls out. Chris/Larry: Opens up the shadow details. The ability of the sensor to see into the shadows. Jay: It's astonishing. The phrase, OPENS UP THE SHADOW DETAILS, strikes me as a real bonus. Yesterday in making a C print from a negative, I virtually lost all my shadow details in printing for the central theme of the scene. Also, yesterday, I received via e-mail a JPEG file made with a Nikon 990 which contained more shadow detail than I could have printed with a C print from one of my negatives. Question: Does the same principle of opening up the shadow details work with scanned negatives? In asking this, I am aware of the manipulations that can be done with shadow details with PhotoShop, et alwhich are certainly easier to do than with the conventional dodging techniques in photographic enlarging. Marvin Demuth
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: New Nikon performance
Art: I have a LS-30 and mostly use Vuescan. There are times when I have failed to use its version of ICE and wish I had done so. I would rather not see the dust, specks, scratches, etc. on the neg. or slide at all. Any softening can be corrected by using the USM. It sure beats the process of black and white printing and then spotting the print. I have been in some pretty clean darkrooms and no matter how we tried we were alsays doing some spotting to get rid of the artifacts. The digital system, even if you do not have ICE, is is a lot easier and faster. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: I find it very interesting just how defensive most of the Nikon scanner owners are on this list. The question below was a reasonable one. Do the new Nikon scanners tend to amplify the dust and dirt when dICE is off, as they do on the older scanners? All the sudden all these Nikon scanner owners are in love with dust, dirt, fingerprints and scratches, and want to see them as clearly as possible. ;-) When the LS 2000 and LS 30 came out MANY of the owners mentioned that it was a good thing the Nikon's has dICE because the scans without them so amplified the dust, etc, that the scanner would be very difficult to use without the dICE feature, compared to other scanners they had used. Somehow, dust and dirt and scratches have become some sort of virtue, or badge of courage that Nikon scanner owners proudly wear. When lighting sources for photographic enlargers were introduced that reduced these bugaboos with minimal loss of resolution, everyone was happy to have them (well, except a few that preferred to spend half their lives doing retouching in color, and were using condenser lighting for color) but somehow its not the same with scanners. The Nikons do slightly improve resolution (at least in the middle of the image) by using LED light sources and a unfiltered CCD, but, in so doing they make dust, et al, more obvious, unless you turn on the dICE, at which point you have a result that is likely softer than the equivalent scanner with a non-LED light source. So, it appears there's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean my menu is better or worse than yours. I do know that yours is more expensive. Art 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 scanners, or if this has been improved, and if so, by how much. Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would rather have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be resolved... I'm funny that way...;-) Isaac
Re: filmscanners: Viewing Software
If you use Vuescan, Ed has a free thumbnail display program that you can copy to the CD and it should do its magic. Gordon Bob Turner wrote: Dear all, I have only recently started burning my pics to CD and would like some software that will display thumbnails and the full size images directly from the CD. Does the list have any recommendations as to a software package that I can place on a CD of images so that the recipient can view these? Bob Turner Dundee, Scotland, U.K. Website : www.bawbee.co.uk
Re: filmscanners: Choice of film scanner
Chris: Welcome to the group. The way I did it last year was to first look at camera magazines and determine which companies made scanners thgat fuit what I wanted to do. The second step was to determine the prices of each. It seemed that the magazines with the best descriptions of the scanners also said the famous Call for Price. Othere, usually with less description did have the price and I assumed that the Call companies would be [pretty close to the lowest price I found. Then I culled the list to the price range I wanted. The next step was to go to Tony's list and see if there was a description/assessment of the scanner there. I judiciously stayed away from company or e-sales company' sites - they use the same descriptions made by the manufacturer. The final step was to ask the group just as you just did. No matter how you sequence the search, you will probably have to do most of these steps. In most cases - probably all - the APS adapter will be an added cost. If all you want to do is send pictures to friends and relatives, you may want to consider using an electronic photo service like Phot O Works, etc.. That way you can avoid the price of the scanner and the processing time, and still develop albums that can be downloaded by the viewers. However, if you want to do any tweaking to bring out the best in the images before you send them, then get the scanner. Gordon Chris Padfield wrote: I am wondering if someone on this list can help. Basically i am looking to get a film scanner. This is for a complete amateur and the main use will be to share photos around with friends. I am particularly interested in speed, being able to place an APS film in the machine, press go (perhaps after some callibration) and the whole film is scanned. What do you think are my avaliable options? thanks you chris padfield
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding
Lynn: You make some good points relative to the camera. There are other factors too that an amateur must consider. One biggy is the storage capacity of digital cameras. That is getting better but it still has not reached the point where the chips will hold a lot of tiff images. The image capacity of them seems to be advertised as if they are using jpeg at a level 2. Additionally, the capability of the camera's will have to reach the price and point where their fixed lenses will justify my expense of chucking the money I have spent on bodies, lenses, and scanner into the garbage. I am waiting for a digital camera body that will let me use my lenses at the current price of around 3 - 4 hundred $US or less, give me the resolution of a good 100 ISO film to print veryb good 11 X 14, and a separate 1 GB removable storage capacity chip at around $100 US each. Until then, my Nikon, the lenses, film, and the scanner will suffice. Gordon Lynn Allen wrote: Steve wrote: Ok it will be approx US $7000 but hopefully the consumer stuff will eventually follow on. That's a pretty big hit, AFAIC. You can buy several Leicas for that amount. Even a professional will look very closely at that sort of high-ticket item--it has to start paying off very rapidly! Amateurs (unless they're in the drug business), will not participate. Kodak made that mistake a few years ago, and they're still trying to regain their balance. Also, there are $7000 cameras, and there are $7000 cameras. For that price, it'd better be as good as a very nice cherry-wood view-camera (which haven't come down in price lately, AFAIK). Frankly, I don't think the digicam is there yet, although it's definitely closing the gap. Will it soon be as good as my old trustworthy Spotmatic? Jeez, I hope so. I'm probably as enthusiastic as anyone about digital cameras. But until they get closer to the price and quality of a good SLR, the film camera is still king. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: A Good Epson Customer Service Story
Laurie: I guess we wouldn't expect less. However; when we usually hear something about a company, the message is usually one that trashes them. Usually, when people are properly served, they say nothing about it and go on their merry way. It is nice to hear that a company, especially a large corporation, does do what it is expected to do. Also, people will remember the good impression messages when they are looking for a product and use that company's products over another's. We then get a chance to vote for a good company with our dollars. Gordon Laurie Solomon wrote: Would you have expected less from a major company that is supposedly selling quality products and furnishing quality services?
Re: filmscanners: VueScan Long Exposure Pass
Ed: I assume that the long exposure pass would be replaced by having the scanner do 4 scanning passes. I found that the long pass reduced the number of times that I had to do multiscanning to pull detail from the shadows. I would only use the long scan option if I needed to get that detail, otherwise I left the box unchecked.. Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would anyone object if I removed the Long exposure pass option from VueScan? It seems to have problems on most scanners with CCD charge bleeding from overexposed pixels, and it does more harm than good (in my opinion). Is there any scanner that it seems to work well with? Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides
Tony: I just bought a bottle and the pads recently. I do not apply PEC 12 directly to the slide/negative. I squirt it onto the opad and then apply and wipe it off with the dry part of the pad. I have had no residue or seen a change in the emulsion. Gordon 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 mounted slides, is there some trick I'm missing??? Tony Eck Probably the best and safest cleaner for slides and negs is Pec 12. It's non-water based, which means that the emulsion will not swell, it dries almost instantly, and evaporates completely.
