[Curious]

Eventually that the guy that runs Digg had to step in and made the statement ‘our community has spoken, they would rather we go down fighting than bow to the MPAA.’

Kevin Rose founder of digg and former tech tv guy used to have a segment on hacks regularly. lots of the *cough*hack here*cough* stuff when he was on tech tv. not real surprising he went against the MPAA.

[Curious]

re number three — isn’t the wedding day typically referred to as the brides day? and if so then the shot works because she is the prime focus of the picture.

two is good as a scene setter.

and i’m with Zeke on number one. however if they were facing the camera it would be ok. out of the dark and into the light, so to speak.

[Curious]

well it’s ordered. i had told my self (and others) that i wasn’t going to buy any more computer hardware, cameras, etc. for the foreseeable future. but being the gadget junky that i am … well maybe when the results are printed it will all be worth while. my sister gave me a dry mount press for christmas (an older one she had) and a bunch of supplies for it.

anyway i’ll no longer have any excuse for not scanning the film that lurks in various closets.

and it will be another incentive to stop smoking since the saving from that would pay for the scanner in three months.

thanks sleeping for the link to the rebate (form printed when placing the order), your input and the contact sheet test.

also thanks to schnee and Elsinore for your input.

[Curious]

The disadvantage of this compared to the film holders, at least if you want the individual pictures instead of a contact sheet, is that it won’t automatically extract them – you’d have to select each one manually or scan the whole thing and crop each one out later.

first thanks for experimenting. i’d thought of the downside but as you well know there are advantages to contact sheets. what i’m thinking is sort of a “thumbnail” image via the contact sheet which would make for much faster sorting. i have a tendency to shot multiple exposures that have little variation in composition or exposure. also i shot a lot of crap. looking through those holders the other day re-affirmed that. if i did a run of “contact” sheets it would make selecting for actual archiving easier. also it might give me clues on how well any particular negative might scan. ie under/over exposed, not really sharp, dull picture, etc. quite frankly if i had to scan each and every frame i’ve ever exposed the burn out factor would kick in fairly soon. at one time i was only paying for raw film, developing and printing were free. a benefit of a part time job in a b/w darkroom. the net result was lots of stuff that not only didn’t get printed then but isn’t worth more than a cursory glance now. there are however some gems in all that stuff and those should be made available.

anyway thanks again. that experiment convinced me that i’ll get enough use from the scanner to justify the cost.

[Curious]

I’m a little leary of the scanners that can do both transparent and reflective media, and the ones that scan more than one image at a time. On that last point, I question the mechanical tolerances.

sleeping before chunking down my hard earned dollars one last question. i looked at your scanner on the espon site and it seems to use holders very similar to the 4990. have you ever tried using plastic film holder sheets and the 8×10 transparency thing instead of their mechanical holders? or simply laying the plastic strip holder on the glass and closing the lid? basically what one would do if physically printing a contact sheet. i’m thinking if that works you could crop out the frames you like ignoring the others. assuming the software didn’t separate the frames for you. there is the potential problem of the plastic (two layers of it) which with a contact sheet obviously doesn’t matter.

[Curious]

congrats Analogy, bet the prizes were a lot like the farktography ones too 🙂

[Curious]

so my fire truck at 3384/14 = 241 dpi or a marginal print at 11×14. that assumes the scan was any good to begin with.

did the resize thing in PS (almost choked my computer even with a gig of RAM) and then looked at the results in ACDSee at 100% and now see what you mean. and you’re absolutely right a print from a negative would be better. having printed a lot of 35mm b/w up to poster size it’s the way to go for the best results.

does this mean i now have to carry the DSLR and the film camera?

anyway thanks for all your help.

and thank you to all the others that helped.

it looks like i’m going to have to get off more money than i was expecting – make that hoping- to get good results. i really do want to get all my old stuff digitized so i can use some of it. and besides not having the room a darkroom equipped for 4×5 with a color head was $3500 last time i checked.

[Curious]

sleeping i’ve been trying to figure printing resolution from this scanning resolution calculator that was linked to from the PSAEF the other day. i get confused converting pixels to dpi. my monitor is 96 dpi so if i use 1024 in pixels … ?? if i measure the fire truck on screen which is 793 pixels it’s 12.5 inches.

am i confusing both of us or just me?

all the calculations on that site end up with files sizes that are 8 times more than yours (assuming 24 bit RGB) or mine. even allowing for the 2400 vs. 4800 scan. when i actually use the ruler and measure yours collapsed it’s (roughly) 8.5 x12.5 which means a 16 x 24 is a fourfold increase in area covered.

hope you don’t mind but i downloaded the image and am playing with it in ACDSee viewer which tells me the % of magnification.

[Curious]

i’m impressed by all of these. some really good shots. it rained here and was very quiet for the forth.

[Curious]

sleeping i can’t find where you said which scanner you are using. your scan on my screen at 803×534 looks perfect as is. when expanded to 6880×4575 not so much. however your file size is <8MB which seems a bit low for that dpi. or maybe not now that i think about it. my fire truck expanded is half the total pixel wide and roughly half the file size. which given that yours is 4800 and mine is 2400 makes sense.

yeah i’m rambling and writing out load while i try to figure all this out.

Elsinore an inch is the short side of a 35mm neg. if that means anything.

[Curious]

I usually use an edge-sharpening workflow. Google for “sharpen only edges” or something like that.

did that and now have to buy another book 🙂 Photoshop 7 Artistry: Mastering the Digital Image (Paperback) by Barry Haynes (Author) {info from amazon.com}

but wait — i have adobe’s classroom in a book for PS 7 which has a section on that. now to finish the c/net learning CD for PS7 then do the adobe book. no one said there would be homework.

also did a quick check of my scanning resolution settings. scanner is supposed to be 4800 dpi but the best setting available in negative/slide scanning is 2400 dpi and only 600 dpi in reflective. odd that. but the 2400 dpi setting produces files in the 9.5 MB range which should be ok for the printer i have. an epson large format printer is 2 grand and completely out of the question. especially since sam’s club now does larger sizes for next to nothing.

thanks for posting the links Elsinore they helped.

[Curious]

sleeping those linked scans had no post processing but i’ll try what you suggested later.

did a q&d calculation and have 1200+ b/w 35mm negs, <100 6x6 or 6x9 and <50 4x5. color negs and slides would add another 200 to 300 frames of the seatle film works stuff. and i literally have no idea how many frames of drug store processed color film i have. gobs and gobs but that isn't too exact.

[Curious]

just for your edification here’s a scan of a old fire truck and one of a house and another of the same house from a different angle.

all those are 2.5 to 3.3 MB and much bigger than screen size. while they look ok reduced you can see some real obvious flaws full size. the two “color” ones were shot on seatle film works transfer stock. the get both slides and negs stuff they used to sell many years ago. while the colors from the slides looks shitty i have printed that house from the negs and it does ok.

schnee that house is/was in webberville and i went there several times either alone or when my sister visited. lots of good pics from there and many good memories. the fire truck was on a farm south of austin but i don’t remember exactly where.

and before you all call me on it — yes the neg was reversed. ooopsy.

[Curious]

personally endorsements are good to know Elsinore and i’m glad you added the bit about linux. while i’m discouraged by my dual boot failures recently the long range goal is to switch to linux.

[Curious]

thanks sleeping that price is $90 less than newegg.

Being able to scan 4 or 5 film strips instead of 2 is a big plus in my book – half as much fiddling with film holders….

try one frame at a time 🙁

[Author]

Posts