OT: Anyone have a digital camera they'd like to sell?
Ginny Favers
found out the 35mm Canon Joe has won't work because one of my things I
want to make needs to be printed on three life size panels and you just
can't do that affordably without using digital.
I'd even rent something good for a year and return it to you. I'm not
traveling with it, it's all going to be studio work.
~Amanda
Ginny Favers
Yes, I'm replying to my own post. Yes, I'm panhandling for art
supplies. Aw, forget it. I found a website called "It Doesn't Matter
What Kind of Camera You Have" with this guy ranting about great
photographers use anything at hand and what a bunch of twits guys are
for trying to recreate Ansel Adams' work by buying more and more lenses.
~Amanda
Keane
What are you going to use it for, and how much resolution do you need?
I've got a G2 that's been relegated to the closet... (It has
sentimental value, and I'd want it back, but as far as I know, it
still works.) It's only a 4MP camera, but it has very good
image quality...
It has some drawbacks in real-life, but if you're only going to
use it for studio work, then it makes little difference.
Keane
--
When stars are born, They possess a gift or two,
One of them is this, They have the power to make a wish come true...
-- Wishes
Visit my site: http://keanespics.com
Ginny Favers
I'm shooting "tableaux" i.e. landscapes made out of people, in
character. There is one shot that I can't imagine how I'll get it
without the person being in motion, but the rest the models can hold the
poses still. All indoors on sets - Joe's doing the lighting design for
me, so we match what the camera needs.
Alternatively, it's been suggested I use his old Canon AE-1 35mm manual
camera and pay to have the negatives scanned to digital files. Do you
have any experience with doing that?
My main concern is the integrity and sharpness of the images if they get
blown up to life size panels, which for a show is how I would want to
display them. I found some online places that will print the sizes I
need on canvas for around $100 per image, but I'm not sure at all how to
manage the files on my end, to ensure those enlargements will be of high
quality.
Does any of that make sense?
Maybe you should email me, ginny favers at g mail dot com, so we don't
bore the pants off all of Usenet. ;-)
~Amanda
Rudeney
We went to WDW with some friends one year and the husband is a
professional photographer (mostly doing stills for advertisements). He
brought the crappiest looking little point-and-shoot Canon 35mm camera
that sold at Walmart for $30. I couldn't believe a "pro" would use
something like that, but he came back with some really great shots. On
in particular was taken at the front of DHS after a rain storm. He
photographed the reflection of the lights in the puddles on the street
and it was just amazing. It looked like some sort of modern art collage
done in Photoshop, but it was the "real deal".
--
- RODNEY
Next WDW Vacation?
Who knows!
Need to know more about RADP (rec.arts.disney.parks)?
JerryD(upstateNY)
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Keane
True if you don't have the pixels, the worse the printed print looks,
but don't get hung up on the number of pixels a camera has.
A 8MP camera with very good image quality will still make a
better enlargement than a 12MP camera with lousy image
quality...
Also keep in mind, that the more receptors you have on a sensor of
any particular size introduces more noise, which becomes a big
problem when simulating higher ISO speeds. Many cameras, most
notably Point and Shoots, have terrible noise problems above speeds
as low as ISO 400...
Disney Pix
know what you need and the size of image/type of image to get them. After
that work back to find the camera to fit THEIR needs because in the end your
needs mean very little if you can make the prints.
Rob
"Ginny Favers" <ginny...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hi2e0r$d7j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Ginny Favers
you all, I've figured out Joe's old Canon AE1 or Pentax will be fine and
then I'm going to have the negatives professionally scanned to digital
for when it's time to print.
Long road ahead, but this was the first step!
I was actually tempted to buy an old view camera and play with that, but
I think that was a little ambitious. Someday.
I'm relieved there's no need to go out and buy things. :-)
~Amanda
Dillon Pyron
These were shot with a 35mm and processed at Walgreen's. I got the
disk along with the prints.
http://pyron.org/USGP_2006.html
OTOH, if you still need a camera, ping me. To a friend, real cheap if
you want a ~2003 Sony.
