[STOCKPHOTO] travel-prints
phillip roullard
From their terms, it is a 50-50 agreement, but it also says that their
agreement is for the use of images to them royalty-free. Rather
conflicting terms. I guess it means that they can use your images
royalty-free for their purposes but they do charge clients. Can anybody
clarify that term for me?
thanks, Phillip Roullard, San Diego
--
"We...are not really free if we can't control our own government and its policies.
And we will never do that if we remain ignorant –"
www.philliproullardphotography.com
Specializing in gardens, insects, vegetables,
herbs, native plants and landscape photography
www.zumapress.com
companion animals, energy, places
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STOCKPHOTO/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STOCKPHOTO-...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Bob Croxford
Nothing conflicting about them at all.
When you look at their web site you discover that they are offering
the images to whoever happens to log in for as little as 25 cents
(US) each for almost any usage and the photographer gets 50% of that
less any charges that PayPal take for processing the payment.
On making a whois check, you will discover that it appears to be run
by someone named Jon Olstead from an apartment in Los Angeles.
If you want to get conned or scammed why don't you save yourself time
and just send me a check for $1,000?
Bob Croxford
On 30 Jan 2006, at 16:19, phillip roullard wrote:
> Anybody have an opinion on Travel-Prints.com?
>
> From their terms, it is a 50-50 agreement, but it also says that
> their
> agreement is for the use of images to them royalty-free. Rather
> conflicting terms. I guess it means that they can use your images
> royalty-free for their purposes but they do charge clients. Can
> anybody
> clarify that term for me?
>
> thanks, Phillip Roullard, San Diego
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Gary Crabbe
I got their email as well.
My first reaction was straight out of 1982 valley-speak:
"Ewww! Like fer sure; Gag me with a pitchfork!"
Some companies just naturally oooze more slime than others, & this one
requires hip-waders and a 10 foot pole. Yellow police "Caution" tape
wouldn't hurt either.
Just my opinion.....
Cheers,
Gary.
At 1/30/2006 02:32 PM, you wrote:
>Dear Philip
>
>Nothing conflicting about them at all.
>
>When you look at their web site you discover that they are offering
>the images to whoever happens to log in for as little as 25 cents
>(US) each for almost any usage and the photographer gets 50% of that
>less any charges that PayPal take for processing the payment.
>
>On making a whois check, you will discover that it appears to be run
>by someone named Jon Olstead from an apartment in Los Angeles.
>
>If you want to get conned or scammed why don't you save yourself time
>and just send me a check for $1,000?
>
>Bob Croxford
>
>www.atmosphere.co.uk
--
Sincerely,
Gary N. Crabbe
Enlightened Images
(925) 288-1461
(925) 288-1462 : fax
http://www.enlightphoto.com
email: ga...@enlightphoto.com
NEW PORTFOLIOS:
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/new0508/0508-1.htm
http://www.enlightphoto.com/webpages/WinePrints/wine01.htm
-
186,000 miles/sec: Not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
IMAGINE THAT:
Every sixty minutes, the universe expands
by one billion miles in all directions.
Jeff Greenberg
and just send me a check for $1,000?
> Bob Croxford
Solicitation. You haven't made a promise to break.
jeffgreenberg
Douglas de Weese
company do it for you. Sometimes this option is cheaper in the long run.
There are several companies which provide these services. Type in 'scanning
photos' or 'keywording pictures' and you will find various suppliers.
Good luck.
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STOCK...@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:32 AM
To: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Digest Number 2631
There are 12 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Scanner Suggestions?
