AKICIF - digital cameras
Karen Lofstrom
digital camera. That would make my life as zendo webmaster a little easier
-- I wouldn't have to beg other people for pictures. Can I get something
decent for $100? How much would I have to pay to get a sturdy camera that
is easy to use and gives clear sharp pictures?
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged
demo.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> My mother gave me $100 for Christmas and I was thinking of getting a
> digital camera. That would make my life as zendo webmaster a little easier
> -- I wouldn't have to beg other people for pictures. Can I get something
> decent for $100?
Not really, I don't think so.
How much would I have to pay to get a sturdy camera that
> is easy to use and gives clear sharp pictures?
I would advise not to go under the 1-1,5 mega limit. Two would be
better. That would mean, I'm afraid, something at least in the 2-300 $
range. Maybe you can find a bit less, but not much. Consider a flatbet
scanner and disposable cameras, maybe.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan - ada...@despammed.com - this is a valid address
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Chris Malme
news:1fnla7y.1ogmy3x1r4fgaoN%ada...@spamcop.net:
> Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>
> > My mother gave me $100 for Christmas and I was thinking of getting a
> > digital camera. That would make my life as zendo webmaster a little
> > easier -- I wouldn't have to beg other people for pictures. Can I get
> > something decent for $100?
>
> Not really, I don't think so.
>
> > How much would I have to pay to get a sturdy camera that
> > is easy to use and gives clear sharp pictures?
>
> I would advise not to go under the 1-1,5 mega limit. Two would be
> better. That would mean, I'm afraid, something at least in the 2-300 $
> range. Maybe you can find a bit less, but not much. Consider a flatbet
> scanner and disposable cameras, maybe.
For web work?
Being an early adopter of technology, my old GBP300+ Olympus is only
850,000 pixels. Sometime or other, I am going to replace it, but it is
more than adequate for anything you would want to do for web work - at
medium resolution, the photos come in at 100K each, and you wouldn't want
to illustrate a web page with anything more than that, imho.
Nowadays, you could pick up a little fixed focus 850,000 or even 1.3M
camera for as little as GBP50 - which is within Karen's budget. I would
advise you shop around and find something with removable memory,
otherwise you will be limited to the number of pictures you can take
between uploading it to your computer. Never be deceived by claims of
"stores up to 400 pictures" - this will be at the very lowest resolution,
it is more likely they will store abuot 40-60 pictures at what I consider
"web-quality" resolution.
The latest thing seems to be cheap digital cameras that double as a
webcan. A examples of this is:
http://www.compuvisor.com/logclic510di.html
As with all things, you get what you pay for. But you don't have to have
the latest multi-Megapixel camera, if all you want to do is put some
snaps on the web.
--
Chris
Minstrel's Hall of Filk - http://www.filklore.com
Filklore Music Store - http://www.filklore.co.uk
Dave O'Neill
"Karen Lofstrom" <lofs...@lava.net> wrote in message
news:v0ascle...@corp.supernews.com...
> My mother gave me $100 for Christmas and I was thinking of getting a
> digital camera. That would make my life as zendo webmaster a little easier
> -- I wouldn't have to beg other people for pictures. Can I get something
> decent for $100? How much would I have to pay to get a sturdy camera that
> is easy to use and gives clear sharp pictures?
Last year I decided to get a digital camera and was thinking of spending
$100-$150, in the end, I spent around $350 on a Cannon Ixus (aleph) - the
extra was worth every penny. Its light, the same size as the Cannon APS
camera, has 2.5 megapixels and works like a dream. I'm not usually one to
suggest spending extra money but I think this was worth it.
mike weber
These days i work in a camera store.
I'm still not the least bit interested in going digital until the
cameras that are in the $5000+ range today (or their equivalents) get
down to the sub-$500 range.
That is, six to eight megapixels, true SLR body, and a 24-by-36mm
sensor, making it *almost* as good as a cheap SLR with decent glass
shooting ordinary colour film...
