[filmscanners] Re: OT - Epson 1280 ink monitor...
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:49:16 -0500, you wrote: I own a 1270, the predecessor to the 1280, What changed in the 1280? Should one consider a 1270, if a good deal comes along? Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Leaf 35 and 4000dpi scanners
Hmm, seems to be working now. OK, I'll try again: Any opinions on the Leaf 35 as a 4000 dpi scanner? I need to start thinking about upgrading from my FS2710. Other options are obviously Canon 4000, Nikon, Sprintscan and ?? I see a Leaf 35 selling for about $600 which seems pretty good for a 4000 dpi scanner, but would welcome comments. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Couple of basic questions
On Thu, 26 Dec 2002 09:57:12 -0600, you wrote: For those instances, I poise my left hand over the space bar as I work...if I can't find the darn cursor, I press the space bar and there is a nice big fat Hand. Move the cursor (hand) to its target and proceed. Takes some getting used to, but surely does help. bob snow Thanks all, for the responses. Bob, yeah, I have done something similar - just switching to any other tool does the trick. I usually use the zoom tool since the Z is right next to the S, but I like your grabber hand idea since the space bar is such a nice big target. Maybe properties for the clone stamp circle will appear in a future version. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Couple of basic questions
Sorry for the boring questions here, but I just installed a new version of Photoshop (6), and I have a couple of really dumb questions: 1) This may be actually a Windows question, I'm running ME, but is there a way to change the default view of a folder when you go to Open? PS is defaulting to the thumbnail view right now, and I'd much rather default to List. I've searched both the PS prefs and the Control Panel and am coming up blank. 2) When using the clone stamp, is there a way to change the color of the indicator circle? Sometimes it completely dissappears against the image. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: debugging Canon FS 2710 on Windows ME
Brian - I don't know how much help I can be, but I'm glad to try. I recently switched to a machine running WinME, and my FS2710 seems to be working with Vuescan. I didn't ever have to download ASPI, so the modules you list are not loaded on my system. I have the same SCSI controller, and it shows under the device manager.The driver is simply listed as provided by MS. (The only thing that's a little different is I notice that Vuescan is no longer giving dpi, size and progress data on the task bar. However, when I re-installed it on my new system from Ed's site, it was of course an upgraded version, so I'm not sure if this is peculiar to my system or not. Anybody? I'm not a techie or a programmer, but feel free to ask me to llok up any settings that might help, since I'm running the same OS/scanner/SW combo. On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 21:11:14 -0800, you wrote: I have returned to trying to get my FS2710 tow work on Win ME. Neither Canoscan nor Vuescan sees it. The Adaptec ASPI has been loaded as per the instructions. When I use the Adaptec supplied aspi check utility it shows that the ASPI module versions are as follows: APIX.VXD 4.71.1 WNASPI32.DLL 4.71.1 It also says that the aspi is properly installed and fully functional. However, when I use the system information (Help and Support) program to show the loaded modules, neither of these show up! Can someone who has made this software work on Win ME check and see if these modules show up? To get to the system infomation utility use startprogramsaccessoriesSystem ToolsSystem Information Other info: Hardware info shows the SCSI card as: Name Adaptec AIC-7850 PCI SCSI Controller Manufacturer Adaptec Status OK IRQ ChannelIRQ 11 Memory Address 0xEF102000-0xEF102FFF I/O Port 0xD400-0xD4FF Driver c:\windows\system\vmm32.vxd (, 1,008.75 KB (1,032,956 bytes), Not Available) Additionally, the control panelsystemdevice driverSCSI dialog shows that there are two driver files associate with the AIC-7850: AIC78XX.MPD version 1.30 from Adaptec vmm32vxd version and source unknown Additional help in debugging this would be appreciated. FYI, Vuescan works normally when used with the epson 2450. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: color photo inkjets
On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 19:39:32 -0500, you wrote: Hi Ken, On Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:39:48 -0800, Ken Durling wrote: I'm about to throw out my Epson Photo Stylus 820. So, what's your usage profile? I've printed over a hundred 8 x 10 photos with my 820 and only one head clog. That was when I left it idle for over a month. If I print something every two weeks or so, I don't have banding or clogging problems. Of course, I never turn mine off, either. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ It gets used every day for black text, and about once a week on weekends when I have time I usually do 6-10 color prints, mixture of 4x6 and 8x10s. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Tue 24 Sep, 2002
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:31:43 -0400, you wrote: Can anyone tell me how to find my registtraion numbr in Vuescan? I have purchased the program, but now I want to instll it on a new computer. But when I try, I am asked for my registration number, for which Vuescan provides no information in the Help file. Thanks in adance, Lee Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Under Help, if you hit About Vuescan you get a window at the bottom which is a serial number - is that not it? Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Tue 10 Sep, 2002
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 18:10:52 -0700, you wrote: When I was first on filmscanners, I remember some conversation about better software for this... VueScan?. Can anyone let me know. Sara - Vuescan is the cat's whiskers. I think there's a free demo, and certainly the only $40 download at: www.hamrick.com. It's updated very frequently, almost weekly, so keep checking. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digestfor Tue 10 Sep, 2002
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:50:27 -0700, you wrote: And I think Vuescan is the cat's meow. Can we have a three-week, 80-e-mail, discussion of whether you are right or I am? Can I write long diatribes on the difference between the cat's whiskers and the cat's meow? Please? Well, if this was an audio device, I'd say you were right. But since it's optical, whiskers is the correct term. Believe me, I've thought this through! ;-) Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] FS2710 to ---?
