[Curious]

I have noticed that my images are less sharp than others on Farktography (even after edge sharpening in my image editor). I’m not sure if that is the scanner or some other part of my workflow.

ok i read that then spent an hour doing more scans the net result of which is i can get decent resolution but definitely not sharp. and one application of “sharpen” in PS helps but “sharpen more” is too much. as far as color goes, well i was shooting film from seatle film works so the color was never that good to begin with.

the paperport software doesn’t have any of the dust removal stuff that i know of. and the bulk of what i have to scan is thirty years old. i suspect i’m going to have to get some gloves and some film cleaner (and a day or more) when this project is started.

as far as multiple frames at one time goes it’s almost a necessity given the large volume of negatives to be scanned. i’d much rather scan them all then sort than try going frame by frame, sorting as they are scanned. it’s not like i don’t have loads of crap in this computer anyway 🙂 thanks god for large HDDs and fast computers

[Curious]

every image loaded for me a few minutes ago, including UnstoppableDrew‘s. and they were there the last time i looked at the contest.

but to make sure i emptied cache and reloaded and all are there.

took a coupe of minutes though 🙂

[Curious]

yeah i remember printing 🙂 just tried some levels from both the fuji program and an ACDSee one i have. both did make the picture better. there is a fine line in what one can do without introducing artifacts/noise/crap. the fuji is much better at getting rid of noise. or what looks like noise. and you’re right about the auto part. it generally sucks.

over the rest of the weekend i’ll copy another set into the computer and play with them. bet PS would do better than the cheapy “comes with” stuff.

oh and that rest of the weekend is for those of you who have to work tomorrow and friday 🙂

[Curious]

I don’t know if the viewer program makes much difference. That scan doesn’t look terrible to me (except that it doesn’t look like they keep their scanner real clean), but it could maybe do with a little levels adjustment?

turns out i already have the fuji fine pix viewer on here but it won’t see the folder that these images are in. have to play with that. the default folder for downloading is my pictures and i don’t use that. the scans on under exposed pictures have some big lines in them and do look dirty overall.

as far as levels go … i try to not post process except for cropping occasionally and saving for web. yeah i know it’s ok but i’m trying to get everything done at the moment of exposure.

[Curious]

Curious you definitely win the weird bug contest for this week. What in the hell is that thing?!?

thanks, is there a separate prize for that? i’m guessing it’s a wasp of some sort given the body shape but 20 pages of GIS doesn’t return anything that looks like it. some of the parasitic wasps are close but no cigar.

maybe i’ll take it to the new insectarium and ask. could be a new species and i’ll get to name it.

farktography not only was a contributor to totalfark but the main impetus to getting my website running.

[Curious]

sleeping it’s fuji equipment at the local wal-mart. the CD has a fuji editing program but i didn’t install it. since i already have the fuji picture viewer thing on another computer guess it wouldn’t hurt to try it here. the fuji viewers came with the fuji point and shoot(s) that i have.

[Curious]

here’s a fly on a flower from the other CD. it’s 1818 x 1228 and roughly 900kb. that whole set is much better.

[Curious]

Damn, sorry to hear that, Curious. I’ve never been impressed with those picture CD’s…always seems like they’re scanned in at very low resolution, so I just stopped getting them after awhile.

my first entry is from the CD. didn’t install the software on the CD but used their viewer then used windows explorer to copy them. there were two sets of files and this was from the high res set. roughly 10 times the file size. did two rolls today both with CDs and the other is ok. it’s flowers shot using the macro mode on a 28-70 minolta lens. but as you say it isn’t great. it’s hardly good. will try scanning the negs later and see how that goes.

[Curious]

well to get one shot i wanted i had to resort to film and the bellows and still have to get them developed, scanned and uploaded.

Hurry! 😀

well they are done but i’m majorly disappointed in how they turned out. got the film done with prints and a CD to save on the scanning. not knowing how the CD was created i’m not sure if the resulting noisy/grainy pictures are due to my poor shooting or the % of enlargement from the negative. regardless i’m posting one.

[Curious]

well to get one shot i wanted i had to resort to film and the bellows and still have to get them developed, scanned and uploaded.

[Curious]

yes, although in general you have to be pretty far off the theme to get pulled.

one person is responsible for actually deleting the offending image but several of us offer opinions and help keep an eye on the contest(s).

and while it may be a thankless job it is an essential one.

[Curious]

super turtle

Uranus when you use the “img” tag your url has to end in .jpg to fetch the img. yours ended in “?v=0” which i stripped.

[Curious]

i’m so sorry for your loss.

there are no words that can convey my feelings but please be assured that i’ve known this pain and it will retreat to a dull throbbing in time.

[Curious]

Photography for Realestate. It’s got some good design advice.

that’s an interesting read. it also reminds us of the RL problems people encounter with the spread of digital imaging.

i found this part a bit humorous given their history. As a related note: Reuters, Adobe and Canon are working on technology that will detect doctored photos.

and that’s one sweet lens Analogy

[Curious]

ok it’s an aquatic turtle but how did you get the shot?

[Author]

Posts