Yes, it is CT18 and CT20?, and they have all but disappeared.
And, one would suspect the processing was done properly, because the
rolls were sent to Agfa Germany. However, the rolls were so severely
scratched during processing, that I have a difficult time believing they
actually were
Here are some of the scans I promised.
I made them by attaching the scanner to another current outlet group, but it
did not change things. I also swapped the negative to show you the error IS
in the scanner, not the negative (largest yellow band still appears at the
right side).
Here they are
At 01:54 PM 6/28/01 +0930, Mark T. wrote:
Interesting, but couldn't *also* help but notice the page on the Minolta
Dimage 7 digital camera.
5.2 Mp, lens equivalent to a 28-200, and US$1499.
Those specs numbers are beginning to sound almost interesting, even to a
skinflint like me...
Oh,
Jerry,
I think that the majority of any perceived acrimony that occurred in
these recent exchanges of ideas, is due to linguistic differences, as it
can be more difficult to both write in, and fully comprehend in a second
language.
I think there is a very minor debate here, and not much
Most scratches I have on BW negs are not through the silver image, but
either on the non-emulsion surface, or on the emulsion side, but not
through it, so that light shows through.
That's one nasty type of scratch that literally goes through the silver
image.
Obviously one problem with using
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:42:21 -0500 laurie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Before anyone goes off the deep end on this, it should be remembered
that
this does not necessarily hold true for contemporary films but only for
films from around the 1960s and 70s or before for the most part.
It
laurie wrote:
The problem was also recognized with respect to video tapes. The U.S.
National archives were given video tapes of the various space adventures
in the 1960s and 70s by NASA, which were recorded on acetate bases; when
the Archives opened the sealed cannisters with the
Well, two comments,
1) film on polyester base probably is the best archival storage
2) Even film on cellulose acetate will keep itself together if properly
stored. The biggest danger is caused by overheated conditions. Film
should never be stored in 90 plus degrees F, as often occurs in
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:14:56 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?=
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I presume you're talking C41 films here, Tony? I also presume you're
saying
that exposing a C41 400ASA film at EI320 improves the results but
doesn't
require any special treatment at the lab?
Hello,
Over the last several months I've been reading this list through the digest.
Now, when majordomo let me in again :-) I want to ask you about one thing:
Having read several hundreds of posts from this lists and optimistic reviews
on the net, I came to the conclusion that the best scanner I
Shough, Dean wrote:
See http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html
Medium format, 48000 dpi, 16 bit A/D, ICE^3, SCSI and FireWire.
I was just about to write a bit about this new scanner.
I'm afraid you got a little enthusiastic about those zeros ;-)
The new Minolta Multi Pro Scanner
I just read in Popular Photography about a test on 7 filmscanners. The Nikon
LS-4000ED I believe was also mentioned there as having few shadow detail.
The SS120 had great shadow detail in that test.
Since nobody else on this list mentioned this test (an american magazine,
sent to Holland--
Good,
then its probably only me acting under-age here
(a sign pointing in this direction is the wise refraining from comments by
Maris and even more so Mikael).
Thank you Art for putting some balance to my comments and double apologies
to Mikael Risedal. 1) I didn't know your 'Puh' and
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Tony Sleep wrote:
Yes, C41, processed normally. ISO ratings are often a bit optimistic, and
an extra half-stop or so can help reduce grain and add separation in
shadow areas by adding some density. The overlapping dye clouds softens
the appearance of grain
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Tomasz Zakrzewski wrote:
snip
Test scans at www.imaging-resource.com also show that only after some
tweaking in the sanning program scans with good tonal separation in shadows
can be obtained. I'm puzzled. Can you comment on this Dmax matter?
In fact I don't care about
I've gotten a lot of very helpful information here that has allowed me to
develop the quality of both my scans (mostly using Vuescan on my Minolta
Scan Dual II) and the editing / adjusting of those scans in Photoshop 6. The
biggest problem I have is getting something to come out of my printer
rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, indeed. I think digital cameras are closing fast
on 35 mm format. In another year or two there really
won't be any reason left to shoot 35 mm film.
