Laurie:
Thanks for the reply. How would one flush the ink out of a printer? I
thought they didn't operate if a partially used cartridge was removed.
Certainly, my ancient HP DeskJet 870Cxi won't run if even the cover is
opened but it's so old that it's a museum piece. BTW, it has never
Wouldn't it make sense, if going away for an extended period, to remove the
cartridge? Or am I missing something here?
At 09:54 PM 01/30/2001 -0600, you wrote:
(1) Will the 1200, using non-OEM inks, clog up if it's used for periods
separated by months?
(2) Will the 1200 clog up, using
Colin ,its actuaually the reverse ,If the emulsion is dry when the dev
hits it the chemical reaction starts immediately. If the film is
saturated with water the dev has to soak through the water before it
starts its work.
Remember that the 3.25 minute dev time gives no leeway.that's how it
was
Laurie ,you are spot on with regards to OS changes and support for
legacy devices.
My film recorder for instance uses a GPIB interface ,the one we have is
only Win 95 compatible unit.
I would prefer a win 2K item but will not spend the money just to
upgrade so we now have one 5 year old
Mike,
now we're cooking with gas. GPIB, HPIB or IEEE-488, that's
what you call an "Interface". Designed in 1973 by HP and given IEEE
status in 1975. One Mega BYTE per second buss. No gender changing no
pin 2 to 3 crossovers. Just another example of good solid technology
being ruined by
Art ,we all have our own approach to acquiring those items we want,your
way is a good way foreword,but don't misinterpret what I was endorsing.
When I purchased my current Flatbed scanner in 1995 (its 7th birthday is
around the corner)
You obviously did a great deal of research and
For the time being (and perhaps sometime to come) I suspect film, as a
capture medium, will remain superior to digital, but digital will take
over as the medium for transfer and transmission of those images, and,
obviously, it is also very useful for special effects.
Art
Michael Moore wrote:
I thought the sarcasm in my original comment was so dripping that the
emoicons would have been redundant, I'm not sure, however...
Yes, multiplexes are movie theaters. We have an good dozen movie houses
in Victoria and an IMAX here as well. And next week, for the full week,
we have a huge
Michael Wilkinson wrote:
Excellent move Berry.
I junked my Nikon f4 kit, it was ok for quick point and shoot stuff but
the optics left a lot to be desired.
My Contax gear will and does give good results and Ive made 30x40 inch
prints (photographic,not ink jet ) which are very sharp.
Michael Wilkinson wrote:
Most of us just ignored it !!!
: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Laurie
Solomon
: wrote:
:
: you are still more or less *c*nt* and can afford
:
: Eh!!!
:
: Brian Rumary, England
:
: http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
But he's a "virgin"
I know I'm treading on thin "Off-topic" ice head. (as opposed to digital
ICE, I guess)
DISCLAIMER: I take absolutely no responsibility if any of the below
suggested procedures damages you printer in any manner. They are simply
suggestions I have gleaned from others or those which have
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I never intended to write anything of the sort. The computer skipped some
characters in transmitting the message. It should have read: "you are still
more or less current and can afford" Sorry about that.
Was that Freudian web-slip?
Art
I suspect (although don't know) that the film works a bit like a sponge,
in that it becomes laden with water, and a lot of that water gets
"stuck" in the gelatin layer, even with agitation. This is why
neutralizing stop bath is preferred to straight water bath to stop
development, as the
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
Michael Wilkinson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Clark Guy" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
: professional photography, there will be specialized digital camera
backs
: that can do perhaps as much as 25Mpixels or better using scanning
: technologies. ~~~
I would suggest (a) that your office is a rarity,
I suppose it is.
(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
er... obviously, but we then scan it and bin it.
All contractors invoice
Hersch wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense, if going away for an extended period, to remove
the
cartridge? Or am I missing something here?