Re: filmscanners: scanner dilemma
Rob: First, I too welcome back Ed. His input has really helped clear things up in a lot of different threads and not just those related to Vuescan. Second, I do not think that anyone without an IR channel will get optimal dust and scratch removal from Vuescan and that is not a major reason for separating them. Separating them lets people know that Vuescan has a GEM capability, will reduce confusion, and will allow a user to NOT use the dust and scratch filter if it is not needed, and vice versa. Even if dust and scratch filters do nothing if there aren't any dust or scratches, some feel that implementing GEM will soften an image more than is desires when cleaning the dust or scratches. Whether their feeling are justified or not is immaterial. Third, I knew that ICE (dust and scratch removal) required the IR channel and that GEM did not. However, this supports my reasoning above on separating them. It reduces confusion and senior moments. Gordon Rob Geraghty wrote: So is there any chance you'll separate cleaning from grain reduction? That way people without an IR channel could use it without the dust and scratch filter. Rob
Re: filmscanners: scanner dilemma
Pat: You do not give up GEM or ROC when using Vuescan. Vuescan has its own version of GEM and ROC. ROC is initiated with the restore color box, I believe in the color tab. If you select the cleaning option of either Scour and Scrub, you implement the GEM function. Many of us are hoping that Ed Hamrick will eventually separate the GEM function from the cleaning functions with a separate selection box or drop down.. Gordon Pat Perez wrote: I recently sold my Canoscan 2710 in order to make way for a new film scanner. I am strictly an amatuer photographer, so in shopping for a new scanner, I have less need for a high volume production model than a high image quality model, though more of each is better. My initial survey of the market led me towards the new Nikon Coolscan IV largely for it's ICE^3 capability, and I figure that Genuine Fractals will help offset the lower resolution compared to some newer models out there. I am concerned about two issues with the IV, however: namely that it uses the USB interface, and it doesn't support native multisampling (although I will guess that Vuescan will allow it by moving the film as it did with my Canon). But using Vuescan means I give up Digital ROC and GEM (but adds it's own version of ICE). The Coolscan 4000ED of course alleviates these concerns at approximately double the price (stretching my budget). I have been considering the new Canon 4000, which has an ICE-like feature, but no ROC or GEM. The Polaroid SS4000, also looks tempting, as do the Kodak RFS 3600 and the Minolta Dimage Elite. I shoot 35mm exclusively, slides and negs about equally, and have a few hundred old negatives that need help (faded and scratched). As I said, I am not a high volume user, this is totally a hobby. That said, the high speed and high quality filmterms for Kodak film that the RFS has seems a plus, even though the software seems reportedly to be annoying. I would love to hear any thoughts/advice on how I should make a decision; user experiences are invaluable. I'm willing to spend the money for the 4000ED, but it really needs to fight that price hard to overcome such a cost disadvantage. I would like to purchase by late May-mid June, to have it on hand when two vacations I'm taking will finish. Thanks, Pat __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: scanner dilemma
Pat Ed's GEM is his own. If not he would be in a lot of legal trouble by now. To use the grain remover you have to have an infrared channel in the scanner, that is why the ASF functions are specific to certain scanners. The ROC is also his and is apparently not dependent upon the IR channel. I believe that fact that it is a separate check box and not imbedded in the cleaning functions is an indicator that the ROC is not IR channel dependent. RE: The Minolta, if you want to get GEM to operate you will have to get the scanner with an IR channel. If the company does not advertise it but advertises ICE, GEM, plus ROC, or a combination of them, the scanner has an IR channel. I understand that the new Canon scanner (not sure if it is available yet) has its own version of ICE and maybe GEM, apart from ASF or Ed's. However, I am not too clear on this. Gordon Pat Perez wrote: This is very interesting news indeed. Are these ASF functions from the Nikon SW, or Ed's own work-alikes? If the scrub and restore color feature's are Ed's, then it would seem the Minolta is the one to get. Pat --- Gordon Tassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pat: You do not give up GEM or ROC when using Vuescan. Vuescan has its own version of GEM and ROC. ROC is initiated with the restore color box, I believe in the color tab. If you select the cleaning option of either Scour and Scrub, you implement the GEM function. Many of us are hoping that Ed Hamrick will eventually separate the GEM function from the cleaning functions with a separate selection box or drop down.. Gordon __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: filmscanners: Subject: 4000 ED and updating IEEE 1394 driver in 98 SE
Leo: Since you just received the scanned, I suggest you try to scan soome slides with differing depths for the bow, from flat to really curved. If you scan them and judge the sharpness of each, you may find that you will not need the glass slide holders with the new scanner. Gordon Leo Stachowicz wrote: Also,one other question The only optional glass holder which i can find which is available for the 4000 ED is the FH-G1 Medical Slide Holder is this the right accessory to get if i want maximum film flatness when scanning 35mm transparencies and negatives ? Thanks Leo
Re: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.0 with Win98 / Win98SE for LS30/LS2000
What about Windows ME. Gordon Edwin Eleazer wrote: The manual states that Win 98 SE is required. I want to try Nikonscan 3 too (with LS2000), but can't work out if I must have Win98SE or not. The website says you do, but that may be only for the Firewire interface. I have only Win98 original. Does anyone know if you can use the old scanners with Win98 original? TIA Julian At 05:26 20/04/01, you wrote: Cheers for the replies everyone... I installed 98 instead of 98SE,ooops!! back to the drawing board.. Leo Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
Re: filmscanners: Grain-Aliasing on Slides
Lynn: I ran into a similar situation with what looked like flyspecks all over 3 images in a roll I had developed. They were shot from a beach looking across a bay in the the early evening with the sun at 2 o'clock. The camera was angled just enough to prevent lens flare. My solution was to try Photo Suite III's Blemish Remove tool. (I had just purchased at no cost after the rebate and was trying it out.) It worked very well and I then sharpened the area in Photoshop to reduce the softness I encountered using the tool. It does work quite nicely and I have used it with good results on the other 2 images in the roll affected by the same "fly spots." Gordon Lynn Allen wrote: Here's one I haven't seen very-well-addressed on the List before: grain-aliasing on Ektachrome. Does it/can it exist? Oh, yes. I just ran headlong into a real beauty! The photo was shot at Disneyland, with the Matterhorn (a roller-coaster ride, at D'land) in the background. Same scenario as I've described before--bright sunlight, and the subject in modified shadow (not deep, this time), and back-lit at about 10-o'clock (sun, approximately 20 degrees left behind the subject and 70 degrees above the horizon). My spotmeter decided to expose for the Matterhorn--which is white--instead of the subject, my daughter, who is "white" in the Caucasion sense ot the word, but not at all so in reflective color. Result: another poorly-exposed slide that looks fine on a projection screen, not-so-great on a 2700ppi scan. What got my attention was the sky area, a clear-day blue with typical atmospheric gradadation down toward to the horizion. What appeared at first to be "dust" didn't quite have the dark, well-defined *signature* I'd have expected from dust. And throughout the sky area was a lighter-blue "footprint" that I can only describe as the look of a "woven" paper-stock--long, regular slashes of a lighter color with a darker drop-shadow, a "crinkled" look! I've never encountered this exact effect in *any* of the nearly 2000 slides I've done before today, nor had I been drinking--but I'm tempted to start! ;-) This is probably another one of those darned "Un-reproducable Noise" problems that I run into every 20 or 30 pictures. Attempting to JPEG it to something "Inter-netable" softens it well beyond what I see on my monitor, or something that would be recognizeable as what is actually going on. It could have been produced during development processing, and probably was. My vote is with Tony's idea about what I'd call "sympathetic vibrations" produced by a 2700ppi scan resolution. My "solution" was to use a fairly large soft Cloning brush (30 to 50-pixel) at a 50% transparency in a short circular mouse-pattern, changing the pick-up area every so often to eliminate obvious "repeats." It ain't very hi-tech, but it seems to work. At least I've got a clean sky, now. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
To get to VueScan's ICE equivalent use any cleaning mode. To get to the ICE GEM equivalent go to the medium or high cleaning modes. Gordon Jeremy Brookfield wrote: Rob Geraghty wrote: "Jeremy Brookfield" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The software (Nikon Scan 3.0) is so buggy as to render the scanner useless to all intents and purposes. Have you tried Vuescan? Does it work? Yes, it works quickly and (so far) reliably. Howver, I have difficulties with the color management. Nikon Scan 3 produces well balanced colour without manipulation. None of Vuescans 7.0.12 color balances comes even close to being reasonable. I also miss Nikon Scan's curve control (I have figured out how to use the new LCH dialog properly). Also I cannot find Vuescan's ICE GEM option (is there one?) With the LS2000, I prefered Silverfast to Nikon Scan 2.51 because of the better colour manipulation options. To sink further down to Vuescan's limited controls would not be acceptable to me. Jeremy
Re: filmscanners: film scanner software
Mikael: As I stated in a previous post, some of us used Vuescan, some Silverfast, some Binuscan, some Canonscan, and so on and on. I am sure that each of us has a preference. Then there are those who use a certain software that they feel does a better job with negatives, so they use that for negatives and a different one for tranneys, and vice versa. Some want ICE some do not, and some even use Photoshop for all of it. The point is that as long as each of us understands the shot comings and strengths of their software and uses them appropriately, I am sure we will receive the type of images we desire, whether we are amateurs or pros at scanning. The great thing about this list is that it is informative about many aspects of scanning and even on some peripheral topics that may even be "off topic" to the list. If we do not want to read about Silverfast, Vuescan, Binuscan, or any other topic, the mouse or the delete key allow us move on to a topic that we want to read about. If we want to learn as much as we can from the group, we can read about things in other software or hardware packages and see if we want to try to apply them to our software or hardware. We may even decide to buy one and try it out. Whether we want to continue on in ignorant blissa nd continue to use our "amateur software" is really our business. Besides, we my feel we are getting better results from our package or maybe that we do not wish to buy another one. Please not let us get into another flame war like the one about the (dare I say it), the Mac and the PC. Gordon Mikael Risedal wrote: About software and film scanner I cant understand why people are discussion a software like VueScan so much in this group. .If you are trying to learn how to scan a picture from negative or slides the only good software in my opinions are Silverfast, ( and some thimes the shipping manufactories software to your scanner.) If you are looking after a good automatic calculating software try Binuscan. If I order a Porsche I take it with manual stick handling, not automatic and try to learn how I can get the best out of the car. It seems that loot of people are to lazy to learn the basic rolls of film scanning and think VueScan are something they can relay on. VueScan are (also in my opinion for beginners) but if you are concern to learn how to scan pictures try a "pro software" and see who much more you can get out from your negative or slides. Mikael Risedal Lund Sweden _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: filmscanners: negative and skin tones