From: "Greg Vaughn" <gr...@gregvaughn.com>
2. Re: Scanner Suggestions?
From: "Dr. P. Kumar" <drpk...@rediffmail.com>
3. Re: Scanner Suggestions?
From: "Dr. P. Kumar" <drpk...@rediffmail.com>
4. RE: Scanner Suggestions?
From: Lauren Grabelle <lgp...@hotmail.com>
5. RE: Re: Scanner Suggestions?
From: "Brian Seed" <bs...@sbcglobal.net>
6. RE: RE: Scanner Suggestions?
From: "Brian Seed" <bs...@sbcglobal.net>
7. Re: RE: Scanner Suggestions?
From: David Kilpatrick <icon...@btconnect.com>
8. Re: RE: Scanner Suggestions?
From: Ken Barber <ken.b...@gmail.com>
9. Re: RE: Scanner Suggestions?
From: David Kilpatrick <icon...@btconnect.com>
10. Re: Scanner Suggestions?
From: "Dr. P. Kumar" <drpk...@rediffmail.com>
11. travel-prints
From: phillip roullard <roullard...@sdccu.net>
12. Re: travel-prints
From: Bob Croxford <bobcr...@tesco.net>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 08:03:38 -0800
From: "Greg Vaughn" <gr...@gregvaughn.com>
Subject: Re: Scanner Suggestions?
> Digital Ice does soften sharpness a little, a price I am prepared to pay.
If you are using Nikon Scan software, you can restore the sharpness by using
just a little of that program's USM; Tim Grey & John Shaw recommend 20-10-3,
while I take it down a little from that to 15-5-3. There's a very good
article by John on using Nikon Scan posted at
http://www.photosafaris.com/Articles/ScanningImagesWithNikonScan.asp . As
John notes, this is not Sharpening the image in the usual sense, but
bringing back what is lost when using ICE. Similar results can be had by
using the Capture Sharpen settings in PhotoKit Sharpener
(www.pixelgenius.com).
> And, the 9000 doesn't seem to hold b&w film flat enough for edge to edge
> sharpness, but then I am mounting certain color slides between glass where
> edge to edge sharpness is really important.
A good number of people report problems in getting edge-to-edge sharpness
with Nikon scanners, especially the Coolscan 4000. An alternative to glass
mounts are the Loersch Quickpoint slide mounts - no glass, inexpensive and
they snap together fairly easily. The trick when using them is to give the
film a slight reverse curl when putting it in these mounts, which usually
results in film flat enough for the Coolscan. Info about the Loersch mounts
is at http://www.loersch.com/sub/211.html . When you order, ask for the
1.9mm snap-together kind, not the ones with the pins made for machine
mounting.
- Greg
Gr...@GregVaughn.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:26:48 -0000
From: "Dr. P. Kumar" <drpk...@rediffmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scanner Suggestions?
In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, "Lauren Grabelle" <lgphoto@h...>
wrote:
In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Seed" <bseed@s...> wrote:
Dr. Kumar recommended the Nikon 9000ED and I second what he says.
This scanner only works with film up to 6cm wide but it does clean
Kodachrome.
Pawn the family jewels, but get the 9000ED, or possibly a second-
hand Nikon 4000 if you don't often scan Kodachrome. If you get a
lesser scanner you will regret it later.
Brian~ Can you clarify what the 9000 does differently than the 4000
when it comes to Kodachrome? I am about to start scanning my
library and have a majority of Kodachrome slides. I also presently
have a 4000ED. Thanks.
-----------------------
A bit of search around got me the following comments ... not anymore
helpful than what we already know ... :
Digital ICE uses an IR beam to find surface imperfections. The
problem is that some Kodachrome dyes are opaque in the IR, which
renders the method useless. Also, the narrowband LEDs (of the
erstwhile scanners) see the colors of Kodachrome differently from
the eye. Though such different color rendition can be corrected
using an appropriate profile, but such corrections are usually
pretty strong and may degrade the end-scans somewhat.
ICE4 ROC (Restoration of Original Color) on the LS-9000 has
additional functionality with regard to Kodachrome. Allegedly, the
Super Coolscan 9000 ED DIGITAL ICE Advanced Technology contains a
special optimized version of DIGITAL ICE Technology called "DIGITAL
ICE Professional Technology", which probably provides more robust
compatibility to work with KODACHROME film types.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:05:45 -0000
From: "Dr. P. Kumar" <drpk...@rediffmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scanner Suggestions?
In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, "Lauren Grabelle" <lgphoto@h...>
wrote:
Brian~ Can you clarify what the 9000 does differently than the 4000
when it comes to Kodachrome? I am about to start scanning my library
and have a majority of Kodachrome slides. I also presently have a
4000ED. Thanks.
