lens, for example.
Dave King
- Original Message -
From: =shAf= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: 4000dpi (was film scanner mailing list)
Tony writes ...
unless you have used a tripod, 4000 dpi won't necessarily get you
and the T2500 is still probably the least expensive
($4300) 35 to 4x5 scanner that will really do the job.
I recently went through that...and ended up with a near new LeafScan
45 for $2000.
Which from the sound of it is a very good scanner, if a little hard to
find.
speed to shoot
at
two shutter stops (or more) faster than the 'minimum' rule of focal
length/shutter speed. That is, 1/125 or faster with a 35mm lens, or
1/500 with a 105mm lens, for example.
Dave King
Where did you get that 'rule
Perhaps some of the people who claim to be able to get sharp
shots hand-holding at 1/8th second could post some examples
(small cropped sections) on here? I am intrigued to see some hard
evidence.
That's absurd, and insulting. First, you are implying we are all
lying.
Second, how do
. Other than these two features the two scanners
are identical in terms of scan quality.
This makes the LS-30 a relative bargain for people scanning negatives on
color managed systems. Nikonscan 2.5 does an absolutely superb job
correcting negatives on my color managed PC system.
Dave King
A briefly as possible:
1) place your feet shoulder width apart. (And if possible brace your
torso against an immovable object.)
2) hold most of the weight of the camera in your left hand with the hand
under the lens (focusing with the thumb and forefinger.)
3) bring both elbows into contact
. That way, one can rescale/recrop/reuse the hi-bit
another time, without spotting again.
Richard Wolfson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Dave King
Neither can you print a hi bit image, so after you convert to 24
bit,
but before you print, spot the image and save as a "printer" file.
If
This should be off list, but perhaps one more time?!
Why? The anecdotal "evidence" from the field is compelling.
Grounded
and expert recording professionals consistently say there are
easily
and consistently heard differences between 44.1 bit - 16K and any
of
the higher rate recording
?
I think many of your concerns about making consistent negs will be
mitigated if you have a scan preview that exactly matches the editing
application. But it won't happen without color management, and for
reasons that have nothing to do with the competence of the scanning
software.
Dave King
To double check it's actually in the neg you may want to mount in a
slide mount so you can rotate 90 degrees for another scan.
Your exaggerated version looks like something referred to as bromide
drag in BW film processing. Bromide drag is usually caused by
inadequate agitation, but
My thought is that the problem is in the chemical processing (as
others have implied). It would be a clincher if I could scan the
sprocket holes and find evidence there, but in any case I wanted to
throw the problem out to my peers and ask ... and possibly know how
they remedied it.
- Original Message -
From: Roman Kielich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Grain in Color negative Film
At 06:54 22/03/2001 -0700, you wrote:
That's what I thought as well and the minilab I used is one
that (to
- Original Message -
From: Roman Kielich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Grain in Color negative Film
At 09:53 23/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
It depends on processor and chemistry QC maintenence also, and
this
Dan Margulis has a mailing list called Color Theory at Egroups with
interesting threads on this topic, but I doubt it will help solve the
problem. Time will do that, as the trend is inevitable with digital
capture coming like a freight train.
Meanwhile the question is what's the best repro
Epson Premium Quality Photo Paper. The quality with Epson oem dye
inks is quite amazing with adequate profiles. And it's widely
available. But you want to be sure to get the 3rd iteration.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Michael Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
' iteration?
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave King
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 3:30 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)
Epson Premium Quality Photo
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave King
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 5:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)
In the US there are two ways, one, often (but not always) there's a
sticker added to the package that states the manufacturing date.
I've
seen D
have both "Premium"
and
"Photo" in their names!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave King) wrote:
Epson Premium Quality Photo Paper. The quality with Epson oem dye
inks is quite amazing with adequate profiles. And it's widely
available. But you want to be sure to g
You can usually find a good shadow and highlight in an interior shot.
I like to set my eyedropper values to 10, 10, 10, and 245, 245, 245.
That still gives a little room for curves adjustments later if needed.
