Art, you've been confused I am afraid
Roman
At 18:59 27/03/2001 -0800, you wrote:
Michael Wilkinson wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Arthur Entlich" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(although test strips are available for C-41, I don't
: believe any of the manufacturers offer to read them)
At 09:08 25/03/2001 -0700, you wrote:
Roman: I agree with you and respect your obvious expertise... the key
words you
have written are "tweak the process" and follow the manufacturer's
recommendations... which most mini-labs with part time teenage help are
less likely
to do that a pro lab...
At 14:48 24/03/2001 +, you wrote:
Still, there is scope for variability in things like replenishment rates
altering halide content, water quality (I assume the Kodalk content is
left as
a variable to deal with this), and (from my tests and experience with BW)
agitation techniques and
At 12:00 24/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
I'm not interested in the recipie, I'm interested in the food, and, to
use the hoary old cliche, the proof is in the puddin. There are other
3rd party formulations out there, or at least there used to be, and
some of them are apt to be different from each
At 20:59 25/03/2001 +1000, you wrote:
"Mark T." [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a few supermarket brands down here, and it seems to be always
'Made
in Germany', so I had assumed it was Agfa..?
Huh. I thought most of the no-name brands in Oz were rebadged Fuji, but I
never knew for sure.
At 15:31 22/03/2001 -0800, you wrote:
I am doing this in the public forum, because I want it witnessed.
I am formally requesting from the list owner, Tony Sleep, that "Dicky"
Richard Corbett be permanently removed from this list. I have never, in
the years I have been on this list made such a
At 05:40 22/03/2001 -0800, you wrote:
What Ed needs
is someone to write his documentation and to screen his email. But, this
would probably require raising the price of VueScan and eventually becoming
just like most other software developers. Which do you want? I would
rather Ed consecrate
At 13:09 22/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Has Ed left this list? I hope not. But, please, think for a moment before
you follow Art Entlich's lead in condemning Ed.
I wish to defend Art accused of masterminding Ed's departure. There was
nothing wrong with Art's statement, I support it fully. We
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 the
naked eye) runs a clean process... however, what I noticed was that the grain
pattern in large areas of uniform density was much tighter and smoother in the
film from the custom
At 11:07 23/03/2001 -0800, you wrote:
Hi Roman,
Do you have the URL of the Windows Picture web site you
mentioned?
Thanks,
Eli
www.dl-c.com
At 18:30 23/03/2001 +, you wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 20:31:23 +1100 Roman =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kielich=AE?=
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Grain pattern is
dependant of the film structure, not developer.
Up to a point. The precise agents used and solvent action of a dev can make a
huge
if I may something good about Ed? He is skilled programmer and I have no
doubt he knows a lot about scanning. Now, what might be his reason to stay
around here? To learn about scanning? Probably not. He makes his living out
of Vuescan/vueprint and any input from the users is of high interest
At 22:45 21/03/2001 -0700, you wrote:
My Point? We had a discussion on this forum last fall, and I just wanted
to remind everyone... we are scanning film... same rules apply in this
game as in the darkroon prints game... the film processing is the key to
everything that happens afterward... if
dicky...say no more
At 08:32 22/03/2001 +, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Laurie Solomon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:35 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT more copyright questions
Yet another idiot. this is a SCANNING group. If
well said Art. I have noticed that Ed is still frequenting news groups,
which hold much more noise than filmscanners. Anyway, nobody is forced to
read all the traffic, if you don't like any particular OT, just skip it.
You're right, we had both (the group and Ed) benefit from discussions. BTW,
At 11:24 17/03/2001 +0100, you wrote:
Dears, after many months of 0 activity on digital photography ... I have
started again and hence here I am to bother you all ... I beg your pardon,
but I need your valuable help and advices.
I have found some negatives (B/W) on glass 4'x6' (inches) and I am
At 15:30 11/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Similarly, people who have support questions about VueScan should
e-mail me directly, not post the questions to the whole group. A lot of
the traffic on this newsgroup related to VueScan shouldn't really
be sent to the whole group, but to me directly.
I
No, Roxio, rebadged Adaptec is BUYING good programmes, like WinOnCD, which
is my favourite for CD burning, followed by Nero. I had good experience
with most of current Gear stuff. For direct disk copying try DiskJuggler.
