Larry Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You failed to mention which camera brand you're using. If Nikon, all their
lenses are color matched. On other forums, like the D1/D1x, it's one of
the
things that come up for discussion from time to time.
It wasn't actually that important. My current
Mike Bloor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Is it possible to set the input directory and the output directory to
different values? If so, can't you use identical filenames?
I am doing exactly that at the moment, but am still limited to consecutive
file names.
OK. It would
Optical bang-for-the buck is high with Contax G series. They take a
limited range of top notch Zeiss lenses at great prices. Email me
off-list
for 4000 dpi samples.
Hi Bob - how much are you talking for a Contax body and lens? Even the base
model body and a 50mm or whatever lens is
Bill Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o You have to decide whether or not to use ICE and/or GEM BEFORE you
scan. You can't do a bunch of scans, examine them, then run ICE
and/or GEM on only the few scans you feel really need them.
Have you tried Vuescan? With Vuescan you could save raw
Ron Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom's statement is completely contrary to my experience. I 've used the
SS4000 for about a year and a half and I don't spend on average 2 minutes
cloning dust spots or scratches. To this point, I wouldn't have used the
infrared channel even if I had it.
Maris wrote:
That is my understanding - consecutively numbered files only.
Is it possible to set the input directory and the output directory to different
values? If so, can't you use identical filenames?
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
(red aberration).
I'm trying to avoid garbage-in-garbage out as much as possible in the scans.
:)
Replies offlist would be appreciated. Thanks!
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
after the new version is installed.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
with of
35mm slides or (afaik) negs. I don't know if they have a current model
which does this, but their website would be worth a look.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
than colour images or previews of them. I have *no*
idea why the author used such a strange set of widgets. Anyway, it doesn't
switch the monitor or video mode on my computer. I'm running Win98SE with
an nVidia card.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Shunith Dutt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the heavy slant towards the negative films, in terms of profiles,
makes one wonder if VueScan isn't primarily aimed at negative film
scanning
rather than positive film?
AFAIK the film profiles are limited to those published by Kodak as PhotoCD
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful characteristic of
shape and position? How is it more useful than a precise position in an
array?
Because it is. It's the way the world works. It IS additional
information,
plain and simple.
Is the C70 being sold anywhere around the world now?
http://www.epson.com.au/products/home_and_office/C70.html
Yes.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
to use until you exceed
the data contained in a chemical representation of an image? I'm astonished
that you could believe the fact you have stated above.
But please Austin, let's drop this since it isn't helping anyone with anything
to do with filmscanning as far as I can make out?
Rob
Rob
Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe I'm starting to get the message. I've see very nice results at a
list member's site, and I believe for web pictures a flatbed with
transparency lid would work on medium format and larger slides, but it is
perhaps a bit limiting after a while.
As
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I agree that the pixels will be 'smoother' because of the inkjet
dither pattern, film grain still contains/imparts more information (on a
one to one basis) than a pixel, not matter how it is dithered by the
printer.
Why? So far I've heard this
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But a dye cloud is more than color. It is ALSO shape and position. Those
characteristics (information) are NOT represented by color.
How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful characteristic of
shape and position? How is it more useful
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the only consumer out of box printers using pigmented inks that I'm
aware
of are the Epson 2000P and the new C80.
There's another Epson; I think the C70. It's basically the same as the C80
but
a little slower. Uses the same carts.
Rob
Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you very much for saving me the time money to mess with that idea.
As a follow-up, is there a scanner with light-lid that stands above the
rest?
That's an answer for someone else to field - after trying a couple and being
disappointed, I bought a
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's important to remember that film grain and pixels are not
interchangeable terms.
I didn't mean to imply that they were. I was simply trying to make an
analogy
about expected viewing distance.
I think that part of it, is that pixels are
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
side by side and evaluate them. My largest print size is 17x22 from my
3000. I can see differences from standard viewing distances that have
convinced me that 180+ is the minimum resolution that is acceptable to me
for the type of work I do, if not
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it ends up that it's still the absolute best printer for
Piezography,
much to my delight!
Ah, but the Piezo printer driver completely replaces the Epson one.
For BW (Piezography) the 3000 is FAR better than the 1160. Even the Cone
boys make
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob wrote:
I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently provides more
information than a pixel.