--
- dillon I am not invalid
I love my country, It's my government I fear.
Hey, turnabout's fair play.
Ginny Favers
> [Default] Thus spake Ginny Favers <ginny...@gmail.com>:
>
>> I'm warning you, I'm extremely poor. But it's for the sake of art. I
>> found out the 35mm Canon Joe has won't work because one of my things I
>> want to make needs to be printed on three life size panels and you just
>> can't do that affordably without using digital.
>>
>> I'd even rent something good for a year and return it to you. I'm not
>> traveling with it, it's all going to be studio work.
>>
>> ~Amanda
>
> These were shot with a 35mm and processed at Walgreen's. I got the
> disk along with the prints.
>
> http://pyron.org/USGP_2006.html
>
> OTOH, if you still need a camera, ping me. To a friend, real cheap if
> you want a ~2003 Sony.
Thanks, Dillon. I am going to use one of Joe's old 35mm's after all.
Turns out there is a way to have the negatives scanned and it will
render better quality large prints than a digital photo could, so that's
perfect. I appreciate the offer, though!
~Amanda
Dillon Pyron
Be careful which scanner you get, if you buy your own. Many of them
are crap, and some are worse. Bad or inconsistent color is the main
complaint, with many also talking about vignetting or cross over.
Disney Wizard the Fantasmic!
Can you recommend a negative/reversal scanner? I'll be making the
investment soon, and need medium format capability and uncut 35mm roll
ability as well, but those are less important that superb image quality.
My first order of business is scanning thousands of 3D, the equivalent
of 35mm twoframe panorama, the actual being four simultaneous shutter
release frames from Nishika 3D, and Nimslo 3D. which must remain
uninterrupted for alignment purposes.
Dillon Pyron wrote:
> [Default] Thus spake Ginny Favers <ginny...@gmail.com>:
> [negative scanning]
>
>>Dillon Pyron carefully considered:
> Be careful which scanner you get, if you buy your own. Many of them
> are crap, and some are worse. Bad or inconsistent color is the main
> complaint, with many also talking about vignetting or cross over.
--
'Tis better to learn by mistakes of others,
erroneous examples as provided,
than to learn by mistakes made for oneself.
A bakers dozen out of 12 Wizards agree: "And far less painful." --(o=8> Wiz.
Keane
<wiz@FANTASMIC!disneywizard.com> wrote:
>Keane:
>Can you recommend a negative/reversal scanner? I'll be making the
>investment soon, and need medium format capability and uncut 35mm roll
>ability as well, but those are less important that superb image quality.
>My first order of business is scanning thousands of 3D, the equivalent
>of 35mm twoframe panorama, the actual being four simultaneous shutter
>release frames from Nishika 3D, and Nimslo 3D. which must remain
>uninterrupted for alignment purposes.
The only one (or two) I can recommend is the Epson Perfection V750-M
Pro Color Scanner. The only reason I can recommend it, is because
it's the one I'm currently using. It's overkill though, I'm sure the
Epson Perfection V700 Photo Color Scanner would serve just as well.
They're identical, except the V750 has coated optics, and can fluid
mount a negative.
Note there are probably other (cheaper) scanners that can do medium
format, but I haven't used any of them, and thus can't recommend them.
You might be able to get away with uncut 35mm on the V7x0, but I'm not
sure about double-frame. (You can scan up to a 8x10
negative/transparency, so I don't see why you wouldn't be able to scan
double-frames.)
Nimslo. I think I have one. Shoots 4 half-frames, right? :-)
Anyway, here's the link to my review of the scanner. (This link has
been posted before.) It's the same scanner that scanned in those
Marineland pics.
http://keanespics.com/scantest2.htm
>Dillon Pyron wrote:
>> [Default] Thus spake Ginny Favers <ginny...@gmail.com>:
>> [negative scanning]
>>
>>>Dillon Pyron carefully considered:
>
>> Be careful which scanner you get, if you buy your own. Many of them
>> are crap, and some are worse. Bad or inconsistent color is the main
>> complaint, with many also talking about vignetting or cross over.