--
mike weber mike....@electronictiger.com
==========================================================
The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns
something that will always be useful and which never will
grow dim or doubtful. -- Mark Twain.
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Marcus L. Rowland
Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> writes
>Karen Lofstrom <lofs...@lava.net> wrote:
>
>> My mother gave me $100 for Christmas and I was thinking of getting a
>> digital camera. That would make my life as zendo webmaster a little easier
>> -- I wouldn't have to beg other people for pictures. Can I get something
>> decent for $100?
>
>Not really, I don't think so.
>
>How much would I have to pay to get a sturdy camera that
>> is easy to use and gives clear sharp pictures?
>
>I would advise not to go under the 1-1,5 mega limit. Two would be
>better. That would mean, I'm afraid, something at least in the 2-300 $
>range. Maybe you can find a bit less, but not much. Consider a flatbet
>scanner and disposable cameras, maybe.
Why would you advise that? a 1.5 mega-pixel picture is going to be
painfully slow to download without cable or ADSL. If the main use is for
web photos something with much lower resolution should be fine.
For example, for Xmas I just got my nephew a manufacturer's refurbished
Fuji IX-10 for 35 pounds - list is 40, but I get a modest discount from
the dealer. In US terms that's about $60. It's a fixed lens, not zoom,
but it uses smartmedia cards, comes with a good suite of software, and
seems to take excellent pictures at 640 x 480, which is more than you
can say for most cameras in that price range.
The other thing you might want to look at, which can definitely be done
in that price range, is to get a compact film camera and a scanner.
Expenses are higher and picture to web isn't so fast, but there are lots
of other uses for a scanner.
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.ffutures.demon.co.uk/
http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
"Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>My mother gave me $100 for Christmas and I was thinking of getting a
>digital camera. That would make my life as zendo webmaster a little easier
>-- I wouldn't have to beg other people for pictures. Can I get something
>decent for $100? How much would I have to pay to get a sturdy camera that
>is easy to use and gives clear sharp pictures?
>
We just looked around and decided that nothing under 3 megapixel would
give a decent picture. We also decided to pay extra for a decent
amount of workable storage: most of the cameras seemed to come with a
basic capacity of about five pictures, which you could add to for
money. We also decided that it should be rechargeable so we didn't
add so much to the carpeting of the landscape with old batteries, and
that USB 2 was the right transfer method (oddly, there were a lot of
cameras with other means, some of which I had not heard of in any
other context). Also we decided that it would be useless to have only
a digital zoom, which doesn't change the focus but only the size of
the image, and that it would be better to have more optical and less
digital zoom -- and that came in a dizzying variety of combinations.
We ended up not seeing anything under $350 on sale that we thought
would be workable (thanks to the nongraduates of the Pajaro Valley
middle schools, we could afford it now).
If you want a camera, and you have only $100 to spend, I would look
around for a photography club, and get a _used_ decent old-fashioned
35 mm camera with a focussable lens. That's what we did before, and I
was able to take publishable pictures of wildflowers and landscapes
for a while (till my market seemed to dry up). Um, I think our Canon
whatchamacallit was about $160. Without flash: but the flash was
something like $30. Oh, I see: I've gotten the cost back up to closer
to $200. But we did it in stages, the camera, and then the flash.
But: if all you're going to do is take portraits of your members and
post them, you could do worse than get a nice little old fashioned
pocket camera.
The point of the last two paragraps is you can get the pictures
developed by one of those outfits that makes digital "prints" as a
default, and add those to the website about as easily as pictures that
are digital in the first place. My father and stepmother do that, and
email us the pictures of my daughter in her silly marching kilt and
glengarry.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Why would you advise that? a 1.5 mega-pixel picture is going to be
> painfully slow to download without cable or ADSL. If the main use is for
> web photos something with much lower resolution should be fine.
Because the final results depends on the quality of what you start out
with, not the density or dimension of the end picture. If, for example,
you use your flatbed scanner to scan a postacard-sized picture to 72
dpi, it's going to look bad. If you scan it at 600 dpi and then scale it
down and save it in jpeg, the detail is going to be much better. At
least, several years of compulsive scanning have imparted this lesson to
me.
