Minolta 5400 or Coolscan 5000
opens...@optonline.net
Scan Elite. I have been looking at both the Minolta 5400 and the Nikon
Coolscan 5000. Can anyone relate to me any experiences using either
scanner? Does anyone have an opinion about how the two compare to one
another? I'd greatly appreciate any input that you can offer. Thanks!
Kennedy McEwen
<openshutter-8ABD...@news4-ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
opens...@optonline.net writes
You'll get excellent scans from either of these units. The main
difference, apart from the higher nominal resolution of the Minolta, is
scan speed and flexibility. Like most of its predecessors, the Nikon
has been designed to minimise the scan time without compromising scan
quality. It also supports a range of optional bulk film adapters, such
as uncut roll film and batch slide feeders, again reducing the time that
the user has to pore over a hot scanner waiting on the job completing -
just fill it up and go off to do something else until it is finished. On
the other hand, the Minolta is considerably lower in price, so if time
is not a problem then it is probably the one to go for.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Dav...@att.net
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
> In article
> <openshutter-8ABD...@news4-ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> opens...@optonline.net writes
> >I am currently shopping for a new scanner to replace my Minolta Dimage
> >Scan Elite. I have been looking at both the Minolta 5400 and the Nikon
> >Coolscan 5000. Can anyone relate to me any experiences using either
> >scanner? Does anyone have an opinion about how the two compare to one
> >another? I'd greatly appreciate any input that you can offer. Thanks!
>
> You'll get excellent scans from either of these units. The main
> difference, apart from the higher nominal resolution of the Minolta, is
> scan speed and flexibility. Like most of its predecessors, the Nikon
> has been designed to minimise the scan time without compromising scan
> quality. It also supports a range of optional bulk film adapters, such
> as uncut roll film and batch slide feeders, again reducing the time that
> the user has to pore over a hot scanner waiting on the job completing -
> just fill it up and go off to do something else until it is finished. On
> the other hand, the Minolta is considerably lower in price, so if time
> is not a problem then it is probably the one to go for.
I'm in about the same boat, and want to replace my Polaroid ss4000 with
either a Minolta 5400, a Nikon 5000 or a Canon 4000. I hope that one of
these will produce slide scans that are better than those from the
ss4000 in the following ways, in order of priority:
- full frame scans (the ss400 can do this)
- sharper focus edge to edge
- better shadow details
- less flares (halo around light subject against deep shadow
background). The flares are supposed to be due to dusty mirrors. The
implication is a scanner designed to minimize dust collection inside.
- multisampling support
- native sw at least as good as the ss4000's (not saying much)
I don't use this scanner for business, so scanning speed is not an
issue. The cost difference of a couple of hundred dollars is not as
important as getting the best scanner for my purpose.
Thanks.
Wilfred
> - full frame scans (the ss400 can do this)
> - sharper focus edge to edge
> - better shadow details
> - multisampling support
To my knowledge, both the Coolscan 5000 and the Elite 5400 can do this,
although I'm not so sure about how the focus compares to the ss4000 and
to what extent it depends on how it is controlled (e.g. selection of
focus point, manual vs. aoto). Don't know about the Canon at all.
> - less flares (halo around light subject against deep shadow
> background). The flares are supposed to be due to dusty mirrors. The
> implication is a scanner designed to minimize dust collection inside.
The Minolta 5400 has a spring-operated door that protects the interior
against dust if the scanner isn't used. Don't know about the other two.
> - native sw at least as good as the ss4000's (not saying much)
I don't know the native SW of the ss4000 so I can't say anything here.
--
Wilfred van der Vegte.
Replace 'invalid' by my first name to reply by e-mail
Bruce Graham
> Dav...@att.net wrote:
>
>
> > - full frame scans (the ss400 can do this)
> > - sharper focus edge to edge
> > - better shadow details
> > - multisampling support
Hi David
I have the Canon (for about 2.5 years) and I have been happy with it for
my purposes, however, both Minolta and Nikon have continued to develop
their scanner lines and have produced newer models.
If you absolutely need multisampling (without multipass) then you can't
look at the Canon (or the Minolta?).
Some people say Nikon is not noted for edge to edge sharpness as focus is
a bit more critical due to a wide aperture lens used to gain scan speed
and to compensate for the lowish effective intensity of the LED light
source (each colour turned on in turn which slows things by a factor of
3).
I wonder if you will do much better than your Polaroid, but I have no
direct experience of them, just from what I have read here. Can you just
clean the mirrors and keep going? There is a detailed explanation on
the web for DIY cleaning the SS4000 mirrors.
Are you confusing overexposure halos with dust?
Have you tried the long exposure option in Vuescan? - that usually (but
not always) works for me in reducing slide shadow noise.
Have a look at the scanner bake off below.
http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html
the SS4000 performs at the upper end of scanners tested. It is sharp,
has competitive chromatic aberration and has a good to excellent
signal/noise ratio (better than the Canon and I think the Minolta,
similar to the Nikon from a quick look).
I'm sure the test has its limits, but I think it shows that the SS4000 is
a competitive scanner in basic scanning performance terms.
I have not tried Silverfast, that may be another way to spend money if
you keep the SS4000! (free demo download to try).
Also, if you are scanning old Kodachromes, you can't really use ICE and
if you are scanning new E6 slides, you probably keep them clean anyway,
so no need to waste time with a second IR pass (I know it happens on the
first pass with the Nikons).
Just some thoughts.
Dav...@att.net
Wilfred wrote:
>
> Dav...@att.net wrote:
>
> > - full frame scans (the ss400 can do this)
> > - sharper focus edge to edge
> > - better shadow details
> > - multisampling support
>
> To my knowledge, both the Coolscan 5000 and the Elite 5400 can do this,
> although I'm not so sure about how the focus compares to the ss4000 and
> to what extent it depends on how it is controlled (e.g. selection of
> focus point, manual vs. aoto). Don't know about the Canon at all.
There is no manual focus on the ss4000. Do both the Coolscan 5000 and
the Elite 5400 be focused manually? Has the Coolscan 5000 fixed the dof
problem found on the Coolscan 4000?
Dav...@att.net
Bruce Graham wrote:
>
> > Dav...@att.net wrote:
> >
> >
> > > - full frame scans (the ss400 can do this)
> > > - sharper focus edge to edge
> > > - better shadow details
> > > - multisampling support
> > snip etc. etc.
>
> Hi David
>
> I have the Canon (for about 2.5 years) and I have been happy with it for
> my purposes, however, both Minolta and Nikon have continued to develop
> their scanner lines and have produced newer models.
>
> If you absolutely need multisampling (without multipass) then you can't
> look at the Canon (or the Minolta?).
>
> Some people say Nikon is not noted for edge to edge sharpness as focus is
> a bit more critical due to a wide aperture lens used to gain scan speed
> and to compensate for the lowish effective intensity of the LED light
> source (each colour turned on in turn which slows things by a factor of
> 3).
>
> I wonder if you will do much better than your Polaroid, but I have no
> direct experience of them, just from what I have read here. Can you just
> clean the mirrors and keep going? There is a detailed explanation on
> the web for DIY cleaning the SS4000 mirrors.
>
> Are you confusing overexposure halos with dust?
Not sure what you meant by overexposure halos. In the ss4000 scans, the
halo is around a bright subject against a deep shadow background. That
halo is not on the film. After cleaning the ss4000's mirror, the halos
diminish some but still exist.
> Have you tried the long exposure option in Vuescan? - that usually (but
> not always) works for me in reducing slide shadow noise.
I stay away from third party software because it is difficult to tell if
they offer any additional scanner hardware control not available on the
native software, or if they make software changes after the scans are
captured. For VueScan to provide a long exposure option on the ss4000,
the scanner would have to have such a hardware capability, and VueScan
would somehow know how to control it. This is never spelled out by
Polaroid or by VueScan.
I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
> Have a look at the scanner bake off below.
>
> http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html
>
> the SS4000 performs at the upper end of scanners tested. It is sharp,
> has competitive chromatic aberration and has a good to excellent
> signal/noise ratio (better than the Canon and I think the Minolta,
> similar to the Nikon from a quick look).
>
> I'm sure the test has its limits, but I think it shows that the SS4000 is
> a competitive scanner in basic scanning performance terms.
Interesting test. The ss4000 was the first 4000dpi desktop scanner, and
is a great value these days. Too bad Polaroid can't seem to market,
support and continue the product.
> I have not tried Silverfast, that may be another way to spend money if
> you keep the SS4000! (free demo download to try).
You know what I think of third party sw. <g>
> Also, if you are scanning old Kodachromes, you can't really use ICE and
> if you are scanning new E6 slides, you probably keep them clean anyway,
> so no need to waste time with a second IR pass (I know it happens on the
> first pass with the Nikons).
I try to keep my film clean. With no bosses or customers breathing down
my back, I can afford to spot the scans manually.
> Just some thoughts.
Thanks a lot.
Wilfred
>
> There is no manual focus on the ss4000. Do both the Coolscan 5000 and
> the Elite 5400 be focused manually?
The Elite 5400 can be focused manually. Don't know about the Coolscan.
--
Wilfred
e-mail: (first five letters of my name) at gmx dot net
Kennedy McEwen
writes
>Dav...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>> There is no manual focus on the ss4000. Do both the Coolscan 5000
>>and
>> the Elite 5400 be focused manually?
>
>The Elite 5400 can be focused manually. Don't know about the Coolscan.
>
the Minolta which has a mechanical focus knob, the manual control used
by Nikon is software only. I can't think of any reason why anyone would
want the mechanical control, its not as if you can see the image change
focus in real time as you turn the knob, so the software adjustment
would appear to offer more control. The focus knob seems to be a
situation where Minolta have tried to be user friendly but got the
ergonomics wrong - but I could be wrong too, so if there is value in
that knob I am sure some Minolta users will explain what it is. ;-)
Hecate
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <2l0ca6F...@uni-berlin.de>, Wilfred <m...@privacy.net>
>writes
>>Dav...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is no manual focus on the ss4000. Do both the Coolscan 5000
>>>and
>>> the Elite 5400 be focused manually?
>>
>>The Elite 5400 can be focused manually. Don't know about the Coolscan.
>>
>Yes, all the Nikon scanners can be focussed manually. However, unlike
>the Minolta which has a mechanical focus knob, the manual control used
>by Nikon is software only. I can't think of any reason why anyone would
>want the mechanical control, its not as if you can see the image change
>focus in real time as you turn the knob, so the software adjustment
>would appear to offer more control. The focus knob seems to be a
>situation where Minolta have tried to be user friendly but got the
>ergonomics wrong - but I could be wrong too, so if there is value in
>that knob I am sure some Minolta users will explain what it is. ;-)
It's shiny, silver and looks cool? Oh, you mean for focusing...
Only psychologically in that it gives you a feeling that you're
actually doing something . ;-)
Oh, and sometimes it does make a difference...
--
Hecate
Hec...@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Kennedy McEwen
<hec...@newsguy.com> writes
of the effect of the knob on focus or do you need to make a scan at full
resolution to judge the effect?
On the Nikon, for example, the software slider scale has a numerical
data window, which at least gives some indication of effect on focal
plane position as well as precision control. If that is all the Minolta
provides then I agree that the advantage of the knob is merely
psychological for technophobic users, but without some sort of real time
feedback it isn't even that.
Wilfred
> In article <vhlme0pp2qujhspvj...@4ax.com>, Hecate
> <hec...@newsguy.com> writes
>
>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 22:47:37 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
>> <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> if there is value in
>>> that knob I am sure some Minolta users will explain what it is. ;-)
>>
>>
>> It's shiny, silver and looks cool? Oh, you mean for focusing...
>>
>> Only psychologically in that it gives you a feeling that you're
>> actually doing something . ;-)
>>
>> Oh, and sometimes it does make a difference...
>>
> In what way does it make a difference? What immediate feedback is there
> of the effect of the knob
I still haven't decided whether I find this knob useful. Like Nikon,
Minolta also offers a software-controlled focus with a slider on the
screen. In both cases, with the knob and with the slider, a black bar
inside a white bar apears on the screen. The lengths of the bars
correspond to the accuracy of focusing. The white bar retains the
maximum value reached as you turn the knob (or slide the slider) and the
black one shows the focusing level that corresponds to the actual
setting. So first you fiddle with the slider/knob until the maximum that
the white bar displays doesn't change anymore, and then you fine-tune to
make the black bar match the white one.
> on focus or do you need to make a scan at full
> resolution to judge the effect?
No. I don't know what the bars exactly indicate, though.
Toby
> they offer any additional scanner hardware control not available on the
> native software, or if they make software changes after the scans are
> captured. For VueScan to provide a long exposure option on the ss4000,
> the scanner would have to have such a hardware capability, and VueScan
> would somehow know how to control it. This is never spelled out by
> Polaroid or by VueScan.
You are making a mistake if you think that third party s/w is inferior. I
switched from Nikonscan to Silverfast for my ED 4000 and the difference is
great. Silverfast offers so many more options that it makes NS look less
than mediocre. Silverfast is much easier to use in most ways, and the
results are much better than anything I ever managed to achieve with
Nikonscan. In addition it offers advanced controls for color correction that
NS can only dream of, as well as preset film profiles that save a lot of
time.
>
> I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
You lose a lot of quality this way. You should get s/w that allows you to
get optimized scans into Photoshop in the first place. Doing the corrections
in PS later from less than ideal scans gets you gappy histograms and
sharpening halos, among other things.
You would be doing youself a service to download the demo of Silverfast and
giving it a try before passing blanket judgements. I have never used it but
I understand that Vuescan is also excellent, and much cheaper than the
LaserSoft product. I was a doubter but I would never use NikonScan again
after trying Silverfast.
Toby
Simon Waldman
> I still haven't decided whether I find this knob useful. Like Nikon,
> Minolta also offers a software-controlled focus with a slider on the
> screen. In both cases, with the knob and with the slider, a black bar
> inside a white bar apears on the screen. The lengths of the bars
> correspond to the accuracy of focusing.
Yes... I have a DSE5400 and never use teh knob. On the few occasions
when I use manual focussing, I find it easier and more accurate to use
the slider on the screen. I think the knob is more of a marketting tool
than anything else.
> No. I don't know what the bars exactly indicate, though.
I'm guessing that it must be the contrast in teh area being used for
focus. ICBW.
--
"People don't ask for facts in making up their minds. They would rather
have one good, soul-satisfying emotion than a dozen facts."
- Robert Keith Leavitt
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Waldman, UK email: swal...@firecloud.org.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------
false_dmitrii
<snip>
> - better shadow details
A recurring complaint with the SE5400 is shadow noise, usually bands
of light. Different people seem to have very different experiences
here.
> - less flares (halo around light subject against deep shadow
> background). The flares are supposed to be due to dusty mirrors. The
> implication is a scanner designed to minimize dust collection inside.
Someone once wrote that the LS/Coolscan 5000 is worse at this due to
its lighting system.