Also make sure it comes with decent scanning software, or consider
third party scanning software... (For instance, ICE is really
desirable unless you're in a dust free environment...)
Erwin M.
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:14:22 -0800, "Disney Wizard the Fantasmic!"
> <wiz@FANTASMIC!disneywizard.com> wrote:
>
>> Keane:
>> Can you recommend a negative/reversal scanner? I'll be making the
>> investment soon, and need medium format capability and uncut 35mm roll
>> ability as well, but those are less important that superb image quality.
>> My first order of business is scanning thousands of 3D, the equivalent
>> of 35mm twoframe panorama, the actual being four simultaneous shutter
>> release frames from Nishika 3D, and Nimslo 3D. which must remain
>> uninterrupted for alignment purposes.
>
> The only one (or two) I can recommend is the Epson Perfection V750-M
> Pro Color Scanner. The only reason I can recommend it, is because
> it's the one I'm currently using. It's overkill though, I'm sure the
> Epson Perfection V700 Photo Color Scanner would serve just as well.
> They're identical, except the V750 has coated optics, and can fluid
> mount a negative.
>
> Note there are probably other (cheaper) scanners that can do medium
> format, but I haven't used any of them, and thus can't recommend them.
> You might be able to get away with uncut 35mm on the V7x0, but I'm not
> sure about double-frame. (You can scan up to a 8x10
> negative/transparency, so I don't see why you wouldn't be able to scan
> double-frames.)
We have the Epson V500, which is about the cheapest Epson you'll find
that can do medium format, and we bought it to process a couple hundred
medium format negatives dating from around 1913 to the mid-50s. (DW was
helping to clean out her great-uncle's house last winter when he got
moved into an assisted living facility and found them in the attic, in
remarkable condition.) It did a fantastic job. We did lose a bit from
each frame near the short edges, but that was because I set the aspect
ratio on the scan for making 4x6 prints -- not the scanner's fault at
all. And given the source, it was much more important to get *something*
rather than making sure that every square centimeter got scanned.
I'm currently doing DW's 35mm negatives from her days as an amateur
photographer. Cut strips (up to 6 frames) can be placed in the carrier
such that the software can automatically pick out the frames, but
without the carrier, uncut strips would be no problem as long as you
could keep it aligned properly on the bed. I'm down to a couple of dozen
uncut rolls to do for her, and I haven't decided yet if I'll try to do
them uncut or if I'll cut them into 4-frame strips.
The difference between it and the V7x0 series that Keane mentioned is
that the transparency area is smaller, if I'm remembering correctly.
(I'd need to go home and lift the lid to verify.) You can only do up to
4x10 (or maybe 6x10 -- I just remember that it's not a full 8x10) on it
if that's the case. I was able to do two medium format frames at a time
without the carrier, placing them along the length of the bed.
Rudeney
biggest problem I have scanning negatives on a flatbed is that the
carrier often does not eliminate the film curl. I have had better
results placing the negative directly on the scanner's glass, then using
a thin piece of glass (from a picture frame) on top. Just a hint in
case anyone else runs into this issue.
Dillon Pyron
>I have an older Epson 4180 scanner that does transparencies. The
>biggest problem I have scanning negatives on a flatbed is that the
>carrier often does not eliminate the film curl. I have had better
>results placing the negative directly on the scanner's glass, then using
>a thin piece of glass (from a picture frame) on top. Just a hint in
>case anyone else runs into this issue.
I've been using B&H Photo & Video for my stuff for years and they've
never let me down. I'm pretty sure that they not only have what you
need, but can honestly tell you what it is without ripping you off.