Joel wrote:
landscape. The E100VS can be a little OTT in really warm light
I tried one roll after the lab raved about it. Some photos I took of a
sunset have saturated in quite bizarre ways. It's interesting, but I still
prefer Fuji films. Another thing which was a problem was that the film
On Tue, 22 May 2001 13:13:46 -0400 Phil ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What's the best way, in your opinion, to make lots of low res
scans quickly?
Buy a scanning station from the likes of Sony, Pakon, Konica or Kodak.
These take a few seconds per scan, instead of the minute(s) of desktop
On Tue, 22 May 2001 17:42:07 -0700 PAUL GRAHAM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Have I got something wrong here? Is there nothing wrong with a 120Mb
stepped
up to 480 Mb? Or are drum operators simply too used to working to low
repro
standards? Why won't anyone do a large scan for me?
I
Phillippe wrote:
Say you have a portfolio of 35mm slides. On short notice you are asked to
scan two hundred of them and burn them onto CD, low res. What would be a
good scanner and workflow for creating the actual low res JPEGs? What are
good ways to make FAST, DECENT, LOW RES SCANS of 35mm
Phillippe wrote:
Say you have a portfolio of 35mm slides. On short notice you are asked to
scan two hundred of them and burn them onto CD, low res. What would be a
good scanner and workflow for creating the actual low res JPEGs? What are
good ways to make FAST, DECENT, LOW RES SCANS of 35mm
Kevin Power wrote:
I've had superb results with it, but it was sent to pro lab for development.
E100VS is the only Kodak product I use these days, when appropriate. It
is, to me, nearly a faster Velvia analogue. I've been pleased with it,
and yes, the colors are quite saturated
I don't know if the Nikon LS-4000 is a redesign of the LS-2000 or LS-30
or what. Early Nikon scanners (LS-10 and LS-20) moved the film over the
immobile scanner sensor. Then they changed it to have the film stay
stationary (once positioned) and move the scan head internally. This
allows
Hi Phillip,
If the process you are asking about is a one time deal, Larry may well
be correct that letting the experts do it with a PCD might be the best
answer.
However, if you are going to be doing this on a regular basis, the costs
of using PCD gets up there, and having an in house
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Johnny Deadman wrote:
Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy?
Yes, but I don't think a snap in a public area would implicate it in most
if not all states. It's a matter of state law, not federal law, so it's
impossible to draw a general
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
With the 3 Stooges decision, one can see that the law seems to favor
whomever wants to be vindictive enough to pursue it.
The Stooges' rights are owned by Comedy III Productions, and they're very
protective of their property. In another recent case,
on 5/21/01 11:29 PM, Tim Atherton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can get it off the website - can find the url right now. If you need it
I'll hunt it down
on 5/21/01 12:16 PM, PAUL GRAHAM at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Realised my past posting was confusing:
Does anyone have
At 09:31 AM 23/05/01 +1000, Joel Rob wrote:
.. The E100VS can be a little OTT in really warm light
I tried one roll after the lab raved about it. Some photos I took of a
sunset have saturated in quite bizarre ways.
And another 2c worth - I was unfortunate enough to shoot a roll of E100VS
on
A nice general overview of many of the issues that have come up here re
model/properly releases and invasion of privacy in the United States can
be found on the Photo District News website . . . .
http://www.pdn-pix.com/businessresources/modelrelease.html
Perhaps some of you will
Whenever I come across drum operators (in the context of magazine repro),
they go to great lengths (4 or 5 words) to explain that my puny 4,000ppi
scans are no good even for a postage stamp headshot, and that they scan
*everything* at 12,000ppi.
Whereas the drum op at a place in San
14 matches
Mail list logo
