In a message dated 11/20/2001 10:13:38 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've sent you several emails now concerning my situation.
So far, I still haven't heard anything from you.
I don't always answer every e-mail the same day I get them.
Sometimes it takes a few days.
When I was using
Hi everyone,
I'm leaving for my vacation soon, and although I'd like to evaluate my
camera equipment against various films, film processing and digital
post-processing, there's really no time. I'd like to solicit this group's
recommendations for the best out-of-the-box color negative film to use
Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recommendations for the best out-of-the-box color negative film to use
with a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 and PolaColor SprintScan or Vuescan.
I'd suggest Fuji Superia 400. I haven't tried Supra 400 as I can only
easily buy it
in packs of 5.
Rob
What Nikon should do , to heat rid of the depth of field problem are:
Change to a new LED , better lens f stop , at least 5.6 .
They prefer a cool scan, low light, low energy ,no heat.
Imacon and other scanner manufactures prefer a more intensive light source
and a fan to stable the scanner
I have d/l the V3.1.1 file from the Euro site and it runs fine for me
under Windows XP. If you want the file and have trouble accessing the
Nikon Sites, then please feel free to d/l from my FTP server.
62.31.210.174 Port 21
Username nikon
Password nikon
Use ONLY a FTP Client like Cute FTP, You
Hi Herb,
I'd strongly recommend that you try to stick to 100 asa films. It makes all
the difference in the world. I don't know what lenses you're gonna use, but
if your equipment and style allow (i.e. you don't shoot mosquitos at sunset
with a hand-held 800mm) try Kodak Supra100 or Fuji Reala.
You may recall that a few months ago I did some extensive tests on
NikonScan 3.1's crash problems and reported back to the list.
Just tried NikonScan 3.1.1 on my Windows 2000 dual CPU machines.
It still crashes for me on the various test machines I have here.
This was after uninstalling 3.1,
I can still see the web page?
http://www.nikon-euro.com/nikoneuro2/download/Download_107e.htm
NScan311wen.zip is still there
--
James Grove
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.jamesgrove.co.uk
www.mountain-photos.co.uk
ICQ 99737573
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
I'd agree with Rob. I've used both Superia (cheap at the WalMart) and Supra
(more expensive) and actually prefer the results from the Superia.
Tom
From: Rob Geraghty
Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recommendations for the best out-of-the-box color negative film to use
with a Polaroid
Hi Wayne--
I set auto-exposure OFF to eliminate that variable as I struggle to
get control of the process. So maybe this has saved me from the
inconsistency you describe, but I'm not expert enough with all this
to be sure. However it might be easy to test: turn auto-exposure
OFF and
Have found that the Supra 400 marginally better than the Fuji.
rob
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recommendations for the best out-of-the-box color negative film to use
with a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 and PolaColor SprintScan or Vuescan.
I'd suggest Fuji Superia
Polaroid loaned me a SprintScan 120 today, and I've been
testing it with VueScan 7.2.8. It seems to work perfectly, and
I can't get it to fail.
I've also scanned a really, really dark slide that I have, and
the SprintScan 120 has virtually _no_ noise in the dark areas -
the images look quite
I'm a major Fuji fan but I'm disappointed with the Superia films. I'd stick
with the pro (NPS, NPH) films. The bigger question is why shoot print
film if you're going to scan the images? I shoot chromes for most of my
color work. You have an original image for reference, can use Ilfochrome,
I don't believe this is correct. I own quite a few Kodak and Navitar
lenses for projectors. Kodak originally produced flat field lenses
which were designed for flat slides, but it caused Kodak's own mounted
slides, (paper mounts) for Kodachrome and Ektachrome to look bad. So
they
I don't believe this is correct. I own quite a few Kodak and Navitar
lenses for projectors, going back many years. Kodak originally produced
flat field lenses which were designed for flat slides, but it caused
Kodak's own mounted slides, (paper mounts) for Kodachrome and Ektachrome
to look
I noticed when I switched from an HP S-10 (Photosmart) scanner using
SCSI to the S-20 USB version, the differences were slight,. Using the
same computer configuration, the USB was about 1/3rd slower. But in
fairness, I had to install a USB PCI slot card on that computer, which
was a Pentium
Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
recommendations for the best out-of-the-box color negative film to use
with a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 and PolaColor SprintScan or Vuescan.