I'm curious if there are list members who made the step to upgrade from the FS2710 and to what. I'm overall quite pleased with the 2710, and feel that I've put in a lot of time learning how to get the most from it. I'm sure others probably experienced the same thing. I'm interested to know what exactly, but empirically, you noticed different after the upgrade. Did anyone go from the 2710 to the 4000? The area I'd most like to see improvement in is shadow noise, but an overall higher resolution sounds attractive, notwithstanding the larger files. I'm curious how much real-world difference this higher res makes, and in what circumstances it's most noticeable. I'd also like batch scanning, but that's a seperate question. Thanks for your time. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: dpi - formerly PS sharpening
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:33:15 -0400, you wrote: What on earth are you talking about? Where do you set the DPI of the scan? I'm not Anthony, but on every piece of scanning software I've owned - all three of them! ;-) (HP, CanoScan and Vuescan) Even Vuescan calls it dpi. I'm aware, from reading www.scantips.com that ppi is perhaps the correct terminology, but dpi seems to be standard usage. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: dpi - formerly PS sharpening
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:35:02 -0400, you wrote: I understand. The comment was specifically about saving the file...and you don't save dots, you save pixels. The file, according to PS, is N pixels in width, by M pixels in height. After you scan, what does Viewscan show for units? How about when you want to re-size the image? Gotcha. Guess I took the comment out of context. Of course the answer to your last two questions is pixels x pixels. However, the task bar of Vuescan (I resize in PS) says - after the scan - for example: 2592x3888 pixels, 2720 dpi, 4x6inch, 22.7MB So it *is* saving a resolution in dpi, and that is what you're working with when you reopen it in an editor. It's easy to see where confusion arises. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: dpi - formerly PS sharpening
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 21:45:28 -0400, you wrote: 2592x3888 pixels, 2720 dpi, 4x6inch, 22.7MB So it *is* saving a resolution in dpi I believe it is simply calculating the DPI. It's certainly easy enough to do... What file format are you talking about, BTW? TIFF files. The numbers you gave above don't seem to fit...did you make those numbers up, or is that from a resized image? oops, yeah. The dpi figure in the above should b e 618. A scan from a slide I just did read: 2396x3694, 2720 dpi, 0.81x1.36, 19.9MB Better, eh? :-) When you read the image back into Viewscan (I assume you can do this), does it still have the dpi it was scanned at, even after resizing? No, it doesn't, it's changed. Interesting, I had never done that - re-looked at an image on disk with the scanning software. I just called up an unaltered TIFF. Why is that? Would it help if I cited the changes? Looks like I could learn something from this. I better send one through paying close attention to all the settings. How about images from another scanner? There are many fields in a lot of the standard file formats that simply go unused...and most people don't support. I'll ask Ed about this...he's gotten quite busy these days, so I won't hold my breath... Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: dpi - formerly PS sharpening
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:35:45 -0700, you wrote: But Ken, you've missed the whole point of that posting... it is because this poster's purpose for living is to correct all the minutia(e) that doesn't conform with his reality. With that in mind, you'll certainly now understand the full value of that edification. Basically worthless to most everyone else's reality... Be prepared for another posting where he will complain that this posting doesn't belong on this list because it doesn't have any scanner content and only is a personal attack and cheap shot. This same poster, of course, will not admit that his own original posting is just a personal attack and cheap shot on another poster, because he hides his hostility behind the guise of correcting certain individuals. Oh. Silly me. Well, I'm not taking sides here. At all. I just hoped to learn something. I'm more or less of lurker here - I read just about everything except when it gets into you know what arguement, and am basically just trying to refine my scanning technique. I still want to go through the sharpening thread and see what I can glean, even though the way I'm doing it now looks pretty good to me. At least for the web, and prints up to 8x10. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: VueScan profile problem!
Sorry - but are you guys referring to the Monitor Color Space pull down under the Color tab in Vuescan? I can't find anything that is labeled Monitor Profile. Am I missing it? On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:31:27 -0400, you wrote: On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:01:00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh drat! Here Ed implements monitor profiles in VS at last, and I can't find mine! Using VS 7.5.34 on WinXP Home, I choose ICC Profile in the Monitor Profile popup. I then browse to the folder (XP default .../Spool/Drivers/Color) where my PhotoCal profile resides, and I can't see it! Only a few profiles are available, some CMYK setups and a few older PS default settings. What is wrong here (if anything)? My PhotoCal profle is correctly named with a .icm extension (which VS is now supposed to recognize) as per Windows requirements. (If the app didn't give it the correct suffix, it wouldn't work...)I tried making a copy with a .icc extension, and that didn't work either. Anyone grok this? Thanks in advance, Les In the Color tab click on the @ button next to the Monitor ICC Profile entry, and navigate to the color directory. Then in the Files of type: box in the popup, just erase what's there and type in *.icm and all the ICM profiles will appear. Then select the one you want. Paul Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Vuescan setting for true neg?