Sorry lgrabelle, though your query isn't addressed to me, I'm
attempting an honest reply. Obviously Kodachrome chemistry is
different than the routine E-6 stuff, as also the density of its dye-
image layer. Both 5000 ED & 9000 ED have special color filtration
mechanisms to extract much of this unique chemistry. Run either of
these two scanners without 'Kodachrome' filter over a Kodachrome
transparency and the difference will stun you ! Similarly, if you
forget the 'Kodachrome' filter in ON position while doing E-6 scans,
the end results will show all wrong colors and contrast etc.
Moreover, and most essentially though, both these scanners have
pretty high Dmax (dynamic range)... much better suited to extract
Kodachrome emulsion info. I also recommend that if you're having a
lot of Kodachrome stuff, do try VueScan software for running either
of these two scanners - you may perhaps like the end results better
than what you get with Nikon's original bundled software. I have
reasons to believe that Nikon provides better customer service
(depending of course upon which part of the world you're based) in
case you have any problem with any of these two decent machines.
Brian is very right in commenting that if you get a lesser scanner
you will regret it later ... just browse the net and you'll hear far
more harrowing tales (especially about after sales service) for
other makes of scanners than for the ones being recommended above.
In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Seed" <bseed@s...> wrote:
Dr. Kumar recommended the Nikon 9000ED and I second what he says.
This scanner only works with film up to 6cm wide but it does clean
Kodachrome.
Pawn the family jewels, but get the 9000ED, or possibly a second-
hand Nikon 4000 if you don't often scan Kodachrome. If you get a
lesser scanner you will regret it later.
Brian~ Can you clarify what the 9000 does differently than the 4000
when it comes to Kodachrome? I am about to start scanning my library
and have a majority of Kodachrome slides. I also presently have a
4000ED. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:47:48 -0500
From: Lauren Grabelle <lgp...@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Scanner Suggestions?
Thanks, Brian and David.
I currently have the Coolscan 4000 and the idea of the advanced Digital Ice
would be great as most of my slides are Kodachrome.
However I'm curious if I can get stock agency acceptable files from either
of these scanners. I'm just starting to research submitting and I'm
uncertain if it's worth hunting down a 9000ED to do the scans myself.
Do stock agencies/distributors do the scans for the photographer or if the
photographer must do them do they need to be drum or Imacon scans? I think
I've heard it both ways. Will the 4000 or 9000 suffice if I know what I'm
doing?
In other words do I need to create the hi-res files first before submitting
or can I submit low-res and then create/have them create the hi-res if the
distributor wants them?
Thanks!
Best,
Lauren Grabelle
http://www.lgphoto.com
http://www.stockartists.com/LaurenGrabelle
******************************
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:30:16 -0600
From: "Brian Seed" <bs...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: Re: Scanner Suggestions?
Greg,
Much valuable information...I ordered the Loersch mounts and they sent me
2000 of the oners for machine mounting...
Thanks for your input,
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STOCK...@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Greg Vaughn
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:04 AM
To: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] Re: Scanner Suggestions?
> Digital Ice does soften sharpness a little, a price I am prepared to pay.
If you are using Nikon Scan software, you can restore the sharpness by using
just a little of that program's USM; Tim Grey & John Shaw recommend 20-10-3,
while I take it down a little from that to 15-5-3. There's a very good
article by John on using Nikon Scan posted at
http://www.photosafaris.com/Articles/ScanningImagesWithNikonScan.asp . As
John notes, this is not Sharpening the image in the usual sense, but
bringing back what is lost when using ICE. Similar results can be had by
using the Capture Sharpen settings in PhotoKit Sharpener
(www.pixelgenius.com).
> And, the 9000 doesn't seem to hold b&w film flat enough for edge to edge
> sharpness, but then I am mounting certain color slides between glass where
> edge to edge sharpness is really important.