Removing the cart won't flush the heads. You have to use a cleaning cart to
flush the heads, or the ink still in the lines and head itself could dry and
block
I sent the following question to EZPrints on Monday. I haven't gotten a
response, yet. Anybody else know the answer ? I want to send some test
prints to see how they come out (I've already gotten their calibration
prints).
===
I'm in the process of preparing a few pictures for printing at
HI, Bob!
Of course, you are quite correct about the market strategy aspect of this
matter. The technology exists to have significantly higher resolution
sensors than we have available to us today. There just isn't a big enough
market for them, so the prices stay high, so there is no market for
Clark,
I can honestly say that my scan back,still subjects only, produces far
superior digital images to those made from trannies on either my
flatbed or my drum scanner.
1. There is NO noise anywhere , either in deep shadow or highlights.
2.The capture software is essentiality scanning software
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
HI, Collin!
I can't address all of your questions, but as for CDRs with sleeves, I
bought a fairly large quantity of CDRs from a place called Cassette House
http://www.tape.com
They were Mitsui CDR74, 10 pack logo/silver/gold Tyvek sleeves and I paid
about US$0.90 apiece for them some months
I am considering buying one of these transparency adaptors -it is a prism
that sits on top of a flatbed and the neg or slide fits underneath. has
anyone bought one and if so can you offer an opinion on the merits of it ?.
they cost about 45 UKP
Stuart
Rob, As you stated, the effect is fall-off due the nature of the polarizer I
used to do a lot of landscape work, never had a publisher reject any polarized
sky shots, but I also tried to cull the ones with too much drop off in the
sky... Maybe you ought to submit digital files where you've
Well done Ed!
Please tell us more about the difference between your spot removal vs. ICE.
And what are you saying about reduction of film grain??!! Now that you've
conquered Digital Ice's spot removal are you also improving on ASF's film
grain equalization ?
Please expound.
Bob Kehl
-
Hi, Berry!
D'Ohhh!!! You are quite right... That's what I get for posting at the end
of a long day!
Sorry about the confusion! Since we are actually 8X closer to that 30Mpixel
goal mentioned earlier than I calculated, I concede that it is POSSIBLE that
we may see a 30Mp camera come down
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
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
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
The Canon D30 is NOT a CCD array camera.
It has a CMOS chip.
If I used the CCD relating to the D30, I know better, and it was an
oversight. Sorry, you are right, it is a CMOS sensor array. Though, that is
not relevant to the points I was making... I guess I call any light sensor
array a CCD
Rob Geraghty writes ...
... Now to me, vignetting in the
camera is caused by a wide-angle lens "seeing" the
edges of a filter. ... 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
At 07:35 31-01-01 -0800, you wrote:
If you had a wide
enough lens and pointed the camera in the direction of the sun, then
the effect would be circular (altho with respect to the sun, not the
lens).
shAf :o)
But,of course ,no-one would do so while looking through the viewfinder as
this
Jerry writes ...
Sorry, but I do not have Photoshop.
(Yeah yeah, now you feel sorry for me!)
But it "handles profiles? It would be interesting to know how it
behaves with respect to Photoshop, but probably difficult to describe
if you're not familiar with PS.
... If you open
I don't think we'll ever be even mostly paperless. Paper has 2 values I
can't see computers replacing despite technology improvements in ways we
can't even imagine now.
Ease of use in all too many instances - flipping back and forth between
pages of a book, or a filmscanner review, or often
I don't know if technically it is vignetting, but I find it distracting and
therefore objectionable.
Sorry.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:33 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Vignetting?
|
| Would
It looks like a polarizing effect to me. Personally I don't use polarizers
with wide angle lenses with lots of sky in the image because I don't like
the effect. It's probably an individual thing. Great picture otherwise.
Frank Paris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael
Out of interest, how much did the digital back cost?
--
Regards
Richard
//
| @ @ --- Richard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C _) )
--- '
__ /
Stuart writes ...