Only if the prices also come down. I can't see the point in buying a 3Mpix
digicam when I can buy a good
Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Qualification first - I don't know for a fact that only colors strictly
within the sRGB gamut can be displayed, but that is generally the case.
According to what I've read on the Epson list, sRGB was a gamut designed
around an average computer
For Tony Sleep -
I really appreciated your workflow description, especially the part about
trying to use Vuescan settings that will capture all data on the slide /
negative. It's easy enough to lower the white point to ensure no clipping at
the high end as you suggest, and it works well. How to
On Wednesday, June 27, 2001 Hemingway, David J wrote:
Polaroid offers a 30 day good as gold guarantee so if your are
dissatisfied for ANY reason you can return it to your dealer for a full
refund, excluding any shipping costs.
David, does this guarantee apply in the UK?
Bob Armstrong
Tony wrote:
Generally, if you are seeing green-blue speckle in shadows from colour neg
(look like CCD noise, but can't be - CCD noise in negs afflicts
highlights, the densest part of the film, and manifests as yellow/magenta
speckle), giving a little more neg exposure will reduce this
I think that the majority of any perceived acrimony that occurred in
these recent exchanges of ideas, is due to linguistic differences, as it
can be more difficult to both write in, and fully comprehend in a second
language.
Where is my English dictionary? ;-)
I think it will benefit to
There is no question about it, home filmscanning technology is constantly, I
will say developing but not immature. Too many bad connotations to use a
word like that.
As far as the comparison with a flatbed scanner, film has much more dynamic
range than does a print - it does not surprise me at
Not to mention, scarey as hell. :-|
--LRA
From: Hersch Nitikman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:41:25 -0700
Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess that has to be
factored into the discussions of the merits of CD-R archives vs relying on
the permanence of the
Hersch wrote:
If they do their support like some other software companies [sic], they
have at least two levels of Techies. One level is the 'free support'
people, who have been trained in the mysteries of accessing the program
knowledge base.
This is (or was) the case with Acer US.
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Norman Unsworth wrote:
I'd appreciate any suggestions / recommendations for getting print results
that more closely resemble what I see on the monitor.
Here's my $ 0.02
Forget the color management stuff and learn to
look at the RGB numbers a bit while in Photoshop.
I
Derek wrote:
If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get
the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and
processing.
Absolutely, and I think I've mentioned that before (to a hail of bullets
from dedicated film-users! ;-)). Also, Digital can give you
Blues do tend to come out a bit darker but I generally get an overall good
match to screen with vibrant colours. I use Adobe 1998 on a PC. Assuming
your using a PC, Ian Lyons has a good guide see:
http://www.rgbnet.co.uk/ilyons/media_profiles/media_print_1.htm
basically assuming you have
Title: RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
So, has anyone done any comparisons between the Polaroid SS120 and the Nikon LS8000 as far as shadow detail goes? What about an LS4000 vs. a SS4000?
TIA
Paul Wilson
Your printer is looking for a good printer profile - it is essentially a
filter that tells Photoshop how the printer prints colors and then adjusts
the sent R-G-B messages accordingly.
The Epson printers have some stock Printer Profiles available for sale
online - you might check on the Leben
I've gotten a lot of very helpful information here that has allowed me to
develop the quality of both my scans (mostly using Vuescan on my Minolta
Scan Dual II) and the editing / adjusting of those scans in Photoshop 6. The
biggest problem I have is getting something to come out of my printer
Laurie wrote:
The conclusion that one can draw is that there is no totally permanent
archival materials that last forever or, in the case of photographic
images, with the certainty [it] will last for centuries no matter what you
do.