A good number of people report problems in getting edge-to-edge sharpness
with Nikon scanners, especially the Coolscan 4000. An alternative to glass
mounts are the Loersch Quickpoint slide mounts - no glass, inexpensive and
they snap together fairly easily. The trick when using them is to give the
film a slight reverse curl when putting it in these mounts, which usually
results in film flat enough for the Coolscan. Info about the Loersch mounts
is at http://www.loersch.com/sub/211.html . When you order, ask for the
1.9mm snap-together kind, not the ones with the pins made for machine
mounting.
- Greg
Gr...@GregVaughn.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:43:13 -0600
From: "Brian Seed" <bs...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: RE: RE: Scanner Suggestions?
Lauren,
Scan the images right and once only. This ultimately will save you both
confusion and time.It takes only a few seconds more to get a full size scan
in the computer. In any case, agencies don't want sample scans once you have
been accepted as a contributor, they want full size images..
I trust you have a numbering system for your images. This is essential.
The Nikon 9000, or the 4000, for that matter, produce 8 bit files of some 60
megabytes in size. Most agencies are happy with a 50 mgb file.
No agencies with which I work will make scans for me, but in anycase you
don't want to be shipping your originals around. A further most important
point is that if you make the scans you will have them available when you
want to supply other agencies with the same image nd for your own use and
for record purposes.
Brian Seed
-----Original Message-----
From: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STOCK...@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Lauren Grabelle
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:48 PM
To: STOCK...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STOCKPHOTO] RE: Scanner Suggestions?
Thanks, Brian and David.
I currently have the Coolscan 4000 and the idea of the advanced Digital Ice
would be great as most of my slides are Kodachrome.
However I'm curious if I can get stock agency acceptable files from either
of these scanners. I'm just starting to research submitting and I'm
uncertain if it's worth hunting down a 9000ED to do the scans myself.
Do stock agencies/distributors do the scans for the photographer or if the
photographer must do them do they need to be drum or Imacon scans? I think
I've heard it both ways. Will the 4000 or 9000 suffice if I know what I'm
doing?
In other words do I need to create the hi-res files first before submitting
or can I submit low-res and then create/have them create the hi-res if the
distributor wants them?
T
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:28:31 +0000
From: David Kilpatrick <icon...@btconnect.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Scanner Suggestions?
Lauren Grabelle wrote:
>Thanks, Brian and David.
>
>I currently have the Coolscan 4000 and the idea of the advanced Digital Ice
>would be great as most of my slides are Kodachrome.
>
>However I'm curious if I can get stock agency acceptable files from either
>of these scanners. I'm just starting to research submitting and I'm
>uncertain if it's worth hunting down a 9000ED to do the scans myself.
>
>Do stock agencies/distributors do the scans for the photographer or if the
>photographer must do them do they need to be drum or Imacon scans? I think
>I've heard it both ways. Will the 4000 or 9000 suffice if I know what I'm
>doing?
>
>In other words do I need to create the hi-res files first before submitting
>or can I submit low-res and then create/have them create the hi-res if the
>distributor wants them?
>
>
>
The Nikon 4000/5000 and 9000 will beat the average drum scan operator
hands down unless you pay $50 a go for drum scans. The same goes for
similar level scanner from other makers. Some people swear by drum
scans, but in general they use excessive smoothing/sharpening routines.
The Imacon is simply a normal scanner built differently, and for 35mm
has very few benefits (the first models did, in terms of illuminant
source geometry and resulting d-max).
The problem with Kodachrome is that the dyes used in Kodachrome are
partially infra-red opaque, and the black density of Kodachrome, though
technically rarely higher then Dmax log 3.5, includes some residual
silver without which the film appears to have green blacks. This
responds, like b/w negatives, to the Callier effect; anything other than
a highly diffused light source will tend to show the blacks as denser.
Combined with the unusual dyes, and the balance of Kodachrome to be
projected using tungsten at about 3250K rather than viewed on a lightbox
at 5000K - you can get some very odd colours, even on drum scanners.
Digital ICE 4 uses an additional cleaning software method, on top of the
infra-red masking exposure, to clean b/w negs and Kodachromes. So far I
think on Nikon has implemented it - it's possible that Artec and Epson
have it, to serve in scanners where true infra-red ICE can't be used.