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:01:49 -0700, you wrote: That is to say without image inversion (neg-to-positive)? Would Device-Media type-Image work for this? From the help file: [For] Image, no film correction is used, and the cropped file will look as much like the original image as possible. If you don't like results from their default settings you still may want to set white and black points percent values and perhaps brightness. Ha - interesting idea. I hadn't thought of this. I can reverse it in PS. Thanks, I'll try it. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different purposes]
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 10:52:22 -0230, you wrote: There seems to be a widespread misconception here. While you are editing an image, it _does not have_ a format; it isn't JPEG, or TIFF, or anything else. The image is stored on a file in JPEG or TIFF or whatever format you choose, but it has no format during editing, and so whether you edit a file opened from TIFF or JPEG makes absolutely no difference while you are editing. An image in an editing program is just a mass of pixels. I believe the misconception of always sharpening before JPEG comes from the common down-sampling. That is, most images start out big before being down-sized for wwweb presentation ... and the usual advice is: ... down-size ... sharpen (to remove the softening side-effects of down-sampling) ... and save as JPEG. \ OK, I think I'm getting clear here. So let me rephrase a bit. When I scan an image - into whatever file formet, I use TIFF out of Vuescan - and then open it in PS, I can immediately see some sharpness loss which I understand to be a result of the scan - scanner limitation, etc. One eventual step in my workflow is usually to try to restore the image to something resembling the original slide, through the use of as little sharpening or USM as possible. If I try that on my original file - before down-sampling - I have to use large USM values to see any effect at all, or use sharpen more (I'm using PS Elements at the moment). Once I've resized for the web - typically to 800 pixels in long dimension, which I do using a bicubic resample and changing the resolution, usually to about 600dpi from 2720 - the file shrinks from its former +/-20MB to about 1.25MB and sharpening must be done very cautiously in order to avoid halos and other artifacts. When I resize for *print* I don't resample, I just change the dimensions and leave the resolution the same. It's in the down-sized scan that I see the change in sharpening response. So, aside of asking for any observation regarding improving my workflow - why is the sharpening so much more effective on the smaller image? And am I losing something I'm not yet aware of?I'm sure a much more experienced eye can detect sharpening artifacts in my stuff, but I've been relatively pleased with the results. 2 examples - feel free to criticize: http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=716 http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=29447 But I'd like to understand more and get better results. Thanks for all the explanations! Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 16:17:30 +0100, you wrote: Personally I do some sharpening for an archival image that may end up going to different outputs. This is only a minor sharpening to restore the sharpness of the original which is almost always softened by the scanning process. Most images will benefit from further sharpening when targeting for a specific output but this should not really be done for an archival copy. Speaking of sharpening - I think I understand this in a sort of sloppy intuitive way, but could someone offer a technical explanation of why sharpening has so much more visible effect on jpegs as opposed to TIFFs? Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:56:29 -0500, you wrote: Theoretically maybe; but out of curiosity, how does one do this in actuality when one would have to first decompress the JPG file before one could carry out the sharpening operations. Afterwhich, one would then recompress the file again in its altered state which would be what typically causes the artifacts and deterioration in JPG files to begin with? Yes, I realized after I typed that what I actually do is resize the TIFF, edit, * sharpen * and THEN go to JPEG. It's in this resized TIFF that I see the increased sharpening or USM effects, over the raw intitial file. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 11:33:05 -0500, you wrote: Probably the artifacts created in the compression process. It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen. But when printing it's best to go direct from the TIFF isn't it? This is where I run into it. When producing for the web, yes, I go to jpeg and then sharpen. Actually, I often resize the TIFF to the pixel size I want, do the rest of my editing and then sharpen just before converting to JPEG. I get good results this way.Come to think of it, I see a lot more sharpening effect when the TIFF has been resized than before - let alone the JPEG. I also haven't experimented with the for print output setting in Vuescan - any idea what this does differently? Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different purposes]
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 21:36:38 -0500, you wrote: True enough, but if the image requires sharpening? JPG is not a good format, I know, but it is very useful and in fact necessary for the web. I would think it better to convert to JPG and then sharpen rather than sharpen in TIFF and then convert. I haven't tested but I think it would result in fewer artifacts. Well there may be other variables in my system, but I get fewer artifacts sharpening the reduced TIFF rather than the JPEG. I may need to experiment with lower USM settings on my JPEGs, but given my scanner's good somewhat limited capabilities (FS2710) , I'm very happy with the workflow of TIFFresize/resample sharpencompress. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: bonehead print res Q
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:00:27 -0800, you wrote: On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:18 + (GMT), you wrote: Which is better a printer with 2880x775 resolution, or one with 2400x1200? I suppose I might have phrased the question badly, come to think of it. Maybe I should ask, which is the better *resolution* spec, notwithstanding other factors? The one that produces the output you like best. Sorry, I'm not being as glib as that sounds, but DPI is a single variable among many, and far from being all that important. Thanks Tony, I understand that, and don't take it as glib. I've already told my friend to look at samples. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/browse.php?id=photographer:203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Question for 2450 owners
Hi folks - The only place around here where I can see an Epson 2450 is CompUSA and those clerks know jack. I asked to see a manual and no go either. Criminy.Anyway, I was looking at the transparancy/negative carrier and trying to figure out how it worked. There may have been a piece that wasn't on display. What I saw saw was a bracket with a wavy-edged slot for sliding a negaitive strip into, and then 4 or 5 6x6cm or 2x2 cutouts in the same piece, I assume for slides and MF negatives. But how would you feed a strip of 6x6 negs? Do they have to be cut into individual frames? Or hold a slide in for that matter? I'm not exactly sure of the size of the cutouts, whether it was 2x2 for slides or 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 for MF. The cutouts didn't have a lip to hold a the mounted slide in postion, nor did they look they were set up for a snap fit. Any illucidation welcome, thanks. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/browse.php?id=photographer:203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Supra for scanning?