That's what I've read. No first-hand experience, though. (soon, soon,
I hope...:) I don't think there's a single "perfect" scanner
available, just two extremely good ones with their own personalities.
false_dmitrii
Kennedy McEwen
false_dmitrii <false_...@yahoo.com> writes
>Dav...@att.net wrote in message news:<40E940D9...@att.net>...
>
><snip>
>
>> - better shadow details
>
>A recurring complaint with the SE5400 is shadow noise, usually bands
>of light. Different people seem to have very different experiences
>here.
>
>> - less flares (halo around light subject against deep shadow
>> background). The flares are supposed to be due to dusty mirrors. The
>> implication is a scanner designed to minimize dust collection inside.
>
>Someone once wrote that the LS/Coolscan 5000 is worse at this due to
>its lighting system.
>
water. If anything, the near collimated light source of the Nikon
should minimise this issue, but the problem is dominated by what happens
after the slide is illuminated (ie. the light path between the film and
the CCD) and, in particular, the number of optical surfaces where dust
can accumulate and act as scattering centres. The faster the optic, the
less that individual dust particles influence the scattering, so it
follows that susceptibility to this is also proportional to depth of
field. Since the Nikons have lower depth of field than most scanners
because they require faster optics to work with their light sources,
they should be less prone to the scattering problem for the same reason.
So I don't think you can attribute the problem, and any suggested
susceptibility of the Nikon scanners, to the illumination system, since
all the parameters associated with it seem to be in their favour.
That doesn't mean that the Nikons don't suffer, but more than anything
else it is basic design, sealing and the minimal use of outgassing
plastics that controls the problem. Of it were only down to the
illumination source, the LED system would win hands down.
Hecate
wrote:
>Dav...@att.net wrote in message news:<40E940D9...@att.net>...
>
><snip>
>
>> - better shadow details
>
>A recurring complaint with the SE5400 is shadow noise, usually bands
>of light. Different people seem to have very different experiences
>here.
>
It did happen, with early versions of the software (1.1 and 1.2) as
far as I know it was cured from version 1.3 onwards.
Hecate
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <vhlme0pp2qujhspvj...@4ax.com>, Hecate
><hec...@newsguy.com> writes
>>On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 22:47:37 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
>><r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> if there is value in
>>>that knob I am sure some Minolta users will explain what it is. ;-)
>>
>>It's shiny, silver and looks cool? Oh, you mean for focusing...
>>
>>Only psychologically in that it gives you a feeling that you're
>>actually doing something . ;-)
>>
>>Oh, and sometimes it does make a difference...
>>
>In what way does it make a difference? What immediate feedback is there
>of the effect of the knob on focus or do you need to make a scan at full
>resolution to judge the effect?
You need to scan at full resolution. I find I use it occasionally. or
most images, the auto focus is fine.
>On the Nikon, for example, the software slider scale has a numerical
>data window, which at least gives some indication of effect on focal
>plane position as well as precision control. If that is all the Minolta
>provides then I agree that the advantage of the knob is merely
>psychological for technophobic users, but without some sort of real time
>feedback it isn't even that.
What you do is select manual focus, then select an area of the image
on screen with good contrast, use the "focus meter" and mouse control
or the focus dial (the shiny silver thing on the front). Either way
you get the same result.
Don
>Silverfast is much easier to use in most ways, and the
>results are much better than anything I ever managed to achieve with
>Nikonscan. In addition it offers advanced controls for color correction that
>NS can only dream of, as well as preset film profiles that save a lot of
>time.
It's a difference in design and target audience.
Both VueScan and SilverFast are "point-and-shoot" programs similar to
disposable cameras. OK for casual tourist but not for people who care
for quality or have an inkling of what they are doing. Nothing wrong
with that if that's what they are after, but...
What you are saying above is essentially: Hasselblad is garbage, Kodak
Instamatic is far superior - fixed focus, auto-exposure...
>> I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
>
>You lose a lot of quality this way.
Forgive me, but that is just plain nonsense. Exactly the opposite is
true.
By doing image editing at the scanning stage you irreparably *corrupt*
the image at the earliest possible stage and with the crudest possible
"tools".
If, instead, you scan as faithfully as possible you will have the
equivalent of a "digital negative". After that you can edit as much as
you want and still have the original untainted - should you change
your mind.
By "adjusting" the image at the scanning stage using the Preview
"keyhole" you are just irretrievably damaging data coming from the
scanner. Something which is often impossible to correct later and
certainly not without additional loss of quality.
Don.
David Blanchard
Toby <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>You would be doing youself a service to download the demo of Silverfast and
>giving it a try before passing blanket judgements. I have never used it but
>I understand that Vuescan is also excellent, and much cheaper than the
>LaserSoft product. I was a doubter but I would never use NikonScan again
>after trying Silverfast.
I have been testing Silverfast--both full AI and limited SE versions.
There is a significant price difference between the two and if SE can
do enough, it might suffice.
Which do you use? Thanks.
David
Dav...@att.net
Thanks Don. I couldn't have responded better.
Aside from capturing a raw scan, a scanner's sw (native or third party)
edits the information in the raw scan to produce a "good" scan. Its ease
of use can be a benefit for the novice as well as to the pros, while
editing a raw scan in PS takes a lot more skill and effort.
Editing a digital image with any sw means shuffling or losing
information in that image. Before being edited by a scanner sw, a raw
scan has all the image's information intact. When editing in PS, you can
preserve the original raw scan, and can track what information is being
lost as you go. When editing by a scanner sw, you don't know what
information is lost and can never recover it. PS' editing tools are far
superior than any scanner sw can offer, but you do need to learn how to
operate them.
Those who suggest to get a "best scan" from the scanner sw before
editing in PS fail to mention how a scanner sw achieves this. A
scanner's hardware offers little or no exposure control, much like a
disposable drugstore camera. The user interface has exposure control and
film type selection, etc., leading the uninitiated to believe that they
are operating a Nikon F5. In reality, all these controls are done by the
scanner's sw.
Real World Scanning and Halftones (3rd Edition) by David Blatner got
this right, and NOT Scantips, etc. One middle of the road recommendation
in the book is to make moderate edits in a scanner sw to ease the
process and minimize the information loss, and make final and critical
edits in PS.
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>On 7 Jul 2004 10:01:07 -0500, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>Silverfast is much easier to use in most ways, and the
>>results are much better than anything I ever managed to achieve with
>>Nikonscan. In addition it offers advanced controls for color correction that
>>NS can only dream of, as well as preset film profiles that save a lot of
>>time.
>
>It's a difference in design and target audience.
>
>Both VueScan and SilverFast are "point-and-shoot" programs similar to
>disposable cameras.
I disagree. They certainly *can* be point and shoot packages in that
they will give very acceptable results out of the box, but they both
have a full range of adjustments, in some cases exceeding the range that
the native software provides, or which can only be produced by the
native software in conjunction with another image processing package
(eg. PS) and some effort and skill on the part of the operator.
>
>>> I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
>>
>>You lose a lot of quality this way.
>
>Forgive me, but that is just plain nonsense. Exactly the opposite is
>true.
>
Not exactly - analogue gain, for example, is an adjustment which can
only be made at the scanning stage and, when necessary, improves the
quality of the scan in a way that can never be recovered in Photoshop.
In such cases, failing to make the exposure adjustment at the scan or
prescan stage results in irretrievably lost image information. You only
have a limited number of bits on that ADC - it can never be argued that
it is better not to use them all and expect PS to make good what it
never gets.
>
>By "adjusting" the image at the scanning stage using the Preview
>"keyhole" you are just irretrievably damaging data coming from the
>scanner.
Not in the context that Bruce was suggesting when he wrote: "Have you
tried the long exposure option in Vuescan? - that usually (but not
always) works for me in reducing slide shadow noise."
ie. the very situation where prescan adjustment is important.
Mark L Caton
"Don" <phoney...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40ece6ee...@news.individual.net...
Don,
You do like to argue don't you? But you haven't seriously worked thru
Vuescan have you?
What you say at the beginning of this post is pure opinion, and then you say
some sensible afterwards which contradicts.
"Point and shoot"? Get real - whats your agenda?
Vuescan is exactly the tool to take the raw negative. Follow the basic
workflow and you can edit in your tool of choice later.
For some one using the 5400, its the Minolta scan utility which tries to
corrupt the image at scan time (if you allow it), not Vuescan. I don't know
about Nikonscan, perhaps you don't know about Vuescan, but don't get sold on
the name.
Vuescan allows for the maximum capture of dynamic range, if you control it
properly - then edit to get appropriate balance. I don't see this as point
and shoot.
Mark
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.716 / Virus Database: 472 - Release Date: 06/07/2004
Toby
>
> >Silverfast is much easier to use in most ways, and the
> >results are much better than anything I ever managed to achieve with
> >Nikonscan. In addition it offers advanced controls for color correction
that
> >NS can only dream of, as well as preset film profiles that save a lot of
> >time.
>
> It's a difference in design and target audience.
>
> Both VueScan and SilverFast are "point-and-shoot" programs similar to
> disposable cameras. OK for casual tourist but not for people who care
> for quality or have an inkling of what they are doing. Nothing wrong
> with that if that's what they are after, but...
>
> What you are saying above is essentially: Hasselblad is garbage, Kodak
> Instamatic is far superior - fixed focus, auto-exposure...
Not at all. Silverfast has extensive color correction capabilities if you
don't wish to use "negafix" for instance, or use it only as a place to start
further color corrections. The prescan adjustments I was referring to had to
do with optimizing luminance values. Adjusting exposure can get you a good
histogram going into PS. Adjusting afterwards, especially in 8 bit, will get
you a gappy histogram where many tonal values are missing. The key is having
scanning software that can optimize the performance of the hardware, to get
the most information possible into the final scan.
>
> >> I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
> >
> >You lose a lot of quality this way.
>
> Forgive me, but that is just plain nonsense. Exactly the opposite is
> true.
>
> By doing image editing at the scanning stage you irreparably *corrupt*
> the image at the earliest possible stage and with the crudest possible
> "tools".
>
> If, instead, you scan as faithfully as possible you will have the
> equivalent of a "digital negative". After that you can edit as much as
> you want and still have the original untainted - should you change
> your mind.
The key phrase here is "as faithfully as possible". I'm not saying that one
should apply a lot of sharpening, for instance during the scan (although
Silverfast's sharpening is quite interesting and gives results unlike its PS
counterpart)--this clearly leads to loss of information. I'm saying, as you
are, that it is best to get the max digital information into the scan
itself, so that you have more to work with in PS. You wouldn't suggest not
adjusting scanner exposure and then trying to compensate for
under/overexposure in PS would you?
For instance, using "Curves" in Silverfast I can extract much more tonal
information than I can doing a "straight" scan. I get information in places
where no information would exist in a "raw" scan, and which no amount of
manipulation in PS is going to restore. I find your argument akin to saying
that I would get better quality by shooting with a 50 mm lens and enlarging
6x than by shooting with a 300 mm lens and not having to enlarge in the
darkroom.
Toby
Toby
did. David seems to assume that maker's s/w is the equal of some other
packages such as Silverfast in controlling the scanner hardware with the aim
of extracting the maximum information possible, or at least choosing the
range from which to extract maximum information. My experience (at least
insofar as Nikonscan goes) is that this is not the case.
I love my Hassy, but I also appreciate the autofocus and autoexposue options
of my Nikons in some situations. I wouldn't give up manual control for
strictly automatic, but having both is better yet.
Toby
"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:80negwC4...@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
Hecate
>It's a difference in design and target audience.
>
>Both VueScan and SilverFast are "point-and-shoot" programs similar to
>disposable cameras. OK for casual tourist but not for people who care
>for quality or have an inkling of what they are doing. Nothing wrong
>with that if that's what they are after, but...
I'#d disagree with that. Silverfast SE may be for the casual user, but
Ai certainly isn't. And from what I saw of Vuescan, even though it
doesn't suit me, I wouldn't have called it simple.
Toby
I could have certainly gotten away with SE so far, although the CMYK output
could prove important for me. The main difference seems to be in AI's very
advanced color correction controls, batch control, CMYK and LAB output, and
a few other odds and ends, mostly relating to professional users.
Have a look here:
http://www.lasersoft-imaging.com/show/compare-ai-vs-se/en.html
I've never tried VueScan but I've heard very good things about it.
Toby
"David Blanchard" <d...@pinyon.flg.noaa.gov> wrote in message
news:2l4pu4F...@uni-berlin.de...
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Both VueScan and SilverFast are "point-and-shoot" programs similar to
>>disposable cameras.
>
>I disagree. They certainly *can* be point and shoot packages in that
>they will give very acceptable results out of the box, but they both
>have a full range of adjustments, in some cases exceeding the range that
>the native software provides, or which can only be produced by the
>native software in conjunction with another image processing package
>(eg. PS) and some effort and skill on the part of the operator.
That was not the context of the statement. It was the
"point-and-shoot" aspect which was claimed as superior. Besides,
saying "You lose a lot of quality" when scanning raw and editing in PS
is just sheer nonsense and I'm sure you must agree with that.
>>>> I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
>>>
>>>You lose a lot of quality this way.
>>
>>Forgive me, but that is just plain nonsense. Exactly the opposite is
>>true.
>>
>Not exactly - analogue gain, for example, is an adjustment which can
>only be made at the scanning stage and, when necessary, improves the
>quality of the scan in a way that can never be recovered in Photoshop.
Again, that is not the context. It's automated workflow with minimum
user intervention which is at discussion. The usual "point-and-shoot"
user can't even spell analog(ue) gain, let alone use it!
Hey, as a Canadian I should actually be using "analogue" spelling but
"analog" is shorter. ;-)
>>By "adjusting" the image at the scanning stage using the Preview
>>"keyhole" you are just irretrievably damaging data coming from the
>>scanner.
>
>Not in the context that Bruce was suggesting when he wrote: "Have you
>tried the long exposure option in Vuescan? - that usually (but not
>always) works for me in reducing slide shadow noise."
>
>ie. the very situation where prescan adjustment is important.
Yes, but that only proves my point. Not only is "long exposure" yet
another "point-and-shoot" feature but relying on auto-exposure based
on Preview is false security because it's based on a very small
sample.
Indeed, reputable software documentation warns that auto-exposure is
not totally reliable and - for optimum results - the user should
examine the scan and then fine tune auto-exposure with Analog Gain.
Don.
Don
<mark.l...@nobtspaminternet.com> wrote:
>Don,
>
>You do like to argue don't you?
Huh!? Let's for the sake of the argument (sic) assume that to be
correct (which it is not) have you considered what would that make
your response?
>But you haven't seriously worked thru
>Vuescan have you?
Far more than I ever wanted to in order to prove challenges like this
wrong. Indeed, the reason you have individual Analog Gain control now
is, to a large extent, thanks to my objective and thorough analysis of
VueScan's output.
You're welcome... ;o)
>"Point and shoot"? Get real - whats your agenda?
As a careful reader would have observed: None. May I reciprocate?
>For some one using the 5400, its the Minolta scan utility which tries to
>corrupt the image at scan time (if you allow it), not Vuescan. I don't know
>about Nikonscan, perhaps you don't know about Vuescan, but don't get sold on
>the name.