I've just bought a film scanner, and have been confronting images
resulting either from scanning prints (at 1200 dpi) or from scanning
film at 2900. Even with files of the same dimensions, 768x1024, and
about the same size, 200k, the difference in detail is astonishing.
Right now, I'd go with your advice: a compact film camera and a flatbed
scanner. The film is much easier and cheaper if you want multiple copies
or enlragements, and the scanner is useful for lots of other things too,
including scanning old photos.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> These days i work in a camera store.
>
> I'm still not the least bit interested in going digital until the
> cameras that are in the $5000+ range today (or their equivalents) get
> down to the sub-$500 range.
>
> That is, six to eight megapixels, true SLR body, and a 24-by-36mm
> sensor, making it *almost* as good as a cheap SLR with decent glass
> shooting ordinary colour film...
Yesterday I decided to buy myself a Christmas present and bought a film
scanner: good enough quality for me and it was a good one at a good
price (I'm scanning the slides I have been shooting, and not enjoying,
these past ten years). After walking away I asked them how much the
Nikon D100 was, and was suprised that it's only 2500 euros. Not that I'd
consider buying it, but I may end up buying something like it in a
couple of years. I'd like to be able to use my lenses. Until then, it's
slides.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Marcus L. Rowland <mrow...@ffutures.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Why would you advise that? a 1.5 mega-pixel picture is going to be
> > painfully slow to download without cable or ADSL. If the main use is for
> > web photos something with much lower resolution should be fine.
>
> Because the final results depends on the quality of what you start out
> with, not the density or dimension of the end picture. If, for example,
> you use your flatbed scanner to scan a postacard-sized picture to 72
> dpi, it's going to look bad. If you scan it at 600 dpi and then scale it
> down and save it in jpeg, the detail is going to be much better. At
> least, several years of compulsive scanning have imparted this lesson to
> me.
>
> I've just bought a film scanner, and have been confronting images
> resulting either from scanning prints (at 1200 dpi) or from scanning
> film at 2900. Even with files of the same dimensions, 768x1024, and
> about the same size, 200k, the difference in detail is astonishing.
I'm croggled. The physics doesn't work that way, and my experience
doesn't work that way (600x1200 flatbed, 2700dpi film scanner, both
several years old so several years of experience).
The final quality is no *better* than what you start out with, though,
I can agree with that much.
You may have bad software with one of the scanners. All the scanners
we're talking about *always* scan at the full optical resolution; any
lower resolution is interpolated down in the scanner software. If it
does that badly, that may produce bad results.
In general, though, scanning to final resolution isn't bad. I
generally scan photos at the highest resolution I want to archive at
myself, though, to avoid rescanning later (and avoid needing to keep
the physical photos; especially important when I've borrowed them).
> Right now, I'd go with your advice: a compact film camera and a flatbed
> scanner. The film is much easier and cheaper if you want multiple copies
> or enlragements, and the scanner is useful for lots of other things too,
> including scanning old photos.
It's amazing how much I can improve some fairly bad old print.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 15:39:44 GMT, "Dave O'Neill"
> <da...@NOSPAMatomicrazor.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Karen Lofstrom" <lofs...@lava.net> wrote in message
> >news:v0ascle...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> My mother gave me $100 for Christmas and I was thinking of getting a
> >> digital camera. That would make my life as zendo webmaster a little easier
> >> -- I wouldn't have to beg other people for pictures. Can I get something
> >> decent for $100? How much would I have to pay to get a sturdy camera that
> >> is easy to use and gives clear sharp pictures?
> >
> >Last year I decided to get a digital camera and was thinking of spending
> >$100-$150, in the end, I spent around $350 on a Cannon Ixus (aleph) - the
> >extra was worth every penny. Its light, the same size as the Cannon APS
> >camera, has 2.5 megapixels and works like a dream. I'm not usually one to
> >suggest spending extra money but I think this was worth it.