Hi, Herb,
I've tried Konica Superia 400, Fuji Superia 400. Fuji Superia 100, Agfa
Optima 400, Agfa HDC 400 and Kodak
In a message dated 11/21/2001 8:07:15 AM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nikon might be approaching the limits of linearity in the LEDs. They
also need to be able to have a range of brightness available to them for
the analog exposure they offer.
No, Nikon scanners don't vary the
I'm leaving for my vacation soon, and although I'd like to evaluate my
camera equipment against various films, film processing and digital
post-processing, there's really no time.
Something else comes to mind - given the current paranoia in the world, you
probably want to try to process
At 1:50 AM -0500 11/21/01, Julian Vrieslander wrote:
The Prefs tab (in VueScan 7.2.8) now has a popup menu containing a
list of popular image
viewing/editing applications (Photoshop, PictureViewer, GraphicConverter,
Internet Explorer, Navigator). I only tried the Photoshop setting. But
it
Hello everybody,
I'd like to introduce myself and ask for some help. I've been lurking for
about a week and haven't seen anything aimed low enough that I could profit
from it--at least not now.
I'm a retired teacher (English); I have been an avid amateur photographer
for even longer than I
I find the Kodak Supra 400 is too grainy for my 2700spi Nikon LS-30.
I like Kodak's Royal Gold 100 and 200, the Fujicolor NPS 160, and especially the
Konica Impressa 50.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Herb Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21,
First question - how large do you like to print? If larger than 8 1/2 x 11 then you
probably should get a 4000spi scanner instead of the Acer. If not then the Acer
should be fine.
The grain that prints out - do you see it onscreen as well or only in the print? If
only in the print then it
I have been notified by my Professional lab and the Professional
Photographers of America not to send processed or unprocessed film through
the US mail due to the new equipment they are using.
Its is best to have all film, hand inspected. rather than go through the
machines. I understand now
I really appreciate the warning. I do wonder what security devices could do
to processed film though. The issue makes me wonder if I should bring fresh
film from the US (because of price), have it hand-inspected, but process it
oversees (once exposed they are hopefully priceless:). Because of the
I just switched from NPH II to NPZ with good results. Before that I used
NPH, also a good choice. When there is enough light, I love Reala. But
shooting a lot indoors, high speed is a must.
On trips, I always carry both, NPZ and Reala. Good luck Herb.
Jack
-Original Message-
From: Herb
I managed to download the update, but with great difficulty. Nikon's
site was limited to 7k/s, and didn't have resume enabled, making the
15Mb download difficult on my 56k connection with a 1hour timeout. ;-)
James Grove's site was faster (thanks James) but still no resume, so I
got a mate
Herb,
I've been using Supra 400 pretty regularly for ~ a year.
I think it scans (a bit) better than Royal Gold 400 but
the differences are not dramatically obvious to me.
Then I made the mistake of trying Provia100F. I get
such better results that I now use it (pushed 1 stop)
as my standard
I just got back from NYC in early November. They would not let me have my
film hand inspected. I begged, pleaded and threatened. The only time I could
get it hand inspected was at La Guardia. I had about 15 rolls out of boxes
in a zip lock. The took each canister out and swabbed it, about 1-2
BTW I forgot to mention, I ALWAYS overexpose the 400 (320) and 800 (640 or
500) speed film from Fuji (NPZ, NPH, NHG II). Usually by 1/2 a stop
sometimes a full stop. The Reala (100) I expose at normal, however when I
forget to turn off the 1/2 or full stop boost, the results are acceptable.
Jack
At 09:42 AM 11/21/2001 -0600, you wrote:
First question - how large do you like to print? If larger than 8 1/2 x
11 then you probably should get a 4000spi scanner instead of the
Acer. If not then the Acer should be fine.
I like prints larger than 8 1/2 x 11 if the resolution is there. I
Hi,
Sorry about the trouble with my site, my ISP has been messing
about with there systems today making the networking snail pace. I am
glad you got the file in the end.
--
James Grove
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.jamesgrove.co.uk
www.mountain-photos.co.uk
ICQ 99737573
-Original
Jack,
Well you can get lead lined bags and put the film in the checked luggage.
But I am afraid today that might cause them to open the luggage.
I haven't flown since this mess started, but I have been told in the past
that one or two passes through the scanners shouldn't hurt with low speed
Jack, how did you find the NPZ ? (BTW, is that ISO 800 or 400 ?)
This film is quite expensive here in Israel, though the NPH (400) can be
purchased at very affordable price in pro shops.
Regards,
Alex Z
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
John writes ...