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:17:50 -0500, you wrote: Hello! On their site, and in their literature, Kodak extols the virtues of Supra for scanning. Does anyone have experience with this film? I like Fuji Superia a lot, but I do get some grain aliasing problems with the 400 ISO, and VueScan doesn't have a profile for it g! I will shoot a few rolls of Supra this week, but it helps to have others' comparisons with emulsions I may not have seen yet. And then there is always Provia, which I love, but I want to use negs on my next trip. Les - I have found Supra to be super for scanning. 100 and 400. Much better color match in Vuescan than Superia, which often takes a hell of a lot of twiddling. Supra usually comes out very close upon the first pass. I think you'll like it. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] MF on flatbed
If this has been discussed, please excuse me, and feel free to point me to an archived thread. Does anyone have any experience scanning Medium Format (6x6) negs or slides on a flatbed? I don't have a transparency adapter, but someone mentioned something like a light tent? This is new to me, so I thought I'd ask. I have an HP Scanjet 5200C. Is there any hope? Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/browse.php?id=photographer:203 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Epson 2450 and MF was: Re: MF on flatbed
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:43:32 -0800, you wrote: Most people didn't like the results, but again there is a web site (ditto on where it is) that shows you how to make one. Use a good search engine and look up something like slide film adapter for flatbed don't expect miracles in terms of the resultant image. Thanks. Well, I suspected as much. Now I'm interested to hear from folks who have used the Epson 2450 with MF media. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Scanning chromogenic
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:28 + (GMT), you wrote: It arises purely out of the filtration used by the lab for C41 printing, and is not a property of the film itself, just a workaround for the fact that it's difficult to get a neutral greyscale print on colour paper with this film. Thanks, Tony. I suspected something like that. I know the processes are very different, but would those difficulties translate to inkjet paper? Or is the home digital dkrm workflows the same as any BW film? If not, are there recommended papers to print C-41 with on an inkjet? I'm using an Epson 820, FWIW. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Scanning chromogenic
Hi folks - I had never tried any of the C-41 films before, and just shot a roll of XP-2. At the processing place I had them print it on color paper, and the prints have that sepia tone that I associate with the type. However, nothing I do in Vuescan results in anything but a straight greyscal image, leading me to believe that there's something I don't understand about this film (no surprise). So where does the sepia toning come from? Is it possible to obtain a scan that has it? I thought it was in the negative, but perhaps it's exclusively in the chemical interaction with paper? Thanks as always Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Clipping again
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 19:10:13 -0500, you wrote: Hi Ken, Sorry, I don't know what you mean by upper and lower histogram. I only get one histogram in my version of PS, but perhaps I don't know how to drive it well enough to get more! Regards, Austin One more question: I understand (I think) the lower histogram to be the RGB channels, but I forget what the upper one is. In some scans the lower histogram will show 2 or maybe all 3 channels clipping, but the upper histogram doesn't clip at all. What is that telling me? Ken Whoops, sorry. I neglected to specify - I mean the Vuescan histograms. I think I've started to think of this as a Vuescan list! ;-) Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:07:14 -0800, you wrote: I apologize if I'm getting into some else's discussion, but I suggest the following: No apology necessary! All input is welcome. And thanks everyone - this is going to push me into a new sector of the learning curve with PS Elements, as I've never tried to combine two versions of an image. Hell, I'm barely getting comfortable with layers! But it sounds too fascinating to resist - I'll keep you posted. Or should I say, I'm sure I'll be back with more questions. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] OT: Contacting Adobe
HI all - I have not been able to get on Adobe's website for about a month. My connection invariably times out, and I have DSL. Anyone else having this experience The same thing happens whether I use www.adobe.com or the Adobe Online link in PS Elements. Any ideas? Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: OT: Contacting Adobe
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 19:08:16 -0500, you wrote: I just tried it now and it worked okay... Thanks everybody - guess I'll see if my ISP can help. Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Tips needed on difficult scan
HI folks - I'm still working away here, improving my understanding and techniques. Since the addition of histograms to Vuescan, I've been trying to utilize them some, but remain somewhat confused, as I'm just starting to get a grasp of the ones in PS Elements, which have 3 sldiers, and input and output controls. I have a slide that I've been spending hours trying to yield what I can see through the loupe on the light table, but it's evading me. It's a very high contrast sunset shot taken on Velvia, with one side very dark under dense clouds, and the opposite side has brilliant - one might say blown out - area of sunlight. Along the bottom of the photo is a lot of city detail, seen from above - I was shooting from up in the hills overlooking SF Bay. It was taken with a sharp lens, so the detail is there, and I'd like to retrieve it. My main problem has been trying to bring out all the detail in the city - which is in the relatively dark area of the photo. Secondarily, the finding a contrast range that doesn't blow out the sunlit areas too severely, while not darkeneing the shadows too much. But what I'd like help with is how to utilize the Vuescan histograms to achieve this. Needless to say, upon initial scan at the default white and black points of 1, the histograms go off the scale at either end. What general guidelines should I use for trying setting that will bring the contrast range within the scale? And what effect do the color balance settings have on the effectiveness of the black and white point settings? Thanks for any lights, and if seeing an example of this particular scan would be helpful, I can supply. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 05:31:15 EST, you wrote: Leave the black point (%) set at 0, and set white point (%) to 1. Then experiment primarily with the Color|Brightness option. This applies effectively a gamma curve, bringing more detail out of dark areas without saturating bright areas. Thank you, Ed. I'll work with that today. Does it make much difference what color balance setting I use? I've been generally usuing either White Balance or Auto Levels. I'm thinking I'd see more direct effects if I used Neutral? Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 05:31:15 EST, you wrote: Leave the black point (%) set at 0, and set white point (%) to 1. Then experiment primarily with the Color|Brightness option. This applies effectively a gamma curve, bringing more detail out of dark areas without saturating bright areas. This is working great. Thanks! Ken Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Tips needed on difficult scan