*Stone* is good (particularly granite, basalt, and
Jerry, I'd suggest you find another photographer with another scanner (this
List might help you--if there are any fellow-Dutchmen about, please pitch
in). If the same source-film comes out clean, then we *know* where the
problem is. I think that Acer-NL might be weasleing, and that needs to
I recently having similar problem but the dark scans were printing
reasonably OK - it turned out that Adobe Gamma was not loading during start
up. Try locating the gamma loader it should be here:
C:\Program Files\Common Files\Adobe\Calibration\Adobe Gamma Loader.exe
If your screen lightens up
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Norman Unsworth wrote:
For Tony Sleep -
I really appreciated your workflow description, especially the part about
trying to use Vuescan settings that will capture all data on the slide /
negative. It's easy enough to lower the white point to ensure no clipping at
Art wrote:
Even film on cellulose acetate will keep itself together if properly
stored. The biggest danger is caused by overheated conditions. Film
should never be stored in 90 plus degrees F, as often occurs in
apartments in cities in temperate zones during the summer. Keep it
cool, keep the
Rafe wrote:
I'm sure even Vuescan has a a way to set
both of these -- if not, I'd trash it.
It definitely does. Going up is not necessesarily the best direction. The
gamma is settable to a remarkable degree, but not necessarily predictable.
White-point and Black-point are not exactly
A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can delete
the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of a
35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740).
On screen or in smaller prints there is little between them except the huge
I thank all of you for participating. I believe I found answers to most of
my questions. Only time will show if I am going to be happy with
my choice.
So what did you finally choose, Peter? And _are_ you happy with it (so
far)?
I shoot color slide film (velvia and provia 100--leaning toward
Lynn says:
Not as expensive as Kodak's earlier $30,000 earlier
digital system, but not a walk in the park, either.
As with older filmscanners, the older pro digital backs can be had pretty
cheaply on eBay. A friend of mine got a Kodak DCS420 (one of the $30,000 pro
systems you're talking
Tony,
While all films today may not be Estar, they are not acetate from what I
understand - may be Mylar or someother plastic base - but I could be wrong
about that.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Thursday, June 28,
Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures.
Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier?
Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7", archival quality (especially on Fuji
Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic paper.
I will read your answers with
I have an Microtek Artixscan 4000 ( mechanically identical to the Polaroid
SS4000 ). It seemed from early reviews that I might be able to scan my
slides a lot faster and in particular avoid the incredibly tedious task of
removing dust if I traded up to the Nikon. Rick then posted this link
Sorry if this is a real amateur question, but I am not sure where to ask.
I have a standard flatbed scanner (Nikon 110 300x600) which does ok for the
types of scan I do and OCR, but am wanting to scan 35mm transparency and
film. Normally I would have thought of adding a dedicated film scanner
Yes the quality is great. I tend to do most of my prints on my Epson 1270
but some I do have printed on the Fuji Frontier. At the Lab I have used the
the biggest they do is 10*15 after that the Durst Epsilon (also good but
only 254dpi). The results are better than the 1270 and can even stand upto
Steve wrote:
A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can delete
the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of a
35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740).
Isn't that a little *harsh*, Steve? I suppose the difference
on 6/28/01 4:26 PM, Steve Greenbank wrote:
I have also found that if you scan slides the moment you open the
box for the first time, it takes less than 5 minutes to despot them and you
don't lose any overall sharpness compared to ICE. Usually you can despot
whilst scanning the next slide.
Todd wrote:
A friend of mine got a Kodak DCS420 (one of the $30,000 pro
systems you're talking about) for under $1,000 on eBay.
Now *that's* an interesting proposition. Does anyone know the particular
specs? (I don't--that 30k was so far out of my price range I never bothered
to follow up).
--Hello
I am having problems in regard to color cast removal when using the Nikon
LS1000/silverfast combination. The problem shots are underwater images which
include a deep blue background but end up pea green. Shots that do not
include a blue background.
I also use a Acer 2720s which the
Actually, I've wondered that, too. Even my little town has a minilab (Agfa).
Can't do 22x13.7 AFAIK, but it does respectable 8x10's @ $8 each, and can
do 11x14's with little problem (providing the copy is good). Doesn't scan
any better than my Acer does, vis a vis shadow detail (higher res,
Steve wrote:
The only thing you have to watch with the digital printing labs is that
they show perfectly things like grain and posturisation. My Epson hides all
but the worst cases due to the way it lays down the ink.
*There's* one very good reason for retaining total control--the lab will do
Yes, for the web. But what about for print? My understanding is that
colors outside of the sRGB gamut are printable, primarily cyans.