Actually, FAR more. It's their position and size, not their color, that
is
far more information than pixels are. Pixels (in current
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering
pattern to represent pixels that film
grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are equivalent in regards to the
amount of information they impart
to an inkjet printer?
I think
) and in that situation, the more resolution, the merrier.
But when it comes to poster sizes of A3 or larger, I don't think it matters
so much - YMMV. :)
Rob
PS It's not *possible* for me to get 240ppi at A3 unless I get a 400dpi
scanner.
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
as an option, you can't do it. I've
tried various kludges, but nothing works well. Essentially you need a scanner
which is built for the job.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Svante Kleist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't imagine that Nikon would risk their reputation
by _not_ solving the MP / Win2000 crashes.
They risked their reputation by not fixing the jaggies problem with
Nikonscan 2.x for how long? :)
Rob
with the printer's native resolution. Epson themselves said it was the
best thing to do. The story may have changed since they wrote that FAQ.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're resizing an image from 3000 pixels in the width to
750 pixels, you're throwing away 75% of the data!
Aha, okay, see my other reply. I'm slowly coming out of the fog here.
So what's the most lossless way to get my 30MB TIFF file to the size
I
cameras produce files which are set to 72 dpi. Can anyone
who has one check this? I know it's been driving my brother nuts when people
send digicam pics at screen resolutions and expect him to print them in
a magazine!
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
at 100dpi to produce a web image than scanning at 2700dpi and resampling.
But in practice I am only scanning at 2700dpi because it's one pass with
the hardware and it's quicker.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
a commercial printing company - they will insist on 300dpi
images.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
the resampling process.
2. As I mentioned earlier, some printers give quite good results at lower
dpi. Epsons seem to work quite well at 240dpi because of the integer relationship
with the 1440dpi native dot size.
Does that make more sense?
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Ken wrote:
Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap.
Not off a print! :)
One day I'll understand all this. ;-)
It's a matter of getting your head around the resolutions of different devices
and media.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
and Minolta) but it's better to start with film that is clean
to begin with. Mould is worst because it actually eats the emulsion, destroying
the image.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
still run their computers in 640x480
or even less in the case of some Macs. So a good screen size on your
computer might be hard to work with on someone else's. Then again - it
depends on your expected market!
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you handle another newbie? (I heard that groan) ;-)
Everyone was a newbie once! Welcome!
I've tried out Photoshop Elements and like it, but at this point am
wavering as to whether I should get the whole PS6 package or
if PSE would do it.
I'm not
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
this behaviour off.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there must be a few favorite indexing databases out there that make
searching and cataloging images easier. I'm grateful for any suggestions
that will save me from combing through dozens of bad programs.
See if you can track down a copy of the freeware
Ralf Schmode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my approach is a little different. I try to avoid clipped highlights
and/or shadows as thoroughly as I possibly can, at least as to the big
original scans. The problem is that I don't have the full version of
Photoshop, and PSP7 won't open those 16 bit
Mikael Risedal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
are litle bit curved show the same problem with overall sharpness
regarding
LS2000 and LS 4000.
The problem is lack of depth of field in the lens construction .
I thought it was that the low light intensity from the LED light source
resulted in an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking to upgrade our current system and would appreciate specifications
from the list. Need typical PC based business machine (Microsoft
Products)
and the strongest possible system to support our scanning and photography
habit. Would greatly appreciate input on
Vuescan
to produce the final result before you get it into Photoshop. AFAIK Vuescan
was never intended to do this, but to get the most data out of the film
as possible. Final tweaking should be done in PS.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Alex Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, do you think 2800-2900 dpi is good enough for quality A3 sized print
(about 260-270 dpi and that size) or 4000 dpi would gain quality
noticeably ?
I've made nice A3 prints on my Epson 1160 using scans at 2700dpi with a
Nikon LS30. Scans on a SS4000 look
Mark Van Buskirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but that point is moot, as they don't support the Canon FS4000. I've
played
with all the Vuescan settings for HOURS and HOURS, but I just can't seem
to
get a nice, rich scan without dragging it in to Photoshop.
Unless the story has changed, AIUI the
Bill Fernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
reduction in sharpness. I have another image (Kodachrome 64) where
ICE and GEM made the entire image VERY soft. So apparently they can
work for you or against you depending on the image and/or film.
Try Vuescan on the same slide. The IR cleaning in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a common problem? I can scan negs on the Scan Dual II and the
dreaded ES-10S and have decent output, but the SS (which is the best
scanner
I've used to date) seems to almost ignore the neg masking.