ECDC is a royal pain and should be avoided like a plague. The upgrade is
At 21:28 9/03/2001 -0800, you wrote:
When I installed Win2K I found that it detected my modem and installed
the driver of the modem itself. I thought I might need to turn my house
upside down to find my modem driver diskette. So Win2K might actually has
all the drivers included for you not so
I run 3 PC at home and 3 at work, all using W2k. I will never go back. The
machines are from Pentium 166MMX (overclocked to 200), through Celeron 300
(466) to PIII 800, work various PII and PIII around 400 mark. Memory - the
most important think, get as much as you can squeeze. Mine are at
no, it has gone like a charm. still not sure, what it does.
At 11:19 27/02/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Has anyone had any errors when installing this? I got a "ComponentMoveData"
error #-115.
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
in Australia".
At 16:59 26/02/2001 -0500, you wrote:
You can get it at:
ftp://ftp.adobe.com/pub/adobe/photoshop/win/6.x/photoshop601up.exe
downloaded 40 minutes ago using wsftp, netscape wasn't helpful.
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
in Australia".
Micrografx Picture Publisher 8
At 09:19 19/02/2001 +, you wrote:
Guys Gals,
has anyone bumped into any software that gives the details of
a JPEG image header; ie. image size, date made, compression ratio et
cetera.
Thanks in advance.
Chris.
"Don't worry about the
GIF is smaller due to limited (256) number of colors, PNG does it much
better and supports even 24 bit color.
At 18:15 31/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
Hi,
Hi everyone,If you are storing lots of images its worth using Photoshops
LZW compression,If you have Photoshop that is .It will save a fair
LZW is used in TIFF as well as ZIP. Another good option is PNG.
At 21:35 31/01/2001 +, you wrote:
Hi everyone,If you are storing lots of images its worth using Photoshops
LZW compression,If you have Photoshop that is .It will save a fair bit
of space and wont degrade your hard won image
to me it's pola filter. if it were vignetting, then it should be
symmetrical "circle" in all 4 corners. in your case more effect on the left
indicates another factor (an angle of the sun rays). yonks ago I bought
58mm pola filter plus few rings, works with all my lenses 52 and 55 mm.
At 12:54 1/02/2001 +, you wrote:
PNG is NOT lossy! It has better algorithm (sees
vertical pattern, while GIF sees horizontal only). PNG can do anything up
to at least 24 bit color, it uses different than LZW compression (due to
patent restrictions). Actually it
At 21:36 29/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
And we now have the paperless office that was predicted 5 years ago.
Maris
exactly. you can still buy a brand new Nikon FM2, which is in production
for around 20 years now. My Canon camera of the same vintage is still doing
well. My flatbed is OK, so many
At 07:18 23/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
In one case, I picked up some negatives which demonstrated a very
long scratch across several frames which didn't show up in the prints
(which I use as pseudo-proofs). The significance of the scratch was
it should have showed in the prints, and my
At 22:10 18/01/2001 +1000, you wrote:
I'll have to photograph some target test prints to be more certain, but
Supra 100 looks little sharper and slightly less grainy than Superia 100 in
midtones. Strangely though, when I looked at grain in skies, Supra seemed
to have *more* grain than Superia
At 09:44 17/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
Roman,
I am reading this and laughing; but not at you. I am laughing because for
the life of me I cannot figure out what we are really arguing about in that
we are in agreement on most of the points. I agree that currently digital
photography at its present
At 22:38 16/01/2001 +1000, you wrote:
BTW speaking of supply and demand, I believe some of the latest minilabs
are actually scanning the film to print it onto photographic paper rather
than
using a more traditional optical printing method. That would seem to be a
ready-made boost to having
At 11:56 16/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
Ok, Thanks for the corrective clarification. Given this, I would concur
that my earlier speculation on how it might be possible to cross-process E-6
to obtain a negative without the color mask would not work. There are
obvious differences between E-6 and
At 08:35 16/01/2001 -0700, you wrote:
Mike,
going back to your question regarding cross processing. The only useful
case I had, was when we needed to copy architect's drawing. Plain color neg
was too soft, while e6 film in c41 gave us good contrast. colors were
distinctly different
At 23:21 16/01/2001 +, you wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:14:09 + Richard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've heard Fuji ProviaF was specifically designed for scanning.
It certainly wasn't designed for photography. At least not in the UK
between November
and May.
Regards
Tony Sleep
At 23:21 16/01/2001 +, you wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:09:27 -0600 Henry Richardson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Along these same lines, would it be possible to produce a positive film
that
has characteristics better suited to scanning, e.g., lower contrast and
maybe less density
At 23:21 16/01/2001 +, you wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:19:49 +1100 Roman =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kielich=AE?=
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
does anyone know, which feature of Kodak Supra makes it scanner friendly?