Anyway, Nikon have it plus the original in the 5000 and 9000. You get
the infra-red scan, which works great with C41 and E6 because the dyes
used are IR transparent and contain no residual silver, and also the
dust removal software (a more intelligent variety of the Polaroid type
dust removal).
You should be able to use 5000/9000 to archive and sell all your work,
to a level where no-one would question the quality and consider asking
for a drum scan.
David Kilpatrick
f2photo.co.uk
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:14:45 -0800
From: Ken Barber <ken.b...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Scanner Suggestions?
On Sunday 29 January 2006 13:47, Lauren Grabelle wrote:
> Do stock agencies/distributors do the scans for the photographer or if the
> photographer must do them do they need to be drum or Imacon scans? I
think
> I've heard it both ways. Will the 4000 or 9000 suffice if I know what I'm
> doing?
No. Well, sometimes. Maybe.
I use a Nikon 8000 at a rental darkroom that is in the basement of a
pre-press
shop known as Digicraft. One day Al Berreth, who owns the place, stopped by
the little darkroom I was in, and gave me quite an education.
He started out by lovingly caressing his Nikon 8000 and saying, "Even the
best
of these little desktop scanners just aren't good enough." Then he took me
upstairs and gave me a tour, which included a look at his Imacon and his
drum
scanner.
There is NO desktop scanner on the market that won't give you noise in the
dark areas of a transparency! I fight with it constantly in the scans I do
on his 8000. You just can't get top quality without a drum scan, though he
did say that the Imacon is excellent for negatives.
He charges around fifty bucks (US) for a drum scan. Needless to say, all of
the scans for the images I'm selling were done on the Nikon 8000. As much
as
I'd like to have the quality of drum scans, it just isn't in the cards.
I doubt that very many stock photographers are using drum scans, so we're
both
probably in pretty good company -- meaning that we're competing with people
who are using the same technology we are. So in the end... yes, the 5000
and
9000 are probably "good enough" for most buyers. I wouldn't use a 4000
though. They're pretty much obsolete.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:08:17 +0000
From: David Kilpatrick <icon...@btconnect.com>
Subject: Re: RE: Scanner Suggestions?
Ken Barber wrote:
>On Sunday 29 January 2006 13:47, Lauren Grabelle wrote:
>
>
>
>>Do stock agencies/distributors do the scans for the photographer or if the
>>photographer must do them do they need to be drum or Imacon scans? I
think
>>I've heard it both ways. Will the 4000 or 9000 suffice if I know what I'm
>>doing?
>>
>>
>
>No. Well, sometimes. Maybe.
>
>I use a Nikon 8000 at a rental darkroom that is in the basement of a
pre-press
>shop known as Digicraft. One day Al Berreth, who owns the place, stopped
by
>the little darkroom I was in, and gave me quite an education.
>
>He started out by lovingly caressing his Nikon 8000 and saying, "Even the
best
>of these little desktop scanners just aren't good enough." Then he took me
>upstairs and gave me a tour, which included a look at his Imacon and his
drum
>scanner.
>
>There is NO desktop scanner on the market that won't give you noise in the
>dark areas of a transparency! I fight with it constantly in the scans I do
>on his 8000. You just can't get top quality without a drum scan, though he
>did say that the Imacon is excellent for negatives.
>
>He charges around fifty bucks (US) for a drum scan. Needless to say, all
of
>the scans for the images I'm selling were done on the Nikon 8000. As much
as
>I'd like to have the quality of drum scans, it just isn't in the cards.
>
>I doubt that very many stock photographers are using drum scans, so we're
both
>probably in pretty good company -- meaning that we're competing with people
>who are using the same technology we are. So in the end... yes, the 5000
and
>9000 are probably "good enough" for most buyers. I wouldn't use a 4000
>though. They're pretty much obsolete.
>
>
>
I've worked with desktop and drum scanners for years - and with the
scans produced by them. The only people who will tell you this are
bureaux running drum or Imacon-type scanners, and the reason they will
say it is because they are charging $50 for scans and the market has
disappeared. I will criticise Imacon hardly at all, as they are
essential just an expensive desktop scanner, different way of building
the same item.