Well, if you followed this group carefully over the last year you
would've noticed that I have many issues with Nikon and pick no
favorites. Indeed, I myself often play a devil's advocate to my own
statements in order to get to the bottom of the matter.
>Vuescan allows for the maximum capture of dynamic range, if you control it
>properly - then edit to get appropriate balance. I don't see this as point
>and shoot.
If you tabulate responses to questions about VueScan (and this
includes the author himself) you'd notice that it almost inevitably
involves a point-and-shoot "workflow":
1. Delete VueScan.ini (i.e. reset to factory default)
2. Set media to Image (i.e. set to neutral)
3. Preview
4. Right click on neutral area (i.e. set the gray point)
5. Scan
A very basic procedure, BTW, which applies to *all* scanning software
I'm aware of - even NikonScan - which means if that's how you want to
scan then *any* software will do!
Indeed, the only time I ever see raw scan mentioned in the context of
VueScan is for debugging purposes.
Sure, there are a few individuals who do use raw "properly" but that's
not VueScan's target audience. Its biggest selling point is exactly
the point-and-shoot aspect - as Toby's message clearly illustrates -
and the same goes for SilverFast.
Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But to go from that to "You
lose a lot of quality when scanning raw and editing in PS" is just
plain nonsense.
Don.
Don
>> Both VueScan and SilverFast are "point-and-shoot" programs similar to
>> disposable cameras. OK for casual tourist but not for people who care
>> for quality or have an inkling of what they are doing. Nothing wrong
>> with that if that's what they are after, but...
>>
>> What you are saying above is essentially: Hasselblad is garbage, Kodak
>> Instamatic is far superior - fixed focus, auto-exposure...
>
>Not at all. Silverfast has extensive color correction capabilities if you
>don't wish to use "negafix" for instance, or use it only as a place to start
>further color corrections. The prescan adjustments I was referring to had to
>do with optimizing luminance values. Adjusting exposure can get you a good
>histogram going into PS. Adjusting afterwards, especially in 8 bit, will get
>you a gappy histogram where many tonal values are missing. The key is having
>scanning software that can optimize the performance of the hardware, to get
>the most information possible into the final scan.
What you don't seem to realize is that the output you're getting after
making color corrections in the scanning software is *not* the most
information possible. Indeed, it is information *corrupted* by the
scanning software color correction. This corruption simply *masks*
things which you consider a minus i.e. gappy histogram a.k.a. "comb
histogram".
The reason you get comb histograms is because that *is* the "most
data" *if* you let the scanning software do the gamma conversion. Set
gamma to 1.0 and comb histograms will disappear. That's the purest and
most unadulterated scan you can get!!
Now to prove to you that what you consider "good" (smooth histograms
at gamma 2.2) is actually *bad* try this in NikonScan:
1. All settings at neutral (gamma at 2.2!)
2. Crop as required
3. Scan
The result is a comb histogram image.
4. Go back to Crop
5. Set Scale to 99%
6. Scan
You'll notice that the scan takes longer but the result is a smooth
histogram! Oh, joy!
Not really... That smooth histogram is a *corruption*. The gaps were
filled *artificially* due to image interpolation by the scanning
software - which is why the scan took longer. The data used to fill
the gaps is *fantasy*, it's not real, it's a *guess* by the
interpolation algorithm.
Finally, take the first scan (the comb histogram one) and load it into
Photoshop:
7. Go to Image / Image Size...
8. Change size by a few pixels, set Resample to *Bicubic*
9. Click on OK
Bingo! Smooth histogram again. A miracle! Yeah, right.... But at what
costs? At the cost of image *corruption*! By scaling up or down you
have *corrupted* image data by *imaginary* data as explained above.
I'm sure even you will agree that scaling an image up or down in
Photoshop is a corruption. The same goes for scanner software color
correction. I hope that makes it clear now.
I won't reply to the rest because it's based on the same mistaken
notion as above.
Don.
Don
>>Both VueScan and SilverFast are "point-and-shoot" programs similar to
>>disposable cameras. OK for casual tourist but not for people who care
>>for quality or have an inkling of what they are doing. Nothing wrong
>>with that if that's what they are after, but...
>
>I'd disagree with that. Silverfast SE may be for the casual user, but
>Ai certainly isn't. And from what I saw of Vuescan, even though it
>doesn't suit me, I wouldn't have called it simple.
Actually, the messy user interface is one of VueScan's major problems,
which is why the author's panacea advice is to ignore everything and
just set the gray point.
But even VueScan can be used by a knowledgeable user to get good
results (again, by ignoring everything and just scanning raw).
However, all that was not the gist of the discussion. It's the notion
that point-and-shoot delivers purest data, which is patent nonsense.
Don.
Don
>Thanks Don. I couldn't have responded better.
No, thank you! You obviously understand what I was saying.
Let's hope my subsequent explanation in a parallel message helps Toby
understand too. In the end, understanding this can only benefit even
if he choses to continue using the same workflow as before. At least
it will be a decision based on being fully aware of what is going on.
>When editing by a scanner sw, you don't know what
>information is lost and can never recover it. PS' editing tools are far
>superior than any scanner sw can offer, but you do need to learn how to
>operate them.
Yes, that's indeed *the* key and what I was trying to convey. Again,
let's hope this clear and concise paragraph can throw some more light.
Don.
Dav...@att.net
So it's you and I (one Canadian and one Yank) against the world. <g>
Actually, there are a few others:
This author ran a simple test. He concluded that tutorials like Scantips
to be incorrect and even recorded the great Ed Hamrick in agreement.
http://www.lumika.org/gear_nikon_scan_vs_photoshop.htm
Here's another author preferring raw scans for the same reasons we are
discussing. He pointed out that those who capture raw scan need to able
to stand ugly looking scans, and then be able to edit them in PS.
http://www.naturephotographers.net/mh0202-1.pdf (See "Input Method 2:
Manage Color After the Scan")
If the other side can only pause and think about what hardware is inside
a scanner, they may come to the conclusion that the limit hardware can
only do so much in capturing a scan and it is the scanner software that
is doing most of the work in creating a "best" scan. Here's one simple
way to realize this. To produce the first scan preview, note that the
scanner takes some time and makes some noise stepping through the scan.
Display the preview scan and its histogram. Make some corrections
(exposure, levels, curves, etc.). Note that the preview and the
histogram changes instantly and the scanner makes no noise. The software
is making the correction and not the hardware. As Don pointed out, the
better looking histogram after a correction is not from real pixels
rescanned by hardware, but is a result of the software's interpolation
of the original pixels. On my Polaroid ss4000, this is even more
obvious. When scanning a raw scan without any corrections, there is a
status window showing the scan progress. If I make corrections and then
scan, the same scan status window is followed by another status window
showing correction progress.
opens...@optonline.net
While I have found the discussion of the merits of silverfast and
vuescan very interesting and informative, I'd like to bring this back to
the topic I originally posted:
I have been trying to gather information from people to help me decide
between the Minolta 5400 and the Nikon Coolscan 5000. I am interested
in knowing any pros or cons that people may like to share about these
scanners.
Thanks!
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 18:35:52 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Both VueScan and SilverFast are "point-and-shoot" programs similar to
>>>disposable cameras.
>>
>>I disagree. They certainly *can* be point and shoot packages in that
>>they will give very acceptable results out of the box, but they both
>>have a full range of adjustments, in some cases exceeding the range that
>>the native software provides, or which can only be produced by the
>>native software in conjunction with another image processing package
>>(eg. PS) and some effort and skill on the part of the operator.
>
>That was not the context of the statement.
Its certainly how I read the statement "it offers advanced controls..."
> It was the
>"point-and-shoot" aspect which was claimed as superior.
As you well know, for many users a "point-and-shoot" capability *will*
always produce superior results. That is why the "straight out of the
box" results from Vuescan and Silverfast have earned those packages a
substantial user base.
However I don't read the issue as one of point and shoot superiority,
but one of the assumption that 3rd party software is inferior - as Toby
pointed out, it isn't. Point and shoot facilities merely enhance their
ease of use, but there is no reason to assume that without this they
would be inferior to native software.
Also note that there is a difference between an optimised scan, the term
used by Toby, and a processed image - an optimised scan can still be
raw, for example.
I seem to recall only a few months back a long tirade from your very
good self about the inability of native scanner software to achieve just
such an optimised scan - so what makes it so different now?
>
>>>>> I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
>>>>
>>>>You lose a lot of quality this way.
>>>
>>>Forgive me, but that is just plain nonsense. Exactly the opposite is
>>>true.
>>>
>>Not exactly - analogue gain, for example, is an adjustment which can
>>only be made at the scanning stage and, when necessary, improves the
>>quality of the scan in a way that can never be recovered in Photoshop.
>
>Again, that is not the context. It's automated workflow with minimum
>user intervention which is at discussion.
That is why I said "not exactly" in response to your comment that
*exactly* the opposite was true. In general, the opposite is true, but
not in every case, as my example demonstrates, so "not exactly the
opposite" is true. I consider this to be as "in context" as any other
comment in the thread and more than many.
WD
issues).
I too faced the decision between the Minolta 5400 and Coolscan 5000.
The best way to decide would be to get your hands on both and try a
number
of different scans. I did not do that. I chose the Nikon for the
following reasons:
- Very fast scanning
- This line of scanners historically serves the professional
market at
the level below drum scanning.
- Had a Minolta Dual Scan III and was not happy with
DMax (I would GUESS that the 5400 to beat the Dual Scan
in these respects)
While I do envy the higher resolution of the Minolta, I felt that I
could
not go wrong with the Nikon given its lineage. The Minolta does not
have this kind of track record. It may be superior, but I did not want
to 'risk' it.
After using the Coolscan 5000 for a while I can say that I am quite
satisfied.
I can also say that it is still beat by a good drum scan. One must
expect
this given the price and technology difference.
I scan mostly negatives. I had a negative that I had had drummed
scanned that
I scanned with the Nikon. The Nikon scan was a bit more noisy/grainy.
But more than that, it did not have quite the punch or vibrancy of
the drum scan. It was close however.
After having scanned the same negatives I had scanned with the Dual
Scan III,
The Nikon is clearly superior in resolution (the Dual scan ~ 2800 dpi)
as well as color and 'punch'.
I must also say, I still wonder how I would have made out if I chose
the Minolta 5400. It may well be better than the Coolscan. Although
the
long scan times would have been a real bummer. Like anything else,
when it takes a very long time to complete a scan one tends not to
want
to spend alot of time experimenting to get better scans. That is sort
of a 'non-tangible' disadvantage of long scan times.
Also the GEM grain removal can be very useful. My take is that if you
have a negative that is very sharp and pushes the film to the limit,
than GEM will also soften detail. However, if your negative is
'average', then GEM can seem to reduce grain with virtually no loss
of detail allowing further sharpening. So GEM can be at times VERY
useful.
ICE works very well.
opens...@optonline.net wrote in message news:<openshutter-CA73...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
false_dmitrii
> >its lighting system.
> >
> It may be what you have picked up, but it doesn't appear to hold any
> water. If anything, the near collimated light source of the Nikon
<snipped explanation>
I can't argue with that.
I really can't! :) Glad I stopped where I did.
I don't know whether the error was in the post I read or my
misinterpretation of it. I'm still pretty sure the post claimed the
LS-5000 showed more of the halos than the SE5400...but that's all I
can contribute.
Regards,
false_dmitrii
false_dmitrii
> On 7 Jul 2004 12:57:06 -0700, false_...@yahoo.com (false_dmitrii)
> wrote:
> >
> >A recurring complaint with the SE5400 is shadow noise, usually bands
> >of light. Different people seem to have very different experiences
> >here.
> >
> It did happen, with early versions of the software (1.1 and 1.2) as
> far as I know it was cured from version 1.3 onwards.
I'd read that, but doesn't the newsgroup still get complaints about
bands in shadows from time to time? Or is this just a false
impression I've developed?
false_dmitrii
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> It was the
>>"point-and-shoot" aspect which was claimed as superior.
>
>As you well know, for many users a "point-and-shoot" capability *will*
>always produce superior results. That is why the "straight out of the
>box" results from Vuescan and Silverfast have earned those packages a
>substantial user base.
Actually, I don't agree with that on at least two grounds. In order to
achieve these results (new) users are advised to ignore all features
and just set the gray point. (Witness Ed's advice to *turn-off* the
Kodachrome setting in VueScan and use the gray point instead!!!) Well,
you can do that just as easily with virtually *any* scanner software
and NikonScan's user interface is vastly superior to VueScan's.
Actually, to be accurate, (unlike VueScan) NikonScan *has* a user
interface.
Second, superior to what? To their inability to use the software
properly, *not* superior to what the scanner can produce. Indeed,
their "point-and-shoot" meddling will only corrupt what the scanner
could deliver under optimal conditions. A new coat of paint does not
improve the structural weaknesses of a building, it only masks it to a
lesser or greater degree. Would you call that coat of paint superior
to the actual building work?
Which neatly gets us off this digression and brings us back to the
subject matter...
The key is his mistaken notion:
> I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
You lose a lot of quality this way.
You don't! You're just getting what the scanner is capable of, and you
get it unadulterated.
Until he comprehends this all else will go over his head.
>However I don't read the issue as one of point and shoot superiority,
>but one of the assumption that 3rd party software is inferior - as Toby
>pointed out, it isn't. Point and shoot facilities merely enhance their
>ease of use, but there is no reason to assume that without this they
>would be inferior to native software.
I never said it was inferior and that's not at discussion. The problem
is all of his "conclusions" are based on a wrong premise (see above).
Furthermore, he can't tell the difference between "better" as in
getting more out of hardware (his original claim above to which I
responded) and "better" in the sense of making it easier for the user
at the expense of real quality (your parallel point which just
confuses him into thinking that, somehow, user-friendliness directly
translates into superior hardware output quality).
So, before we descent into such esoterics (which will just confuse him
even more) we have to make it clear to him that the above notion as it
relates to getting the most out of hardware is just plain wrong.
Otherwise, he will (and does!) misinterpret your statements (relating
to usage) as tacit support of his mistaken notion (relating to
hardware output quality) and that will just reinforce it and make it
that much more difficult to correct later.
So, for starters, you should maybe distance yourself clearly from his
above statement (without equivocation!) to help him understand that.
Once he does, and is willing to learn more, *then* it's the time for
"yes, but...", "except on Friday 13th and full moon..." etc.
>I seem to recall only a few months back a long tirade from your very
>good self about the inability of native scanner software to achieve just
>such an optimised scan - so what makes it so different now?
Nothing! No amount of curves adjustments will ever bring back the
missing dynamic range. It will just make it worse. (The case of coat
of paint hiding structural deficiencies.) This was clear to me even
before I started. So...
I relied on facts, I ran tests, I read, I learned (all good advice to
him as well) and then achieved exactly what I said was possible all
along with Analog Gain because it was a simple yet irrefutable axiom.
There *is* a global setting for scanning Kodachromes with LS-30.