But adding a Kodak color bar for a control is good idea anyway. Makes
correcting a
Message -
From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Repro house skirmishing (long)
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 03:30:21 -0500 Dave King
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Epson Premium Quality Photo Paper. The quality with Epson
Having said this, I believe that you can use the Premium Glossy
Paper in the
Epson 1200 printer without any of the benefits that were supposedly
unique
to it when used with the new dye based inks of the 1270/870.
Basically, the
way I understand it, the paper in both the old and the new
I guess I'm spoiled by location then. Here in New York there are many
labs that do excellent color negative developing. (But not the one
hour cross the street from me:) Alot of fashion is shot on neg these
days, and labs can't afford to screw up the big budget jobs. If there
aren't any really
Duggal closed their downtown branch? Didn't know that, when did that
happen? I use the C-Lab as it's very close to me, but Color Edge, and
Duggal I have good experience with also. There are others I know by
reputation primarily, Ken Taranto, Ken Lieberman, Ken Horowitz (what's
with the
- Original Message -
From: James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Very good points Paul, and with the higher resolution scanners
coming on line
the computer resources will be required to meet the tasks. From the
information
I've seen about Microsoft's new OS, Windows XP, better management
In fact I think none of the larger format papers are labeled with the
sticker, and one must rely on the lot number to tell. Apparently any
lot number ending in 1 is 3rd version.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: John Hayward at Hopco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday,
Most darkroom workers interested in quality wouldn't use a mounted
slide for projection in an enlarger. If you've ever had a large
custom print made by a good lab you'll see it's been taken out of the
mount and replaced. Not too hard, cut the cardboard half way through
with a single edge razor
on devices, analog or digital, to be more kind to film going
out of focal plane, it usually works the other way round. As you
noted yourself, a less expensive scanner is better in this regard.
Regards,
Dave King
I'll corroborate Paul on this one, I've used Apo El-Nikkors at a dye
lab I used to work in. The difference between them and anything else
is truly amazing. But even more amazing, they have highest resolution
wide open. There's not too much DOF there, as you might imagine. So
it's quality
Hi Peter,
Dave King wrote
I've spent alot of effort learning how to get the best 24x36"
prints
possible from an Epson 7000 (it's been fun:), but at no point
along
the way have I felt the LS-30 was the weakest link in the chain,
far
from it in fact. I'm sort of amazed it's as
After being on the Flextight users list for a time I saw many dealing
with problems getting sharp scans edge to edge. Seems even the
"flexed" film goes in and out of focal plane. It's too expensive
anyway.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: PAUL GRAHAM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
will be *relatively*
negligible.
Dave King
PS - Just for funsies I recently printed a max res file from an Fuji
S1 digital camera to 24x36. While the image was remarkably good in
many respects, and completely grain (pixel) free in areas of even
tone, image resolution was far less than from even 800 speed
Rob wrote:
Dave wrote:
It seems to me from eyeball guessing that my LS-30 is resolving
grain
in 100 ISO films at roughly 40-80% distortion, which looks pretty
bad
on the monitor at 100% view. 800 speed color neg film does much
better at what I would guess to be roughly 25% distortion.
I
lmscanners: Review of the Nikon CoolScan 4000
Dave: Please explain what process you are using to get from negs or
trans
to a 24x36 ( I assume photographic) print? What scan DPI, print DPI,
print
process, etc.
Thanks.
Mike M.
Dave King wrote:
Tony,
You're to be commended fo
Dave wrote:
I don't see significant differences in grain at the print level
between 100 speed negs and chromes, and print level is all I really
care about.
Really??! In the scans I see a huge difference between say Superia
100
and Sensia II 100. There's a *much* bigger difference when
Rob wrote:
The detail in the skies tend to "blow out" in Nikonscan with the
LS30 since
it only works with 8 bit data - this has the side effect of reducing
apparent
grain in the sky. Unfortunately Nikonscan is useless for me since I
get
jaggies with it, so I have to use Vuescan. I may be
Dave wrote:
Nikonscan's CM works as well as possible, with a near perfect match
to
the result in Photoshop. Also Nikonscan does the best color
corrections out of the box of anything I've seen, on chromes and
negs.
And, as I noted previously, the sharpening algorithm it uses is
very
good.