Mike: Thanks for the color setting information for the skin tones, especially as it related to the print. For your other comment. You hear about VS because many of us use it. Since I am relatively new to scanning, what is the relevance of the scanning software to the color balance of the scanner? From what I have read in this forum, color balance will vary from scanner make to scanner make and monitor to monitor. I agree that many scanning programs allow you to adjust color balance, gamma, etc., because they are pretty specific to the scanner make. VS is not and is not intended to replace photo manipulation software. It if was, it would cost a lot more than $40 US. It is intended to give optimum scanner performance, which it does. I have never seen anyone who uses VS complain about the volume of traffic related to Insight, etc. Maybe because, with a little thought, the tips for one set of software can often be applied to another set. Please keep the tiips coming, they are useful. Gordon Mikael Risedal wrote: To the scanner group. As a photographer Im "little bit tired "of reading about ( VueScan nr ) and i hoped to learn something from other people in the group, who can be more interesting and useful. Therefor i begin with a small tip: To some of you who all ready know it- come with a another tip ! Scanning negative film and skin tones are sometimes a tuff job. You have nothing to compare against, (as with a slide.) Faces and skin tones become often to red in printing, A good rule is to measure the face skin tone in a CMYK profile known for printing purpose. (do it in Photoshop 5.0 6.0) If you make corrections and have C about half of magenta M less then Yellow Y more then magenta + 5-10 % K - This figures give you a more natural skin tone in printing , and the red and ugly are goon. Another good rule to know is that Grey in CMYK are about C= 32 M=20 Y0=20 You can often estimate something in the picture who are grey. Mikael Risedal Photographer Lund Sweden _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: filmscanners: Printdpi
Tony: I am also concerned that the final stage is really broken. I have seen the Epson prints that the company uses and they look great, of course. When I finally get my scan to look the way I want it to look in PS, the print may come close but not close enough. If there is a chink in the digital process, I believe that it is in the part of the work flow that deals with the transfer of the image to the printer. I bought an Epson Stylus Photo 700 about 2.5 years ago and it constantly changes its values, especially when I get a new cartridge and then has to get into the mood to do it right. Like you, I am frustrated by it, and I do not depend on it for a living. I am getting to the point that I will be taking my disk to my friendly Noritsu/Fuji printer lab. Hopefully we we can come up with the adjustments needed to get the print to match the disk image as I see it on my screen. Tony Sleep wrote: On 30 Mar 2001 10:43:35 EST Richard Starr ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: What is so galling is that having spent ages getting a scan 'just right' on screen, and all the ICM stuff sussed, this final stage is really broken.
Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (l
Hi all: I have found that I get a better transition from scan to PS to print using Vuescan, PS and Hammermill Jet Print Ultra Glossy and Epson's Matte papers. Hammermill's glossy is a bit heavier than Epsons. I do not know if this applies to those out of the US. Gordon Michael Moore wrote: Kodak makes an excellent photo weight glossy paper that works just fine in my Epson 740 Mike M. Derek Clarke wrote: In fairness to Epson, the full technical specs of all their papers is available on their various national web sites. But to be honest, I don't think they make a paper you would describe as photo weight. Epson printers have relatively straight-through paper paths, but they still have a limit on the weight of paper they can reliably feed, even one sheet at a time. If you really want something chunky and weighty, why not get into mounting or even laminating?
Re: filmscanners: HP pigmented inks
Art: Thanks!! Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: OK, so you are going to make me work, eh? the url for Jon Cone's site: http://www.inkjetmall.com
Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
Most local shops in my area will process "SFW" film but require an add on price whether it is marked C-41 or not. Gordon Tim Victor wrote: On Saturday, March 24, Arthur Entlich wrote: Mike is right. There are no "supermarket" brands. 3M/Scotch used to be a main supplier of these no-brand films, but I think they left that biz. 3M spun off their imaging technologies business under the name of Imation in 1996. The photographic division was sold off to a group of private investors in 1999 and now operates (again) as Ferrania. (This according to http://www.ferraniait.com/Corporate/background.htm.) On Sunday, March 25, Alan Tyson wrote: Do I remember correctly that 3M had a plant in Italy? Who owns it now? It is the 'Ferrania' plant I remember from my youth? Yes, 3M acquired Ferrania in 1964 and their film products were later sold under the Scotch name for many years, in addition to being packaged for private labels. According to one source, K-Mart is Imation/Ferrania's largest single customer. (I'm a big fan of Focal 100 myself. Cheap crap, but the good kind of cheap crap...) On Sunday, March 25, Laurie Solomon wrote: Aren't they the ones who bought 35mm movie film tails, respooled the 35mm movie film ends into canisters of 24 and 36 exposures, and then resold the 35mm canisters to the public via the mail. The net result was that you had to use them for processing because no other knowledgeable lab would knowingly process the film because it has a backing that would come off in their processors and was damn near impossible to clean off. Yes, that's what Seattle Film Works did until sometime around a year or two ago. These days, their film cannisters are clearly marked "Process C-41" and "Made in Italy," a pretty good giveaway that it's Ferrania film. The film also has unique edge markings and a distinctive base color that indicates who made it. But I've heard that many film labs still refuse to process Photoworks/SFW film, no matter what the cannister says, and will be persuaded by no amount of explanation, because they "know" that it will mess up their machines or chemicals somehow. Assuming that this is on-topic because we have to know which media type to select when scanning the stuff... Tim Victor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
The bothe the Imation slides and Ferrania (3M) C-41 negative scan very well in VueScan. (I have not touched my NikonScan in ages.) I have not see much in the way of scretches on the film/slides even under magnification in PS. There have been some scratches but very, very few. Maybe one in one frame for each 15 rolls processed. Gordon From what you have said I take it that the movie film is no longer used by these processors; does this mean that they are now using standard still films which any regular C-41 lab can process? How does the current film scan, resist scratching, etc. - if you know.
Re: Scanning dpi and epson papers was Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)
Based on the information I have gained from this list, I will scan it at Max (2700) and then bring it to Print dpi level. The reason is that I archive at maximum and so the file for print has to be reduced. If I am scanning for someone else, I scvan for the use they will have. E.g. A Power Point presentation gets jpg at 1350 then reduced to 150 at 5 in. x 5 in., for web I will do a jpg at 1350 or 675 and then reduce it to 72 in PS after tweaking and cleaning. Tweaking for both consists of getting rid of dust. etc. that the clean function may have missed and maybe cropping and rotating if needed.. Gordon Rob Geraghty wrote: Art wrote: When I mentioned to the Epson rep at Comdex that the names of the papers were ridiculously confusing, he looked at me like I was from another planet What's worse is that the price lists don't include the gsm or thickness of the paper. That would at least help to separate the "photo weight" papers from the "photo quality" but lightweight papers. Most of the photographers aren't at all interested in lightweight papers, I expect. Obscanning: What dpi do people scan at? I scan on the LS30 at 2700dpi then change the dpi in the file without resampling before I print. Do others scan at 300dpi (say) for the print output resolution? This isn't possible AFAIK with Vuescan, but it is with Nikonscan. Rob PS No arguments abuot dpi vs ppi please - I'm talking about the labels used in the software not what is "technically correct". Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED question
I would guess that Ed will have it out before too long, if he fasn't already done so. Gordon Mikael Risedal wrote: VueScan 7.0 does not today support Nikon ED4000. I have been testing the ED 4000 scanner now for 2 weeks, and the only software today who support the scanner is Nikon Scan 3.0. Mikael Risedal Photographer Sweden From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED question Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:06:57 -0600 Vuescan does support it: "12-bit data from LS-40, 14-bit data from LS-4000" The URL is http://www.hamrick.com/ I haven't seen or heard of any reviews yet except Ed Hamrick's short but positive note - I don't think it's been in shipment long enough yet. Maris - Original Message - From: "Tom Scales" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 1:33 PM Subject: filmscanners: Nikon 4000 ED question | I am sure this has been asked a hundred times, but I have been offlist for | awhile. Starting back up again and about to run buy a Nikon 4000 ED. Just | wanted to ask the lists' opinion. | | Also, does anyone know if Vuescan supports it, or will soon? I couldn't | find an email address on the site. | | Thanks to all! I'm sure I'll be a more frequent contributor now. | | Tom | _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: filmscanners: HP pigmented inks
Is there a web site for them or a brand name? Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Wilhelm does have some discussion of HP's wide carriage inks on his charts. Jon Cone makes a medium range "archival" set which uses a mixture of dyes and pigments as well, which is supposed to have a wide gamut, and which are available for Epson printers. Art
Re: filmscanners: Neg film for scanning
Mark: Re: 3M film. According to the people at Photo Works (used to be Seattle Film Works) their negative color film is made by 3M. I have used them for some time with very good processing results. (The are one of the US houses that develops and prints film and if you wish will return a roll with the negatives and prints.) After I bought VueScan, I asked the company so I could match their film to the VueScan profiles. I found out that the film was 3M, and since I also receive slides from them, I found that their slide film is made by Imation. Gordon "Mark T." wrote: I didn't think 3M were still in the 35mm film business. MT
Re: filmscanners: Scanning issue
Welcome tio the club. You will get a lot of help here. Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm fairly new to the digital darkroom scene and am having some difficulty getting what I think should be good scans.
Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)
Tony: I have used a new service at my local lab which recently obtained a Noritsu dig. printer. Instead of providing a disk, I gave them slides because I did not realize that they would run them through a dig. machine. The prints came out abnout 1/3 under the desired exposure but with good detail. Rather than fight the repro house, I would suggest you use the Noritsu place to get the print from your disk. However, I would try to work a deal with the lab to allow you to run tests on your disk to be able to determine the tweaks necessary to get the prints the way you want them to be. You may have to give them disks that have different exposures and contrasts, etc. from what you would use if you were going to print them on your own printer. This way you would have a "methodology" that would provide the optimal Noritsu print. E.g. alway send them a disk that has a +5 brightness a +2 contrast, any color balance settings, etc. based on what you tweak your scan output to achieve the best on your screen. With that done, you may be able to satisfy both client and repro house. This suggestion may be a "pain" to implement, may not give the desired results, but it may, if it works, be able to reduce the "rgh" level you are having. I hope I have not been condescending. I am not a pro photographer or scanner and I want to be sure that I am getting my point across. Good luck with your repro problem. Gordon Gordon Tony Sleep wrote: OK, here's a legitimate target for spite and bile, and it's decidedly ON topic. I have said some very bad words in their direction already, as I just don't know what to do about this. My main use for scanning is so I can shoot col.neg. in uncontrolled conditions, then scan it and tart it up later on screen. This is an extension of what I have been doing with BW in the darkroom for years. However I end up with a digital image. That is when the trouble starts, because although the client(s) can cope, and the designers can cope, the goddam repro houses are stuck in 1985 and have no intention of changing to accomodate photographer-supplied scans which will rob them of their bread and butter. This last week I have had 2 separate disasters because of this. The first was a set of live interview shots of an elusive MD, horrible room, rotten light. I shot it on CN, no problem. I explained this to the commissioning magazine and asked if they could cope with dig. They said yes, I shot it... and then they changed their minds and asked for prints. I got a bunch of prints done by my lab, and sure enough, they were not very nice. Sent 'em off to client, but with a sample scan to prove the point. Client phones back, gosh, yes, the scan is miles better, stuff the repro house they will just have to cope, send us 8 scans. I do this overnight (the whole job is now up against deadlines), send in bill, and 2weeks later client phones whingeing about the cost. Why have I charged 15GBP/scan? He seems to have expected them to be 'free', since they are when done by their repro house. If he'd known he would have asked for the negs and had the repro house do it. Well, yes, except it was about 4hrs work for me, plus CD etc, and besides, what the repro house would do would be 'straight' reprography whereas what I am doing is interpretive. Client too thick to see the difference, now in my bargepole file. The underlying problem (apart from the client - who had 2 weeks previous been telling me how he had just spent 14,000GBP converting his Ferrari to run on unleaded) is that many repro houses involved in UK magazine production are determined to hang on to scanning, and the standard contract now bundles scanning with everything else for a fixed cost. It has other advantages for them too: they don't need to invest or train to cope with photographer-supplied scans. They can just stick their heads in the sand and lock me (us) out of a very useful *photographic* technique. Like I say, I have another client who often messes about getting negs hand printed at vast expense to work around the obduracy of the repro house they actually pay tons of money too. He has his own reasons, reluctance to learn and fear of horrible mistakes. And that was the second nightmare, a truly horrible mistake. Yet another client, whom I've been around this loop with previously - see my sorry tale about this at my website. They just relaunched a title, and, asked to produce a cover and inside shots during the usual 5min session in the rain, asked if dig was OK. Yes, said the designer - it's not First Impressions doing the repro any more. Did the job, did the scans, sent 'em off. Designer happy, client happy. I got a copy on Thursday. Absolutely dreadful. God only knows how it got signed off and went to print like that. It's so embarassingly terrible I am ashamed to mention it - no saturation and just underwater/vile. What I supplied was a tagged TIF which looked great to
Re: filmscanners: 110 film
If I am not mistaken, 110 film is pretty close to 16mm film which is again pretty close to a 35mm film strip cut in half. You might want to see if you can get a strip of 2 frames into a 35 mm holder side by side. In fact you may be able to get 4 frames into the same opening as a 35mm slide frame. I would think that 2 - four frame strips could be used for the same slide frame, place four images in the shide holder with the other four not in the open frame of the holder and scan them as one image, then place the other 4 in the opening and scan them. The longer strips may be easier to handle and the scanner will see a full 35mm frame. After that, you would need a program like Photoshop that alluows copying each image independently and pasting them into separate individual images. This may be a chewing gum and bailing wire approach but may work even if you would have to be careful about scratching the images not in the opening. It also seems to me to be better than handling each frame as an individual, tiny slide. I also agree that it will be essential that you use the highest resolution scanner you can get your hand on. Lynn Allen wrote: Excuse me for coming in late, but I think the original question was "Which film scanner would be best for 110 film?", something I haven't actually seen addressed here, so far. Point One, it would need to be a fairly hi-res scanner. Point Two, it would need a carrier specifically designed for 110 or 16mm film. I don't know if that exists, but I think that's what the question was about. Most anything else would probably involve a hand-made "cludge" to carry the film through, other than hand-cutting the film into somewhat "clutterable" little pieces that would fit in a 2x2 frame but be hard to store afterwards. I'm using an Acer Scanwit (resolution: 2700ppi). It has a straight 8-3/4" film carrier, with 5 vertical separators to keep the film flat. Theoretically, a thin-but-sturdy insert could be made to hold the 110 or 16mm film flat; it would probably have to form a "sandwich" of insert-film-insert, but I can think of a half-dozen ways of doing that. The next problem is, that since the scanner is looking for 35mm "frames," and the smaller format would probably not cooperate in lining up with the verticals, there'd have to be some "wiggle room" in the insert to allow it to reposition the film east-west, as it were. I have to do that if I'm scanning Instamatic film--fortunately, I don't have a lot of it. Beyond that, there's the matter of whether 2700ppi is enough. I do a bit of half-frame scanning, and my Scanwit's resolution is certainly "adequate" for those, but of course 110 or 16mm is only about 1/4 that size, and often not terribly sharp to begin with. So there's another consideration. To shorten a long answer: "I don't know." But that's my input vis a vis the Acer Scanwit as an option, and I hope it helps. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: cleaning neg's, sharpening
Ezio: With all of the great museums and galleries in Italy, I am sure that you should be able to find one that has old glass plate negatives and also has done some restoration work on them. This is where I would start asking questions to find the most correct way to solve your problem. Buona fortuna mi amico. Gordon Tassi Ezio wrote: Then I saw many doubts rising ... following your advices and I am thinking to use compressed air and very soft material (cotton) only . I am scared to see the emulsion/gelatine melting down under the action of water ... Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
If I remember correctly, about a week or two ago, someone on the list had a post that also said that ICE or its equivalent needed the IR channel but that GEM ad ROC or their equivalent operated independently and did not need the IR Channel. Gordon Not sure about VueScan, but ASF's GEM and ROC do not depend on ICE. The patent states that an IR channel is not necessary for the removal of color crosstalk but that the process of removing crosstalk improves the IR detection of defects.
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan: Incrementing TIFF file names
Joel: Be sure you do not remove the "+" sign after the number. You can replace any part of the information before the # 1 and the + and vueScan automatically increases the number by 1. e.g. Crop0001, Crop0002 etc. The key is don't mess with the +. You can even chang the number Crop21+ and Vuescan will start with 21 and then will add an increment (22 and so on) to each slide with the same title after that number. I hope I did not muddy the waters for you. Gordon Joel Nisson wrote: Is there a way to increment the numbering of TIFF output files from Vuescan. I would like to perform several different type of scans and have them saved in different TIFF files without having to rename them after each scan.
Re: filmscanners: OT: anyone else sick of this? [was Re: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?]