I like prints larger than 8 1/2 x 11 if the resolution is there.
... You don't think the ScanWit will be satisfactory at 11 x 17?
...
Satisfactory ... yes. It all depends on where an 11x17 is intended.
For example, it could be argued ^most^ 11x17's are not meant to be
No, the lead lined bags are not good enough any longer for
checked luggage. Many airports (and they won't say which) are now
equipped with much more powerful X-Rays than they used to use. They WILL
damage film, especially high speed film. The only safe way to take
unprocessed film by air is in
The best place to start is at http://www.scantips.com/
Wayne Fulton's information is succinct and accurate and will give you much good
information. He also sells a book including more information, though I have not
bought it.
Optimal resolution to be sent to an hp printer is 300dpi, and to an
- Original Message -
From: Mark Otway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 10:07 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Nikonscan 3.1.1 update
snip
James Grove's site was faster (thanks James) but still no resume, so I
got a mate with a 'fat pipe' to download it
Hi Alex, it is fairly pricey. I just checked the BH site and it lists for
$5.79US compared to $4.95US for Reala. I buy it locally for about a $2.00 a
roll premium. It is 800 speed, but I usually rate it at 500. There is very
little grain for a high speed film. I believe it is a four layer film
I didn't see that option on my Windows machine, with 7.2.8.
It would be very nice to have.
Hersch
At 05:47 AM 11/21/2001, you wrote:
At 1:50 AM -0500 11/21/01, Julian
Vrieslander wrote:
The Prefs tab (in VueScan 7.2.8)
now has a popup menu containing a list of popular image
viewing/editing
Hi Hersch,
Well this whole conversation has been interesting, it does sound like you
are damned if you do and dammed if you don't. Maybe when things become
standardized, there will be an answer to how to transport our film. I still
don't understand how processed film could be damaged. I just
Wayne Fulton's book is worth every penny.
I do A2 prints (on an Epson 3000) from full-neg APS scans done on a Kodak
FD300 (2700 dpi I think). Regardless of the dot arithmetic I'm pretty
pleased with the results. The same setup gives me nice A2 prints from my
Casio 3.3 MP digicam where the dots
Judging from your comments, the warnings Kodak and Fuji have on their
websites and Jack Phipps' nightmare with taking film on board, I believe I
will buy and process film in Europe because I'm there long enough.
On a tangent, here's some info from Kodak's web site about mailing film
I am also unable to fathom that. It will certainly clobber
the mail-order develop and printing services, who rely on the mail to
receive the exposed film and send back negs and prints via USPS. Costs
would go way up if they had to used UPS or FedEx for that.
Hersch
At 01:22 PM 11/21/2001, you
I've produced a test version of VueScan that lets you
specify the frame spacing of medium format film when using
a Nikon LS-8000 or a SprintScan 120.
I'd appreciate it if people could test this feature. The
test version can be downloaded from:
http://www.hamrick.com/files/test120.sit (Mac OS
Mike, using a Saved Setting in NS, you can setup ICE, ROC and GEM settings
to any defaults you like.
First, tweak all the controls in all the palettes to the values you want
(e.g. ICE Normal, ROC 0, GEM 2).
Then, save the setting (on the Settings menu). I have a setting called
Negative
My problem with buying overseas is knowing what you are getting. When we buy
a batch of film locally, we have a blank roll processed. This tells us that
this batch (or at least the test roll) had limited exposure to x-ray. Then
we do a test roll before we shoot brides or occasions that can't be
I'm running into people who earnestly tell me that the better grade
flatbeds now do 2400 dpi and are therefore OK for 35mm negs slides. A
cursory search of specs leaves me quite confused. Can anyone clarify this?
Ian B
Jack Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just got back from NYC in early November. They would not let me have my
film hand inspected.
No need for hand inspection in the uSA. Regular airport X-Rays do not harm 400 ASA
film. I have flown many hundreds of times over the last 25 years in the USA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've also scanned a really, really dark slide that I have, and
the SprintScan 120 has virtually _no_ noise in the dark areas -
the images look quite nice. There's no need for multi-scanning
on this scanner.