My method, then, is to use Adobe or Bruce RGB for working with the image,
then archive without any embedded color space, but convert to sRGB for
posting on the
AFAIK the gamma setting will not decrease shadow clipping but will merely
shift the curve over. The Auto black point checkbox and the Black point %
setting on the Color tab would deal with that, and if necessary perhaps
multiple passes to soak out the shadow information (but heed the Help File
Surely you should archive with the correct profile where it is known. You
can always ignore it later, but if you don't know what it is to start with
you can never get the exact archive image back.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
At 10:14 PM 6/28/01 +0200, Tomasz wrote:
Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures.
Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier?
Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7, archival quality (especially on Fuji
Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic
Because the inkjet is at home or at the office and we have to go out to the
lab. And because we may not like the first print and can tweak it to print
again (and again and again?). And because our color settings within the
image, the "numbers", may not work well in the minilab.
Maris
-
You don't save that much on processing. And remmember, a $3500 premium (vs
top end film Nikon or Canon) buys quite a bit of processing - especially at
bulk rates. What it saves in sports and news shots is Time To Cover.
- Original Message -
From: Derek Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
And the heat is the issue in the case of the Betteman archive. As I
understood the article, the storage in NYC wasn't very well conditioned.
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners:
Well since the film I have from HS is some 30yrs
old, and has been treated awfully for the most part, and still hasn't shown
film-base deterioration, I don't think its nearly as big an emergency as the
below describes.
- Original Message -
From:
Hersch Nitikman
To:
- Original Message -
From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dimage 7 camera
Steve wrote:
A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can
delete
the bad ones
Ramesh wrote:
This is the first time I am scanning SLIDE:-)
Adjust the brightness. It defaults to 1.0 which is fine for negs but for
slides you probably need 1.2 to 1.4 depending on the density. Give it a
try. If you push it too far you'll get a lot of scanner noise. Don't worry
too much
I am using PEC-12 with PEC PADS on dirty negs as a first step.
I found an anti-static brush (StaticMaster) which is plutonium charged. It
seems to work well on my neg strips. But, I was wondering if anyone had any
comments on if it is a gimmick (any soft brush would work) I assume the
plutonium
Try Vuescan with Color balance Neutral or None on the Color tab perhaps?
Maris
- Original Message -
From: mahimahi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:41 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Color Cast removal/and blue blues
|
|
| --Hello
|
| I am having
Tomasz wrote:
Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures.
Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier?
1) Availability. I don't know of anywhere near me that has one
2) Cost. I can do A3 prints cheaper on my 1160
3) Detail. I can get more information onto the
I've no experience with underwater images, but you may be interested in
pages 135-138 of Dan Margulis' book Professional Photoshop 6. He is
essentiallu suggesting blending channels and using lighten blend mode.
Bob Wright
- Original Message -
From: mahimahi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Tomasz wrote:
Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures.
Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier?
Next question on this topic - Have any of you printing with Epson
photo printers resorted to the Frontier printer to get a good BW
print? I have been
Make up a couple of layers that blend about 50% opacity wise for colour. In
the first one, chop out the whale and make the whole layer into a filter
that gets the background colour right. In the second one chop out all
except the whale and do the same thing.
Sounds hard if you've never done it.
Frank Nichols wrote:
I am using PEC-12 with PEC PADS on dirty negs as a first step.
I found an anti-static brush (StaticMaster) which is plutonium charged.
Just for clarity, its polonium, not plutonium... I don't think there is
a safe qty of plutonium...:-)
Isaac
It
seems to
I think you are doing very well, and certainly are more patient and careful
that I am. My only comment would be on the plutonium charged brush - need
I say more? The anti-static feature does help, though.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Frank Nichols [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Steve,
You are correct and I will change my ways.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Does CMM work on Win2000?
| Surely you should archive with the
Lynn wrote:
Todd wrote:
A friend of mine got a Kodak DCS420 (one of the $30,000 pro
systems you're talking about) for under $1,000 on eBay.
Now *that's* an interesting proposition. Does anyone know the particular
specs? (I don't--that 30k was so far out of my price range I never
bothered
Not to be funny; but how sure are you fo the acccurracy of your step wedge?