Try including part of the mask in the scan
there's many who can't.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
for web use than scanning at maximum res and resampling. I suggested as
much in this list, but got shouted down. My recent experience has been
that resampling always means I have to sharpen afterwards. As Art suggests
- try both and see what works for you.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
not have the same issues I did with the LS30. The balance between the layers
had to be very carefully made, or dark noise and banding ruins the image.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
of scanning dense silver based BW it makes
the difference between getting an image or nothing at all.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
where excluding the neg mask may result in awful exposures
where the mask has not been removed correctly.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
by distorting the image. I guess I'm happy with the coincidence
that Fuji film seems to have less bubbles, anyway. :)
Rob
At 10:53 AM +1000 9/23/01, Rob Geraghty wrote:
Roger, I gather the bubbles are on the emulsion side of the film, not
the
base side of the film?
Yes, the bubbles are in the thin
Roger Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not only is the Fuji slide sharper, it shows relatively few,
large bubbles compared to the Kodak slide. The Fuji bubbles appear as
a few fairly obvious spots on a scan - easy to spot out in Photoshop.
The Kodak slide when scanned shows a gritty, grainy
I've been scanning some airshow photos and getting the right exposure out of
vuescan has been extremely difficult. The day was very overcast, and
there's a lot of photos where most of the frame is clouds with some very
small aircraft. Vuescan seems to be using an autoexposure algorithm similar
excessive grain in blue skies. I
have a print on my wall at work which is an example - the sky has a brown
tone to it which may be the result of the mask not being removed correctly.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
it does include the
mask somewhere. Thanks Ed.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Harvey wrote:
Rob Geraghty wrote:
snip Want to bet that it wasn't
any individual musician who chased Napster?
Actually it was a band called Metallica.
And they paid for the WHOLE court case? I'm prepared to be educated here -
if they did pay for the whole thing out of their own money
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Javascript is usually client-side, too, although it can be used on either
side.
Good grief. Just about every ASP file written depends on javascript.
For what it's worth, the code I mentioned IS javascript but it seems
to have been more important to
This evening my LS30 suddenly started behaving very strangely with banding
and all sort of odd effects in the scan. I tired various things but the
upshot is that the SCSI cable wasn't firmly plugged intot he back of the
scanner. So if your Nikon starts suddenly behaving strangely - check your
be better. I am going to redesign
some XML code so that the pictures are always displayed with a web page
not on their own as a file in a browser - at the moment the page launches
a new browser window containing only the jpeg not a web page displaying
it.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED
also suggest that avoiding filenames which obviously relate to
content is probably a good idea.
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
John wrote:
on 9/10/01 1:57 AM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another neat piece of java code I saw recently pops up a message
if someone tries to use the right-click save-as option on a picture.
It's
relatively trivial to get around, but at least it's *some* sort
Hemingway, David J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
cathode or fluorescent scanner. Over the last few years discussion on this
list and my personal testing seems to have said that the collimated type
light source of a LED light source shows more dust etc. In my personal
view I wonder if any scanner
to process later
when I could actually afford it.
Thankfully it now means I have some great slides of the
view from the top of la Tour Eiffel that I wouldn't
have had otherwise. :)
Obscanning: And I need to scan them!!
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With this recent talk that brought up the subject of Provia 400F, I
thought
I'd link to this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/iso100-400.htm
The author has been raving about the D30 since he bought it which is nice
for him,
but of no significance to me.
Ian Boag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not so long ago that we had a thread from a distressed man with
irreplaceable shots from Puerto Rico or someplace round there which had
been hopelessly fogged by airport X-rays.
I don't remember whether the films had ever been in check-in luggage because
Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the photographer in the breeze! I want to try Provia 400F to get the
same
sort of speed which hopefully less apparent grain.
Provia 400 (F? are there variants?) scans beautifully - no grain aliasing
in
shadows on the LS40 (my mate Joel's Provia 400 - he
Jawed Ashraf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never seen these options in Nikon Scan 3.0/3.1. Where should I be
looking (I can be blind like this sometimes)?
= Original Message From Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
Have you tried Scanner Extras / Prescan mode / low cont neutral?
are. :)
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
probably the answer to the mystery. Nevertheless I'm glad I found
the % settings. :)
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
, though?