Besides waiting and seeing, I, for one, am really pleased that someone in the software industry seeks the advice of the people who really use the software. Using a group that does a lot of scanning would seem to be the best place to go to get volunteers for a test. I have never heard of Nikon Scan, or any other company relying on the registered owners of their equipment or software to Beta Test. They may do it, but I am not aware of it. They seem to develop the program in a closet, do some sort of test on a specific machine with the peripherals they want and then announce it. Gordon "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." wrote: Why don't we all just wait and see. Maris - Original Message - From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 9:26 AM Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT: anyone else sick of this? [was Re: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?] | I'm not flaming. Linux may be ten times better than Windows 2000 in a | thousand different ways. But it doesn't have critical mass and will never | take over the mainstream. | | Frank Paris | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 | | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jules | Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 11:43 PM | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Subject: filmscanners: OT: anyone else sick of this? [was Re: Anyone | using Win2K? Does is manage color like W98SE?] | | | this list is one of the busiest list's i'm on. does it really need | another flame war? | | - Original Message - | From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2001 9:49 PM | Subject: RE: filmscanners: Anyone using Win2K? Does is manage color like | W98SE? | | | Because Windows 2000 IS robust down to the core, and the new consumer | version will be based on the same engine. So no, I'm not kidding. And | they | probably are bothered by Linux, the way flies sometimes bother you at | a | picnic. | | blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc. | | |
Re: filmscanners: OT: burning cd's/easy cd creator
I use Easy CD creator and have had no problems with it. I have had some problems with the drive recognizing that some disks have been inserted. When a good name disk Sony, TDK, memorex, etc. There has been no problem. Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, What programs do you all use to 'burn' cd's? (make photo and/or music disks, backups , etc.) Has 'Easy CD Creator' been taken over by another company? I thought it was done by adaptek (sp?) but I got an offer from roxio for the new version 5 that is coming out (or is already out). Thanks, Jules_C ps. I have NTI cd maker pro that came with my very old cdrw drive, and I have cd creator 4Do you think I should upgrade?
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan
Besides you can get a free trial period from Ed and see it first hand. Gordon but I went to the website and was hoping to see some screen shots or something... any chance you could add some? you don't need screenshots,
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Idea
Ed: Taht works for me. i have not read the help file for some time and I am sure that insruction iis in there. All I have to do is remember to click it back on to get the output file. Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/7/2001 5:04:49 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This all sound marvelousbut does this mean my Prescan Window suggestion didn't make the cut? Is there hope for this in the future? or is it just too much programming. Can you describe what you mean by a "Prescan" tab again? Is it basically the same thing as the "Scan" tab, except without any files being output? Can't this be accomplished by just turning off outputting files in the Files tab and then pressing the "Scan" button? Regards, Ed Hamrick
Re: filmscanners: Need feedback on VueScan Improvements
Ed. Something along this line and what Hersh said earlier. I find the Scan memory odd. It has really no advantage unless you want another file of the same scan. I would prefer changing it to something like PreScan, which will do the scan, not output a file, and allow me to check the changes I make to the what I thought was the last preview, if it is unsatisfactory. This will allow the previews to operate quuickly yet allow me to verify that the SCAN is what I want. If I think that the scan will be fine, I can skip it and do the Scan to the output file. If I use it and then scan to output, I will know that it is whayt I want. Gordon John Matturri wrote: A more responsive abort button would be nice. Not infrequently I find myself having made a mistake but spending a good deal of time while the scan is occurring waiting for a window when I can abort. Not sure if this might be due to something about my system though. John M.
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback
I think that this makes a good point regarding Ed's intent for VueScan. His dilemma, if he has one, is how far to take VueScan toward replicating other photo manipulation software rather than staying confined to a scanning program that feeds high quality scans for manipulation in those programs. It would be nice to have it all in one package, but, if that is the case, how much above the $40 US are we willing to pay after we have already invested a pretty good chunk of money into those programs. My feeling is to let Ed stick to providing the highest quality scans that he can get from the many pieces of hardware he supports. He can then let us use other programs to get our final products and keep his price at a level that satisfies all concerned. Gordon IronWorks wrote: I don't think this is needed in Vuescan - PhotoShop, Corel PhotoPaint, etc. can do that afterward. Maris | What about subtle rotation of the crop box in the scan window?
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.7.5 Available
Reminder: Please remember that you will most likely need your registration number to do that. Gordon IronWorks wrote: Try renaming 6.7.4 and then install 6.7.5 instead of over-writing 6.7.4 Maris
Re: filmscanners: Nikon jaggies update
Rob: Regarding the jaggies: I have 2.5.1 and find that Nikon's LS-30 output at 1350 dpi has jaggies and Vuescan's 2700 output from the same machine has none. It seems to be a question of output resolution. This is rather simplistic, I know, and there are probably other reasons for them. As a result, I usually us Vuescan set at 2700 and above 8 bits per channel which is also what Nikon uses for its output. The scans may take longer but quality is much improved. Gordon Rob Geraghty wrote: I have had a couple of responses from Nikon. Basically they are claiming that BIOS 1.31 and Nikonscan 2.51 fix the problem. So they are under the impression that the update has fixed the problem.
Re: filmscanners: Digital ICE 3
Rick: You may want to check some back issues of PC Photo for something ion the Kodak. I ythink one or 2 months ago. They have an article on the Nikon 8000 in the issue I received yesterday. I saw the Kodak listed in PC Photo for less than $1100 at one of the NY houses in this issue also. Gordon Rick Berk wrote: Hi All- I'm in the market to upgrade my scanner. I would like one with USB connectivity. A friend recommended I look at the Kodak RFS 3600. BH Photo lists it for $1100. Does anyone have any opinions on this scanner? Worth the money? Or would I be better off waiting for the Nikon Coolscan IV at $200 cheaper? I have searched all over the web, and can't find any reviews for the Kodak. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Rick Berk
Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
If you can get a scanner with an IR channel, ICE or Vuescan seem a lot easier to use than that description. Gordon "Richard N. Moyer" wrote: Removing dust from digitized images: This is a quote from another poster (elsewhere - not this list, and I don't have the author since I clipped the quote) regarding the use of PS and the History Brush in PhotoShop: " - - working with a 16-bit file - 1. do your initial color space conversion (if necessary) and an initial levels/ curves adj 2. save a snapshot of current state 3. run dust and scratches (See Filters), checking the preview to make sure most of the debris is caught by the filter 4. create a snapshot of the dust and scratches state, set it to history, and revert to the previous snapshot 5. select the history tool and set it to lighten (if using transparency film) or to darken (if using neg film); if you have a palette set options so that pressure in "on" for size and "off" for opacity' set opacity to 100%; choose a soft brush The history brush should now work to remove most of the debris (setting the tool to "lighten" or "darken" limits the effect to the spots you are aiming at), but some debris will defeat the d/s filter (either it is just too much for the settings you chose or is in an area where the contrast just isn't enough for the "lighten"/ "darken" brush mode to work properly). For these occasional spots I use the rubber stamp tool, reversing the palette options so that opacity is set to "pressure" and size is set to "off." end of quote - In researching for the SS120 we asked medium format users about features including the various dust and scratch solutions. They said pretty much to the person they took excellent care of their film and did not consider dust to be a problem. They said they would rather address dust with localized Photoshop work rather than a global system they perceive as softening the entire image. Polacolor Insight has software based dust removal. My personal testing has shown if I take a tremendously dirty slide which I have made no attempt to clean the Insight dust removal appears to be about 80% as effective as ICE. If I take a more realistic slide which has be cared and cleaned the results are much closer. I also polled several Imacon d dealers to see if any of their customers have requested hardware dust removal solution. They responded they have never had a single request. I don't think Heidleburg has it on their drum scanners. I also noticed at PMA that Imacon was demo'ing dust removal in Photoshop using the history palette. Pretty neat. All that being said if we did have ICE it would be easier at the point of sale but I don't know how much better a scanner it would be..\ David Hemingway Polaroid Corporation
Re: filmscanners: Set filmscanner on Minitower box?
I have had my LS-30 siting on the top of the box for about 6 months now but it inside a computer desk set that is built like an armoire so it is not directly on the floor. No problems yet with either dust or heat. Gordon Rob Geraghty wrote: "IronWorks" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am short on desk space - can I set the scanner on my PC Minitower box which is sitting on the floor? The only concerns I can think of would be dust being closer to the floor, and vibration from the fans/drives in the tower. Rob
Re: filmscanners: storage
Hi all: I have a Ricoh CD Burner and Adaptec software. After reading this thread, I wonder if the test that the Adeptec software performs is not the same as doing scan disk. I thought it did. Am I wrong? Gordon Terry Carroll wrote: On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Austin Franklin wrote: One thing I wish the CD recording software did was give you an option to VERIFY the burn went OK. Me, too. I wish there was a way of running scandisk on a CDR. -- Terry Carroll | No representations, warranties or characterizations Santa Clara, CA | regarding any actual university, including any named [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "UC Sunnydale" or "University of California at Modell delendus est | Sunnydale" are intended and none should be inferred.