"Dave King" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you mean jaggies are all through the image, or along the edges?
The jaggies are through the entire image but are most noticeable on
high
contrast edges within the image. By "edge" I presume you mean the
outer
boundary
The other I'll call
"shark's tooth", and it looks like tiny spikes at regular
intervals on
high contrast edges.
It's a regular, stepped displacement (on the y axis of a landscape
scan)
of pixels which repeats every 4-5 pixels. It is most visible on high
contrast edges, but occurs
Joseph Holmes writes:
My favorite viewing light solution costs only about one seventh as
much as
the GTI desktop lightbox with dimmers, takes up no desk space, doesn't
flicker, and has colorimetrically better quality light, as well as
good
color temperature, but it is not very useful for viewing
I believe the Solux Task lamp accomplishes all the things Joe Holmes
wrote about, for about the same cost and no work. It wasn't available
at the time he wrote this.
Dave
I have an additional saved post from Joe Holmes regarding print
viewing lighting.
Joe Holmes writes:
The lighting thing isn't so hard to explain. The first point is that
if you want an image on a monitor to match the appearance of a print
or film that you hold next to it, you simply must make
Edwin,
Do you know if NikonScan 3.0 supports hi-bit export with the LS-30?
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Edwin Eleazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:41 PM
Subject: filmscanners: NikonScan 3.0 with LS-30 Ls-2000
Anyone else using 3.0
You appear to have deduced the cause of the scratches that appear
using the feeder. The film strip holder is much better in every
aspect except convenience:)) The feeder also doesn't get the film
flat enough! In other words, it's 'one-hour' quality, don't use it
unless you're just doing quick
and scratches as on the old scanners, or if this
has been improved, and if so, by how much. In addition, I'd like to
know if performance *with* ICE has improved when scanning Kodachrome
and BW films.
Can anyone help me with that?
Thanks,
Dave King
New York
Austin wrote:
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
results!
People never did this in the darkroom, so why do it in digital?
With one film term for
With one film term for transparencies and color management,
individual
film characteristics is exactly what you do get. *Effective* film
terms for color negative films will get closer to a specific
films'
characteristics, not further away, and the problem to solve is
ineffective film
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Dave wrote:
Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same
problems
with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if
this
has been improved, and if so, by how much.
Austin Franklin wrote:
I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are
color
managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer
etc. Those are
all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from
deterministic.
Too many variables, lighting,
Dave writes ...
... Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the
same problems with excessive dust and scratches as
on the old scanners, ...
The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust and
scratches ... that
Dave wrote:
Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether scans
performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same problems
with excessive dust and scratches as on the old scanners, or if
this
has been improved, and if so, by how much.
What problems did the old
Austin Franklin wrote:
I do not believe you can characterize a film such that you are
color
managing it in the same way you are with the monitor/printer
etc. Those are
all deterministic. Film is image dependant, and is far from
deterministic.
Too many variables, lighting,
Derek Clarke wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac Crawford) wrote:
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Dave wrote:
Nikon scanners. Specifically, I'd like to find out whether
scans
performed *without* ICE on the new scanners have the same
problems
with excessive dust and scratches as on
I suggest
you have a look at the recent thread on the topic of the use of
profiles in scanning and the relative merit thereof on the
colorsync
list.
Thanks. I will take a spin through the archives...but would you
mind
pointing me to where the list is?
Dave writes ...
The old scanners never did have problems with excessive dust
and scratches ... that is, no more than any other scanner.
shAf :o)
... my LS-30 without ICE compared to scans on my Agfa
T-2500 are quite different in terms of dust and scratches.
The Nikon sees
From: Isaac Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the record, I don't own a Nikon scanner, heck I don't own any
scanner right now... I'm using this forum as a means to figure out
what
it is I want to get. I have done darkroom work for years, and I use
two
film scanners at work. I have to say that I
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 6/10/2001 8:32:54 AM EST,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've never done critical comparisons of resolution between
them, as they both resolve grain pretty well, and seem about the
same
in terms of resolution.