If a scanner is producing noise in the dark areas of any reasonably
normally exposed tranny, then it's either a $199 Mustek or ten years
old. A modern 12 to 14 bit scanner like a Nikon 5000 or 9000 or a
Minolta 5400 (I or II) will only produce excessive noise if you attempt
to make a huge alteration to the contrast curve of a very dense
original, accidentally include some of the mount in your density range
measurement, or have no idea at all how to ensure all functions are set
to eliminate auto adjustments.
The standard monitor setup for drum scanners until the late 1990s was
Gamma 1.4 and in many cases Gamma 1.0, combined with a very low maximum
brightness. This set up gave the impression that drum scanners yield far
more deep shadow detail then they do (if they did, the printed results
would look flat). Desktop scanners in contrast started life with Gamma
1.4 as their standard workflow (the original Agfa colour management
system and Aldus PrePrint - Linotype was still on Gamma 1.0 in 1988);
they then rapidly moved to Gamma 1.8, the early Mac colour monitor
standard, because people wanted to see more saturated and realistic
colour on screen. The downside is that 6 and 8-bit scanners like the
Agfa Focus then appeared to give badly blocked-up shadows. Nikon and
Ricoh launched the first affordable 10-bit scanners, and at this stage
(1992) three separate passes R, G, B were used and the CCDs often needed
a calibration routine before each pass as will as a major recalibration
before each scan. The gradual deterioration of CCDs meant that by the
late 1990s these early scanners became unusable, apart from
compatibility issues. I've still got a pile of three different types.
Late 1990s, and PCs began to be used seriously by digital imagers. With
Gamma 2.2 screen setups and often no full colour management, scans made
on drum systems and early desktop models - targeted for Gamma 1.0 to 1.8
use - looked extremely dark with no shadow detail, especially if they
had been converted to CMYK for use in a linear (Gamma 1.0) environment.
Prepress bureaux were in the meantime generally working with screens
like the Barco Calibrator range, intended for a controlled Gamma 1.4.
Send such a bureau a scan made on a desktop scanner for a G2.2
environment, and it will look as if the whole scan is washed out, with
grainy noise (or just grain, or colour shifts) present in deeper
shadows. It's from this period - mature Mc technology with colour
management at G1.8; old repro house technology with G1.4 or linear; new
PC systems with G2.0 to 2.2 and initially very limited colour management
or monitor calibration - that most of the deep-seated 'desktop scanners
can't do the job' opinions come from.
Today if you buy either a Mac or PC with a decent screen, fully
calibrated, use colour management software and system level settings
properly, and invest in a top of the range desktop film scanner you
should be seeing a default scan which looks like your transparency and
is free of any visible noise in shadow areas. You should be able to
adjust contrast by the equivalent of a Photoshop Levels midpoint shift
to 120 without any penalty at all, and your unadjusted preview histogram
should show a small amount of free space either end, no clipping at all.
For optimum results, you should set the shadow and highlight points
carefully, just outside the range of the histogram; some operators like
a 'rich black' and clip into the bottom couple values, others like a 95%
black and leave a couple of steps clear. At the highlight end, the
operator must judge the brightest tone in the slide, and set the
highlight level accordingly; sometimes it will much higher than the
histogram end, for subjects with no white or light tones.
Do this, and work at the native resolution of the desktop scanner. If it
is a 4000 dpi scanner, always scan at 4000 dpi. Do not permit the
scanner driver to interpolate either way. Do not use any auto settings,
and either make an unadjusted scan with a 16-bit image output (this is
how drum scanner system work today - all adjustments are done on screen
from a full range scan) or do individual settings as described above for
each preview. If you are running a batch scanning system, always use
full range and produce 16-bit output to allow adjustments in Photoshop.
For the very best results invest in a calibration package and profile
the scanner individually, renewing the profile every month, and making a
separate ICC profile for each filmtype you use.
The actual hardware of the best desktop scanners has limitations
compared to an early analog drum scanner - the lightpath of those was
very forgiving of film grain, and they could be 'turned up' the burn
through extremely difficult dense originals. Even so, Fuji Velvia with
its close to 4.0 d-max defeats these just as much as it defeats earlier
desktop scanners. Scanners which claim 4.2 or 4.8 D (fairly spurious
claims!) were built as a response to materials like Velvia.