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002 05:54:39 -, you wrote: Remind us what scanner you have, Ken? I just have a lowly Canon FS2710 Bear in mind that dark bits on Velvia are considered the evil of the filmscanning world - so dark that lots of scanners simply can't see properly! Multi-pass scanning with Vuescan in combination with the Long exposure pass, with my Nikon LS40, didn't improve the scanner's ability to see into the black. Velvia is definitely just a little too much for the LS40... (As is Kodachrome.) Yes, I know Velvia is famous for that, and I have definitely experienced it with Kodachrome - even worse as a matter of fact. But that was probably that particular series of shots, of white flowers against a very dark background. I decided to capitalize on it as an effect. Now there's a way out! (I MEANT that to be grainy! It's my photographic version of impressionism! ) I had the feeling though, that the dark areas in this particular slide were not totally beyond reach, and Ed's suggestion elsewhere in this thread did succeed in helping a lot. I don't think I'll ever get what I see through the loupe, or projected on the wall, but it has been fascinating trying to get close! Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Tips needed on difficult scan
HI folks - I'm still working away here, improving my understanding and techniques. Since the addition of histograms to Vuescan, I've been trying to utilize them some, but remain somewhat confused, as I'm just starting to get a grasp of the ones in PS Elements, which have 3 sldiers, and input and output controls. I have a slide that I've been spending hours trying to yield what I can see through the loupe on the light table, but it's evading me. It's a very high contrast sunset shot taken on Velvia, with one side very dark under dense clouds, and the opposite side has brilliant - one might say blown out - area of sunlight. Along the bottom of the photo is a lot of city detail, seen from above - I was shooting from up in the hills overlooking SF Bay. It was taken with a sharp lens, so the detail is there, and I'd like to retrieve it. My main problem has been trying to bring out all the detail in the city - which is in the relatively dark area of the photo. Secondarily, the finding a contrast range that doesn't blow out the sunlit areas too severely, while not darkeneing the shadows too much. But what I'd like help with is how to utilize the Vuescan histograms to achieve this. Needless to say, upon initial scan at the default white and black points of 1, the histograms go off the scale at either end. What general guidelines should I use for trying setting that will bring the contrast range within the scale? And what effect do the color balance settings have on the effectiveness of the black and white point settings? Thanks for any lights, and if seeing an example of this particular scan would be helpful, I can supply. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
filmscanners: Workflow for web lens comparison
Hi all - I'm trying to do something that is really pushing the envelope of my understanding of resolution optimization (a good thing!). What I want to do is compare photographs taken with a 200mm lens with and without a teleconverter to try and pinpoint some of the exact degradation introduced by the TC, and post them on the web for a SI discussion group I'm a member of. . We'll take it as a given that I have two photographs of the same subject that are both perfectly in focus (I thought I did, but I don't yet.) The photograph in this case is of a chimney tower with a wire mesh grate at the top. I want to post 4 photographs: 1 each of the full frame photographs, one without a TC and one with. Then I want to crop the same exact area of the wire mesh and part of the wall detail - a quite small portion of the overall photograph - and then size them to the same size onscreen, so they can be compared. First off, I'm not entirely sure what settings to use in order to show the full frame photos at their maximum resolution. They were scanned at 2720 dpi. Resampling downgrades the quality a lot - so should I resize simply by scaling? PS Elements scaling dialogue seems to be aimed primarily at print dimensions, i.e it's in inches, cm, picas, columns etc. Just divide the desired screen size in inches by the pixels?What's the best way to size the TIFF for screen while maintaining max resolution? I think I'm clearer on the detail crop - I can leave that at 2720 dpi, and pixel-size it with a resample without losing much quality. However, I'm not sure I'm correct about that. Can anyone suggest any ideas for a workflow that maintains as consistent an image quality as possible across all these different sizings, and that stays as close as possible to what the lens/film actually produced? That would include some optimum Vuescan setting, too I imagine. This first round of experimenting was done on Portra 400VC, and I used the setting for that in Vuescan, with a light grain reduction filter. The colors came out fine. Thanks, I know I'm probably missing some basic concepts here, so thanks for your patience. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
filmscanners: SQ Re: Histogram
Why is it called a histogram? I understand histo- to be a combining form meaning organic tissue as in histography and histogeny, but what does it mean in this context? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
filmscanners: It's easy
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 17:03:06 -, you wrote: Is there any way that we can suppress the multiple Re:,Re:,Re:,Re: etc in the Subject lines? The subject line length is frequenty too way too long. Ian all you have to do is edit the subject line. I agree with Ian. I can't even tell what posts are about when it says Re: filmscanners Re: filmscanners Re: filmscanners Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.3 Available
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 07:51:22 EST, you wrote: I just released VueScan 7.3 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X and Linux. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html What's new in version 7.3 * Moved options to left panels, images to right panels * Fixed problem with slide feeder on Minolta Scan Multi Regards, Ed Hamrick Hey, that's nice. Good going! Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: Virus Alert, was Re: filmscanners: Glenroy Road, Suite #350 Edina,.
On Sat, 08 Dec 2001 19:29:49 -0500, you wrote: Hi folks, The Magistr worm went out with a message to the list. Be careful -- it's always a good time to update your antivirus software. http:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Account.bat was infected with the W32.Magistr.39921@mm virus. Bob At 06:34 PM 12/8/2001, you wrote: As I explained on the telephone, the alleged debt that your letter refers to involves. Thanks yes. It was caught by my firewall. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Monitor recommendation
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:19:25 -0500 , you wrote: It turns out that Lacie's aren't as expensive as I though so I'm going to look at one of those. NEC is also now made by Mitsubishi so I'll be looking at those as well. Never heard of Lacies. Where can I read about them? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Monitor recommendation
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 22:11:59 -0500, you wrote: Actually, LaCie has been around since the beginning of time I think I missed that event. :-o Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Monitor recommendation
Someone mentioned Viewsonic so although I really haven't intensively compared it with others, I've been very happy with my A90 since I bought it - almost a year ago now. I'm sure it's been superceded, but its a sharp, clear and bright monitor that I can hold a print up next to a display of the same and not be jarred at all. Ken
Re: filmscanners: S400 final result
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 17:55:47 -0500, you wrote: I have about 30 or so different varieties planted on my side hill. I think I have that variety. Hey, if you can identify the variety from the shot, that's probably good enough color for me! ;-) Ken
Re: filmscanners: S400 final result
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 08:00:01 -0800, you wrote: By chance I took a photo of a day lily this summer for my wife to use. Colors in that one are less saturated, and primary flower color is more to magenta than red. There can be different varieties, and probably differences due to time of day, light, and location. NPH film, scanned on LS-30 using vuescan then levels tuned in photoshop. Couldn't find it in your galleries - is it there? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: S400 final result