At 07:35 31-01-01 -0800, you wrote:
If you had a wide
enough lens and pointed the camera in the direction of the
sun, then
the effect would be circular (altho with respect to the
sun, not the
lens).
shAf :o)
But,of course ,no-one would do so while
The Electronic Communications Act 2000 is a start.
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/2007.htm
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Gordon Tassi" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: paperless office
|
HI, Michael!
I'm glad that you are having good luck with your scan back! It is a cool
idea to be able to preview your image and correct the lighting if necessary!
I certainly envy the lack of spotting! I spend WAY too much time with the
cloning tool in my "hand".
Your other points are also
Art,
And I thought the same about my response. It seems that we both pulled the
wool over everyone else's eyes. :-) The point to be learned, I guess, is
never to take an emoicon for granted when posting online.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Actually it was purely electronic and mechanical. I typed "current" in but
the computer only registered the first two and the last two characters.
When I sent the email the spell checker did not catch the word; Microsoft
obviously views it as a legitimate old Anglo-Saxon word. :-) What is
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Clark
Guy wrote:
WHY?
because we are already approaching the limit of how small a single pixel can
be. It can't be smaller than a wavelength of light, and we are approaching
this limit even now. On top of that, the smaller they are the more noisy
they become, so
It ( the HP) may not have clogged up in part due to the fact that HP's
typically have their nozzles in the cartridge itself; whereas Epsons and
some other brands do not. In the pre-chipped Epson printers there was a
reservoir of ink between the cartridge and the nozzle which could dry out
and
If you want to see what some of the best photogs are up to with the
traditional/digital crossover, check out www.zonezero.com It is run by
the renowned Pedro Meyer, has great exhibits, an online magazine, a
section where you can place your portfolio, chat, etc. Best of all, it
costs zero
That's right. The pixels I'm talking about, the ones currently in use in the
Nikon 990, are about 3.5 microns or about 7 times the wavelength of light.
And even though they are noisier than the ones in the D1 or D30 for
instance, they are quite good, and when printed at 300dpi the noise is
At 11:33 PM +1000 1/31/01, Rob Geraghty wrote:
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?
No, I wouldn't call it vignetting, but it is a bit
distracting (but then
As for the resolution needed to equal 35mm film, I think I
have seen it quoted
that it would need about 8-10 Megapixels.
It is quite simple to calculate, and, of course, depends on what film you
want to try to 'emulate'. At 5080DPI Plus-X does not reveal grain. That
means 5080 x 1 x 5080 x
- Original Message -
From: "Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Cost of these backs? Cost to store images?
: Space taken up with storage media?, etc
###
4500 buys you a Lightphase studio kit comprising scan back,2 lowerpro
lights and an IR filter.
As for the resolution needed to equal 35mm film, I think I have seen it
quoted
that it would need about 8-10 Megapixels. I imagine they are talking about
mid-range print film here, such as Kodak Gold 100. Fine grain emulsions
like
Kodachrome would obviously need more pixels.
Brian Rumary,
Gordon wrote:
The effect is not actually vignetting in a in a traditional
photographic sense.
Thanks. I didn't think it was.
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.
It all depends on the angle of the
One other thing that just occurred to me: aren't there three
or four pixels
on the CCD for each actual pixel seen in the image?
Yes. That is only for color information though, not for edge information.
The edge information exists in each individual pixel. This arrangement of
RGBG is called
HI, Bob!
I'm glad you have some of the real numbers there. The fact that we are
already under an order of magnitude of a wavelength says to me that we can't
get too much smaller. After all, there's still the support circuitry for
each CCD element that has to be included on the chip. That
Stuart wrote:
I am considering buying one of these transparency
adaptors -it is a prism that sits on top of a
flatbed and the neg or slide fits underneath. has
anyone bought one and if so can you offer an
opinion on the merits of it?.