A full front cover on a magazine is close! But for magazine
purposes, larger than A4 is unlikely to be needed - again it
depends on how much you have to crop.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
that my camera worked and wasn't packed
with semtex.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
that they weren't serious about supporting 48bit files in a 24bit editor.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
should also ask or test is whether the softening you
see on the screen is visible in the end product - whatever that may be!
I used to be peeved by the softening caused by IR cleaning until I realised
it reduced the appearance grain aliasing. :)
(Soften those unwanted wrinkles today!)
Rob
Rob
. Yes, it's grainy, but it has helped a lot for
situations like taking aerial shots from ultralights that vibrate or leave
the photographer in the breeze! I want to try Provia 400F to get the same
sort of speed which hopefully less apparent grain.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
connection will only work on a Mac under OS/X? It sounds like
you won't be able to use it on your Mac with the current OS. You hadn't
mentioned prior to this what platform you were using.
Rob
PS It's called Vuescan. :)
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Ed wrote:
VueScan uses a predictor of 2 - 7 isn't a valid predictor. All 2
means is
to take the difference between adjacent pixel values before
compressing.
I don't understand. If a predictor of 2 is invalid why would you use
it?
A predictor of 7 is invalid.
A predictor of 2 is
to clean the sensor. In my case the brush didn't
work and I had to use canned air, but give the brush a try first.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
, but this is
still exciting for me being able to go into a newsagency and see a photo
I took on the cover of a magazine. Especially when I took the photo and
scanned it! :)
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I use standard TIFF files, as evidenced by the many, many
programs that have no problem reading them. I suspect ACDSee has
a bug in handling the TIFFTAG_PREDICTOR tag.
The predictor seems to be an unusual combination for 48bit files.
Paintshop Pro 7 doesn't like the
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not necessarily that simple, though your suggestion is first and
foremost. The SS4k and other scanners like it, can have a dust problem,
no
matter how clean your film is going into the scanner.
FWIW I have my Nikon scanner on the bench on its
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With regards to labs scratching negs and not slides: Perhaps you are
using the wrong lab? Most high end E-6
machines are 'dip dunk', and that goes for high end C41 developing
machines as well. Most scratches (in
development) are caused by roller
it funny that Ed's Vuescan cured both...
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
about version 7.0 have been impossible to open
in Paintshop Pro, but can be opened in Photoshop.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
to sell the scanner ages ago because of the problem with
jaggies.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
behaving
as it was originally designed to. Much the same as the jaggies problem
being related to the use of a command to reading 64K of data at a time and
how the hardware behaved when that command was used.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Maris wrote:
The developer Ed Hamrick also suggests using Image for slide film.
Under what circumstances should Image be used?
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
the film didn't
get developed properly. Colour neg film also seems to hold static charge
better than slide film, but I may be imagining it.
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
mean to say it
*couldn't* work. Just as lots of scanners work happily at 2700ppi without
getting jaggies like the LS30 does. ;)
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Martin wrote:
My problem is that, in pursuit of perfection and with a reluctant
willingness to spend big bucks, I try to shoot everything with the best of
Canon lenses, though away any shots that aren't tack-sharp, and use films
live Velvia and Provia 100F. Consequently, I am able to see the
in a scanner, because theoretically it
ought to be possible to remove aliasing and lens aberrations from the scanner
optics.
(but I've discussed it before and I won't bore everyone with it again! :)
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Mike Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a thought - I don't know the guts of how Photoshop produces
histograms,
so this may not work as well as I think it could... Would it be a useful
comparison of scanners to scan the same slide with Vuescan to raw files
and compare the histograms?
I
before scanning frame one will curl it before you begin. I've
never tried 6 frame strips, but the curl would be worse.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
OK, I had a go at scanning some slides on the SS4K at work and scanning the
same slides on my LS30 at home. I had to recrop a photo to get a comparison
of the crop histograms because the brightness on the screen at work is
clearly utterly different to the one at home - which is why the
for the scanner profile,
the film profile etc. If you're scanning neg film it's not inverted either.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Anthony Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some
sample
scans I've seen appear to support this. Specifically, it appears to have
a
smaller dynamic range.
Anthony, can I ask *where* you've consistently heard this? What I've
the
Polaroid seemed to need pushing to a brightness setting of 2.0 or even more.
This was not something I expected.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
101 - 200 of 783 matches
Mail list logo
