For the last several days I've been going back to my roots vis a vis
archiving; scanning old prints again, instead of old negs or slides.
Although I've read Tony's and others' comments on the differences in dynamic
range etc., I'd never really noticed it so much before. Like, with flat
scanning,
A friend gave me a set of prints and negatives this week to use in an article
for a newsletter publication. The prints were pale, low contrast and very
little color saturation. My friend asked me what he had done wrong. Upon
examining the negatives (Kodak Gold), they look to be slightly
Tony wrote:
there were some problems half way through on two occasions, which meant I
had to start again 3 times.
I questioned something like this earlier (as Off Topic), but I've also been
having problems, and I think some others may have, too. Is it my paranoia
showing through, or is
There is no doubt in my mind that scanning the negative is far better
than scanning the print.
My list of some reasons to scan from negative rather than print,
accumulated over three years of neg scan experience (and with a
lot of jump-start knowledge from others on the filmscanners list):
You
I am looking to buy another printer. I currently have an HP970cxi which
has PhotoREt III technology (HP's latest three color + black) and I
think it prints great. I have not seen a side by side comparison of the
HP's vs the Epson's. I have heard a lot of talk about the Epson 1270 on
this list,
And, of course, the color gamut of film is greater than that of print.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Bob Shomler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding
| There is no doubt in my mind that
I am looking to buy another printer. I currently have an HP970cxi which
has PhotoREt III technology (HP's latest three color + black) and I
think it prints great. I have not seen a side by side comparison of the
HP's vs the Epson's. I have heard a lot of talk about the Epson 1270 on
this list,
Tony Sleep wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2001 22:02:14 -0500 Tx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Thanks, Tony
Your regards as sincere as your own good manners.
I hope your photography is half as good as your humor.
Very droll :) Let me explain.
I've always loved the word droll. It's almost
Hi Bernhard,
Thank you for your input about this. Perhaps it is a problem with the
WIN95 drivers, or it might be this particular one; HP has agreed to take
it as a return, and my retailer is working on the paper work now. The
problem is very obvious with caucasian flesh tones. The only way
Lynn Allen wrote:
For the last several days I've been going back to my roots vis a vis
archiving; scanning old prints again, instead of old negs or slides.
Although I've read Tony's and others' comments on the differences in dynamic
range etc., I'd never really noticed it so much before.
Vai jus esat latvietis?
Karlis Schulmeisters
- Original Message -
From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding
And, of course, the color gamut of film is greater than that
11 matches
Mail list logo