However, it's a relative one. Specifically, it's a function of
exposure.
I never said native scanner software was incapable. Quite the
contrary! I said Nikon was *unwilling*. The software *is* capable
(using Analog Gain) but Nikon refused to retrofit or, failing that,
supply the correct settings - i.e. workflow. That was the problem.
Don.
Don
>So it's you and I (one Canadian and one Yank) against the world. <g>
Yeah! Bring it on!
Juuust kidding... ;o)
>Actually, there are a few others:
Yes, pretty much everybody agrees because it's such a basic and
elementary notion.
>Here's one simple
>way to realize this. To produce the first scan preview, note that the
>scanner takes some time and makes some noise stepping through the scan.
>Display the preview scan and its histogram. Make some corrections
>(exposure, levels, curves, etc.). Note that the preview and the
>histogram changes instantly and the scanner makes no noise. The software
>is making the correction and not the hardware.
Exactly! What's more, these corrections are based on the Preview which
is only a small "keyhole" sample of the full image.
Nikon actually warns about this (hidden deep within the manual) as it
relates to auto-exposure, where they indicate that for best results
the full scan should be examined and optional fine adjustments made
using Analog Gain.
Don.
Dav...@att.net
As stated in an earlier OT post, I'm also debating whether to upgrade
from a Polaroid ss4000 to one one these. Since I care more about the
hardware comparisons, my criteria are:
- full frame scans (the ss4000 can do this)
- sharper focus edge to edge
- better shadow details
- less flares (halo around light subject against deep shadow
background). The flares are supposed to be due to dusty mirrors. The
implication is a scanner designed to minimize dust collection inside.
- multisampling support
- native sw at least as good as the ss4000's (not saying much)
I was unable to get these questions answered from the online reviews of
scanners, but did get a few answers here about full frame scans and
multisampling. Thanks. My feeling is that these scanners will be better
than the ss4000 in the shadow areas due to 16bit depth, claimed higher
dmax, and multisampling. Whether sharpness will be better is unknown.
If you care about the goodness of the native sw, that's a different ball
game.
Kennedy McEwen
false_dmitrii <false_...@yahoo.com> writes
rather than with the native software? If so, Ed reckons he has fixed it
now, something to do with the IR lamp being on at the same time as the
white lamp. Fairly recent discussion here that I didn't take much
notice of as I don't use either the scanner or the software, so you
should be able to track it down.
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 16:37:36 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> It was the
>>>"point-and-shoot" aspect which was claimed as superior.
>>
>>As you well know, for many users a "point-and-shoot" capability *will*
>>always produce superior results. That is why the "straight out of the
>>box" results from Vuescan and Silverfast have earned those packages a
>>substantial user base.
>
>Actually, I don't agree with that on at least two grounds. In order to
>achieve these results (new) users are advised to ignore all features
>and just set the gray point. (Witness Ed's advice to *turn-off* the
>Kodachrome setting in VueScan and use the gray point instead!!!)
That is just a rather convoluted and insincere way of agreeing that
Vuescan does give pretty good scans straight out of the box without user
fiddling and adjustment.
>Well,
>you can do that just as easily with virtually *any* scanner software
>and NikonScan's user interface is vastly superior to VueScan's.
Actually that is not the case. For a significant number of users there
seems to be great problems getting anything that is acceptable from
Nikonscan without a deal of faffing around, even just to get a raw scan
that they have no skill to be able top process in Photoshop to achieve
as good a result as Vuescan and Silverfast get straight out of the box.
>Actually, to be accurate, (unlike VueScan) NikonScan *has* a user
>interface.
>
Ooh handbags at dawn, Don - bitch, bitch. ;-)
>Second, superior to what? To their inability to use the software
>properly, *not* superior to what the scanner can produce. Indeed,
>their "point-and-shoot" meddling will only corrupt what the scanner
>could deliver under optimal conditions.
And that is exactly the point - for many users that point-and-shoot
option *is* the best they can get because they don't need to understand
and implement the processes to get anything as good, let alone better,
themselves.
> A new coat of paint does not
>improve the structural weaknesses of a building, it only masks it to a
>lesser or greater degree. Would you call that coat of paint superior
>to the actual building work?
>
If that new coat of paint lets you sell or rent the building for more
then it certainly is superior to building work! And it is very superior
if the difference lets you indulge in that LS-5000ED instead of cutting
a dash for the LS-50ED. It's the end result that matters, not some
interim step. As long as it is safe, why spend money making it last
another 50 years when a lick of paint and a scrub will reverse the flow
of money from your wallet.
>Which neatly gets us off this digression and brings us back to the
>subject matter...
>
>The key is his mistaken notion:
>
> > I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
>
> You lose a lot of quality this way.
>
>You don't! You're just getting what the scanner is capable of, and you
>get it unadulterated.
>
>Until he comprehends this all else will go over his head.
>
I don't disagree, but your response was inaccurate too. There are cases
when scanner adjustment is necessary to get an improved raw scan. You
also assume that the processing abilities of Photoshop are some sort of
pinnacle every other package should aspire to. But there is little
evidence for this. For example, had you bought the LS-5000ED then your
workflow would immediately lose an LSB off the data - Photoshop only
processes to 15-bit accuracy. So your argument that Toby was facing
180deg from the truth, isn't accurate. His argument is wrong, and more
wrong than yours, but yours is not 100% correct either - there are
exceptions.
>>However I don't read the issue as one of point and shoot superiority,
>>but one of the assumption that 3rd party software is inferior - as Toby
>>pointed out, it isn't. Point and shoot facilities merely enhance their
>>ease of use, but there is no reason to assume that without this they
>>would be inferior to native software.
>
>I never said it was inferior and that's not at discussion. The problem
>is all of his "conclusions" are based on a wrong premise (see above).
>
And I chose to address one aspect of your statement which was also
inaccurate and leading to the wrong conclusion. The fact that you now
wish to exclude that from the discussion is neither here nor there - you
chose to come back and argue that your critique was 100% valid in the
context, but read the context, the thread, rather than Toby's one
remark. Your remark is just as open to criticism as his was - though
you prefer not to see it that way.
>Furthermore, he can't tell the difference between "better" as in
>getting more out of hardware (his original claim above to which I
>responded) and "better" in the sense of making it easier for the user
>at the expense of real quality (your parallel point which just
>confuses him into thinking that, somehow, user-friendliness directly
>translates into superior hardware output quality).
>
For many, user friendliness *IS* superior output, and whether that comes
from the hardware or software is irrelvant, we all judge on the end
result. Whilst it is perfectly true that in skilled hands your workflow
will result in a superior end product, that is not the case for the
unskilled.
Just to get completely off topic, its a fair bet that as an American you
drive a car with an automatic transmission - why? Because its easier
and gives the results you need as well as a manual transmission,
possibly with less grinding noises? Of course Carlos Saintz, the rally
driver, will tell you that you will get better performance with manual
transmission control, and he'll demonstrate it too. But that disparity
of views could just be down to a difference in skill level between the
two of you. Then Michael Shumacher will demonstrate that there are
parts of the automatic transmission that do improve performance and can
outperform Saintz with a semi-automatic one. But are you going to junk
your car for one with a semi-automatic shift, or even a stick shift -
why not, when you know you are losing a lot of performance in that
sluggish (3 cog?) automatic? Because your definition of "better" is not
the same as Saintz or Schumacher's. What about the Greenpeace activist
that views the best performance vehicle as a bicycle? The point I am
making is that skill, interest, necessities and a host of other
pressures determine what you consider "better" to be. In your context,
Toby was wrong in his claims, but you were also wrong in your claim that
best was exactly the opposite of the process he claimed to be best, as
well as assuming that your workflow is not without its limitations
itself.
>So, before we descent into such esoterics (which will just confuse him
>even more) we have to make it clear to him that the above notion as it
>relates to getting the most out of hardware is just plain wrong.
>
But he is not talking about "getting the most out of the hardware", he
is talking about getting the best result from the *combination* of
hardware, software and the skill available to bring the two together to
achieve the optimum result. Silverfast, like Vuescan, combines those two
aspects wuith a minimum level of skill much better than Nikonscan does,
whilst at the same time offering all the capability and more to get the
best out of the hardware if he chooses to. Like most folk though, Toby
rightly appears to be judging better quality on the end result, not some
semi-abstract construct part way through the process, but consistent end
pictures that look good, sharp, smooth well balanced - and in a fraction
of the time he struggled with NikonScan for. In a very real sense that
*IS* better. Better for him in his particular value set.
>Otherwise, he will (and does!) misinterpret your statements (relating
>to usage) as tacit support of his mistaken notion (relating to
>hardware output quality) and that will just reinforce it and make it
>that much more difficult to correct later.
>
Just as others would misinterpret any blanket agreement with your
statement as tacit support for it in entirety. That is why I used the
words "Not exactly" and provided an example of an exception to your
general rule.
>So, for starters, you should maybe distance yourself clearly from his
>above statement (without equivocation!) to help him understand that.
>Once he does, and is willing to learn more, *then* it's the time for
>"yes, but...", "except on Friday 13th and full moon..." etc.
>
I think that is pretty clear to most readers by the words I used - "not
exactly" - in long hand: yes that is correct in a general sense, but
there are situations (which are not that unusual) where the third party
software in itself will outperform the combination of raw scan from
native software into Photoshop.
>>I seem to recall only a few months back a long tirade from your very
>>good self about the inability of native scanner software to achieve just
>>such an optimised scan - so what makes it so different now?
>
>Nothing! No amount of curves adjustments will ever bring back the
>missing dynamic range. It will just make it worse. (The case of coat
>of paint hiding structural deficiencies.) This was clear to me even
>before I started. So...
>
>I relied on facts, I ran tests, I read, I learned (all good advice to
>him as well) and then achieved exactly what I said was possible all
>along with Analog Gain because it was a simple yet irrefutable axiom.
>There *is* a global setting for scanning Kodachromes with LS-30.
>However, it's a relative one.
Its also a very different one from the global setting that the later
scanners use to achieve a much more tightly controlled result, which is
why Nikon would not even begin to try to help you. In particular, that
blue LED your LS-50 is a significant improvement over the one in the
LS30. In short, the hardware wasn't up to the job you wanted to the
software to achieve.
Bruce Graham
from google - no warranty expressed or implied!!
- Bruce
************************************************
Topic: Summary of SS4000 cleaning discussion
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 14:29:23 -0700
From: HPA
Summary of SS4000 cleaning discussion.
HOW DO I KNOW IF MY SCANNER NEEDS CLEANING? By opening the unit and
examining the optical mirror. Or, if you want a preliminary idea of
how dirty the mirror may be before taking this step, look at the amount
of dust underneath your scanner. If you do not use a dustcover, this
is likely to be a good indicator of how much dust may be on the optical
lens and mirror (this is because the scanner has open holes and serves
as a dust collector, unless you have a dust cover).
HOW DO I OPEN THE UNIT FOR EXAMINATION AND CLEANING? First, get the
scanner unplugged from the computer and out on a clear well lit table
where you can work on it. Turn the scanner upside down, you will see
four plastic catches on the bottom sides near the corners. A small
flat screwdriver can be used to pop open these catches. Be careful not
to break them. Once you have released the catches and have slid the
top off, you will see the mechanism. The top cover and main chassis
will, of course, still be connected by various wires. Connect the
power cord to the unit and press the power button on. The scanner
will attempt to go through one cycle. Be observant, at one point the
optical mirror will be perfectly revealed. It may take a few tries to
see how it works. As soon as the mirror is perfectly accessible, pull
the power cord so it freezes in that position.
HOW DO I CLEAN THE OPTICAL MIRROR? With compressed air. Air comes in
two forms, a compressor or a can of dust-off available from camera
stores, etc. If you have compressor, set to about 40 lbs of air
pressure. I recommend you use a medical compressor because it does not
have oil pistons. (Regular air compressors sold for general machine or
airbrush use oil pistons, so make sure your compressor does not emit
tiny oil droplets out the nozzle) If you use the canned air, remember
not to hold the can at an angle because some of these squirt a liquid
out if held at angles other than generally vertical. Perhaps you can
put the scanner on its side while blowing the dust away. Another
suggestion for canned air is to put a downward bend in the tube that is
used to extend the nozzle, you can do this while slightly heating the
tube with a match. Blow off the mirror and lens real good.
WHAT IT THE MIRROR NEEDS FURTHER CLEANING? Then you need denatured
alcohol available from hardware or paint stores (which is NOT drugstore
isopropyl alcohol). Use lens cleaning tissue, and put a little
denatured alcohol on the tissue. Fold the tissue over and drag it
across the mirror using no pressure. Do not get the alcohol on plastic
parts or let it get behind the mirror, or let it drip all over
everything. Use each tissue only once and discard.
WHAT CAN I DO TO KEEP THE UNIT IN GOOD CONDITION? Make a plastic
dustcover. Or, put it in a plastic bag when not using it. Anything to
keep dust from getting into it is a good thing.
This is not authorized factory service information. I am not
qualified to do anything, I have no education, I don't know anything.
These are practical suggestions for do-it-yourselfers and are based on
my personal experience of doing it. My remarks about cleaning the
mirror come from questioning a life-long camera repairman. I have no
factory training or information. There are many people on this list
who are scanner scientists and mechanics and can probably offer better
information, so let's hope to hear from them.
Good luck
Thomas
David J. Littleboy
"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> What about the Greenpeace activist
> that views the best performance vehicle as a bicycle?
Have you ever met a Greenpeace activist that doesn't own a car???
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Actually, I don't agree with that on at least two grounds. In order to
>>achieve these results (new) users are advised to ignore all features
>>and just set the gray point. (Witness Ed's advice to *turn-off* the
>>Kodachrome setting in VueScan and use the gray point instead!!!)
>
>That is just a rather convoluted and insincere way of agreeing that
>Vuescan does give pretty good scans straight out of the box without user
>fiddling and adjustment.
No, it's not. It's a proof that *any* scanning software (I'm aware of)
can achieve comparable results (certainly beyond any difference such a
casual user can spot) when using the above, simple procedure, thereby
eliminating the key "feature" or advantage of point-and-shoot software
(ease of use).
It's just as easy to set a gray point in NikonScan as it is in
VueScan. Much easier, actually, because in NikonScan it's right there
in front of the user, unlike the "secret VueScan handshake" (right
click).
>>Well,
>>you can do that just as easily with virtually *any* scanner software
>>and NikonScan's user interface is vastly superior to VueScan's.
>
>Actually that is not the case. For a significant number of users there
>seems to be great problems getting anything that is acceptable from
>Nikonscan without a deal of faffing around, even just to get a raw scan
>that they have no skill to be able top process in Photoshop to achieve
>as good a result as Vuescan and Silverfast get straight out of the box.
Not if one follows the same procedure in NikonScan: click on the gray
color sampler, click on a neutral area on the Preview, hit scan. That
gets comparable results to the same procedure in VueScan, for example.
>>Actually, to be accurate, (unlike VueScan) NikonScan *has* a user
>>interface.