It would be useful if you'd do a
It would be useful if you'd do a 2500 dpi and 2700 dpi scan of the
same bits of film, to demonstrate the effect you're talking about.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
I've just finished making comparison scans. Can someone give me
pointers how small to make the files? Or I could put larger
,
and smoothness than the corrected Nikon scan.
I would be happy to post these tiffs to a web site for others to see
and play with, but someone would have to volunteer the space.
Dave King
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In spite of this, it appears clear that the T-2500 doesn't focus
as well as the Nikon scan, and this is most of the reason that
the dust spots are different.
Regards,
Ed Hamrick
I've been playing with these two tiffs (sent to Ed) a bit more, and no
matter how I
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
films.
Dave King
- 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
I see the last snips never made it to the list. Did you get them
(sent directly to you)?
Dave
David, would you be kind enough to post the same two images that you
did
previously, but this time using the unsharp masking you feel best
glorifies the Agfa scan.
From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:45:13 -0400 Dave King
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Sorry Tony, but I don't agree with this. Neg films vary primarily
in
the mask layer.
But that seems to be a variable, since mask density appears to vary
according to processing
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm a REAL minimalist. I develop my own film, and make sure it has
NO
particulate matter on it after it is dry, and put it into ClearFile
holders
to keep dust off of them, then into a 3 ring SEALED notebook, and
into a
file cabinet. I use a filtered
From: Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about
halfway
down the page at this site:
http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
To me, the difference is astonishing, as if the Nikon image were
viewed
through a veil of haze, while the
From: Dan Honemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about
halfway
down the page at this site:
http://www.pytlowany.com/nikontest.html
One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure
don't see the astonishing difference you're
From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 07:33:35 -0700 Moreno Polloni ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I don't think anyone is trying to make super critical judgements
here.
To me
the scans need to be better matched before attempting to draw any
conclusions about scanner
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't
understand the
issue. What differences are we talking about here? Excellent
output
can be
obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only difference
that
seems
still
I just use 7.1.1 for the first time today and I'm very impressed with
the recent improvements to the cleaning and sharpening using
Fujichrome 100 on my LS-30. So then, hoping against hope, I scanned
one of my problem Kodachromes, but no luck. I isolated the problem
to the cleaning function.
Kodachrome has better dark storage than E-6. E-6 is better for use in
slide projectors, but any valuable transparency should be duped for
slide projection anyway.
Brian Eno (the musician) points out the most relevant issue regarding
the digital vs analogue archiving issue. He said something to
Austin Franklin wrote (among other things):
I think for around $2k, if you get one complete with Leafset
holders, latest
firmware (4.1) and in great working condition, nothing can touch it.
If you
need 4x5, then it's really the only under $7k option I would say.
If your
max is 120, then you
'Popular Photography' is to Photography as 'The Sound of Music' is to
Music.
ted orland
Robert Wright
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:53:25 +0200
From: Oostrom, Jerry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: LS-4000ED Dmax 4,2 or rather 2,3?
I just read in Popular Photography about a test
I use Frontier prints for my commercial clients who need quantity
prints. The requirement is to prepare an output size TIFF file at 300
dpi, and tagged sRGB. My studio system is calibrated using
ColorVision PhotoCal and Profiler Pro, and the Frontier prints are
practically identical to my 1160
Doing successive previews, I recently found I couldn't revert to the
start over point. How does one do this?
Dave
My 7.1.3 has a seperate control for Image Brightness and Gamma.
Image brightness will affect the blacks of the image, Gamma not so
much.
I often leave Black to .01 or so
Options
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Dave King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Vuescan Settings
| Doing successive previews, I recently found I couldn't revert to
the
| start over point. How does one do
.
Dave King
C-41 film has so much latitude that manufactures can rate it one to
two stops faster than the optimal speed and get away with it. But at
the optimal speed, all photographic qualities (grain size, resolution,
and color accuracy) is best. More exposure than best exposure is
less detrimental than
: Film grain
Dave King wrote:
...it's not really overexposing the film to rate it one
to two stops slower than the manufacture's recommendation.