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 23:40:46 +1000, you wrote: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=455020size=lg Wow! It's amazingly sharp! But did you intend to leave in the dust and scratches? :-7 Rob Heh. Missed a couple, didn't I? Ahem. :-/ That IS a sharp lens, BTW. Old chromenose Canon FD 100/2.8. Scanned on a FS 2710, with a touch of USM. 140%, 1.2 pixels, IIRC. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: S400 final result
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 11:14:38 -0800, you wrote: Couldn't find it in your galleries - is it there? Aak! Forgot to include the url in my earlier post (it's not indexed from the flowers page). Sorry about that. Here it is: www.shomler.com/other/018215.jpg Bob Shomler www.shomler.com Aha - yes. Beautiful. And yes it's more magenta. We have some of that strain here, too. Closer to this shot, which is sort of a cousin to yours: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=405011 I suppose all of this is not SO far off-topic, being a way to compare notes on color rendition. Of course, with Day Lilies, that's like comparing the colors of people's eyes but they do sort themselves into distinct strains, with characteristic colors. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
filmscanners: S400 final result
Thanks for all the great help. This is what I finally came up with. Wondering if you think the colors look natural. These _are_ pretty creatures. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=455020size=lg Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Superia, CM et al
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:59:45 +1100, you wrote: Ken Durling wrote: Hi folks - I have two questions. One is I'm having a very hard time scanning Superia 400, and there's no setting for it in Vuescan. Colors are coming out all wrong even on the scan, and it's very hard to even know where to start fixing. What Vuescan settings can I tweak? There are two types listed for Fuji which are 400 asa NHG and SHR. Have you tried either of these? rob Tried NHG, and it was way off. Haven't tried SHG, and I don't know why not! Will do and report. Ken
Re: filmscanners: New software from Binuscan
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:06:01 , you wrote: Photo Retouch Pro Try this fantastic software from Binuscan . I have used it with my scan pictures and pictures from my D1X At $1000, it BETTER be good!is it Mac only? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Superia, CM et al
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 08:38:56 +1300, you wrote: Ken Durling wrote: I have two questions. One is I'm having a very hard time scanning Superia 400, and there's no setting for it in Vuescan. General consensus is to use Reala 100 (Japan), I believe. That choice gives me the most accurate colour with Superia. Which leads me to my next question - what is the next step in getting into CM? I would forget about CM until you have achieved a satisfactory workflow through to your printed output, with colour that you think is pretty good. Then maybe CM can gild the lily? Colin - Well, with the exception of a few films, I think I *am* fairly satisfied with my workflow, which is why I think I'm ready to get a little more precise. I'm just getting small variations between my monitor and printer - small but significant, like in skintones. I realize I'm probably opening a can of worms, though, and we all know that the only way to get them back in the can is to use a bigger can! Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
filmscanners: No luck with Superia 400
Very strange. I've tried everybody's suggestions, scanning under SGH, NGH, Real 100 (Japan) even Royal Gold 400, but a shot I have of a blood-red DayLily keeps coming out deep purple. Any ideas? Ken
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Superia, CM et al
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:35:41 +1000, you wrote: Ken Durling wrote: Tried NHG, and it was way off. Haven't tried SHG, and I don't know why not! Will do and report. I don't know if you've tried this, but have a go at Generic Colour Negative and Neutral instead of White Balance. Rob Thanks Rob - trying that now. Ken
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: No luck with Superia 400
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:31:02 +1000, you wrote: Ken wrote: Very strange. I've tried everybody's suggestions, scanning under SGH, NGH, Real 100 (Japan) even Royal Gold 400, but a shot I have of a blood-red DayLily keeps coming out deep purple. Any ideas? Is there any grey point you can use with Levels to neutralise the image? Rob This sounds interesting - but I'm afraid I dont' fully understand the notion. Would you mind explaining a little further? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Superia, CM et al
Folks - Your suggestions are helping. Generic and Neutral color balance are getting me closer to at least the right hues, although the saturation is still way off. Tweaking the brightness levels of the reds and blues in the scan are helping too. I think it's to the point where I can probably photoshop it, although I've never had anything be this far off since I got the scanner! Wow. So thanks. Ken
filmscanners: Superia, CM et al
Hi folks - I have two questions. One is I'm having a very hard time scanning Superia 400, and there's no setting for it in Vuescan. Colors are coming out all wrong even on the scan, and it's very hard to even know where to start fixing. What Vuescan settings can I tweak? in some cases I've done quite a lot of work in PSP7 or PElements and gotten things pretty good looking, and then when I print it . . . oy vey. I have one of these new Epson 820s - is anything established yet about how good they are at color reproduction? Which leads me to my next question - what is the next step in getting into CM? I understand there are some programs for it? So far all I've done is the gamma calibration offered by Photoshop Elements, but I think this is pretty rudimentary. I realize I probably need to learn a lot more about colorspaces that I'm working in, but for now I'm trying to do everything in sRGB. What are my next steps towards getting really good control over my camera to print workflow? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: pixels, printer dots, etc
Arthur - Thank you very much for a considered explanation. I'm studying it! Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
filmscanners: noise
Hi folks - Only slightly less of a newbie now, I continue to study Mr. Fulton's superlative scanning tips book, and experiment with my scanner and software. A few weeks into FS2710/Vuescan ownership, all this learning is, I think, making me aware of a couple of this scanner's shortcomings, but I want to ask about one of them. The other is straightforward, the lack of batch scanning capability. But the question has to do with shadow noise, especially on Velvia slides. Since I'm new to high res scanning, I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking for. On some slides that I scan that have large areas of shadow, I see something that looks like dandruff scattered more or less evenly across the area. Is that what shadow noise looks like? Are there various forms of it? Combining the two questions with one more - how expensive a scanner would I have to upgrade to in order to have better shadow silence, batch scanning, and some kind of ICE? I have on emore question, but I'll post it seperately. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
filmscanners: pixels, printer dots, etc
Ok, I have I think I simple question, stemming out of my study of Wayne Fulton's scanning tips. Just getting clear, so forgive me if it's a stupid question. On page 67 of that book he shows a tiny 32 pixel image scaled to 5 dpi. It's printed as a 6.4 inch graphic with pixels that are, obviously, 1/5 inch in size. My question is, what does this say about print resolution? The printer is obviously using a certain number of dots to produce one pixel. Is this number of dots specified simply by selecting the print resolution in the printer driver menu? Thanks Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: pixels, printer dots, etc