Re: filmscanners: storage
Sara Jane: As a non techie, I would say you have 2 chioces. One a SCSI CD writer to ensure decent speed in the process and the other is an additional disk drive. If you go the SCSI route, consider a Ricoh. I have one and it works fine. The software is a little clunky and takes a little getting used to. I opted for the internal drive and I use the Adaptec SCSI board it came with to chain the Nikon LS-30 scanner. I left the board that came with the scanner in the sealed package. Both have been working fine with no hiccups since they were installed. Gordon Sara Jane Boyers wrote: I am so enjoying the list, learning as I go. I am happily scanning away on my new Minolta Scan Elite - running through slide scans quickly right now as I print out images I'll soon convert and put into a quark mockup for a new book project and here's my question I knew I wouldn't have enough storage room since I'm scanning at high resolution and my files seem pretty big, especially after I work on them in photoshop and retain the layers, so any suggestions on a good CD-RW to hold all the stuff? And any considerations I should use as I shop? I am on a year-and-one-half year old MAC powerbook G3 (bronze keyboard) with USB, one SCSSI being taken up by the two scanners) but no firewire. -- Sara Jane Boyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.teenpowerpolitics.com TEEN POWER POLITICS: MAKE YOURSELF HEARD A Millbrook Press/Twenty-First Century Book ISBN: 0-7613-1391-5, paper $9.95/ISBN 0-7613-1307-9 hardcover, $24.90 Email me if you'd like to be on my newsletter update list! LIFE DOESN'T FRIGHTEN ME Stewart, Tabori Chang A Publisher's Weekly "Best Book" of the Year, NYPL "Best Books for Teens", ALA "Book for Reluctant Readers", AIGA "50 Best Designed Books" O BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES Chronicle Books
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan long pass mode
bjs: Is it appropriate directly to give Ed the name and maker of the program so he can possibly get it on his own see what you are talking about? He seems quite well aware of ICE and GEM and has been able to adjust his program without violating any proprietary and copyright requirements in that case, yet be able to improve his own product. It is one thing to ask someone to look at a scan and then be asked to adjust his program to correct a possibly solvable problem. It is yet another to give him the background information that lets him know why you are saying what you are and let him figure out how to solve the problem you percieve to be in his program. Gordon bjs wrote: -I have a Pascal program that takes N files at arbitrary exposure levels and combines them into one "longpass" result. It accounts for charge bleeding and a number of other issues. The result has none of the gross errors that Vuescan currently shows and works far better. I'd give it to Ed but the algorithms are proprietary. Byron
Re: filmscanners: EZ Prints monitor calibration
Collin: If you can you may want to switch the photo program and the files to a CMYK color space. The difference may be in the way EZPrint did produced the print and CMYK will produce different results than RGB during the printing process. Gordon Collin Ong wrote: Since I didn't get much response, let me simplify the question: When trying to calibrate my monitor to Ezprints' test prints, should I: a) try to use ColorSync's color controls to adjust the display b) use the monitor's brightness, contrast, and RGB controls Any suggested procedures for either method would be appreciated. Thanks, Collin On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Collin Ong wrote: After looking at several of the online print makers, ezprints.com seems to cater most to photo enthusiasts by providing large print sizes (wallet to 20x30), matte paper, unlimited file sizes, etc. However, they are lacking in the technical data they provide so that us customers can prepare their files properly and have the control we nitpickers require. They should provide more data on: ColorSync Profile (ideal), colorspace format (e.g. BruceRGB, sRGB, AdobeRGB, etc), gamma (e.g. 1.8, 2.2, etc), red, green, blue x,y calibration, exact pixel dimensions and/or aspect ratios for each print size to prevent scaling/distortion/empty space. I've sent them an email requesting that they post this data. I urge others on this list interested in using their service to do so as well, so that our squeaking wheel gets greased. I recently sent in an order for wallet size prints which were processed with a few problems: 1) The image was skewed on the page, leaving a blank wedge on one side and cutting off the image on the other. 2) Blank image area between the 4-per-page wallet prints due to incorrect aspect ratio on my uploaded files (due to their not providing exact info). 3) Image rather dark and colors were off. Ezprints provides calibration prints that you are supposed to adjust your monitor to. There are two prints, one color and one BW. The color one is an image of a bunch of houses with lots of different colors on it. The BW is an image of a couple kissing, and a grayscale gradient on one side. http://www.ezprints.com/help/CalibrationHelp.asp I played around last night trying to get my monitor to look like the prints, but could not achieve it to my satisfaction. However, I'm not sure what the best way to do it is: via the ColorSync software on my Mac, or the monitor RGB, brightness, and contrast controls. 1) ColorSync: the calibration assistant takes you through these steps: - Set contrast to Max - Adjust brightness down til Light/Dark halves of box merge, and grey oval is barely visible - Adjust individual R, G, B sliders - Set whitepoint kelvin - Set gamma Using this method, I was able to get many portions of the image to match, but I could not match several sections. Some colors seemed too bright, and other colors I could not get to match, like the purple house. My feeling is that I may be able to get closer if I could set the gamma or whitepoint first, but ColorSync doesn't seem to allow this. Also, when the screen image was close to the print, everything else on the GUI was really off in color. The grey background in Photoshop was brownish. 2) Monitor: I can adjust brightness, contrast, and R, G, B via the monitor. Again, I could get somewhat close to the print, but not in all areas, and 'normal' apps are totally off color once this is done. I recall somebody on this list mentioning using the EZprints calibration prints successfully. I would like suggestions from the list on the best method of doing this. I would prefer the ColorSync or a software method since it is more easily switchable for use between normal apps and Ezprints image prep. Thanks for any help. Collin Ong
Re: filmscanners: real value?
Ian: I had looked at a some ALPS Electric dye sub printers before getting my Epson. Based on the prices I saw, I would say the 2000 UK Pounds would be at the very top of the line. Their web site ( Search for "ALPS Electric") shows OEM and retail printers.. Their global section shows an office in the U.K. (At Milton Keynes, I believe). The costs shown in the site are the costs to produce a photo, not not the cost of the machine. The cost of a low end printer is the US is about $500. ( I found them at www.alpsusa.com) They do show black and white and color. They seem to print slower than an inkjet. A friend of mine has one and says that the dpi and dimension of the computer output will be the same as the printer output, with the upper limit of the printer's capability being the restriction. Gordon Ian Jackson wrote: Michael, I wonder why there are so few people film scanning then printing with dye sublimation printers? Surely these would fully complement say a 4000 dpi scanner? My only questions are: (1) BW - I see no mention of this is any Dye sub printer literature (2) Where do I find an A3 Dye sub printer under 2000 UK Pounds? Ian - Original Message - From: "Michael Moore" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:26 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value? Ian, I totally agree. HP has fallen victim to the same short term marketing mentality that infects too many of today's manufacturers and service providers. That said, I do think that their printers at least are much better made than Epson's... What I would really like to see is the old HP mentality applied to their printers, etc., so that we would have truly professional equipment, both in manufacture and design... I will also reply to Art's comment about the price comparison between HP and Epson... wheteher it's the 740, the 870, or the 2000, they all have the print head as part of the printer, so if the darned thing clogs beyond repair, you're scr (my spell-checker just kicked in). As for HP, ain't nobody that I know making third party archival pigment/inks for the darn thing Just give me a Fuji Frontier... Mike Moore Ian Jackson wrote: Michael Moore wrote. Michael, I respect your comment about HP assuming you meant the same oscilloscopes, power supplies etc, that I also used. However HP's Computers, printers, software and service FOR THOSE PRODUCTS, are just not in the same league. Somehow I feel you would not disagree? Ian - Original Message - From: "Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:39 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: real value? Michael Moore wrote: I cut my electronics teeth on HP when I trained as an electronics tech in Th US Navy... Their stuff was always built to last... Last summer I bought an HP 932C... it's built much better than my Epson 740... plus the cartridges come with the nozzles built in so if a print head clogs, you just replace the cartridge... I bought it to replace an Epson that had a clogged print head...(third party inks!)... I thinks it's a load of bull that things can't be made to last... Mike M Didn't the 932C cost a good deal more than the 740 (I'm not on top of the prices on these)? And yes, most anything can be made to last, it costs more RD and usually more in material and manufacturing expense to do so. That's not my point. Making a car last (say a Ford Model T) that can't go above 30 miles an hour, other than as a collectable, doesn't make good sense in a world that demands cars that can go 80 mph for practical considerations. The same is true (and more so) of high tech. If you owned a 10 megabyte harddrive and it was built to last for 50 years, would you still be using it today? Not likely. The darn thing has more value in aluminum and gold than in either practical use or resale value. BTW, I have a perfectly good 10 meg hard drive I'll sell you (weighs about 15 pounds -- you pay postage, too) And if you'd like that one, you'll really appreciate my dual drive Bernoulli with disks (which are 12" wide and hold 5 or 10 megs each... it weights about 50 pounds.) and is bigger than a tower computer ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
