Isaac wrote:
. I can assure you, they do not lose a dollar, at the very worst, they
will break even. This has been going on for some time. Have you ever
wondered why so many local camera stores are going out of business all over
the country?
Gee, was it B H caused that? ;-) I
Cary wrote (re: Silverfast demo):
Been there. Did that. On my Win2K system the SIlverfast demo made NikonScan
inoperative. I had to uninstall Silverfast and reinstall NikonScan before
it would work again.
I don't have SF or NS (or even a Nikon), but I've experienced that
phenomenon *more* than
Steve wrote (accurately):
It all seems to be a bit of a mess. We have one set of colours for each of
the following:
1) scanner
2) monitor
3) printer
4) human eye - which is uncalibrated and has wild variations from one too
another.
None of them match up - each has some colours that are not
Roger,
Let us know how the TWAIN version works. I'm having
a similar problem with v5.5 and my SS4000. At least, after reading your posts,
I'm thinking it might be Silverfast. I've also built a new computer and switched
scanning OS's back to Win2000. The SS4000 locks up Photoshop upon
No, I am not certain about it; but it seems entirely logical to me that a
six color printer will have or be able to effectively use a different gamut
than a four color printer and that the general/business inkjet printers
which are more focused on presenting color presentational graphics and
Rob wrote:
Incidentally speaking of gamut, my LS30 doesn't seem to have turquoise in
its colour space. I have some Provia 100F slides with gorgeous turquoise
ocean in the background, but in scans it just comes up blue and dull. :(
I'll have to try one of the slides on the SS4000 at work and
Lloyd
That sounds a bit like dodgy ASPI drivers. Have you tried any other SCSI
scanning software.
You could try ASPICHK from :
http://www.adaptec.com/worldwide/support/suppdetail.html?prodkey=EZ-SCSI_5.0
I notice that EZ-SCSI is having problems with 2000 so I don't know if this
will work. It
Hello all, I'm Praben's balding assistant!
I've tried everything you've suggested with regards to the clone tool and it
still will not work. PS has been re installed twice, the settings have been
reset oodles of times, I've feathered, I've changed brushes, I've even tried
speaking to it,
Report it on the Photoshop forum that's hosted by Adobe:
http://www.adobe.com/support/forums/main.html
and you can try this forum. It is monitored by some of Adobe's people:
http://www.listmoms.net/lists/photoshop/
Larry
I've tried everything you've suggested with regards to the clone tool
On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 00:21:01 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
The 1270 or 1290 is certainly likely to be better - even with the OEM
profiles.
Yes, so I understand. But I'm very fed up with Epson's approach, which
seems to be to deluge this market with new models, materials and
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:15:31 -0500 Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc.
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Today I have renewed hope. I'm going to try again. After all, I seem
to be
about 80 hrs and 160+ test prints behind the establish norm.
Gosh. That really made me giggle :)
Regards
Tony
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 14:20:35 -0400 Hemingway, David J
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I would particularly like to hear about the likes and dislikes
from users of the Nikon slide feeder other than the well known slide feed
issues.
The usual complaint was that the scanner set autoexposure from
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:08:01 -0700 Dana Trout ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I would like to know what you've been using -- perhaps we can help
solve each other's problems. How do you feel about spending another
couple of hundred hours chasing your tail?
Thanks, but no thanks:) I have given up
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:44:54 EDT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
i have trouble profiling my epson also. in the settings i use no printer
and let photoshop do the adjusting and them waste paper. i feel that
photoshop is better that epson. is this right? joanna
It's supposed to be, since PS
Thanks, Ian. I reached the same conclusion over the weekend after reading one of my
Photoshop books in which they also warned against using a single unpartitioned drive
with Photoshop. You're right, I have an single 80 GB 5400 rpm drive and it is not
partitioned. I plan to buy a second
Lloyd, it looks like I won't have to use TWAIN as a possible workaround after all.
Ian Lyons' post indicates that he thinks my problem is due to my using a single
unpatitioned drive for everything. Photshop doesn't like that, it wants its own
reserved area for a scratch disc. So I'm going
Check the other brush settings (though you probably have already):
Mode: normal?
Opacity: 100%?
use all layers if applicable?
Brush dynamics (right end of toolbar, the brush with the down-arrow next to
it):
Off
Off
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Preben Kristensen [EMAIL
Title: Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
Roger,
I'll need to rub the sleep from my eyes before typing next time. The sentence in my earlier post:
Unfortunately the message is erroneous - the Photoshop scratch disk REQUIRES contiguous hard disk space of approximately 5 times the
I'm looking for some recommendations on what image management software folks
are using. The size of my image collection, both scanned and unscanned is
growing past my normal haphazard filing systems capabilities. Given the
amount of images being scanned, anyone have any recommendations?
Tony,
I'd be more impressed if they had ever fixed
the 1200 profile
I gave Epson the fixed profiles 18 months ago. I NEVER received a response.
When I asked a few folk in the know with them they asked me why would Epson
fix a good thing g. Think of the paper and ink sales they would loose
Appears you would find Chapters 10 and 11 of Professional Photoshop 6 by Dan
Margulis interesting.
Bob Wright
- Original Message -
From: Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?
Obviously
I use FotoStation Pro from www.fotoware.com
James Grove
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk
http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk
ICQ 99737573
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Karl
Schulmeisters
Sent: 13 August 2001 09:54
To:
There was an extensive thread on this very topic either on this list or on
the Leben Scanner list which would provide a number of suggestions -
unfortunately I don't remember which and my notes don't show which.