Some of the best scans I've had have been from skilled drum operators
using fairly old equipment upgraded to fit in with modern workflow. Some
of the worst I have had have been from the same. In the mid-1990s we had
a variety of desktop drum scanners arrive for magazine review and there
was not one I would have taken in exchange for a combination of a good
flatbed and the best film scanners of the time. The Imacon Flextight is
a different matter and if you find one going at low cost, with a
guarantee of compatibility with your kit, go for it. The old Leafscan,
which was slow and clumsy, did very good service for us for many years
and like most three-pass RGB designs had a certain quality to the colour.
The people who really lost out were those who invested in expensive
combo flatbed/batch scanners like the Linotype Topaz, Crosfield Celsis
etc. The printers over the road from me bought a £25,000 Topaz, and it
is now a very unproductive and modest quality system compared to a
£2,500 desktop film scanner. The first time they brought an urgent
overflow job to me to scan (Minolta 5400) the question was - what
scanner do you use, we want one! They got one and I don't get any
overflow work now :-)
David
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:05:52 -0000
From: "Dr. P. Kumar" <drpk...@rediffmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scanner Suggestions?
In STOCK...@yahoogroups.com, Ken Barber <ken.barber@g...> wrote:
"So in the end... yes, the 5000 and 9000 are probably "good enough" for
most buyers. I wouldn't use a 4000 though. They're pretty much
obsolete."
Ken, for me the fact of the matter is that drum scans are just an
overkill for (any) agency submission. People have been using Nikon 2000
& 4000 for such a long time ... 5000 & 9000 are far more than enough
for ALL agency purposes. As of today, no agency expects more than 16 MP
digital shots. Scans on 5000/9000 are almost 22 MP digital files. Yes,
if any particular client does require a wall-mounting scan once-in-a-
blue-moon, I'll get just THAT transparency drum-scannned. I see no
point in investing hundereds and thousands of bucks in drum scans of my
entire portfolio ?? This will make sheer economic common sense whether
I am contrubuting to an agency for the first time, or I'm already an
established contributor !
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:19:20 -0800
From: phillip roullard <roullard...@sdccu.net>
Subject: travel-prints
Anybody have an opinion on Travel-Prints.com?
From their terms, it is a 50-50 agreement, but it also says that their
agreement is for the use of images to them royalty-free. Rather
conflicting terms. I guess it means that they can use your images
royalty-free for their purposes but they do charge clients. Can anybody
clarify that term for me?
thanks, Phillip Roullard, San Diego
--
"We...are not really free if we can't control our own government and its
policies.
And we will never do that if we remain ignorant –"
www.philliproullardphotography.com
Specializing in gardens, insects, vegetables,
herbs, native plants and landscape photography
www.zumapress.com
companion animals, energy, places
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:54:17 +0000
From: Bob Croxford <bobcr...@tesco.net>
Subject: Re: travel-prints
Dear Philip
Nothing conflicting about them at all.
When you look at their web site you discover that they are offering
the images to whoever happens to log in for as little as 25 cents
(US) each for almost any usage and the photographer gets 50% of that
less any charges that PayPal take for processing the payment.
On making a whois check, you will discover that it appears to be run
by someone named Jon Olstead from an apartment in Los Angeles.
If you want to get conned or scammed why don't you save yourself time
and just send me a check for $1,000?
Bob Croxford
On 30 Jan 2006, at 16:19, phillip roullard wrote:
> Anybody have an opinion on Travel-Prints.com?
>
> From their terms, it is a 50-50 agreement, but it also says that
> their
> agreement is for the use of images to them royalty-free. Rather
> conflicting terms. I guess it means that they can use your images
> royalty-free for their purposes but they do charge clients. Can
> anybody
> clarify that term for me?
>
> thanks, Phillip Roullard, San Diego
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.php#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.php
STOCKPHOTO Bookstore - http://www.stockphoto.net/bookstore/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------------------------------------------