>
> These days i work in a camera store.
>
> I'm still not the least bit interested in going digital until the
> cameras that are in the $5000+ range today (or their equivalents) get
> down to the sub-$500 range.
Well, the very top of the line in digital SLR's, the
not-even-shipping-yet Kodak DCS 14n, lists at $5k.
> That is, six to eight megapixels, true SLR body, and a 24-by-36mm
> sensor, making it *almost* as good as a cheap SLR with decent glass
> shooting ordinary colour film...
That's 14 megapixels, SLR, 24x36 sensor.
In terms of "as good as", it takes out the bottom half of the medium
format range, as well as all the 35mm stuff. It's going to drive
medium format mostly out of the wedding and portrait market.
The Canon EOS-1Ds SLR is available now, 24x36mm sensor, 11 megapixels. But
$8k. (Note the "s" at the end of the model; the EOS-1D is 4 megapixels
for $5500)
The Nikon D100 and the Canon D60 are 6 megapixels, and the Nikon at
least is only $2k (okay, I checked, B&H sells the Canon for $2200).
SLR body, takes the standard lenses of the brand, etc. They do have
smaller sensors, though. That's a mixed blessing -- all my fast
lenses getting effectively 50% longer is *not* all bad.
All of which is to say that this stuff is only affordable for the
professional or the very serious (and employed) hobbyist, but it is
out there in the market today; it's not some future possibility.
David Dyer-Bennet
> mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>
> > These days i work in a camera store.
> >
> > I'm still not the least bit interested in going digital until the
> > cameras that are in the $5000+ range today (or their equivalents) get
> > down to the sub-$500 range.
> >
> > That is, six to eight megapixels, true SLR body, and a 24-by-36mm
> > sensor, making it *almost* as good as a cheap SLR with decent glass
> > shooting ordinary colour film...
>
> Yesterday I decided to buy myself a Christmas present and bought a film
> scanner: good enough quality for me and it was a good one at a good
> price (I'm scanning the slides I have been shooting, and not enjoying,
> these past ten years). After walking away I asked them how much the
> Nikon D100 was, and was suprised that it's only 2500 euros. Not that I'd
> consider buying it, but I may end up buying something like it in a
> couple of years. I'd like to be able to use my lenses. Until then, it's
> slides.
Color negatives scan better, especially on consumer-grade scanners.
The maximum density on the negative is considerably lower, which makes
it easier for the scanner to work with.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 08:02:29 -0000, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom)
> wrote:
>
> >My mother gave me $100 for Christmas and I was thinking of getting a
> >digital camera. That would make my life as zendo webmaster a little easier
> >-- I wouldn't have to beg other people for pictures. Can I get something
> >decent for $100? How much would I have to pay to get a sturdy camera that
> >is easy to use and gives clear sharp pictures?
> >
>
> We just looked around and decided that nothing under 3 megapixel would
> give a decent picture. We also decided to pay extra for a decent
> amount of workable storage: most of the cameras seemed to come with a
> basic capacity of about five pictures, which you could add to for
> money. We also decided that it should be rechargeable so we didn't
> add so much to the carpeting of the landscape with old batteries, and
> that USB 2 was the right transfer method (oddly, there were a lot of
> cameras with other means, some of which I had not heard of in any
> other context). Also we decided that it would be useless to have only
> a digital zoom, which doesn't change the focus but only the size of
> the image, and that it would be better to have more optical and less
> digital zoom -- and that came in a dizzying variety of combinations.
> We ended up not seeing anything under $350 on sale that we thought
> would be workable (thanks to the nongraduates of the Pajaro Valley
> middle schools, we could afford it now).