I appreciate the comments about the law changing and I was aware of the US law change. That will not, however, make it happen quickly and everywhere. Wherever lawyers can find a chink in a defendant's armor, they will and no law will make a prudent lawyer tell a client to not play it safe and keep the papers. This will be especially true when there is a potential for economic and/or moral interests to be involved. I am not a lawyer but just the ability to electronically manipulate documents and data can be used to raise doubt in a case. Nixon had a 10 minute gap on a tape and the opinions on what it meant were as many and varied as there were people discussing it.. I would not expect to see a truly paper less ( or even negative less (?)) society in my life time or yours. I fear that this is getting OT so.. Gordon Sumtingwong wrote: A law was just passed here in the US that makes a digital signature (i.e. email) good in court. Spencer Stone -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest impediment is based on our legal system. Though we could electronically transmit signed documents showing some type of commitment to do something, the demand of a document that has a "fresh" signature is still the legal standard. The fax machine has been around for many years but a document with a real signature is most often demanded and follows the fax in the mail. Paperless will not arrive until a) everyone has a computer, b) they are willing to acept a legal commitment via computer, c) the electronic security systems can absolutely assure that people cannot be tamper with the records of falsify them, and d) the courts accept that an an electronic copy is absolute proof of the legal commitment. We have a long way to go to get to that point. In the meantime, we will have to settle for trying to be a society with less paper. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Laurie Solomon wrote: I would suggest (a) that your office is a rarity, (b) your office technically is not a "paperless office" in that you still receive invoices, receipts, etc. from others that you need to scan in, and (c) most other places which are relying heavily on electronic operations still tend to keep paper backup files and archives of their files and records just in case as do their workers for their personal security and use. Arthur Entlich wrote We have enculturated certain specific habits and styles of functionality over many hundreds of years which have involved the use of paper/hard copy documents, books, etc. Ironically, when we have computers that more mimic our relationship with paper, we will get closer to the "paperless" society. Art
Re: filmscanners: Encoding/compression Was:CD storage
I resurrected the following text from a message on Genuine Fractals that I received about 2 or 3 months ago. Sorry, but I forgot who on this list originally sent it out. "Genuine Fractals has no current place in web image preparation. It's only use is for upscaling data to print large images. We went through this same discussion on another forum (Nikon CoolPix 990) about three weeks ago and the moderator e-mailed Altamira and this is their exact response: Altamira has two software products, Genuine Fractals and PrintPro. They both have the same functionality...to enlarge an image without losing image quality. Genuine Fractals is RGB, while PrintPro is RGB + CMYK. This is a true scaling algorithm. The software encodes the image from raster (pixels) to vector (mathematical equation) so that when you scale, you are truling scaling - this is not interpolation. Also, the encoding process compresses the image into a smaller file size. We have both lossless and lossy compression. The software is designed for print quality. Since screen resolution is only 72 dpi, our software has limited functionality for the web. We are currently bundled with the entire line of Coolpix cameras sold in the United States. This is a Nikon decision. For users in other areas that are interested in our product, we have a demo they can download from our web site at http://www.altamira-group.com The bundled version is an LE that scales to approximately 64MB. Please let me know if you have any additional questions." Robert Kehl wrote: Does anyone have any experience with using Genuine Fractals as a compression tool? How does it compare to TIF files with LWZ compression for 50mb image files? How lossy/lossless is it? Bob Kehl
Re: filmscanners: Vignetting?
The effect is not actually vignetting in a in a traditional photographic sense. The effect of the polarizer is heavier on the left side. The sky and sea seem darker on the right side due to the polarizer. I agree with you on the vignetting from lenses. The other vignetting effect can be seen in Photoshop and causes fuzzy edges around an image and makes it look like a 1890's photograph. However, "Webster's" does not restrict the definition to what has traditionally been used in a photograpgic sense. Gordon Rob Geraghty wrote: Apologies to those who are using the digest, because the attached picture will appear as encoded ascii. A while back I was in touch with a guy from a stock photo company and I sent a low res jpeg of a photo of mine, which he claimed showed vignetting. Now to me, vignetting in the camera is caused by a wide-angle lens "seeing" the edges of a filter. Years ago I did make the mistake of putting a polariser on the end of a lens which already had a UV filter on it, and this certainly caused vignetting. But the effect I believe he was attributing to vignetting is caused by a polariser - the sky tends to be darker at the edge of the photo, sometimes on one side, sometimes both depending on the angle to the sun. Would anyone on the list call the variation in the sky in the attached jpeg vignetting? I don't find the effect objectionable, but are publishers really likely to? Obscanning: images which have this kind of effect may actually enhance it depending on the scanner settings used. Rob Name: 20010118 0332.jpg 20010118 0332.jpgType: JPEG Image (image/jpeg) Encoding: base64
Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
Although we are getting closer to a paperless society, I think that the biggest impediment is based on our legal system. Though we could electronically transmit signed documents showing some type of commitment to do something, the demand of a document that has a "fresh" signature is still the legal standard. The fax machine has been around for many years but a document with a real signature is most often demanded and follows the fax in the mail. Paperless will not arrive until a) everyone has a computer, b) they are willing to acept a legal commitment via computer, c) the electronic security systems can absolutely assure that people cannot be tamper with the records of falsify them, and d) the courts accept that an an electronic copy is absolute proof of the legal commitment. We have a long way to go to get to that point. In the meantime, we will have to settle for trying to be a society with less paper. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Laurie Solomon wrote: I would suggest (a) that your office is a rarity, (b) your office technically is not a "paperless office" in that you still receive invoices, receipts, etc. from others that you need to scan in, and (c) most other places which are relying heavily on electronic operations still tend to keep paper backup files and archives of their files and records just in case as do their workers for their personal security and use. Arthur Entlich wrote We have enculturated certain specific habits and styles of functionality over many hundreds of years which have involved the use of paper/hard copy documents, books, etc. Ironically, when we have computers that more mimic our relationship with paper, we will get closer to the "paperless" society. Art
Re: filmscanners: OT - Software for image correction
PS 5, 5.5 and 6 have a Perspective tool on transform. It will move both sides of the selection box equally to correct the perspective. If the image alignment is not equally distorted on each side, then the skew tool can be applied to each side of the image to to make the needed adjustments. Gordon Larry Berman wrote: Photoshop can do it by making a selection of the image and going to Edit / Transform / Skew and drag the corners of the image to the desired perspective. Remember to select the entire image first.
Re: filmscanners: new problem from scanner newbie
Sara Jane: Welcome to the group. Your problem may be related to the bit level of the scan if you are not using PS 6. The earlier versions will not allow some of the PS tools, like layers, wand, etc., to work in anything other than the 8 bit mode. With the image opened in PS, open the image menu and click Mode. At the bottom of the new menu there will be a check mark next to the either 8 bit or 16 bit. If 16 bit is checked check click 8 bit. That should allow you to use all PS tools. If 8 bit is checked when you open the menu, someone else in the group will have to help you. It is best to use as many PS tools as you can with 16 bit checked, then go to 8 bit. It is also better to go back to 16 bit mode when you save your final image as some quality is lost when going from 16 bit to 8 bit. The larger 16 bit saved file size will use more disk space. I hope this helps. Gordon Sara Jane Boyers wrote: BUT in Photoshop (in a Photoshop file), I am unable to manipulate the slide... it won't allow me to make new layers, won't truly select, and I am unable to print.Any thougts or where I should look? Sara Jane Boyers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.teenpowerpolitics.com TEEN POWER POLITICS: MAKE YOURSELF HEARD A Millbrook Press/Twenty-First Century Book ISBN: 0-7613-1391-5, paper $9.95/ISBN 0-7613-1307-9 hardcover, $24.90 Email me if you'd like to be on my newsletter update list! LIFE DOESN'T FRIGHTEN ME Stewart, Tabori Chang A Publisher's Weekly "Best Book" of the Year, NYPL "Best Books for Teens", ALA "Book for Reluctant Readers", AIGA "50 Best Designed Books" O BEAUTIFUL FOR SPACIOUS SKIES Chronicle Books
Re: filmscanners: orange mask
If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a drift on the part of manufacturers to provide film stock that will be usable for both digital and paper processing. Kodak Supra has been portrayed as such a film. Considering the capabilities of digital technology, it seems to me that the primary adjustments will be to minimize grain size and the ability of a scanner to neutralize the orange masks required for paper processes. As long as there is a film market, it seems that the prudent move for a manufacturer would be to optimize their films for both the film and digital markets for economic purposes (theirs and ours). Most of us have had to burn and dodge, adjust exposure time, and mess with color balance to achieve the results we wanted when developing prints. Unless we take the perfect photo that needs no tweaking or croping, we will have to adjust scans in the same ways. Maybe the scanner industry has to put more time and effort into optimizing the ability to scan film stock rather than expecting the film industry to adjust to the scanners. Gordon Laurie Solomon wrote: There is no reason why said negative films could not be designed to be optimized for digital uses only ... Now such a thing may very well be impractical but it is not impossible or illogical.
