In a message dated 6/10/2001 6:22:35 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Agfa is definitely softer,
no argument there, but when I apply unsharp masking to the Agfa scan
on the order of 75%, 0.8 radius, 0 threshold to the Agfa scan, which
is my normal amount to sharpen grain with the
Bob..
Check out Personal Site Maker at:
http://www.thegrid.net/sjpsoftware/psm/
If you dont hit the Clean Up button at the end of your creation, all the stuff is
kept
on your computer and it's perfect for burning onto a CD. A very versatile program for
$20
USD (Shareware). Have a look at his
At 02:56 AM 6/11/01 EDT, Ed Hamrick wrote:
Unsharp masking isn't a reasonable way to compare the scans, since
this doesn't get to the root of why there's a difference between the
results from the two scanners.
I disagree here, Ed. Here's why.
It seems some scanner vendors (maybe all)
From what I can see, my illustrious ISP has managed to send multiple
copies of several of my postings.
I apologize from this problem. I think it has been fixed. I may fix it
further in the next weeks or two, by changing ISP.
Art
The original post asked about a comparison between the Olympus P-400 and
the Epson 1280. Possibly, the subject line became truncated from the
original, or maybe the original poster just tied out while writing the
subject and didn't finish it ;-)
Art
John C. Jernigan wrote:
Will someone
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 6/10/2001 6:22:35 PM EST,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Agfa is definitely softer,
no argument there, but when I apply unsharp masking to the Agfa
scan
on the order of 75%, 0.8 radius, 0 threshold to the Agfa scan,
which
is my normal amount
James Hill wrote:
The 2880 printing uses smaller steps by the stepper motor and actually
does provide smoother tones in the mid to highlight end. The
difference in 2880 and 1440 is really only visible under a loupe or if
you regularly sniff prints, as I have been known to do.g At normal
One effective solution for thoroughly cleaning slides that I use is to put them in a
small sonicator bath filled with degassed water, with a small beaker or glass
container filled with isopropanol. Place slide in beaker and sonicate briefly. I do
this in a well ventilated area. Keep in
I have read the recent debates over working with raw files and those
produced via profiles and I am confused.
In working with scanning color negatives, if you choose to work with the
raw file that is supposed to have all the information in pure form, what is
your starting point for getting an
Maris wrote:
I take Ed's comment, that the goal is a *custom* base removal for that any
particular film, and to make the image look as much like the original scene
as possible, means making it look like the original as captured by that
particular film, but not making it look like the original as
It would seem to me, reading this thread (and others), that the industry would be very
well-served by contracting with a real-life scanner user to monitor this and other
web-sites. Cost in dollars--relatively insignificant (who wouldn't accept a free
scanner, updates, and a few hours of their
I just discovered that what I'd said about my computer recognizing SCSI devices (viz
my Acer Scanwit) without a warm boot does *not* apply to my USP port and HP 6300C. It
*definitely* requires a re-boot to be recognized, if it is off-line at first boot-up.
This is not terribly important to the
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:20:40 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
If the film
terms for the SS4000 didn't give you this, either the terms weren't
accurate, the scanner wasn't calibrated well, or your system's CM
wasn't set up correctly.
This would be true of slide, but there's
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:33:43 -0400 Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Ouch! I don't think that I, for one, realized that Phil's G4 wouldn't
use a standard SCISI card. Aparently, Acer didn't, either.
Acer used a SCSI card which didn't require a terminator, so almost
certainly was
On 07 Jun 2001 12:15:41 EDT Richard Starr ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
The sin is that Mac has abandoned scsi, not to mention serial. It makes
upgrading while using your old peripherals a pain. My old Mac will
drive an
Acer and I hope I can find the cash to buy one soon.
I'd not be too
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:41:28 -0400 Phil ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If I can get the 2740S to WORK with Vuescan then I WON'T have to return
the
scanner and I can hopefully regain some measure of credibility over
here at
work- people have seem me blow all my circuits here these past two
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 05:34:03 -0700 Shough, Dean ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Try the Adaptec 2906 for under $50. Works great for me with my
Minolta Scan Dual on both my old PowerBase 180 and on my newer G4/500.
I don't know about Mac, but the cheapo Adaptec 2904CD SCSI card (sold for
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:13:52 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
That is what I believed you would say, and I completely disagree with
that
philosophy. Films have certain characteristics that photographers use
particular films for. I don't want every film to give me the same
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 05:06:21 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The scans have all got a hazy halo
round all the bright areas such that on an A4 print there is about 15 -
20mm around the bright area which is less than total black.
Sounds like flare, from dust/oil/water on the lens.