CYNIC
The marketing dept's engineering of the box it comes in? Don't forget,
this
right to desire and want films that are more suited and even
dedicated to scanning as well as to complain about the fact that this is not
happening.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roman Kielich
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 6:00 AM
one lens or two?
At 01:21 17/01/2001 +0200, you wrote:
Been reading dissection of the new Nikon's 4000/8000 press claims with
interest... but can I ask about its optics?
I noticed that its lens is 14 elements in the 8000, which seems an awful lot
of glass... now maybe this is great and
At 22:34 16/01/2001 +1000, you wrote:
"Roman Kielich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One Nikon LS30 buys at least 2 Nikon cameras.
I think you mean one LS2000 buys 2 Nikon cameras,
unless Nikon SLRs just got a lot cheaper than last I checked. ;)
Rob
LS30 was AUD1640, you can have Ni
At 17:59 15/01/2001 +, you wrote:
Im always interested in other users views on materials and equipment
which I use.
Im surprised to see Roman Kielich" [EMAIL PROTECTED] say that XP1
Dev was not compatible with C41 film because as I stated earlier I used
it for ALL my C41
At 14:17 15/01/2001 -0500, you wrote:
If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a drift on the part of
manufacturers to
provide film stock that will be usable for both digital and paper processing.
Kodak Supra has been portrayed as such a film.
does anyone know, which feature of Kodak Supra
At 14:09 15/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
Along these same lines, would it be possible to produce a positive film
that has characteristics better suited to scanning, e.g., lower contrast
and maybe less density in the shadows?
the whole beauty of scanning standard films is ability to have
At 15:07 15/01/2001 -0700, you wrote:
Perhaps a silly question, but then again, the only silly or stupid
question is the
one you don't ask This group seems to be fairly proficient in the
technical
sides of both film scanning and film processing... The question.. would it
not be
possible to
At 12:10 15/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
I am not a U.S. lawyer; I am a professional commercial photographer by
occupation.
I am neither new to the principles modern color photography nor ignorant of
the history and purposes of the orange mask. I was merely trying to point
out in as inoffensive
At 16:09 15/01/2001 -0600, you wrote:
What you say is more or less the case. I do not think it is possible to
OPTIMIZE any given film emulsion so as to meet the necessary criteria and
needs of both digital and traditional. What is being done now is an attempt
to reach a compromise in the areas
Laurie,
E6 goes like that -
first developer - BW negative (silver based)
stop/reversal - stops the first developer and makes the remaining
unexposed silver salts "eligible" for color dev
color dev - reduces the remaining AgX and forms a positive color image (at
the end of this stage, whole
At 09:14 15/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
Gee, for someone accusing another of "sounding like a US Lawyer", I
believe you are the first person I've encountered on the internet who
feels the need to protect their name with a registered trademark.
Further, since this is a filmscanner group, it
At 17:31 14/01/2001 +, you wrote:
Roman,
Ilford XP1 developer had different composition to plain C41. The newer XP2
requires C41.
You _could_ use C41 with XP1, but Ilford recommended their own special XP1
developer for best results. They now seem to have stopped selling special
you sound like a first class US lawyer. Indeed, the negative films were,
are and will be designed primarily to be copied onto a positive medium, to
wit a photographic paper.
The reason for the orange mask is an unwanted absorption of a cyan and a
magenta dye in the negative film. It was
At 16:33 14/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
I clicked on the URL in your message and it opened OK. Having tried it, I
really don't recommend the procedure in the site though.
well, it does work today, but it was not yesterday. Must be weekend.
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
At 10:33 15/01/2001 +, you wrote:
The reason appears to be that they were not selling enough XP dev to
make it worth making it.
XP1 developer was not compatible with C41 films, although the opposite was
possible. cost has nothing to do with it.
XP1 was also being sold as a film which could
Ilford XP1 developer had different composition to plain C41. The newer XP2
requires C41.
~~
When XP1 film dev was sold by Ilford it was my first choice in developer
for all our colour film.
We found that the slightly longer dev time of 5 minutes and the
presumably
At 07:37 13/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
Improper film storage and handling prior to processing
plays a big part in the consistency of color and density
characteristics of the orange mask.
not exactly. what you call the orange mask is in reality the mask plus an
unwanted image. properly stored
At 11:52 12/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr/DigitalPhoto/derCurveMeister/index.htm
404 - not found
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
in Australia".
tomasz writes ...