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 6.4.x suggestion
Ed: I found the same with Vuescan vs. PS 5 for both slides and negatives on my LS-30. I rescanned but with the brightness set at 1.3 for the slide and negative rather than .7. The slide was fine, the negative was OK but with less contrast than the slide. Gordon shAf wrote: Ed makes us aware ... however, what Vuescan shows me and what I end up with in Photoshop is quite different (what being acceptable ends up in PS, Vuescan showing me a darker image). shAf :o)
Re: filmscanners: Acer ScanWit 2740S
Marc: I bought an LS-30 and Vuescan this summer. I use Vuescan for almost all my scans, rather than Nikonscan. I have had very good, usable scans from the LS-30. With Vuescan there have been no "Jaggies." The multipass capability of the unit and Vuescan does tend to increase the dynamic range a bit also. The IR capability needed for ICE is usefull when you have dust, scratches, etc. on the slide or neg. However, Vuescan's version of it uses the IR channel needed for ICE. The ability to use ICE or Vuescan's cleaning capability was the major reason I went with the LS-30. Of course, your budget will also have a part in the decision. Gordon Tassi "Marc S. Fogel" wrote: I am considering the following scanners: LS-30 (However, concerned about the "jaggies") Acer ScanWit 2740S Minolta Dual Scan II.
Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
There are some companies that are specializing in saving old hardware and software, like 5.5" floppies and readers, and using them to access the stored data. The companies are major accounting firms (e.g. Price Waterhouse) and the area is loosly called "computer forensics." The need is mostly driven by law suits and criminal proceedings. I would say that, as the electronic storage of data increases, the number of companies doing forensics will also increase. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: I feel sorry for the archivists of the future. If we thought saving paintings, photos and manuscripts was a burden, just think about all this stuff packed away as digital storage media. Someone could very easily toss all my creative works of the last 15 years in the trash thinking it was a bunch of obsolete disks.
Re: filmscanners: Epson1270 and PhotoShop LE
Once you register the LE with qSAdobe yopu will be qualify fir the upgrade to PS 6 at the upgrade price. That is how I got my full version of PS spme time ago. Gordon Bruce Jodoin wrote: Greetings... I am looking for a new printer and stuck between 2 choices, the Epson 1270 or the 2000. I am pretty sure that the 1270 comes bundled with PhotoShop LE. Does the 2000? Also, I am a fan of PaintShop Pro but I'm thinking about giving PhotoShop a go, but it is quite pricy. Does the LE version qualify as an upgrade to the full version? Thanks very much and to keep this filmscanner related, I'll be making prints from my LS-2000 scans. :-) Bruce J
Re: filmscanners: NikonLS30 or CanoScan2710?
Based on what I found when I asked the same question, you will receicve answers from people who selected and have used only the LS-30, some who have only used the Canon, and a third group who have tested or compared both. It really comes down to what you want to spend in $$$, the bits/channel and resplution you can get for the $, the software packages you get with the hardware, like ICE, and viewing any comparisons on sites like Tony Sleep's. Though the companies seem to want you to buy without thought and use only their marketing information, it is best to wait for as much information as you can tolerate. The companies seem to feel that they do not need to have you get the information to lay out such a "paltry sum" as $US 1,000. (In my opinion, a purchase costing more than one week of my wifes jaunts to the super market is not a "paltry sum." Have patience, learn as much as yopu can, and buy the unit that best satisfied your needs. I did and I bought an LS-30 after its price dropped 50% and my saving for it reached the price. I also bought Vuescan to use with it. In the end will be your call. I do not regret mine. Gordon Ezio wrote: I owns a LS-30 and IMHO the ICE is something extremely useful .I think Canon is missing ICE. Sincerely. Ezio www.lucenti.com e-photography site - Original Message - From: Jan Copier To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 4:26 PM Subject: filmscanners: NikonLS30 or CanoScan2710? Hello, I'm planning to buy a new scanner, my old one is a Nikon LS20. Can anyone tell me what is the best choice, the Nikon LS30 or CanoScan2710? Thanks for who is responding
Re: filmscanners: RE:scientific method
I do all of that tooand print the results on my printer. Each of these area of producing scanned images and things pretty directly related to them seem to be good topices for this group. Gordon Austin Franklin wrote: Are there any people in here who actually shoot, or better still, sell, photographs ? I do Me too...and I even shoot with film and scan the film with a scanner ;-)
Re: filmscanners: Image databases?
I would also like to hear about this. Especially, the cross referencing aspect of it. Gordon Rob Geraghty wrote: I know this subject has come up before but I'll ask again anyway - are there any decent and reasonably cheap image databases out there? I already have hundreds (thousands?) of scanned images which I need to index and sort so I can find them. The database needs to be able to index a CD so it can identify the disk without it being in the computer at the time (I'm NOT buying a jukebox, thanks!). It also needs to sort images by several different categories (ie. a picture may be of a kangaroo so sorted under "animals" but be from a trip to Lamington National Park, so sorted under the name of the park as well), and provide thumbnails without the CD being loaded. I've seen ACDsee mentioned before but it just seems to be a browser, not a searchable database per se. Any ideas? Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: Jaggies was RE: filmscanners: LS2000 Fuji NPH settings
Would someone explain what "flashing the BIOS" means. I have never heard this before. Gordon Roman Kielich® wrote: At 14:39 10/11/2000 +1000, you wrote: No. But then I don't always get jaggies on my machine either. The fact that your LS30 has a different BIOS and Nikonscan version makes a direct comparison difficult. It's possible that your memory manager may help as well. what stops you from flashing BIOS and upgrading Nikonscan? Memturbo, BTW, sucks resources without any use. With 256 MB of RAM it is obsolete, but "I like to watch".
Re: filmscanners: Slide scanners
Art: You forgot to mention the Nikon LS-30. It will provide a somewhat lower cost than the LS-2000, yet has ICE. It can also do multiscanning with Vuescan. Gordon Arthur Entlich wrote: Robert Buchanan wrote: I am planning on buying a dedicated slide scanner. I have looked up data in the various catalogues. Buck Buchanan (no relation to Pat!) Dear Buck, Welcome to the forum. Art
Re: filmscanners: Slide scanners
I have found Vuescan to be very effective and the interface pretty straight forward. For example: I scanned an old Kodachrome I took of the Grand Canyon in the '67 as a 16 ppi and the scan had a very dark segment in the foreground. I played with the levels in Photoshop and was able to pull out all of the detail. Also, Ed Hamrick is forever providing updates in response to this forum's requests (within limits) and is very quick to provide "customer support." I think you will like Vuescan. Gordon Guy Prince wrote: HOLY COW !!! A thread that doesn't mention Epson ! I have a Nikon LS-30 and had NO IDEA that it would work with Vuescan. I have no idea what vuescan is, but now my interest is piqued. I will go have a looksee ... Friday, November 10, 2000, 2:59:13 PM, you wrote: RG Gordon Tassi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Art: You forgot to mention the Nikon LS-30. It will provide a somewhat RG lower cost than the LS-2000, yet has ICE. It can also do multiscanning with RG Vuescan. RG And with Vuescan it is able to output 10bits per channel while Nikonscan RG limits it to 8. RG As has been pointed out elsewhere, this increases the LS30's dynamic range. RG (What to? I have no idea!) RG Rob
Coptight on images
As someone who has spent much of his life in the physical and information security field, I can safely say that waiting for an impregnable security method, technique, or system can last many lifetimes. The key has been to apply layer upon layer of the methods, etc. to what you wish to protect. The protective layers used will depend on how important the protection of the item or information is to its owner, not the user. So, the protection you apply to your images depends on how important they are to you, your income and other factors. Almost any security system can be breached given the desire, time, money, and patience needed. Security keeps basically honest people honest, and frustrates and/or inconveniences the dishonest. What does it mean to the photographer? Like in so many other things, you to pay your money, make your choice, and hope. Gordon The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
Re: experiencing the 1270 orange shift
This is a little off thread because it it switches from dye to pigment inks. Have any of you who use 3rd party or Epson's new pigmented inks seen a shift in colors after a relatively short time. Gordon Urmas Tartes wrote: At 14:02 20.09.2000 -0700, you wrote: I know this may invoke some passionate responses but has anybody in this group actually experienced the Epson 1270 orange cast problem mentioned? I've read all the info provided in the links given but I've never actually experienced the problem myself. Am I in the lucky minority or am I not examining the prints closely enough over time? Yes, I have experienced it personally. I wasn't doing any type of testing, but just making prints with my wonderful 1270 (purchased May 9th). I had a couple of prints on the family room wall, and one day looked at one of them in passing and thought that I must be losing my touch with Photoshop as the image looked awful and I'd remembered it looking good before. I didn't have time to check it out then, but about a week later I took another look and it seemed so bad I couldn't believe I'd made such a horrible print. 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 will last that much. Famous Murphy has told: "If anything does not help, read the manual!" That is the case here. Even printed book pages (black pigment color) fade when displayed under the sun. I got my Epson 1270 about month ago and I never expeted I can expose uncovered prints. And I am very satisfied with the results I have. No conventional photolab (and other photo printers) can match the quality. And if you do not want to use glass frames, you shoud cover prints with special spray (http://www.tssphoto.com/sp/dg/index.html). All the best, Urmas Tartes ** Urmas Tartes http://www.online.ee/~utartes/makro http://www.zbi.ee/~tartes The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