While I wouldn't argue against a lower limit of 3 megapixels too
strongly, I *have* on occasion made 8x10 inch prints from 2.1
megapixel originals, and shown them mixed in with prints scanned from
film, and prints made directly from film, to a group of photographers
used to making their own prints (and hence used to judging print
quality much more critically than people who buy prints commercially),
and having the 2.1 megapixel digital prints praised highly. Given how
rarely snapshots go up to 8x10 in the first place, I'd happily use a
2.1 megapixel camera as my snapshot camera (I'm only grudgingly, due
to poverty, continuing to use it as my *only* digital camera). Still,
safety margin is good, room to crop is good, etc., etc. Lots of
pixels are good.
> If you want a camera, and you have only $100 to spend, I would look
> around for a photography club, and get a _used_ decent old-fashioned
> 35 mm camera with a focussable lens. That's what we did before, and I
> was able to take publishable pictures of wildflowers and landscapes
> for a while (till my market seemed to dry up). Um, I think our Canon
> whatchamacallit was about $160. Without flash: but the flash was
> something like $30. Oh, I see: I've gotten the cost back up to closer
> to $200. But we did it in stages, the camera, and then the flash.
>
> But: if all you're going to do is take portraits of your members and
> post them, you could do worse than get a nice little old fashioned
> pocket camera.
>
> The point of the last two paragraps is you can get the pictures
> developed by one of those outfits that makes digital "prints" as a
> default, and add those to the website about as easily as pictures that
> are digital in the first place. My father and stepmother do that, and
> email us the pictures of my daughter in her silly marching kilt and
> glengarry.
It also depends on how *much* you're going to shoot. I'm a photo
hobbyist, so I shoot a *lot* of pictures when I get going. I tend to
measure it by the roll when I'm shooting film (always 36 exposure
rolls). 6 rolls in Kew Gardens, 5 rolls at Kennilworth castle,
whatever. Most people don't shoot like that of course.
But buying a roll of film and getting it developed at Proex and
scanned to picture CD ends up costing around $20. (Not having them
scan it, and using Walgreens instead, cuts that down a LOT, too).
Even if I'm saving only $10 per roll, I save a LOT of money a year
shooting digitally.
Jim Battista
news:v0ascle...@corp.supernews.com:
> My mother gave me $100 for Christmas and I was thinking of getting
> a digital camera. That would make my life as zendo webmaster a
> little easier -- I wouldn't have to beg other people for pictures.
> Can I get something decent for $100?
*consults Amazon*
You can get some 1 or 1.3megapixel cameras for $100 +/- $25. Quality
of the camera and the pictures could easily be wildly variable in that
price range.
> How much would I have to pay
> to get a sturdy camera that is easy to use and gives clear sharp
> pictures?
If you can afford it, or can afford to wait a bit, I'd recommend
blowing $200-300 on it. Moving up to the $200 price point will get you
a 2MP camera. The advantage here is that a 2MP camera is about the low
end for good/decent prints, if you want to. I've gotten decent 8x10's
from my 2MP camera. You'll probably also get a zoom lens for $200.
You'll get better results from a cheap 35mm and a scanner, but the film
and developing costs will eat you alive.
--
Jim Battista
A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man.
Ulrika O'Brien
> Even if I'm saving only $10 per roll, I save a LOT of money a year
> shooting digitally.
oh, yeah. One of the big revelations for us was how *much* more
shooting we tend to do because of the non-cost of film-and-developing
with the digital. About a year and a half ago I bought the Kodak
DC4800 for Hal for his birthday, and we promptly took it with us on our
trip to Sweden. We collectively took enough pictures there to more than
half pay for the camera in saved film costs, and more importantly to me,
we took pictures so freely that we have a bunch of pictures we just
wouldn't have without it.
For what it is, I.e. a pocket camera with auto-focus and some built in
zoom and flash, it often takes better pictures than our 35mm Yashica T3
with the Zeiss lens, largely because it has a better metering setup.
In fact, probably the best portrait snap of Larry Niven that I've seen
exists because of the cheapness of digital. Some friends were on a hike
with Larry and Marilyn while they were in Hawaii and ended up letting
their then-two-year-old play with taking pictures while folks were
resting. One of the shots came out as a wonderful portrait of Larry,
exceptional because he's relaxed and natural in it, and from an odd
angle that I sure wouldn't have picked, but which nonetheless works a
treat. That picture wouldn't exist if the parents had been trucking
along an expensive and complex SLR that took film-based pictures.