I've used a similar device made by HP for their
In a message dated 01/31/2001 12:00:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Electronic Communications Act 2000 is a start
Faxed copies of legal documents such as lien waivers, applications and
affadavits are being accepted as "legal" to the courts in some areas. Some
In your case, you are lucky that the old computer is Win 95 compatible
system; what if it were an old Kaypro computer or an old 286 CPU PC which
used only dos and allowed for no more than 8-16MB of Ram? It would be hard
to keep driving those old nails in just like a hammer with a system that
Yes its vignetting, you can easily take it out with Photoshop. I'm curious, what
lens and camera did you use?..was it a lens with a T-adapter?
"Rob Geraghty" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would anyone on the list call the variation in the sky in the attached jpeg
vignetting? I don't find the
In a message dated 1/31/2001 6:52:48 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I haven't had the chance to try the latest version of Vuescan, but very
recent versions didn't seem to do much with scratch removal. Do the new
algorithms you're using have much of an effect on scratches?
Yes, the new
Mike Moore writes ...
If you want to see what some of the best photogs are up to with
the traditional/digital crossover, check out www.zonezero.com
It is run by the renowned Pedro Meyer, has great exhibits,
an online magazine, a section where you can place your
portfolio, chat, etc. Best of
Hi again,
it sounds like you have a bad lamp or ccd sensor, I get good results from
mine.
I prefer to use Vuescan. Let us know how Acer does with service.
Well, after receiving some help and second opinions from someone who
contacted me off list, I have come to the conclusion that the scanner
Unless it is color. Then it would be:
24mm/25.4=.944 inches x 5080 = 4800
36mm/25.4=1.417 inches x 5080 = 7200
4800x7200x3(color channels) = 103.68 meg 8 bit image
103.68 x 2 = 207.360 meg 16 bit image
However, you should be able to get by with a much smaller resolution scan
(4000 for sure).
Ed.
I don't want you to reveal your secrets, but you say you have a better way
to accomplish both dust removal and grain reduction. Speaking purely of the
results, not necessarily the process, how is it better?
Thanks,
Bob Kehl
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Hi,
Hi everyone,If you are storing lots of images its worth using Photoshops
LZW compression,If you have Photoshop that is .It will save a fair bit
of space and wont degrade your hard won image like Jpeg does.
I would assume that LZW is a sort of runlength encoding or otherwise
non-destructive
It's probably because he uses a Mac
shAf wrote:
Mike Moore writes ...
If you want to see what some of the best photogs are up to with
the traditional/digital crossover, check out www.zonezero.com
It is run by the renowned Pedro Meyer, has great exhibits,
an online magazine, a
The sensor size is the exact same whether the information you are garnering
form it is color or BW. Your numbers are image file size, which is not the
same as the requirements for a sensor to 'equal' 35mm film, which was the
discussion point, I believe.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Harm wrote:
Yes its vignetting, you can easily take it out
with Photoshop.
OK, a couple of people have said it could be removed
with Photoshop but I haven't a clue how. Could someone
please enlighten me? Off list may be more appropriate.
I'm curious, what lens and camera did you use?..
Fact is anyone who sends me an mega important doc will always have a copy
themselves if we ever need it.
How can you count on this if we were actually in a "paperless society" or if
the other person was or was in a "paperless office" like you. Why would you
expect them to have a copy themselves
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:
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,
This is not to chastise. Anyone reading that who has read any of your
previous posts would know that was unintentional, as well as out of context
in the sentence. However, I usually try to reread my stuff, as I have
become a less reliable typist. Perhaps you might stop relying on the spell
I sent in a similar question about wallet size prints. I'm surprised they
aren't more responsive with exact resolution specs, aspect ratios, white
point, and colorsync profiles since they are after higher end business
than the normal consumer. Hopefully, Apple's investment in Ofoto will
Rob is a real gentleman !
The definition he gives about the pure sh@# sold by HP as Slides Adaptor is
opening my old wound !
The results are not poor ... simply are not there .
After 3 months of absolute pain and real cursing in Italian (the worst
possible and the most siny ... don't we have
72 matches
Mail list logo