Maybe someone else on this list remembers?
Maris
- Original Message -
Steve,
Thanks for the info. I had the same thought. I had previously used Win 2000
on the old machine as my scanning OS, then stupidly switched to ME. (Did
that after getting exasperated at the $$$ Microsoft wants for tech support
even for individuals using W2k.) I could have sworn that I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Sun, 12 Aug
2001 22:15:22 -0400
SilverFast can't be uninstalled because
it's a plug-in; you have to hunt for the files to be deleted.
What's the problem? There's a folder called SilverFast (Polaroid) in
Adobe Photoshop - Plug-Ins -
Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Turquoise has a lot of yellow, cyan, and almost no red (other than
shadows,
ripples, etc), in terms of CMYK. It can be a bugger on a monitor, where
RGB
are your working colors.
I tried printing it, but the print looks like the screen - not like the
slide.
At 00:53 13-08-01 +0100, Steve Greenbank wrote:
Not wishing to sound to gloomy, but the advice sounds like a we have no
idea - but it might work if we re-install everything. The good news is that
it often does - the bad news is IME it more often doesn't.
Slightly OT but this brings to mind a
What I have noticed with the scanwit 2720S and 400 ISO film may also be true
for 800 ISO film: the Kodak Supra negative stock seems to scan with less
grainy appearance than the Fuji Superia 400 film. This could however also be
the result of the slight overexposure I used for the Kodak film.
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony Sleep wrote:
saturation, contrast). This has worked far, far better than anything
else :
prints are now as close to the screen image as is possible within the
limits of a different gamut. And it's free.
And I
Hi Roger
A few things have occurred to me - please ignore the first 2 if you have a
Mac:
==
1) Are you using Win 9x/Me with more than 512MB ? If you are you may need
to add a line to the file
Easy SICSI wont work with W2k. Also note that if you use one of the
latest Adaptec Ultra 160 cards you wont be able to intsall the ASPI
layer, These cards are 29160, 39160.
James Grove
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jamesgrove.co.uk
http://www.mountain-photos.co.uk
ICQ 99737573
-Original
Title: RE: filmscanners: Canon FS4000 problems
Yes, I have tried with VueScan too (the latest version) but the results are the same.
This weekend I scanned aprox. 100 slides (different types of film) to see if I could find a pattern, but 95% of them are really bad. A few here and there (less
Title: Re: filmscanners: SilverFast Upgrade Disaster
Reference the Windows swap file:
If I can track down the Microsoft and Adobe documentation that recommends this
configuration I'll post the links.
Some of the Microsoft links I promised.
Karl Schulmeisters [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Mon, 13 Aug
2001 01:53:52 -0700
what image management software
iView is the dog's
http://www.iview-multimedia.com/
This one has unique features which work especially if you use the IPTC data
Mac only but they are working on a PC version.
--
Oostrom, Jerry [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote on Mon, 13 Aug
2001 15:48:10 +0200
Kodak Supra negative stock seems to scan with less
grainy appearance than the Fuji Superia 400 film.
Maybe what Kodak claim is true then! The finest grained 400 neg film
available...
--
David Gordon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tony wrote:
But I'm very fed up with Epson's approach, which
seems to be to deluge this market with new models, materials and inksets,
and rely on some sort of Darwinian selection process which is not unlike
monkeys typing Shakespeare..
Yes, I've been thinking about replacing my oldish
I just got the Nikon IV today. The shadow detail is markedly better than my
Minolta Dual (SCSI) and noise is much lower.
Vuescan works fine on my Mac G3 with OS9.04 and 640MB, but NikonScan
doesn't seem to recognize the scanner. I'm using an OrangeLink
Firewire/USB card. The OrangeLink driver
Tony wrote:
Yes, so I understand. But I'm very fed up with Epson's approach,
which seems to be to deluge this market with new models, materials
and inksets, and rely on some sort of Darwinian selection process
which is not unlike monkeys typing Shakespeare.
Or you can look at it another way,
Rob writes:
I tried printing it, but the print looks like
the screen - not like the slide.
That's how it is supposed to look. When you get the screen to look like the
slide, the print will come out looking like the slide as well.
Having said that, what you say about RGB and
turquoise
Are you using the mouse or a digitizing tablet like a Wacom pad? In the latter
case, check to see if the Size option is checked for the tool; if it is, the
size of the brush will vary with the pressure you apply to the pad. This should
not happen with a mouse, however (because a mouse has no
I just got the Nikon IV today. The shadow detail is markedly better than my
Minolta Dual (SCSI) and noise is much lower.
Vuescan works fine on my Mac G3 with OS9.04 and 640MB, but NikonScan
doesn't seem to recognize the scanner. I'm using an OrangeLink
Firewire/USB card. The OrangeLink driver
Mike Duncan wrote:
appears the sensor or the A/D has a negative offset. Similar results are
obtained with Vuescan and NikonScan 3.0.
Mike Duncan
Thought Nikon Scan 3.0 to be buggy? I went and downloaded 3.1.
rob
Anthony wrote:
Rob writes:
I tried printing it, but the print looks like
the screen - not like the slide.
That's how it is supposed to look. When you get the screen
to look like the slide, the print will come out looking like
the slide as well.
The reason I made the statement above was
43 matches
Mail list logo