>>
>Ooh handbags at dawn, Don - bitch, bitch. ;-)
But I thought you agreed? ;-)
I had my handbag on the ready, hoping for a Monty Python style
recreation of the battle of Hastings (I think it was...) by that
Woman's Auxiliary Club or whatever... (how's that for vague?).
As a Python connoisseur I'm sure you know the skit I'm referring to
and will be able to fill in the blanks... :-)
>>Second, superior to what? To their inability to use the software
>>properly, *not* superior to what the scanner can produce. Indeed,
>>their "point-and-shoot" meddling will only corrupt what the scanner
>>could deliver under optimal conditions.
>
>And that is exactly the point - for many users that point-and-shoot
>option *is* the best they can get because they don't need to understand
>and implement the processes to get anything as good, let alone better,
>themselves.
Right, in relative terms, but not in absolute terms. And, as I
outlined above, if that's all they want to do (sacrifice quality for
convenience) they can do that with any scanning software I'm aware of.
>>Which neatly gets us off this digression and brings us back to the
>>subject matter...
>>
>>The key is his mistaken notion:
>>
>> > I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
>>
>> You lose a lot of quality this way.
>>
>>You don't! You're just getting what the scanner is capable of, and you
>>get it unadulterated.
>>
>>Until he comprehends this all else will go over his head.
>>
>I don't disagree, but your response was inaccurate too. There are cases
>when scanner adjustment is necessary to get an improved raw scan.
You know that... I know that... Most people in this newsgroup know
that... But he doesn't seem to know even the most elementary basics.
If we start telling him that auto-exposure is not always 100% accurate
and that he needs to adjust Analog Gain, his head will explode...
So, baby steps... First, let him get to grips with the most elementary
basics.
Besides, we also have to consider order of magnitude here. The
difference between Auto-Exposure and Analog Gain fine tuning is far,
far less than the difference (massive corruption, actually) he will do
messing around with curves in scanner software. This nuance is bound
to get lost on someone who thinks that when you scan raw you "lose a
lot of quality". Not just "lose quality" mind, but "lose a *lot* of
quality"!
>You
>also assume that the processing abilities of Photoshop are some sort of
>pinnacle every other package should aspire to.
No, this is not about Photoshop but about the fact that when using
scanner tools one is working off of a tiny Preview. Neither Photoshop
nor any other image editing software could do substantially better
when forced to work through such a "keyhole". With scanner software's
very limited tool chest, one is also missing a substantial number of
essential tools, such as numerical displays (mean, median) etc.
>Your remark is just as open to criticism as his was - though
>you prefer not to see it that way.
Indeed it is. But you are now talking about fine shades and nuances
which you and I agree on, but are way over his head, and will only
confuse him.
>>Furthermore, he can't tell the difference between "better" as in
>>getting more out of hardware (his original claim above to which I
>>responded) and "better" in the sense of making it easier for the user
>>at the expense of real quality (your parallel point which just
>>confuses him into thinking that, somehow, user-friendliness directly
>>translates into superior hardware output quality).
>>
>For many, user friendliness *IS* superior output, and whether that comes
>from the hardware or software is irrelvant, we all judge on the end
>result. Whilst it is perfectly true that in skilled hands your workflow
>will result in a superior end product, that is not the case for the
>unskilled.
And we are not going to help them by giving them the impression that
the *relative* improvement they experience (comparing their results
with and without point-and-shoot) compares even close in *absolute*
terms with the results of someone who knows what they're doing.
>Just to get completely off topic, its a fair bet that as an American you
>drive a car with an automatic transmission - why?
Let me stop you right there... Two wrong assumptions:
1. I'm not an American, I'm Canadian, eh? ;-)
2. I don't even have a driver's license. I ride a (push) bike! Yes, in
the snow too... We Canadians are a hardy bunch! ;-)
Now, you were saying... ;-)
But seriously, I get your gist but I don't think this particular
example really addresses the point. You will still cover the mileage
either way. An automatic may be more convenient but the *absolute*
"quality" (in this case actually quantity) of mileage is still the
same whether you drive an automatic or not.
When someone uses point-and-shoot in our context they do get the same
convenience as the driver using automatic but - unlike driving - they
don't cover the same mileage or, in our context, get the same quality
as someone who knows what they're doing.
>Toby was wrong in his claims, but you were also wrong in your claim that
>best was exactly the opposite of the process he claimed to be best, as
>well as assuming that your workflow is not without its limitations
>itself.
The problem with that is that you are putting my workflow through much
more scrutiny which you are not applying to his "workflow".
Yes, I may need to fine tune using Analog Gain, but so may he,
although he's not even aware of it! Indeed, the likelihood that he
will need (major) fine tuning is much higher!
Nevertheless, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and, since we
have this potential need for fine tuning on both sides of the equation
we can strike it from both sides of the equation, and that's what I
did.
After that - when we remove this fine tuning requirement - what we are
then left with is that his statement is exactly the opposite of truth.
>>So, before we descent into such esoterics (which will just confuse him
>>even more) we have to make it clear to him that the above notion as it
>>relates to getting the most out of hardware is just plain wrong.
>>
>But he is not talking about "getting the most out of the hardware", he
>is talking about getting the best result from the *combination* of
>hardware, software and the skill available to bring the two together to
>achieve the optimum result.
Yes, he is talking about getting the most out of hardware (by
referring to raw) even if he doesn't know it. And that's exactly my
point! We have to make it clear to him what the implications of such a
statement are - and do that on the very basic, elementary level -
before we even have a hope of teaching him the rest. Assuming he even
wants to learn...
Judging by his absence, his head probably already exploded as we argue
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... ;-)
>>I relied on facts, I ran tests, I read, I learned (all good advice to
>>him as well) and then achieved exactly what I said was possible all
>>along with Analog Gain because it was a simple yet irrefutable axiom.
>>There *is* a global setting for scanning Kodachromes with LS-30.
>>However, it's a relative one.
>
>Its also a very different one from the global setting that the later
>scanners use to achieve a much more tightly controlled result, which is
>why Nikon would not even begin to try to help you. In particular, that
>blue LED your LS-50 is a significant improvement over the one in the
>LS30. In short, the hardware wasn't up to the job you wanted to the
>software to achieve.
That's not really correct. I have to preface, though, by saying I
don't have the time to test this to my satisfaction. One day...
But at least on the surface (comparing histograms) "LD-50" ;-)
Kodachrome setting does not produce significantly different results
(regarding Kodachrome compensation, of course) from the LS-30 once I
apply the Kodachrome correction I came up with empirically. Actually
they are surprisingly close! I say "surprisingly" because I didn't use
*any* tools, not even an IT8 target with the LS-30, but presumably my
sample was large enough to get a good enough approximation.
The only difference I see is actually in the *red* channel. It appears
that the red dynamic range of the LS-50 seems somewhat wider than that
of the LS-30 after I apply the correction. However, I am comparing a
2700 scan with a 4000 scan, plus, LS-50 is 14-bit so all that combined
may account for the difference in the red channel histogram width.
But, like I said back then, it's not so much the abundance of blue
(which is what everybody notices first, me included) but the absence
of red which seems to be the main problem! On reflection, that makes
perfect sense! One can always compress "too much" dynamic range (as in
blue) but you can't conjure missing dynamic range (as in red) so it
reasons that the absence of red would be much more detrimental.
Don.
Kennedy McEwen
<dav...@gol.com> writes
>
>"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> What about the Greenpeace activist
>> that views the best performance vehicle as a bicycle?
>
>Have you ever met a Greenpeace activist that doesn't own a car???
>
Don
<dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>> What about the Greenpeace activist
>> that views the best performance vehicle as a bicycle?
>
>Have you ever met a Greenpeace activist that doesn't own a car???
Erm... (fx: raises hand sheepishly)
Actually, technically not an activist but I certainly support most of
their aims. Don't even have a driver's license. Not particularly for
ideological reasons, but just find I never needed it.
A real Greenpeace activist owning a car would be a contradiction in
terms, like...
"military intelligence"
"postal service"
"Nikon support"
"VueScan user interface"
etc... ;-)
On a serious note though, most cars in Europe, for example, are hybrid
vehicles with minimal emissions, certainly far less than 4WD monsters
common in North America. So an environmentalist driving such a low
emission vehicle would not be a contradiction.
Don.
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Have you ever met a Greenpeace activist that doesn't own a car???
>>
>Not just one, but many.
Actually, research consistently shows that for inner city trips under
45 mins bike is the fastest, closely followed by public transport with
the car as the distant third. With ever increasing inner city
congestion this time is bound to go up.
The notable exception is London (U.K.) where they introduced a
"congestion charge" to limit the number of vehicles. So, the bike wins
again because cyclists don't have to pay this fee.
Don.
David J. Littleboy
"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> writes
> >"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> What about the Greenpeace activist
> >> that views the best performance vehicle as a bicycle?
> >
> >Have you ever met a Greenpeace activist that doesn't own a car???
> >
> Not just one, but many.
Glad to hear things are changing: I knew too many nature freaks with cars
when I was in the states; every time one would insist on offering me a ride
somehere, it would take 3 times longer than walking. Biking in Tokyo is
largely limited to housewives grocery shopping, white collar works going to
the train station, and bankers and insurance salespersons making their
rounds to the customers, often holding an umbrella in the rain. (A friend
and I put our heads together to figure out how to make our fortunes, and
what we came up with was an umbrella with a cell phone in the handle, or at
least a clamp to hold a cell phone.)
(Sorry about the grumpy noise: there's a nasty document in the inbox and I
don't have time to do any scanning this weekend.)
Dav...@att.net
> It's the end result that matters, not some
> interim step.
You must be in the Bush/Blair camp, which paints an end result that is
questionable at best.
> Just to get completely off topic, its a fair bet that as an American you
> drive a car with an automatic transmission - why?
Most Americans drive with automatic transmission because there are more
of them on the market. This is the same reason why most Europeans drive
with manual transmission in Europe. But this American drives a manual
transmission.
Dav...@att.net
> >Just to get completely off topic, its a fair bet that as an American you
> >drive a car with an automatic transmission - why?
>
> Let me stop you right there... Two wrong assumptions:
>
> 1. I'm not an American, I'm Canadian, eh? ;-)
> 2. I don't even have a driver's license. I ride a (push) bike! Yes, in
> the snow too... We Canadians are a hardy bunch! ;-)
We should forgive those who use auto focus point-and-shoot from across
the Pond.
Dav...@att.net
Thanks Bruce for digging this up. As stated in an earlier response, I
did find and try this. After removing some lint on the mirror, the
ss4000 flare problem diminished somewhat but not entirely.
Kennedy McEwen
>
>"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy <dav...@gol.com> writes
>> >"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> What about the Greenpeace activist
>> >> that views the best performance vehicle as a bicycle?
>> >
>> >Have you ever met a Greenpeace activist that doesn't own a car???
>> >
>> Not just one, but many.
>
>Glad to hear things are changing: I knew too many nature freaks with cars
>when I was in the states; every time one would insist on offering me a ride
>somehere, it would take 3 times longer than walking. Biking in Tokyo is
>largely limited to housewives grocery shopping, white collar works going to
>the train station, and bankers and insurance salespersons making their
>rounds to the customers, often holding an umbrella in the rain.
>
Seen any in use there yet?
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>On a serious note though, most cars in Europe, for example, are hybrid
>vehicles with minimal emissions
Don, now you really are talking out of your wrong end! Speaking from
Europe, yes the UK is technically part of both the geographic continent
and the political union, there are extremely few hybrid cars, very small
fractions of a percentage point of the total number of vehicles.
Kennedy McEwen
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>> It's the end result that matters, not some
>> interim step.
>
>You must be in the Bush/Blair camp,
What has that got to do with the price of fish?
>which paints an end result that is
>questionable at best.
>
Why is a better end result questionable? If it works for you, that's
what matters.
>> Just to get completely off topic, its a fair bet that as an American you
>> drive a car with an automatic transmission - why?
>
>Most Americans drive with automatic transmission because there are more
>of them on the market.
And why are there more of them on the market, when a manual Tx gives
better performance. Do Americans not care about performance or do they
dust have a different value system for it?
> This is the same reason why most Europeans drive
>with manual transmission in Europe.
Same question in different terms: What drives what is on the European
market? Do Europeans care more about performance than Americans, or
just have a different value system for it?
> But this American drives a manual
>transmission.
Found the clutch yet?
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:03:24 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Have you ever met a Greenpeace activist that doesn't own a car???
>>>
>>Not just one, but many.
>
>Actually, research consistently shows that for inner city trips under
>45 mins bike is the fastest
Fastest is, like hardware output, only one parameter in the entire
equation of which transport is best. Other parameters include
convenience, personal space, journey distance (ie speed), load capacity,
and personal safety.
Also, "research consistently shows that" bicycle riders are more likely
to be killed in road traffic accidents than truck drivers. Its bleeding
obvious though! Of course city trips under 45minutes are faster by bike
- longer than 45minutes gets you out of most cities and into regions
where bikes simply cannot compete! Just like your argument about the
hardware output, whilst generally true it is not 100% consistent with
the full transport picture.
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>>>Actually, to be accurate, (unlike VueScan) NikonScan *has* a user
>>>interface.
>>>
>>Ooh handbags at dawn, Don - bitch, bitch. ;-)
>
>But I thought you agreed? ;-)
>
others have a different value system which places more emphasis on
getting the best result for the minimum effort.
I well recall the first time I ever evaluated Vuescan, many years ago
when I had a Nikon LS-20 scanner. What amazed me was that it could
produce a perfectly acceptable image without any adjustment at all - in
fact, adjustment was a real pita because it didn't even have a preview
facility. Meanwhile, the first scan on Nikonscan 1.63 from the LS-20
was always unacceptible and required significant adjustment using the
preview just to get an acceptible result, and a *lot* of work to get
anything better than Vuescan would produce. The fact that I could get
something better with Nikonscan was why I stayed with it, however
Vuescan had the controls to produce better as well, but the user
interface made them less intuitive, and (IMO and clearly yours too)
still does. That does not mean everyone has (or should have) the same
opinion.
And, now it comes to mind, that was another case where your workflow
would have produced an inferior end result: the LS-20 is a 10-bit
internal device with only 8-bit output. All processing in NS1.63 was
implemented in the scanner itself, via look-up tables to 10-bit
precision. A raw scan could only be processed to 8-bit precision in
Photoshop.
Toby
I scanned a B&W neg with Nikon Scan 4.0 with my LS 4000. First I scanned it
totally straight--no messing with levels, curves, etc. Then I "optimized" it
by going into the curves dialog after prescan, setting black point and white
point, and adjusting the curves to give me a pleasing overall tonal balance
and contrast.
I went into PS and adjusted the first "raw" scan to visually match the
"optimized" second scan, then compared the histograms. The first one,
adjusted in PS, was much gappier than the second, adjusted pre-scan.
I did the same test again, except that for the first scan I adjusted B & W
points pre-scan, but did not play with curves. The second scan had both the
B & W points set and the curves set to give a nice tonal balance. Again I
adjusted the first scan to match the second in PS, and again the first scan
ended up with a much more ragged historgram.