Regards
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
...but film
characteristic profiling is different than the specific conditions you
mentioned above, isn't it?
Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable,
depending on exposure, processing
In working with scanning color negatives, if you choose to work with the
raw file that is supposed to have all the information in pure
form, what is
your starting point for getting an acceptable image on your
monitor as your
starting point for your adjustments?
First, I set the setpoints
Lynn Allen always includes ...
...
Get 250 color bus_ness cards for FRE_!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
...
I have absolute no objection to such footers ... quite innocuous
really, but I thought you ought to be made aware ... my e-mail client
checks for keywords (which
On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 18:33:43 -0400 Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Ouch! I don't think that I, for one, realized that Phil's G4 wouldn't
use a standard SCISI card. Aparently, Acer didn't, either.
Acer used a SCSI card which didn't require a terminator, so almost
certainly was
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:45:43
Marvin Demuth wrote:
I have read the recent debates over working with raw files and those
produced via profiles and I am confused.
In working with scanning color negatives, if you choose to work with the
raw file that is supposed to have all the information in
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 19:13:30 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Ever think something you did was
just great (even a print you made)
Not for more than a few minutes. And it's very cruel of you to ask this
g
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 09:18:54 -0400 Michael Creem ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
The 120 and 620 film and backing paper are the same size but the spools
are
very different in size and are not interchangable. 620 is no longer
made by
Kodak.
Michael
Correct. 620 spools have a narrow solid
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 23:48:17 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hmmm... was the scanner *adding* the dust and scratches? I would
rather
have a scanner that gets as much info off of the film as possible, and
if there are dust and scratches on the film, they should be
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:39:48 -0700 shAf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Afterall, did we ever blame enhanced Tri-X grain on the point
source
enlarger we preferred for sharp detail and increased contrast?
The odd thing is that this doesn't happen - at least no more than printing
on a harder
Marvin Demuth wrote:
I have read the recent debates over working with raw files and those
produced via profiles and I am confused.
In working with scanning color negatives, if you choose to work with the
raw file that is supposed to have all the information in pure form, what
is your
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:20:40 -0400 Dave King ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
If the film
terms for the SS4000 didn't give you this, either the terms weren't
accurate, the scanner wasn't calibrated well, or your system's CM
wasn't set up
Dave King wrote:
Perhaps not from a design perspective, but from a users perspective it
seems perfectly reasonable to evaluate scan data in the context of end
results. After working on both scans, the Agfa, to my eye, has
recorded more real image data. Rafe brought up the idea of
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
...but film
characteristic profiling is different than the specific
conditions you
mentioned above, isn't it?
Not for colour negs - the characteristics are annoyingly mutable,
depending on exposure,
I worked for nearly a year with an unterminated SCSI bus (card-to-Acer, nothing out)
with no problems that I could recognize. After I started having unexplainable (and
unreproducible) problems, I bought and installed a terminator for about $30 US. I
would not swear so in court, but the
Hi, shAf--
You're right, I have absolutely no control over what my mail service does to my
messages. I *DO* have a measure of control over what message service I use, OTOH, and
Lycos is soon to be History. :-)
Thanks for pointing out the vagaries of commercial mail-boxes to one and all. I
Rafe wrote:
I've generally found those film-type profiles
(not the ICC kind, but the kind you find in some
film-scanner-drivers) to be useful, at best,
as starting points. Interesting that NikonScan
(3.1, at least) doesn't have them at all, yet
does a pretty good job at inverting negatives
Interesting that NikonScan
(3.1, at least) doesn't have them at all, yet
does a pretty good job at inverting negatives
and coming up with useful, believable images
with different types of negative film.
I find that somewhat more than interesting. If Nikonscan has no
profiles, how does it
At 06:45 PM 6/11/01 -0400, Dave King wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
...but film
characteristic profiling is different than the specific
conditions you
mentioned above, isn't it?
Not for colour negs - the characteristics are
The Leafscan never had any film profiles, and it's been the
staple of high
end scanners for over 10 years.
The 8000 ED gives it a nice run for the money, Austin.
I dare say -- it's even better. Though I don't expect
you'll agree, without some convincing.
I'd have to see a BW scan
- Original Message -
From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 and new negative proile
scheme
At 06:45 PM 6/11/01 -0400, Dave King wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:23:25 -0400 Austin Franklin
This reminds me, after reading the first part of this thread, I tried to
power on my SprintScan 35LE and refresh the device list in Device Manager.
Yes, the SprintScan showed up, but upon launching PolaColor Insight the
software could not detect an active scanner on the system. Sorry, I am
40 matches
Mail list logo