Most commercial step wedges are created using precision measurement
instruments and printed to precisely measurable standards. Is it possible
that you personnally created step wedge may be out of gamut at the dark end
Jean-Pierre - Thanks, I took your advice and other suggestions, and my
story is ...
I followed the Photoscienta page http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm ,
and successfully set up my gamma - I selected a gamma of 2.0. Checked it
at two other sites with good test patterns (Timo's gamma =
Steve wrote:
The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures -
I'd say he'd be completely mad to use film.
If all you ever want is screen resolution I'd agree. But most
people want to print things, and that takes more resolution.
The average person doesn't understand this;
Dan Honemann wrote:
I'd thought I'd start with the Nikon LS-40 (Coolscan IV), since it's the
cheapest of the three I'm considering, but Ed and others have hinted that it
doesn't have high enough resolution for slide film--and I'm more concerned
about those than the negatives since I'm
I am wondering where the Minolta Multi Pro will fit into the mix once it
arrives on the scene...
Art
Lloyd O'Daniel wrote:
I have a friend who is about to purchase a 120 filmscanner. He has been
deciding between Polaroid and Nikon. I've leaned toward the Polaroid in
giving advice, because
I think there are several issues with your approach.
The most obvious is availability of the service. After that, there is
expense, going into an open loop system requiring more careful color
management, loss of control over final print, time spent going between
provider and one's business or
Lynn Allen wrote:
Derek wrote:
If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get
the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and
processing.
Absolutely, and I think I've mentioned that before (to a hail of bullets
from dedicated film-users!
Hi,
I am a total newbie at this. I thought I would take a look at these to see
what I could learn. With that in mind, here are some observations I made
playing with the images. Maybe someone could correct my assumptions!
1. I took the raw data and rescanned it using Vuescan 7.1.3.
a. I
I note that Sony has a new Digital camera which uses a nice little 3
CD-RW disk capable of storing about 150 megs of info, and of course, it
is re-writable. The disks are about $5 each here (worth about $1.50, but
that's supply and demand, I guess) Still a LOT cheaper than flash
memory. The
Lynn Allen wrote:
*Stone* is good (particularly granite, basalt, and combinations of the
two), providing you don't leave them out in the sun, rain, or sandstorms
for more than 10,000 years. ;-)
At one time, Scribes laboriously re-recorded all the World's Wisdom, and
placed it in the
Walter Bushell wrote:
_ AFAIk the cameras only support 8 bit output. Adjusting brightness
color on 24 bit images does result in artifacts, one can up the bit depth
for those resolutions to avoid the math problems, but still it's a
restricted dmax. Then if we are having problems
Hi Anthony,
I am sure you will get a number of different angles on this issue, and
most will be as valid as any other.
As good as flatbed scanners have become, they still, overall, do not
meet the quality of dedicated film scanners. The only area where their
is overlap is in medium and larger
whoops!
Boy do I feel stupid he says as he wipes the egg off his face!
/fn
Newbie and Proud of it!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Isaac Crawford
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners:
Oostrom, Jerry wrote:
I just read in Popular Photography about a test on 7 filmscanners. The Nikon
LS-4000ED I believe was also mentioned there as having few shadow detail.
The SS120 had great shadow detail in that test.
Since nobody else on this list mentioned this test (an american
Hi Norman,
I feel you pain ;-)
We may wish to carry on this discussion with me via private mail so we
don't get too OT for the scanner list.
I'll do this part on the list simply in case some people want to chime
in with further observations:
Here are my questions:
1) Which printer are you
Raphael Bustin wrote:
In my experience, it's the dense images that
are more likely to stress the scanner into
banding. Alas, I have seen this even with
my LS-8000. It's mortal, after all (boo hoo.)
The more I've worked with the name we pay extra to won, the more I
recognize their
I just went back to the Popular Photography issue that
reviewed the new scanners, and what I saw was very different from what
was said here earlier today. They rated the LS-4000 Very highly. In fact,
maybe too highly...
Test Results: Resolution: extremely high (60 lp/mm); Color Accuracy:
88 matches
Mail list logo