I have to add here that I was working in 8 bits. This would probably not
have been the case had I been working in 16 in PS.
But it does point out that if you are going to be working in 8 bits it is
better to make the adjustment prescan in 14 or 16 bits or whatever your
scanner can do.
That is what I meant when I said that you lose quality if you scan raw and
then adjust in PS. I was assuming you are working in 8 bits. Are you?
I went on to do some comparison scans in SilverFast and NS--both neutral--no
prescan adjustments except setting black and white points. Interesting
results. The SF scans of positives were definitely better than the NS scans.
There was a marginal improvement (though very slight) in shadow detail it
seemed to me, but more importantly the color balance was much better--so
apparently SF uses a slightly different mix of the RGB LED intensities.
However with B&W negs SF was definitely inferior--while the overall balance
of tones was better there was a big gap between dark grey and
black--definitely a step lacking, whereas the tonal range in the thinnest
part of the neg was much smoother using NS. I will have to go back and try
to change the analog gain and see if I can smooth that out.
While I understand Don's point about all the bells and whistles on SF--the
auto theses and thoses, I was referring in my post to the nicer tonal
rendition I find using SF. And in fact when I adjust the NS scans (with
their smoother tonal range) I again end up with a gappy histogram, as
compared to the SF raw scans (although those still contain the tonal gap in
around zones 8-10).
Toby
"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37XsjkBl...@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
Toby
"Don" <phoney...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40ee3eda...@news.individual.net...
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 02:11:34 +0100, Hecate <hec...@newsguy.com> wrote:
<snip>
> But even VueScan can be used by a knowledgeable user to get good
> results (again, by ignoring everything and just scanning raw).
>
> However, all that was not the gist of the discussion. It's the notion
> that point-and-shoot delivers purest data, which is patent nonsense.
This was never the point of my discussion. My point was that it is better to
make your adjustments prescan while you are working in 14 or 16 bits
(depending on your scanner) than afterwards in PS--if you are using 8 bits
there.
Point-and-shoot has nothing to do with that.
Toby
>
> Don.
Kennedy McEwen
<kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> writes
>
>I have to add here that I was working in 8 bits. This would probably not
>have been the case had I been working in 16 in PS.
>
the results would actually have been in a different order. I don't hold
the view, taken by some, that the processes implemented by the scanner
software are inherently inferior or less accurate than those in PS. Good
though it is, PS has to earn its place on the pedestal, to give it that
position by rights is just BS.
>But it does point out that if you are going to be working in 8 bits it is
>better to make the adjustment prescan in 14 or 16 bits or whatever your
>scanner can do.
>
>That is what I meant when I said that you lose quality if you scan raw and
>then adjust in PS. I was assuming you are working in 8 bits. Are you?
>
Certainly Don is working with 14-bit data. I use what I need for the
job in hand.
>I went on to do some comparison scans in SilverFast and NS--both neutral--no
>prescan adjustments except setting black and white points. Interesting
>results. The SF scans of positives were definitely better than the NS scans.
>There was a marginal improvement (though very slight) in shadow detail it
>seemed to me, but more importantly the color balance was much better--so
>apparently SF uses a slightly different mix of the RGB LED intensities.
No, LED intensity is not adjustable in the hardware - except in terms of
being on or off. ;-) SF may use a different balance of RGB exposure
though, based on its autoexposure algorithm.
If you had taken the time to adjust the analogue gain in NS before
setting the black and white points *could* have produced the similar
smoothness in colour throughout the range. Given your comments about
the shadows, it would appear that you are getting an advantage in SF of
a different gamma conversion, which could be minimised by appropriate
analogue gain settings in NS.
This is my issue with Don - dismissing out of hand the automatic
functions implemented by these 3rd party software packages is folly, as
is suggesting that manual intervention is always better than automatic.
The equivalent auto function on NikonScan, autoexposure (which is not
based on the preview but on a separate pass of the image), does not
yield the same results, or as accurate ones, as those of Silverfast,
hence the *need* for analogue gain manual adjustment to get a similar
result.
Hecate
There is one car that doesn't either - the Toyota Prius a
petrol/battery hybrid which is actually a very nice car too. :)
--
Hecate
Hec...@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Actually, research consistently shows that for inner city trips under
>>45 mins bike is the fastest
>
>Fastest is, like hardware output, only one parameter in the entire
>equation of which transport is best.
Which is why I said "the fastest" and not "the best" because the
former is measurable quantity, the latter is a subjective opinion. ;-)
>Also, "research consistently shows that" bicycle riders are more likely
>to be killed in road traffic accidents than truck drivers.
Very true! Civilized places like Holland have dedicated bike lanes and
draconian laws when it comes to bike <-> motorized vehicle
"encounters".
>Of course city trips under 45minutes are faster by bike
It's "of course" to you and me but most drivers still believe that a
car is always faster.
Don.
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On a serious note though, most cars in Europe, for example, are hybrid
>>vehicles with minimal emissions
>
>Don, now you really are talking out of your wrong end! Speaking from
>Europe, yes the UK is technically part of both the geographic continent
>and the political union, there are extremely few hybrid cars, very small
>fractions of a percentage point of the total number of vehicles.
That's why I said "most". Virtually all vehicles in Holland, for
example, are propane (or some sort of natural gas) / gasoline
vehicles. In Germany, I believe, a car must be 90% recyclable before
it's allowed on the market, etc.
The U.K. marches to a different drummer in many areas. While I always
admired and loved this eccentricity because it was innovative and
productive and not bound by inertia, in more recent times this is
often self-destructive and counter-productive. Point in case: the
whole anti-Europe hysteria, not to mention the support of Bush, etc...
:-/
Even though the gap is closing, London and Britain are still my
personal favorite places in Europe (of the areas I know) in spite of
the immense damage (both physically and in terms of mentality) Maggie
has done to both... ;o)
What does all this have to do with scanning? Well... Erm... I... Ah...
Yes! The fastest way to deliver your scan within a city is to jump on
a bike! Yeah, that's it! ;o)
Don.
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>Actually, to be accurate, (unlike VueScan) NikonScan *has* a user
>>>>interface.
>>>>
>>>Ooh handbags at dawn, Don - bitch, bitch. ;-)
>>
>>But I thought you agreed? ;-)
>>
>I do, but (and this is where you seem to have a problem) I accept that
>others have a different value system which places more emphasis on
>getting the best result for the minimum effort.
Now that's just patently wrong! I always include something along the
lines of "there's nothing wrong with that and many people are
perfectly happy with it".
However, when such non-cognoscenti try to spread rumors that their
"auto-everything" is *technologically* superior, that's where I have a
problem. Sure, use it and be happy, but don't foster delusions that
*in absolute terms* that approach is superior.
The basic misunderstanding is that I make a distinction between
relative and absolute evaluations. Some "great unwashed" seem to have
the mistaken notion that just because they can in *relative* terms
easily get (what to them looks like) acceptable results, that
automatically translates into *absolute* superiority of such scans in
*technical* terms. And that's just not true. That's all I'm pointing
out...
>And, now it comes to mind, that was another case where your workflow
>would have produced an inferior end result: the LS-20 is a 10-bit
>internal device with only 8-bit output. All processing in NS1.63 was
>implemented in the scanner itself, via look-up tables to 10-bit
>precision. A raw scan could only be processed to 8-bit precision in
>Photoshop.
Yes, indeed, and I have always acknowledged (in numerous messages!)
that in regard to LS-30 VueScan is capable of getting the full 10 bits
while NikonScan only delivers 8. About the only advantage of VueScan.
For my new "LD-50" even that advantage is gone because NikonScan drags
out the full 14-bits out of the LS-50.
Don.
Don
>
>"Don" <phoney...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:40ee3eda...@news.individual.net...
>> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 02:11:34 +0100, Hecate <hec...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> But even VueScan can be used by a knowledgeable user to get good
>> results (again, by ignoring everything and just scanning raw).
>>
>> However, all that was not the gist of the discussion. It's the notion
>> that point-and-shoot delivers purest data, which is patent nonsense.
>
>This was never the point of my discussion.
Yes, it was, even though you are now trying to back pedal:
> I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
You lose a lot of quality this way.
I really hope you understand why this is wrong because it's the first
and essential step and without that it will be pretty much impossible
to understand anything else.
>My point was that it is better to
>make your adjustments prescan while you are working in 14 or 16 bits
>(depending on your scanner) than afterwards in PS--if you are using 8 bits
>there.
It's nothing to do with 8 or 16-bits. You may be able to observe the
corruption much more easily in 8-bits simply because histogram
displays are geared towards 8-bits but the corruption is there is
16-bits as well (see my other message).
When you make color or contrast adjustments using scanner software
through the tiny "keyhole" of a Preview you will virtually never "get
the most out of the scanner". Quite the contrary!
The best you can hope is to "get lucky" and by accident stumble on the
optimal settings. But the odds of that are miniscule and that's
certainly not something to rely on for repeatable results.
Relying on such a "lucky shot" is like relying on a broken clock
because even a broken clock is correct twice a day!
Don.
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>This is my issue with Don - dismissing out of hand the automatic
>functions implemented by these 3rd party software packages is folly, as
>is suggesting that manual intervention is always better than automatic.
Then we can put it to rest because that was never the issue.
The issue was (and I'll repeat it once again):
> I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
You lose a lot of quality this way.
To say "lose quality" is wrong, to say "lose a lot of quality" is "a
lot" wrong and shows a lack of very rudimentary understanding.
Don.
Don
>OK guys, I did some experimenting and here is what I came up with.
Very good!!! Tests are essential, although one has to prepare tests
very carefully otherwise one will arrive at wrong conclusions...
Case in point: The reason it's so windy in Holland is *not* because
all those windmill blades are spinning... ;o)
>I went into PS and adjusted the first "raw" scan to visually match the
>"optimized" second scan, then compared the histograms. The first one,
>adjusted in PS, was much gappier than the second, adjusted pre-scan.
As I explained there are many ways to get a smooth histogram and just
looking at histograms without knowing how they were arrived at doesn't
really say much. As I also explained, a "gappy histogram" by itself is
not necessary bad. It's just an unavoidable effect of gamma
conversion.
One other note. Your "raw" scan is not really raw because you have
done at least two modifications I can see from here: Auto-Exposure and
Gamma conversion.
>I have to add here that I was working in 8 bits. This would probably not
>have been the case had I been working in 16 in PS.
It would make some difference in the *histogram display* but not in
image data. If your workflow introduces corruption in 8-bits it will
introduce it in 16-bits as well.
One very important thing to keep in mind. Even when working in 16-bits
in Photoshop the histogram display is still 8-bits!!!! If it were a
true 16-bit histogram you would have 65536 vertical bars, not 256!
So, any gaps in the 16-bit image histogram are *hidden* because the
data is being squeezed into an 8-bit histogram display. Just because
these gaps are not displayed, it doesn't mean they aren't there. A
true 16-bit histogram (with 65536 vertical bars) would be just as
"gappy" as the 8-bit!!!
Technically, PS doesn't actually support true 16-bit images but
"15-bit + 1" if I remember correctly, but certainly not the full
16-bits. Not important here, but a little curiosity.
>But it does point out that if you are going to be working in 8 bits it is
>better to make the adjustment prescan in 14 or 16 bits or whatever your
>scanner can do.
It is virtually never "better" to make adjustments in scanner software
than scanning raw and processing later.
Using 16-bits (or whatever) helps, and may mask a lot of artifacts
especially if you convert to 8-bit before saving, which may be more
than enough for your requirements, but strictly speaking (if one is
proficient in image editing software) the raw scan will virtually
always be superior.
(In theory, if scanning software included something along the lines of
Photoshop there would be no difference - but scanning software is
never as powerful, it doesn't offer the same amount of tools nor the
appropriate working environment e.g. the tiny Preview window.)
Caveat: I repeat! Such improvements are directly related to your
proficiency with image editing software. Depending on your
requirements - and even with perfect editing - these improvements may
not be important or even noticeable!
So, if what you're getting with your current workflow is acceptable to
you, that's great! Stick with it!
But be aware that it is *not* "the best" in *absolute* terms! And
certainly don't make such statements in public... ;o)
>While I understand Don's point about all the bells and whistles on SF--the
>auto theses and thoses, I was referring in my post to the nicer tonal
>rendition I find using SF. And in fact when I adjust the NS scans (with
>their smoother tonal range) I again end up with a gappy histogram, as
>compared to the SF raw scans (although those still contain the tonal gap in
>around zones 8-10).
Re-read what I wrote about gappy histograms in other messages. You are
still mixing up a lot of stuff.
Don.
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't hold
>the view, taken by some, that the processes implemented by the scanner
>software are inherently inferior or less accurate than those in PS.
Processing not, but the ability to employ yes. You just can't achieve
the same result looking at the image in the tiny Preview windows even
if you used Photoshop or any other image editing software.
Also, Photoshop and other image editing software have a much wider
toolbox than scanner software, as well as a much more detailed image
analysis utilities, etc. I never claimed that PS or any other image
editing software has superior algorithms to scanner software. They
may, but that's not what this is about.
>Certainly Don is working with 14-bit data. I use what I need for the
>job in hand.
Yup, and to get off topic... (We like to do that!) ;-)
My latest tests actually indicate that to really get the most I would
need a 20-bit scanner! I know, I know... Dmax and all that, but (at
least as far as my Kodachromes go) anything below about 32 in the
histogram has noise and all multiscanning does is just mask that noise
to some degree, but doesn't recover any more actual image data in
these dark areas!
I can achieve comparable masking of this noise by simply applying
between 0.3 and 0.5 Gaussian blur on data below 32 - perhaps followed
by Unsharp mask. On the other hand, boosting Analog Gain until
relevant histogram data is over 32 reveals much more detail (shading)
in the same area than simply multiscanning where no such shading is
apparent. At least in my current environment: LS-50, 80's Kodachromes.
>This is my issue with Don - dismissing out of hand the automatic
>functions implemented by these 3rd party software packages is folly, as
>is suggesting that manual intervention is always better than automatic.
Then we can put it to rest because that's not what I said.
I said, among other things, that:
- stating that *relative* user friendliness of "auto-everything"
directly translates into *absolute* technical superiority over
knowledgeable "everything-off" user is wrong.
- stating that relying on tiny Preview window and a limited subset of
tools is superior to full display and a full set of tools is wrong.
- stating that auto is "a lot" better than manual is wrong, except in
the singular and very unlikely and rare case of a "lucky shot" - when
it's at best merely equal - which "lucky shot" is beyond the scope of
this discussion.
Don.
Bruce Graham
> > <snip, cleaning a SS4000 mirror procedure> Good luck
> >
> > Thomas
>
> Thanks Bruce for digging this up. As stated in an earlier response, I
> did find and try this. After removing some lint on the mirror, the
> ss4000 flare problem diminished somewhat but not entirely.
>
>
response. Have you tried reducing the scanner exposure a bit more than
you would expect from the histogram? Just an experiment to see if the
CCD overload point is inside the ADC range, which might cause something
like flare.