But for all that, then as now the DC4800 was over $300, so I, too, am
skeptical of finding a worthwhile digital in the vicinity of $100.
--
Oh, to have a clever .sig file
Ulrika O'Brien, still without portfolio
Jordin Kare
Some comments, based on using a Kodak DC-240 and briefly searching eBay:
1) 1.3 Mpixel (1280 x 960) is, as others have noted, plenty for
anything to be posted to the Web, and pretty good for any kind of
computer display. It's probably marginal for printed photos bigger than
snapshots (4 x 6 inches) although when 1.3 Mpixels was state of the art,
they used to be advertised as good for larger blowups.
2) You *do* want to fill the frame with your subject, especially with a
moderate-pixel-count sensor, which IMHO means you *really* want
something with optical zoom. The Kodak has 3:1 optical zoom, and I use
the full range all the time. Consider that the difference between
filling the full frame and filling 70% of the frame is more than a
factor of 2 in pixel count. (Digital zoom is, as you know, Bob, mainly
a gimmick; you can get any amount of "digital zoom" you want, probably
with better quality, in any image processing program)
3) There are lots of name-brand 1.3 Mpixel or so cameras available used
for around $100 on ebay; there will probably be a lot more after Xmas,
when everyone who got a shiny new 4 Mpixel camera tries to unload their
old cameras. There are even some new-in-box ones in that price range.
If you're comfortable buying on eBay, you can probably get something
comparable to my DC-240.
4) If you *do* buy used, something to think about is that the download
cables are among the most often lost/broken items. Either be very sure
the camera has all the cables you need (you probably don't care if the
direct-to-TV-display cable is missing, for instance) or figure on
getting some flavor of memory-card reader for your computer. A separate
reader is likely to be *much* faster than downloading from the camera,
but does require popping the memory card out of the camera whenever you
want to download pictures. I use a Lexar compact flash card in my
camera that came with a free USB reader; it cost something like $40 for
48 Mbytes, and I basically threw away the 8 Mbyte card that came with
the camera. (you might be able to get a discount on a camera that's
missing its cables that would basically pay for getting a card reader)
> The latest thing seems to be cheap digital cameras that double as a
> webcan. A examples of this is:
>
> http://www.compuvisor.com/logclic510di.html
>
> As with all things, you get what you pay for. But you don't have to have
> the latest multi-Megapixel camera, if all you want to do is put some
> snaps on the web.
I'd avoid the digital camera/webcam units like the plague, myself; too
many design compromises, and most of the ones I've seen have no LCD
viewfinder and very low-grade optical viewfinders.
--
Jordin Kare
"Don't count your photons before they're emitted"
Randolph Fritz
> My mother gave me $100 for Christmas and I was thinking of getting a
> digital camera. That would make my life as zendo webmaster a little easier
> -- I wouldn't have to beg other people for pictures. Can I get something
> decent for $100? How much would I have to pay to get a sturdy camera that
> is easy to use and gives clear sharp pictures?
>
Well, if the only purpose is something that does images for posting on
the web, under one megapixel or so, you might be able to get
something. The problem is more that for $100 or so, you're going to
have to be very careful to get something with an adequate lens and
sensor. What are your requirements? Are you strictly inside in a
studio, or do you need something that you can take around with you?
Do you need flash?
Randolph
Randolph Fritz
>> I've just bought a film scanner, and have been confronting images
>> resulting either from scanning prints (at 1200 dpi) or from scanning
>> film at 2900. Even with files of the same dimensions, 768x1024, and
>> about the same size, 200k, the difference in detail is astonishing.
In article <m2of7d9...@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> I'm croggled. The physics doesn't work that way, and my experience
> doesn't work that way (600x1200 flatbed, 2700dpi film scanner, both
> several years old so several years of experience).