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:54:46 -0500, you wrote: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: My question is, what does this say about print resolution? The printer is obviously using a certain number of dots to produce one pixel. Is this number of dots specified simply by selecting the print resolution in the printer driver menu? I'm not sure if this answers your question, but Dan Margulis has a very informative article on Resolution from his Professional Photoshop book at http://www.ledet.com/margulis/PP6_Chapter14.pdf. If you haven't gotten the book, it's money well spent. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.CGraphics.com Thanks very much, Preston. I'm printing that chapter out as I type this, and will most likely get that book. And thanks to others who responded, too. I'm enjoying this learning curve - especially because I can see the results coming out of my printer! - an Epson 820 I just got, BTW. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - filenames
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 11:02:32 -0600, you wrote: It's the plus sign after the number that saves the scans sequentially and prevents accidental overwrites. Thanks, Maris. Vuescan advances the numerical value automatically? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan - filenames
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 12:08:34 -0600, you wrote: As long as the plus sign is present, yes it does. If the plus sign is not present it will overwrite. Don't ask me why - it's Ed's way of doing it. :-) Super! Thanks Maris. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Grain size in Fuji 800 color neg films
On Thu, 8 Nov 2001 12:49:25 -0500, you wrote: The tech person said Press and Superia are exactly the same film, Aha! I am vindicated! (not here, with someone else) And to think I spent a few rolls of each just trying to tell the difference. Needless to say, I couldn't. So, the obvious question??? Ken
filmscanners: Multiple passes
Someone feel like expounding briefly on the multiple pass technique? I'm using Vuescan and a FS2710, slides and both color and BW negs. What is the purpose and what determines the number of passes you set? I tried a couple at 2 passes, and saw no noticeable effect, although I'm not at all sure what I'm looking for. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
filmscanners: PSP 7 Clarify
I'm going to read Wayne Fulton ro get clear on the difference between sharpen and unsharp mask, but PSP 7 has an adjsutment called Clarify which looks sort of like a combination of contrast and sharpness adjustment. Anyone know exactly what it does? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
filmscanners: Signing up a freind
HI folks - I can't seem to find the e-mail address and subscription instructions for this list - I have someone who wants to sign up. Could some kind soul shoot them to me? Thanks! Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Signing up a freind
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 23:29:08 -0600, you wrote: Go to Tony Sleep's website and sign up there: http://www.halftone.co.uk/ Maris Ah yes. Thanks, Maris. Mind went blank! Ken
Re: filmscanners: Signing up a freind
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 23:29:08 -0600, you wrote: Go to Tony Sleep's website and sign up there: http://www.halftone.co.uk/ P.S. I couldn't resist, told my friend he could sign up by going to sleep! Oh, you've heard that one before . . . never min . . Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range
What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a measurement of? Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of measurement? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range
Thanks folks- excellent answers. Plus I have ordered and am waiting for a hard copy of Wayne Fulton's tips. For some reason I can stare at a screen for hours editing photos (or music) , but when it comes to reading words I fade in 10 minutes! Ken
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.26 Available
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:24:47 EST, you wrote: I just released VueScan 7.1.26 for Windows, Mac OS 8/9/X and Linux. It can be downloaded from: http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html What's new in version 7.1.26 * Added Color|Image brightness option * Added Device|Lock exposure option (for panoramas) * Added support for Device|Frame offset (mm) on FS4000 when using strip film carrier (for panoramas when using carrier with plastic bars cut away) * Fixed problem with Minolta scanners connected using Firewire-SCSI converter Regards, Ed Hamrick Will it upgrade the existing version on my computer? Or do I DL and replace with same reg#? Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: VueScan 7.1.26 Available
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:50:26 -0600, you wrote: Just delete the folder with the previous version and install the new - your registration will remain automatically. Maris Thanks all - done. Ken Durling Photo.net portfolio: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
I see you folks recommending these other Epsons a lot, that aren't advertised with the six color photo printing.Is there any real advantage to going with something like the 890 or 1280 over one of the less expensive office color inkjets? I'm using a HP 722C right now, and I actually get pretty good results from it, although it's only 300dpi. I would like whatever I get next to be a significant improvement. Do I need to go all the way with Epson to get that? Ken
filmscanners: Vuescan S-400 setting?
The Vuescan Fuji neg options don't include one for Superia 400, which I've shot a lot of. Any idea which of the existing ones match it the best? Ken
Re: filmscanners: Question about Vuescan
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 12:14:28 +0530, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 6:01 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Question about Vuescan It's not auto-detect, but it has 16 (more than a few) Kodak film types, and each film type has settings under it for different speed film, etc. in the bottom box. Maris Actually, i think, Ken was referring to slide films... he's right on that score... There's just an option for Kodak and Generic and under Kodak for Ektachrome, Kodachrome, Reversal and RPC Copy Film. Aha, that explains it. I wasn't careful enough asking the question. I can see that there is a lot more range in the negative films, but still - should Velvia and Provia both be scanned under Generic? Feels strange to me, although I admit that so far I have few complaints about the results. Maybe I'll try scanning Velvia under Kodachrome and see how it looks! Ken
Re: filmscanners: Question about Vuescan
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 10:46:54 -0600, you wrote: As I remember it, Ed Hamrick (creator of Vuescan) has said that if you use one of the slide settings, the program will attempt to make the scan look like the original scene by applying the profile to make corrections. If you use the Image selection (which ignores any profiles), the program will make the scan look like the slide. Since I like the deeply saturated look of Velvia, I use the Image setting, so that the saturation is retained, rather than being desaturated to match the actual scene. I would suggest that, if you like the way the slide looks, use the Image setting and don't worry about profiles for slide film. My workflow is to scan all the slides into raw files when I get them from the lab, then re-scan the raw files from disk at a later time. In this way, each slide is only scanned once and it is scanned fresh from the box without giving dust a chance to settle on it. With the Polaroid SprintScan 4000, I can load the slide holder with four slides, insert them into the scanner, and tell Vuescan to scan frames 1-4 as raw scans, then go away and do something else while the scanning takes place. Very convenient. Thanks for finalizing that clarification, Stan. I think the awareness of what the image setting is was just starting to dawn, only having had the program a week. I am definitely going to try that. I also like your workflow idea. Unfortunately, the FS2710 has no batch scan function, so I have to feed 'em one at a time. However, for raw files, I could dispense with the Preview and cut the time by about half, right? Or is the Preview necessary for the scanner to evaluate the image? Ken