Sprintscan 120 made the best impression of the scanner I
From the Kodak site:
In the United States, at the boarding gates for domestic flights,
regulations require that x-ray inspection be conducted only with low-output
devices. These devices subject luggage to less than 1 milliroentgen of x-ray
exposure per inspection, which should not perceptibly
On 11/21/01 6:01 PM, Jack Phipps [EMAIL PROTECTED], wrote:
One of my friends has some business cards he had printed. Something to the
effect that he is a special emissary to some low level government official
(a friend of his in Louisiana who would back up his story if need be). He
has used
In this case he is not falsifying anything. He IS an emissary. His friend
DOES work for the state of Louisiana. He can verify who he is and who he
represents.
Jack
-Original Message-
From: Julian Vrieslander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 6:34 PM
To:
And no banding either :)
Could not resist, please forgive me!!
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 7:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:filmscanners: SprintScan 120 Success with VueScan 7.2.8
I am considering getting some calibration software, namely ColorVision's
moniter spyder with PhotoCal ($199) and their Profiler RGB, both of which
seem to be very popular. The latter requires one to have a flatbed scanner,
so I am wondering what flatbed would be decent for this purpose. I
[Justification for filmscanners posting: GIMP functionality for editing
photos as compared with Photoshop]
K, people, I'm curious if anyone here is using GIMP for Windows and whether
it's any good and whether it handles all of our common tasks with the
comprehensiveness of Photoshop. What about
Ian--
Some random thoughts:
o In general, a cheap scanner will give you cheap results no matter
what its specs.
o What's good enough for 35mm depends entirely on your needs.
o A scanner that truly does give you a real 2400 dpi, AND a true
bit-depth of say 36 bits, AND actually does pull a
Berry--
A year ago, I had similar equipment to yours, I bought the
ColorVision products you mention, and have been very happy with the
results.
Profiler RGB doesn't need a very fancy flatbed scanner to make good
printer profiles, but you'll probably need to tweak the sliders to
get the
I posted this question a few days ago but got no response so I am posting it
again.
I like using VueScan with my SS4000 scanner but I am consistently seeing
highlight and shadow pixel clipping on my transparency scans. When I use
Polaroid's Insight software for scanning, I get a nice histogram
A short while ago I
bought an Epson Perfection 1650 Photo flatbed scanner. The price was right for a 1600 dpi
scanner that also has a light source built into the cover and enables one to
scan slides/negatives. I needed a
decent flatbed and also liked the idea of this being an interim step
A useful insight into this process is to assign your *monitor* profile to an
image that has no profile associated with it, when loading it into
Photoshop. Sounds silly. Try it.
I believe, with CMS turned off, that Nikon Scan is effectively delivering a
result in a kind of de-facto monitor
Cary, NS 3.1 is not even remotely crash happy on my PC (Windows 98 normal
version) so your assertion that single CPU is as bad as SMP is wrong. It
runs for days without crashing (8 hour scanning sessions in which NS is open
continuously).
I am happy to acknowledge, though, that I was unfair to
{Bear in mind: I only scan negatives - I've never shot a slide film in my
life)
I concur with Bob. I'm licensed for Vuescan, too. Originally I purchased
it because there was strong support for the idea that once mastered, its
results are superior.
I can't master it. I can't batch scan. I
I'm going to guess the original warning was to not send exposed or
unexposed; not processed or unprocessed.
Pat
- Original Message -
From: JackG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: X-ray scanners/etc
Hi Hersch,
I'm actually a happy user of an HP S20 for 35mm and a Kodak FD300 for APS
(something to do with the order in which I bought things). Several people
here have said that sales folk have started going on about how the better
(sort of $US350 here) flatbeds are now good enough for film scanning and I
The bigger question is why shoot print
film if you're going to scan the images?
This has been covered before, but I just decided to check my facts by
looking at the characteristic curves for representative Kodak films. These
curves demonstrate admirably the main reason you might choose to
John wrote:
So here is the question: When I scan slides that are sharp
(8X loupe) the scans are not critically sharp (fuzzy) to
some varying degrees.
FWIW, my first experience with a film scanner was an Epson Filmscan 200.
This claimed to scan at 2400dpi but actually scanned at 1200 and
Jawed wrote:
By vitality I don't merely mean contrast/black-point/white-point. I also
mean the nature of the tonality of the image. Something related to the
question of gamma and also the inherent S-shaped response that all films
have (so far as I know). So, all the effort I put into obtaining
Stan. I see the same with Vuescan and the Microtek 4000T scanner. Don't know
why. Leif.
-Original Message-
From: S Schwartz [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 3:27 AM
To: Filmscanners (E-mail)
Subject: filmscanners: VueScan and highlight/shadow pixel
69 matches
Mail list logo