BTW (just to keep on topic) I recently returned from a 2000 Km bicycle
ride, but I flew home so I lost all my enviro points. I have a Nissan
Patrol 4WD (not sold in USA, originally military, UN etc - heavy duty gas
guzzler), but I also have a tiny Toyota 820 Kg kerb mass (Japanese
Starlet) which I use for all city driving, so I am partly redeemed.
Bruce
Dav...@att.net
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
> In article <40F12C83...@att.net>, Dav...@att.net writes
> >Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> >
> >> It's the end result that matters, not some
> >> interim step.
> >
> >You must be in the Bush/Blair camp,
>
> What has that got to do with the price of fish?
>
> >which paints an end result that is
> >questionable at best.
> >
> Why is a better end result questionable? If it works for you, that's
> what matters.
>
> >> Just to get completely off topic, its a fair bet that as an American you
> >> drive a car with an automatic transmission - why?
> >
> >Most Americans drive with automatic transmission because there are more
> >of them on the market.
>
> And why are there more of them on the market, when a manual Tx gives
> better performance. Do Americans not care about performance or do they
> dust have a different value system for it?
>
> > This is the same reason why most Europeans drive
> >with manual transmission in Europe.
>
> Same question in different terms: What drives what is on the European
> market? Do Europeans care more about performance than Americans, or
> just have a different value system for it?
The auto manufacturers have a thing to do with it. They make more
selling auto transmission. Just like sellers of third party scanner sw.
> > But this American drives a manual
> >transmission.
>
> Found the clutch yet?
Down boy. The sun had set long ago in your Great Empire.
Toby
First I need to apologize for being totally inaccurate in my language. It
was certainly a mistake to make the blanket statement that I did about
losing a lot of quality without explaining what I meant. I have areas of
expertise that I have and exercise in other NGs (mostly concerning music and
videography) I am constantly correcting imprecise and incorrect statements,
and so it embarrasses me to make inaccurate statements myself.
I do want to quote to you from Photoshop Artistry by Barry Haynes and Wendy
Crumpler, which was the genesis of the statement I made. As I said, I
assumed that you were working in 8 bits in PS. Many people do, and it was
not specified either way. However to assume so without stating so was wrong.
If we are talking about working in 16 bits, or whatever passes for that in
PS I quite agree than unless the analog gain of the scanner is wrong you get
all the information you are going to get--the software will not get you more
and PS generally is easier and more precise in its controls.
However as Haynes and Crumpler point out, "When the file you are saving is
an 8-bit per channel file, the scanner software will often have to decide
how to convert the 12 or more bits of information the scanner is actually
getting down to 8 bits per channel in the file that will be saved. When you
are doing this, it is important to use the setting in the scanner software
to optimize how the scanner converts from the higher bit depth down to 8
bits."
If you feel that this is in error please let me know how.
I am rather fascinated by the difference in the scans I got from NS and
SF--raw scans both. It must be related to analog gain. The color differences
in the positive scans is also rather interesting.
Toby
"Don" <phoney...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40f256d4...@news.individual.net...
Toby
NS, which was as you point out no more than a matter of convenience and
perhaps more pleasing algorithms.
Please see my other message as regards pre-scan correction as related to 8
bits vs. 14-16 bits.
Toby
"Don" <phoney...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40f25676...@news.individual.net...
Dav...@att.net
Don wrote:
>
> On 11 Jul 2004 10:37:06 -0500, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
> >I went into PS and adjusted the first "raw" scan to visually match the
> >"optimized" second scan, then compared the histograms. The first one,
> >adjusted in PS, was much gappier than the second, adjusted pre-scan.
>
> As I explained there are many ways to get a smooth histogram and just
> looking at histograms without knowing how they were arrived at doesn't
> really say much. As I also explained, a "gappy histogram" by itself is
> not necessary bad. It's just an unavoidable effect of gamma
> conversion.
After making pre-scan adjustment, the Nikon sw should show a gappy
histogram (not a Nikon user, so not sure). The sw will then interpolate
the pixels to fill the gaps, and that's why you are seeing a smooth
histogram in PS.
The same is true with a histogram in PS. After you edit the raw scan in
PS, you get a gappy histogram. However, the gaps won't stay long. Add a
new levels layer or a levels adjustment layer. Before making any levels
edits, you will see that the histogram is smooth and the gaps are gone.
PS has interpolated the pixels to fill the gaps, just like the scanner
sw did.
Histogram is a great tool to see what happens after each edit. However,
it does not keep track of the accumulated effect of the data losses
after multiple edits. Otherwise, the gaps will look uglier after each
incremental edit.
Don
>Hi Don,
Hi Toby!
>First I need to apologize for being totally inaccurate in my language. It
>was certainly a mistake to make the blanket statement that I did about
>losing a lot of quality without explaining what I meant. I have areas of
>expertise that I have and exercise in other NGs (mostly concerning music and
>videography) I am constantly correcting imprecise and incorrect statements,
>and so it embarrasses me to make inaccurate statements myself.
There's absolutely no need to apologize. We are all constantly
learning, me most of all!
>I do want to quote to you from Photoshop Artistry by Barry Haynes and Wendy
>Crumpler, which was the genesis of the statement I made. As I said, I
>assumed that you were working in 8 bits in PS. Many people do, and it was
>not specified either way. However to assume so without stating so was wrong.
>
>If we are talking about working in 16 bits, or whatever passes for that in
>PS I quite agree than unless the analog gain of the scanner is wrong you get
>all the information you are going to get--the software will not get you more
>and PS generally is easier and more precise in its controls.
This is not really a question of 8 vs. 16 bits. If you make changes in
your scanner software (regardless of bit depth) you are not getting a
"pure" scan from the scanner. All changes you made in your scanner
software get applied to the "pure" scan *before* it is passed on to
you.
Therefore, by definition, any time you do something (such as curves or
contrast) to this "pure" scan you are not getting "the most" out of
the scanner. You're getting a modified version instead.
The order of things, very, very, very roughly and without getting into
any details - Kennedy will do that... ;-)
1. An image is scanned and passed to the host software. This is the
purest scan you can get. If you set 8-bits that's the purest 8-bit
scan. If you set 16-bits then it's the purest 16-bit scan. The fact
that 16-bit scan contains more data than 8-bit scan is not the point
here. The point is what (if anything) you do to this 8 or 16-bit scan
before you receive it!
2. Various modifications can be made at this point by the scanner
software depending on what you did there e.g. curves adjustments,
contrast etc. And it doesn't matter whether this is done to 8 or
16-bit data. Remember, we are not talking about the difference between
8 and 16 bits, but the difference between whether you made any changes
or not.
This simple list leaves out a lot (gamma, ICE, etc) but the above is
not meant to be a comprehensive flowchart. It's only there to
illustrate that scanner software changes such as color and contrast
are applied to the "raw" scan data *before* you ever get to see it.
>However as Haynes and Crumpler point out, "When the file you are saving is
>an 8-bit per channel file, the scanner software will often have to decide
>how to convert the 12 or more bits of information the scanner is actually
>getting down to 8 bits per channel in the file that will be saved. When you
>are doing this, it is important to use the setting in the scanner software
>to optimize how the scanner converts from the higher bit depth down to 8
>bits."
It doesn't matter. This "interpolated 8-bits" is still purer than
"interpolated 8-bits" *plus* your changes (curves, contrast).
That's the key! Any scanner software curves or contrast adjustments
get applied to the "raw" scanner data no matter what that data is (8
or 16 bit).
>If you feel that this is in error please let me know how.
>
>I am rather fascinated by the difference in the scans I got from NS and
>SF--raw scans both. It must be related to analog gain. The color differences
>in the positive scans is also rather interesting.
There are many reasons for that and Kennedy addressed some of them.
It's the "bells and whistles" which SF adds to make your life easier.
However, in the process you are moving further and further away from
what the scanner delivered in the first place.
As I said many times, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If
you're happy with what you're getting - even if SF or VueScan or
whatever "massaged" scanner data to death - all that doesn't matter.
The important thing is that you are getting results which satisfy your
requirements.
However, it's important to know that - no matter how attractive this
output may look to you - that is not the purest (i.e. "the most") data
from the scanner. The scanner always produces the same data. The
difference is whether you let the software such as SF do the
additional editing for you before you receive this data or, you take
this data "as is" and do the editing yourself later in the image
editing software of your choice.
Don.
Don
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:31:44 GMT, Dav...@att.net wrote:
>After making pre-scan adjustment, the Nikon sw should show a gappy
>histogram (not a Nikon user, so not sure). The sw will then interpolate
>the pixels to fill the gaps, and that's why you are seeing a smooth
>histogram in PS.
>
>The same is true with a histogram in PS. After you edit the raw scan in
>PS, you get a gappy histogram. However, the gaps won't stay long. Add a
>new levels layer or a levels adjustment layer. Before making any levels
>edits, you will see that the histogram is smooth and the gaps are gone.
>PS has interpolated the pixels to fill the gaps, just like the scanner
>sw did.
>
>Histogram is a great tool to see what happens after each edit. However,
>it does not keep track of the accumulated effect of the data losses
>after multiple edits. Otherwise, the gaps will look uglier after each
>incremental edit.
Yeah! What he said! ;o)
Don.
Don
>I will apologize for my statements about getting better results from SF than
>NS, which was as you point out no more than a matter of convenience and
>perhaps more pleasing algorithms.
Although very much appreciated, there's absolutely no need to
apologize. We are all still learning and that's what this newsgroup is
for.
Don.
Don
<jbgr...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>BTW (just to keep on topic) I recently returned from a 2000 Km bicycle
>ride
...
Oooh... Tell us more! ;o)
Besides using the bike as my main means of transport, I'm a casual
recreational cyclist myself, doing only day trips (200 KM max) and
using a plain-vanilla touring bike - nuthin' fancy. The idea is to go
slow and take in the scenery, giving my digital camera a workout in
the process. And, of course, logging the trip and marking where I took
the pics on a hand-held GPS unit!
Having said that, every now and then that leisurely pace (including
chirping birds) gets interrupted when a steep hill starts mocking me
(the soundtrack ominously changing to the Jaws signature tune) and I
can't help myself but go for broke... ;o)
Don.
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 15:16:30 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>On a serious note though, most cars in Europe, for example, are hybrid
>>>vehicles with minimal emissions
>>
>>Don, now you really are talking out of your wrong end! Speaking from
>>Europe, yes the UK is technically part of both the geographic continent
>>and the political union, there are extremely few hybrid cars, very small
>>fractions of a percentage point of the total number of vehicles.
>
>That's why I said "most".
That's why I said you were talking out of your wrong end - it isn't
most, it isn't even a significant amount.
Brazil, Argentina and even Italy are ahead of Holland in terms of
natural gas transport fuel use.
From http://www.ecn.nl/_files/bio/psp-03-037.pdf
"Of 800,000 ... there are only 500 natural gas powered vehicles in The
Netherlands".
That is just 0.0625% but I am sure you said "most", didn't you?
It isn't a coincidence that the oil company isn't called "Royal Dutch
Shell"!
>Virtually all vehicles in Holland, for
>example, are propane (or some sort of natural gas) / gasoline
>vehicles.
Which is also not true and a contradiction of your earlier statement
that these were hybrid vehicles with minimal emissions. Natural gas and
propane emit just as much CO2 per kW of produced power as octane
(gasoline).
> In Germany, I believe, a car must be 90% recyclable before
>it's allowed on the market, etc.
>
A law that applies Europe wide but which has completely *zero* impact on
fuel consumption or the use of hybrid engine technology.
>The U.K. marches to a different drummer in many areas.
Only in those areas where we have negotiated an exemption from European
legislation, which do not impact any of the topics you have so far
introduced.
From the same document as above:
The EU has *targeted* 2% of all transportation fuel consumed by the
market to be natural gas by 2010, 5% by 2015 and 10% by 2020.
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 16:12:09 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>>Actually, to be accurate, (unlike VueScan) NikonScan *has* a user
>>>>>interface.
>>>>>
>>>>Ooh handbags at dawn, Don - bitch, bitch. ;-)
>>>
>>>But I thought you agreed? ;-)
>>>
>>I do, but (and this is where you seem to have a problem) I accept that
>>others have a different value system which places more emphasis on
>>getting the best result for the minimum effort.
>
>Now that's just patently wrong! I always include something along the
>lines of "there's nothing wrong with that and many people are
>perfectly happy with it".
>
Perhaps my server has filtered the relevant text out of your messages.
>
>The basic misunderstanding is that I make a distinction between
>relative and absolute evaluations.
Like "not exactly"?
> Some "great unwashed" seem to have
>the mistaken notion that just because they can in *relative* terms
>easily get (what to them looks like) acceptable results, that
>automatically translates into *absolute* superiority of such scans in
>*technical* terms. And that's just not true. That's all I'm pointing
>out...
>
And I am pointing out that your absolute statement about what is
superior methodology is equally untrue in a variety of situations.
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
more than a little arrogance, especially as you did not even bother to
question Toby as to what he meant by his statement or how he reached it.
Since he has now done so and explained the condition that he was
referring to (and it correct in that situation) it is even more clear
that your absolute statement was wildly inaccurate.
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:57:38 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
><r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I don't hold
>>the view, taken by some, that the processes implemented by the scanner
>>software are inherently inferior or less accurate than those in PS.
>
>Processing not, but the ability to employ yes. You just can't achieve
>the same result looking at the image in the tiny Preview windows even
>if you used Photoshop or any other image editing software.
I explained before that you can, if you are so concerned about the
minimal probability cases, preview at full scale. I currently use a
1600x1200 pixel display, so that is only 8 or so preview panes to view
every pixel at full resolution. But then, statistically, that is
completely unnecessary - a 1200x900 pixel preview is a statistically
valid proportion of the image on which to assess *all* of the controls
available except for sharpening.
>I never claimed that PS or any other image
>editing software has superior algorithms to scanner software. They
>may, but that's not what this is about.
>
By implication, the statement that scanning raw and processing in PS,
which is the "exact opposite" of optimum scanning for input to PS, is
endorsement of PS as superior to the same processes performed by the
scanner software. You have no evidence that this is so.
>
>I said, among other things, that:
>
>- stating that *relative* user friendliness of "auto-everything"
>directly translates into *absolute* technical superiority over
>knowledgeable "everything-off" user is wrong.
>
>- stating that relying on tiny Preview window and a limited subset of
>tools is superior to full display and a full set of tools is wrong.
>
>- stating that auto is "a lot" better than manual is wrong, except in
>the singular and very unlikely and rare case of a "lucky shot" - when
>it's at best merely equal - which "lucky shot" is beyond the scope of
>this discussion.
>
You have said a lot of things in this thread Don, but those particular
words do not appear in any of your articles prior to today.
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>On 11 Jul 2004 10:37:06 -0500, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>OK guys, I did some experimenting and here is what I came up with.
>
>Very good!!! Tests are essential, although one has to prepare tests
>very carefully otherwise one will arrive at wrong conclusions...