Some guy dealing with professional scanners told me that
even by minor adjustments in Photoshop (changing colour, levels,
contrast) you loose information on colour of you file and as a
result you get a
lesser quality file as compared to adjustments made with the
I got very fine results scanning slides on the S20 using Vuescan 6.3.15.
So I know it can do good contrast/color saturation. But, when I scan
Kodak Gold 100-6, the colors are significantly less saturated with reduced
contrast in the image compared to a commercial print and my memory of the
At 20:19 1/12/2000 +1000, you wrote:
I have found (thanks to the folks in the PSP newsgroup) a filter in PSP7
which looks *really* useful. It's an edge preserving smooth. It seems to
work really well to remove grain without losing focus in the image.
Rob
does it work in Photoshop? is it
Rob,
negs and slides are very alike. Both use silver halides, and multiple layer
design (2-3 layers for one band, varied speed). Even films like Astia 100 -
3 yellow, 3 magenta, 3 cyan, plus auxiliary. This is a common concept.
Spectral sensitivity varies between films, so the spectral
At 23:52 29/11/2000 +1000, you wrote:
Sure, but I was thinking of the photomicrographs which were shown a while
ago. The colour neg showed a very large variation in the sizes of dye
clouds and the clouds appeared as very sharply defined grains, while the
Provia was amorphous. My question
At 20:22 15/11/2000 +, you wrote:
Hi Chris.
At risk of starting World War 3, what is the resolution of Chemical
Film?
it depends, how do you measure it, or how do you express it?
Was this an idle enquiry, or is it meant to imply some comparison with
pixels and digital
images?
At 23:03 16/11/2000 +1000, you wrote:
Roman Kielich® [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if it is not visible, then it is not light. We call it radiation -
infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, etc. Only light is visible, by definition.
Not to be too picky here, but infra-red and ultraviolet radiation
At 14:39 10/11/2000 +1000, you wrote:
No. But then I don't always get jaggies on my machine either. The fact
that your LS30 has a different BIOS and Nikonscan version makes a direct
comparison difficult. It's possible that your memory manager may help as
well.
what stops you from flashing
At 10:10 7/11/2000 +1000, you wrote:
Mind you I'm very tempted to buy a UDMA100 drive now that I have a UDMA100
interface,
and that *would* be a bigger drive...
BTW, I am happy enough with Nikon software, however, Vuescan has
interesting ability to give very good scans from contrasty negs.
At 09:05 6/11/2000 +1000, you wrote:
Now that I have the hard drive with with UDMA 66 I'll have to see if it
makes any difference to the behaviour of Nikonscan...
Rob
Tell us, Rob, what have you got? Looks, yours is bigger than mine. ;-{)
BTW, I am happy enough with Nikon software, however,
At 22:05 26/10/2000 +0200, you wrote:
Yes, Evan I have tried and I had been in contact with other people who
tried.
My results (and those of the others) where good.
Anyhow ... it seems like the results we have obtained are not assessed by
Nikon.
It is like Nikon couldn't grant the results to
At 23:24 20/10/2000 +0100, you wrote:
defrag, kill all that stuff running in the background, reboot, try to write
to HD first, try program that creates extra cache.
D'you think I didn't try all that?
I knew, you'd say that :-{)
All what stuff running in the background?
I close down what I
I must be the bravest here. I did flash my mobo (several times), Tekram
SCSI card, a modem (back and forth - K56-V90), a video card, and
Panasonic 7502 CDR. Never had a problem. Just read the text file and follow
religiously. I know that it is possible to flash HP CDR with Sony firmware
to
Rob,
Kodachromes are the most transparent to IR. Just look at the spectral
properties of the cyan dye. Kodachromes have significantly steeper
downslope in the red than any other slide film, not to mention any neg. I
am talking about near IR, just from 700 nm up. Further into IR, all the
films
of Fuji publication, that may help you. Next time have more
guts and sign your mail with your real name.
At 23:24 27/09/2000 +0100, you wrote:
Roman Kielich® wrote:
RMS is a standard deviation from measurement of density D=1 on a
photographic film using a microdensitometer with aperture of 48
RMS is a standard deviation from measurement of density D=1 on a
photographic film using a microdensitometer with aperture of 48 microns.
Then the result is multiplied by 1000, to obtain a number (like 4, or
whatevver). So it has the same unit as the optical density.
Negative films have rms
71 matches
Mail list logo