filmscanners: Question about Vuescan
Hi folks - Continuing to experiment, scan and learn here. Enjoying Vuescan - but the documentation states that the program supports some 200-odd types of film, while the Color dialogue only gives a few Kodak films, and then GENERIC.Am I missing something? Is it auto detect? Ken Durling Website http://home.earthlink.net/~kdurling/ Alternate e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: Question about Vuescan
Whoa. How did you do that? Up til now, when I did that it only gave me KODAK and GENERIC. Now it is as you say. You have strange powers, Maris! Anyway, thanks!! :-) Ken
Re: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:53:10 -0700, you wrote: with HP Photosmart with my 5200C. I meant HP PrecisionScan - I've never owned a Photosmart! Ken
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:12:10 +1000, you wrote: I try to keep my jpeg files inside 50K for general web use. You can make quite reasonably sized images on the screen that as a file are inside that limit. Waiting for larger files to download gets boring, and people on the web tend to have short attention spans. Lol. good point. In point of fact I usually DO try to get my web-post JPEGs to within the 50-75K size range. Thanks for the reply Ken
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:12:10 +1000, you wrote: If you're making web images, the dpi for the screen is 72dpi. End of story. Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand all this. ;-) Ken
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:39:14 -0700, you wrote: Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand all this. ;-) Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct? Ken
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:49:22 -0400, you wrote: Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct? No, not interpolation. Interpolation ADDS data. Decimation removes data, so scanning at 72dpi would remove data...if your scanner is 2700DPI and you scan at 72DPI, you are only using 1 for every 37.5 pixels! Are you scanning prints? On my flatbed, yes. Usually at 150 dpi. But now with the FS2710 obviously I'm only doing slides and negs, which is what brought up all these questions. I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6 print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than 288x432 pixels, wouldn't interpolation be necessary? Even more with a slide or a negative? Ken
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:08:40 -0400, you wrote: I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6 print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than 288x432 pixels, wouldn't interpolation be necessary? Even more with a slide or a negative? But you wouldn't scan at 72dpi if you wanted larger images (pixel wise that is), right? \ Right, of course. I was just responding and sorting out the relationship to the much touted max screen res of 72 (or 100) dpi. I think I used to think that meant higher resolutions offerered no advantages becuase you couldn't see detail below that level, but now I see it relates mostly to size. I'm still not entirely sure why high res scans look better on a screen only capable of displaying 72dpi. I tried a slide at 2720 and then 680 dpi, sized the two scans the same, and the 2720 looked far better, especially under high zooms. Ken
filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
HI all - And thanks very much! Whew, I've read through the posts 3 times now, and the two immediate questions that are coming up are: 1) Bits. I need some clarification on what the siginificance of all the different bit-rates are about for color. For example, one person mentioned that there is no real advantage in 16-bit over 8-bit color for printing. Someone else mnetioned editing in 16-bit. The Canon software only offers scanning in 24-bit color, unless I initiate the scan from within Corel Photo House, in which case I get an option of 36-bit color, as well as a different set of RGB, Gamma and Brightness/Contrast dialoques. ( I notice this 36-bit option results in a nearly 60MB file for a 35mm slide, as opposed to 28.9 for 24-bit) Vuescan seems to default to 48-bit color. So I'm a bit confused. I don't recall this coming up when I was scanning with HP Photosmart with my 5200C. 2) Sizing. Now this is just specifying the pixel dimension of the image, correct? Without changing the resolution. Someone mentioned resampling and downsampling.For example, I scan a slide at 2720 dpi, and I get a 28.9 MB TIFF file that measures something like 3889x2550 pixels. After adjusting color and brightness, etc, and saving, I go into the properties dialogue and specify a web-based size, i.e. about 750 pixels in the longest dimension. Is that downsampling? Is that process in itself lossy? I have yet to run into TIFF LZ compression, I must look further, but I don't recall that as an option. In any case, as a result of reading your advice I am now: Always scanning at max res, ie 2720 dpi. Saving my uncompressed TIFF files to a CD. (I Ihave a Sony 16x and the Adaptec v.4 software) This is simple because when I do the scan I save the TIFF into a directory, and then open it there with a graphics app and create, for example, a jpeg to send to my web portfolio. This leaves the TIFF untouched, and I send that to a CD and delete it off my hard disk. Planning to eventually get PS6. Starting to read the www.scantips pages. Haven't run into a discussion of the bit question there yet, but if it's there I will! thanks kindly Ken Durling Website http://home.earthlink.net/~kdurling/ Alternate e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:15:16 -0700, I wrote: For example, Photo House offers a choice of Interchange Format (JPEG/JFIF) ; Oops, left out the other choice, which I just noticed, which is TIFF JPEG (JTIF). Is that something like the TIFF LZ compression you have been mentioning? When might I choose that over the Interchange Format. Or are these just Photo House quirks that I shouldn't pay any mind? ;-) Ken
Re: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:05:24 -0400, you wrote: That is a case where you certainly can try it. I would suggest trying both methods, and see which works better for you. Some scanners do a fantastic job at giving you great scans at reduced DPI, and others are quite bad. Only through a test of your own, can you really know. Seems like people are saying scan at the highest res possible, save the raw file and work from that. For printing to inkjet, that is the correct workflow. For web output, only you can really test that out...and decide. But that would involve a lot of this information loss when resizing, or is the information lost not essential? No matter what, either the scanner, or PS is going to lose data...it has to, since the scanner can (except a drum) ONLY scan at the native resolution of the scanner, and then the scanner will decimate the data down to what you requested...so there's loss either way, it's just which loss ends up looking better. OK, that sounds reasonable! For the most part I actually really like the web results I'm getting so far, as long as the detail is not too much in shadow. I have one slide though, that I'm having a tough time with. It's of a dramatic (very wide tonal range) sunset scene over a city, from high up. There's lots of fine detail of the city in the slide that I can see with a loupe on the light table, but it comes out fuzzy in the scan. Much fuzzier than say the pollen grains on a macro shot of a flower stamen, which actually represent a smaller target. Any idea what's going on here? Is it just the scanner struggling with shadowed areas? Ken