This might work particularly well in a studio environment, but I'm
wondering
how it would work in direct sunlight. I'm tempted to try it, to get
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001 11:19:27 -0400 rafeb ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I also don't really believe in film-grain aliasing --
film grain is essentially non-periodic, or, more
accurately white noise -- ie, containing
an even distribution of frequency element
It's not though - it's pink
, or wasn't the Minolta CLE also sold in a different
skin
as a Leica?
Dave King wrote:
I'm a big Minolta CLE fan also. I sold my Leica M camera years
ago to
get one. It doesn't have the build quality of an M, and the auto
exposure shutter electronics can be finicky (don't shoot
Andrea,
The calibrated auto correction will try to match the chrome for color
in whatever state it's in, but it sets the end points (contrast) for a
good black and white. My guess is you're getting scans that are too
contrasty to correct. You can put contrast in, but if you take it out
you
Rafe, you are right on the money.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Raphael Bustin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
Is the criticism valid? Yeah, it
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000ED
Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) wrote:
I'm musing whether Nikon has a factory in the deep south of the
US.
I'm
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
Dave King wrote:
Rafe, you are right on the money.
Dave
Luckily, most lists aren't much about money. ;-)
Art
scanners that are capable of results that are essentially good
enough for any conceivable critical use with film up to medium format
size.
Dave King
At 10:41 PM 7/10/01 -0400, Dave King wrote:
Enjoy. This and the new Nikon are the first generation of CCD film
scanners that are capable of results that are essentially good
enough for any conceivable critical use with film up to medium
format
size.
I'm not sure I agree there, Dave
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
Art wrote:
Many moons ago, I was working on the concept of a system to allow
a 35mm
frame to be projected on a flatbed scanner surface. This could,
in
theory, allow for even a 600 dpi scanner to record a 35mm frame
at about
4800 x 7200 ppi,
The primary advantage of the Imacon design is the unfolded light path
correct? The mirrors can't be helping with the less expensive
scanners. Only absolute disadvantage to the straight path approach is
physical size of the scanner(?), and of course, in the case of the
Imacon, cost.
Dave
-
Quickpoint mounts available from Reel 3-D really work for the 35mm
curved slide problem. Glassless, very flat, and nearly full frame.
The mounts have strips of sticky adhesive top and bottom, you mount
the slide with a slight bend in the mount, then it pulls flat. Highly
recommended.
It is better in practice of course, but with a little forethought and
extra work that benefit can be negated.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon,
- Original Message -
From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
At 03:57 PM 7/13/01 -0400, Austin wrote:
The primary advantage of the Imacon design is the unfolded light
path
- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Test Imacon, Nikon.Polaroid
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 01:17:28 -0400 Dave King
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
If there are no mirrors in either
I disagree with him (Margulis) on one point however, and I consider
myself a color balance freak. Why? In an average color photograph,
global color contrast is maximized at one point only -- the most
accurate color balance possible for that scene. I just don't see
how one can get there working
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 9:32 AM
Subject: RE: Unsharp mask was Re: filmscanners: Getting started
question
He issued a challenge
(as he often
does) to these consultants to provide details of
- Original Message -
From: rafeb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 01:11 PM 7/16/01 -0400, Dave King wrote:
I disagree with him (Margulis) on one point however, and I consider
myself a color balance freak. Why? In an average color
photograph,
global color contrast is maximized at one point
It'll get better as more jobs are shot digitally. Then the repro
folks won't have as much incentive to sabotage jobs not scanned in
house since there's no film anyway.
Even with photographer supplied scans this behavior will eventually
backfire on honery and stubborn printers because clients
I was in the same boat as you, and of the same opinion, until I
downloaded a recent version of Vuescan. I'm very impressed with the
improvements Ed has made recently (I use an LS-30). There are still
occasions where Nikonscan seems to get the better range of colors with
chromes (after editing
I haven't been following this thread of late, but isn't there a
setting that takes longer but DOES NOT band at all? If so, why not
just use that? Epson printers frequently band at all but the slowest
settings, so that's what I always use. This would seem like a similar
situation?
Just
(profile comes in here), and high bit output.
I'm another one who prefers doing final edits on high bit files in PS.
Dave King
- Original Message -
From: David Corwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First thing I would is to calibrate the ss4000 using supplied
target. Print
out the documentation from
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