>
>Case in point: The reason it's so windy in Holland is *not* because
>all those windmill blades are spinning... ;o)
>
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>This is not really a question of 8 vs. 16 bits. If you make changes in
>your scanner software (regardless of bit depth) you are not getting a
>"pure" scan from the scanner.
Analogue gain!!
Kennedy McEwen
Graham <jbgr...@nowhere.com.au> writes
>
>BTW (just to keep on topic) I recently returned from a 2000 Km bicycle
>ride, but I flew home so I lost all my enviro points.
You could have done worse:
Train : see http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002197.html
Hybrid car(!) : see http://www.trainweb.org/midtown/us_hybridcar.htm
So flying home was probably the next best thing to cycling home!
But as an FotE spokesman said when presented with this data "the only
environmentally friendly journey is the one that is not taken at all" -
so, according to the greenies, you lost all your enviro points by taking
part in the cycle ride in the first place. Just think of all that CO2
your lungs unnecessarily pumped into the atmosphere, the produce you
consumed en-route, you environmental vandal you! ;-)
Toby
Hi Don,
I understand that the only difference between 8 and 16 bit scans has to do
with the amount of information in the final scan and not with the appearance
of the scan. Basically an 8 bit scan and a 16 bit scan with identical
exposure opened in PS are going to appear the same, because we do not
perceive the subtle differences engendered by the extra 65300-odd luminance
levels in each channel. However once with start screwing around with the
white and black point, gamma, curves, chroma, etc, we are in effect taking
bugger chunks out of the tonality in 8-bit files because a given pixel has
only 256 levels of choice in 8 bit but 65536 in 16. Yes, you still get a
gappy histogram and tonal discontinuities but the gaps are finer in 16 bit.
If, and *only* if you will be working with files in PS at a lower bit depth
than your native scanner bit depth, I still contend that you are better off
doing adjustments at the higher bit depth in the scanner before the file
gets interpolated down to 8 bit from 14, for example. If you set B & W
points intelligently so as not to clip information, and even curves to
change the tonality of some pixels, you are better doing so in 14 bits where
there are more levels to choose from and interpolating down, than taking a
raw scan that you are obviously going to have to make the same adjustments
to in PS and doing so in 256 levels. The gaps will be finer.
That's how I see it, anyway.
This absolutely does not apply to working in PS in a bit depth equal to or
higher than the scanner bit depth.
Right? Wrong?
Anyway this has been a most useful conversation for me, and has clarified my
rather confused thinking on the issues.
Toby
Bruce Graham
says...
> >BTW (just to keep on topic) I recently returned from a 2000 Km bicycle
> >ride
> ...
>
> Oooh... Tell us more! ;o)
>
The ride took a month with rest days and was about 70% bushland and 30%
pasture on a sealed road with almost no traffic apart from a road train
about every 20 minutes on average and some grey nomads with their
caravans.
In the Cobb & Co stage coach days (last coach 1928), the towns were about
100 Km apart (usually with an exchange of horses halfway in those days).
In Queensland especially, most of the old towns still exist.
Without exchanging the horses, 100 Km is a comfortable days ride on a
loaded touring bike today and many of the old pubs are still there,
sometimes just truck stops where you preorder your dinner by UHF radio 10
Km down the track, but usually the pub is the watering hole for the local
cattle and sheep people who are very friendly to an odd bike rider or
two.
Our theme was "The Last Great Aussie Pub Crawl" because we stopped at
just about every pub. Some were pretty basic, like the one that offered
free rooms to good drinkers (we booked in early for $10) but others were
almost Ritzy, like the Corones in Charleville.
I took an EOS30 with just a 28-105mm and this has kept my scanner busy.
On topic for a moment, I can't get excited by most of the arguments in
this thread. I take a middle road as follows.
I rarely use the Canon Filmget software with my FS4000 because it tends
to clip the histogram ends a bit much for my liking. I do use the IR
channel for cleaning routinely, so that and expense eliminated the
Silverfast option, leaving Vuescan as my standard. I scan 16 bit TIFF,
letting Vuescan do the mask removal for negatives and using "lock image
colour" so that I get control of the histogram end points for each
channel (another Vuescan secret handshake). I leave these fairly wide so
that I can scan a batch without previewing more than a few at the start.
The 130 Mbyte files go straight to Photoshop where I use 16 bit adjust
levels as an initial step, working on each channel. This produces
smooth histograms because of the 14 bit data. On completion of editing I
save as 8 bit jpeg (15-25 Mbyte depending on detail and remaining noise).
Now, is there a problem with that? (lets not discuss the jpeg save at the
end).
Bruce
Toby
Yes, in a nutshell, analog(ue) gain.
BTW if one cannot vary the RGB LED intensities on the Nikon scanners does
that mean that the RGB controls in NikonScan are software controls only? I
suppose that they would have to be...
So I take it that the only actual hardware controls are analogue gain,
focus, multiscan and ICE.
Toby
"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zAUddcFo...@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
Toby
I didn't realize that about interpolation. However I still contend (see my
letter above) that--if and only if you are going to be using less bit depth
in PS than is native to your scanner--it is better to have it interpolated
in 14 bits in the scanner (or whatever) and then convert the file to 8 bits,
than it is to have the raw scan interpolated down to 8 bits without
correction and then make the corrections in 8 bits in PS.
Aside from my hazy thinking, which has now been cleared up thanks to you,
Don and Kennedy, I was really talking about folks who work on 8 bit files in
Photoshop. My argument doesn't apply to working on 16 bit files in PS. There
is also, as Kennedy points out, the question of where to set analog(ue)
gain, assuming that the dynamic range of the film you are scanning exceeds
the scanner's dynamic range.
Toby
<Dav...@att.net> wrote in message news:40F2845F...@att.net...
Kennedy McEwen
<zdft...@ggol.com> writes
>Hi Kennedy,
>
>Yes, in a nutshell, analog(ue) gain.
>
>BTW if one cannot vary the RGB LED intensities on the Nikon scanners does
>that mean that the RGB controls in NikonScan are software controls only? I
>suppose that they would have to be...
>
>So I take it that the only actual hardware controls are analogue gain,
>focus, multiscan and ICE.
>
detection is implemented in hardware.
Dav...@att.net
tell the whole truth about how things actually work, either because the
authors are ignorant or are blinded by religion. "Get the best scan
possible in the scanner" or "Re-scan if the histogram looks bad in PS"
fuddled me for a long time. Rarely did I find sources that talk about
the division of labor between a scanner's hw and sw. (See my references
in this thread to the book and links that address this.) With Don's
support, I'm glad to be able to get this off my chest.
BTW, it you compare two recent revisions of Haynes' PS Artistry (both
great books), you will notice a subtle difference on this topic. In the
PS 7 revision, there is an advice on "Re-scan if the histogram looks bad
in PS" accompanied by ugly looking histograms. In the PS CS revision,
this section is removed.
It also took me a long time (a slow learner) to realize what is
happening with histograms. If PS can offer another histogram that can
show the effect of accumulative edits, it may demonstrate how blunt some
of the tools are, and the difference between 8 and 16 bit edits.
If you are not working in PS CS which has full support of 16 bit edits,
there are tutorials on how to work around this.
Toby
I'm going to check the links you refer to.
Toby
<Dav...@att.net> wrote in message news:40F3CDD7...@att.net...
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Virtually all vehicles in Holland, for
>>example, are propane (or some sort of natural gas) / gasoline
>>vehicles.
>
>Which is also not true and a contradiction of your earlier statement
>that these were hybrid vehicles with minimal emissions. Natural gas and
>propane emit just as much CO2 per kW of produced power as octane
>(gasoline).
When I lived and worked in the Netherlands (about 3 years ago) a guy
came in one morning and said his car broke down, the natural gas part,
so he had to switch to gasoline. He commented that he forgot how much
more "kick" gasoline gave to his car.
Natural gas? I asked, not being a driver and not knowing these things.
Sure, he replied, most cars in the Netherlands are hybrids.
Anecdotal? Of course, but he was not an environmentalist and had no
agenda, so I believed him.
Could he have been misinformed? Yes, but I can unequivocally state
that this very company (I contracted for) alone had more than 500
hybrid cars (which were part of the pay package for all full time
employees) let alone the rest of the country. So, your figures are
either incorrect or out of date, or both.
Anyway, let's get my *full* original statement in here for
recalibration:
>On a serious note though, most cars in Europe, for example, are hybrid
>vehicles with minimal emissions, certainly far less than 4WD monsters
>common in North America. So an environmentalist driving such a low
>emission vehicle would not be a contradiction.
In particular, the main point of my statement:
"certainly far less than 4WD monsters common in North America".
So even if the auxiliary "most" was incorrect (and I still maintain it
wasn't) it doesn't change the gist of my statement. Since you like to
parse, focus on "certainly far less...".
An average car in Europe is considerably smaller than an average car
in North America, with mileage to match.
In addition to the Netherlands I have also lived in Belgium and
Germany, to name only a couple of extra countries where I lived for
more than 1 year. I don't ever recall seeing a single SUV. Go to a
suburb of any large North American city and pretty much all you will
see are SUVs, not to mention 2-3 cars per family.
Due to higher population density in Europe the duration of an average
trip is far shorter than in North America.
Etc.
Which leads to only one conclusion: The cars in Europe pollute (at
least) an order of magnitude less than cars in North America. Or as I
originally put it: "certainly far less than 4WD monsters common in
North America".
Don.
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Now that's just patently wrong! I always include something along the
>>lines of "there's nothing wrong with that and many people are
>>perfectly happy with it".
>>
>You seem to have forgotten to include that in any of your recent posts.
I don't think so... Starting with my very *first* message in the
thread:
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:19:49 GMT, phoney...@yahoo.com (Don) wrote:
>Both VueScan and SilverFast are "point-and-shoot" programs similar to
>disposable cameras. OK for casual tourist but not for people who care
>for quality or have an inkling of what they are doing. Nothing wrong
>with that if that's what they are after, but...
And ending with the last (before today's posting):
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:56:05 GMT, phoney...@yahoo.com (Don) wrote:
>As I said many times, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If
>you're happy with what you're getting - even if SF or VueScan or
>whatever "massaged" scanner data to death - all that doesn't matter.
>The important thing is that you are getting results which satisfy your
>requirements.
Don.
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I said, among other things, that:
>>
>>- stating that *relative* user friendliness of "auto-everything"
>>directly translates into *absolute* technical superiority over
>>knowledgeable "everything-off" user is wrong.
>>
>>- stating that relying on tiny Preview window and a limited subset of
>>tools is superior to full display and a full set of tools is wrong.
>>
>>- stating that auto is "a lot" better than manual is wrong, except in
>>the singular and very unlikely and rare case of a "lucky shot" - when
>>it's at best merely equal - which "lucky shot" is beyond the scope of
>>this discussion.
>>
>You have said a lot of things in this thread Don, but those particular
>words do not appear in any of your articles prior to today.
It's a summary. For details refer to the messages themselves. They are
all there. I really don't have the time to quote them all individually
like I just did in the previous message.
Don.
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>This is not really a question of 8 vs. 16 bits. If you make changes in
>>your scanner software (regardless of bit depth) you are not getting a
>>"pure" scan from the scanner.
>
>Analogue gain!!
We are not talking about Analog Gain. Analog Gain is on both sides of
the equation. We are talking about scanner software "curves, contrast
and friends..." vs. raw. Again:
> I prefer to scan raw and edit in Photoshop.
You lose a lot of quality this way.
Don.
Don
Hi Toby!
>If, and *only* if you will be working with files in PS at a lower bit depth
>than your native scanner bit depth, I still contend that you are better off
>doing adjustments at the higher bit depth in the scanner before the file
>gets interpolated down to 8 bit from 14, for example.
Now, that is something completely different. You are not comparing
like with like.
Even working with the limited set of scanner software tools and the
problems of a small Preview window, odds are the 16-bit image
processed with scanner software may still be better than scanning
8-bit and processing in Photoshop. But it's still the roll of the
dice, I would say, although Kennedy will be around shortly to
contradict me... ;o)
I'd say, if you are concerned with quality and have the time, then by
all means scan at maximum depth and process later, but save the
original and work on a copy at least until you're completely satisfied
with the result. Many people keep these "digital negatives" anyway in
addition to the final edit.
>If you set B & W
>points intelligently so as not to clip information, and even curves to
>change the tonality of some pixels, you are better doing so in 14 bits where
>there are more levels to choose from and interpolating down, than taking a
>raw scan that you are obviously going to have to make the same adjustments
>to in PS and doing so in 256 levels. The gaps will be finer.
>
>That's how I see it, anyway.
>
>This absolutely does not apply to working in PS in a bit depth equal to or
>higher than the scanner bit depth.
>
>Right? Wrong?
If I understand correctly, you want to use scanner software to make
adjustments and scan in 14-bits and then scale down to 8-bit
afterwards. Right?
I'm assuming you will be doing this scaling down to 8-bit in Photoshop
and if that is the case you may just as well scan in 14-bit and do all
the editing in Photoshop... I mean, you're not saving any time by
doing the editing in scanner software, and you certainly have more
tools in Photoshop.
>Anyway this has been a most useful conversation for me, and has clarified my
>rather confused thinking on the issues.
That's good to hear. Nevertheless, take everything with a grain of
salt and run tests for yourself... And then bounce your results and
conclusions off of people to see what they think. That may not work
for all but that's how I learned the most.
But as I keep repeating what counts in the end is what works for you.
If your current workflow produces results you are happy with, that's
all that matters regardless of what anybody else says...
Don.
Don
>I didn't realize that about interpolation.
If you check the thread I have exact instructions on how to (mis)use
;-) interpolation to get smooth histograms in both NikonScan and
Photopshop.
One word of warning, though, when you scale an image you lose quality.
In particular, the image loses sharpness.
That's why people usually suggest applying some Unsharp mask after any
scaling. But then you're already twice removed from the original image
just to avoid a gappy histogram.
And that's before you even started applying curves, contrast, etc.
which will then promptly "corrupt" this smooth histogram in no time...
Don.
Don
<jbgr...@nowhere.com.au> wrote:
>> Oooh... Tell us more! ;o)
>>
>from Melbourne where I live due North to Longreach, Western Queensland.
Neat!
>Our theme was "The Last Great Aussie Pub Crawl" because we stopped at
>just about every pub.
Good on you mate! ;-)
When I lived in London (many, many, many moons ago) my best friend was
an Australian guy from Melbourne. I still remember his favorite saying
when he would bring the beers (and now use it myself):
Wrap yourself around this!
Of course, I would still be nursing my first beer while he would be on
his 3rd or 4th...
>I took an EOS30 with just a 28-105mm and this has kept my scanner busy.
I've pretty much given up analog (an ancient Canon A1) since I got my
digital cameras (first Kodak, now Nikon) but since I started scanning
all my slides and negatives, I'm thinking of picking up my old A1
again.
Don.
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>But as I keep repeating what counts in the end is what works for you.
>If your current workflow produces results you are happy with, that's
>all that matters regardless of what anybody else says...
Including you?