>
I suspect problems with tone, rather than problems with resolution.
There could be problems in shadows or highlights, or kinks in the
flatbed's transfer function that reduce midtone separation. Resolution
is important, but it's not the only thing.
Of course, no-one except pros calibrate anything, grump, grump.
Randolph
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> > I've just bought a film scanner, and have been confronting images
> > resulting either from scanning prints (at 1200 dpi) or from scanning
> > film at 2900. Even with files of the same dimensions, 768x1024, and
> > about the same size, 200k, the difference in detail is astonishing.
>
> I'm croggled. The physics doesn't work that way, and my experience
> doesn't work that way (600x1200 flatbed, 2700dpi film scanner, both
> several years old so several years of experience).
>
> The final quality is no *better* than what you start out with, though,
> I can agree with that much.
>
> You may have bad software with one of the scanners. All the scanners
> we're talking about *always* scan at the full optical resolution; any
> lower resolution is interpolated down in the scanner software. If it
> does that badly, that may produce bad results.
Uh... what is it that croggles you? You say yourself that the quality is
no better than what you start out with, which was my point. Where's the
problem?
The higher the resolution a scanner (or digital camera) is capable of,
the finer the detail, right? The better, more detailed and precise, is
the end image going to be. I mean, when you say that it's a good idea
to scan at maximum resolution, that's the idea, no?
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> It also depends on how *much* you're going to shoot. I'm a photo
> hobbyist, so I shoot a *lot* of pictures when I get going. I tend to
> measure it by the roll when I'm shooting film (always 36 exposure
> rolls). 6 rolls in Kew Gardens, 5 rolls at Kennilworth castle,
> whatever. Most people don't shoot like that of course.
I used to. Half of that though was usually black and white: cheaper to
develop if you shoot that much film (because you do it yourself), but
still painful.
Randolph Fritz
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan wrote:
>
> The higher the resolution a scanner (or digital camera) is capable of,
> the finer the detail, right? The better, more detailed and precise, is
> the end image going to be. I mean, when you say that it's a good idea
> to scan at maximum resolution, that's the idea, no?
>
Not necessarily. If the end image is going to be reduced to 72 dpi
for display, detail is lost anyway, in the process of reduction. But
detail can also be lost through "loss of tonal separation." That is
to say, a poor scanner (or film) can fail to distinguish between
differences of tone, and lose detail that way, even though it can
produce a perfectly respectable number of pixels.
Randolph
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>A separate
>reader is likely to be *much* faster than downloading from the camera,
>but does require popping the memory card out of the camera whenever you
>want to download pictures.
Why "but does require"? I'd consider it a bonus. You can buy another
card and put one on downloading while you use the other.
BTW, Karen, Canon A100 is $129.95. Just digital zoom, 1.2 Mpixels.
Olympus Brio D150 is $129. Olympus Brio D100 is $95, 1.3 Mpixels,
optical zoom. go to
and browse around. Although you'll probably find better prices
elsewhere. But these are brand new cameras.
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Matt Austern
> Well, the very top of the line in digital SLR's, the
> not-even-shipping-yet Kodak DCS 14n, lists at $5k.
>
> > That is, six to eight megapixels, true SLR body, and a 24-by-36mm
> > sensor, making it *almost* as good as a cheap SLR with decent glass
> > shooting ordinary colour film...
>
> That's 14 megapixels, SLR, 24x36 sensor.
>
> In terms of "as good as", it takes out the bottom half of the medium
> format range, as well as all the 35mm stuff. It's going to drive
> medium format mostly out of the wedding and portrait market.
>
> The Canon EOS-1Ds SLR is available now, 24x36mm sensor, 11 megapixels. But
> $8k. (Note the "s" at the end of the model; the EOS-1D is 4 megapixels
> for $5500)
>
> The Nikon D100 and the Canon D60 are 6 megapixels, and the Nikon at
> least is only $2k (okay, I checked, B&H sells the Canon for $2200).
> SLR body, takes the standard lenses of the brand, etc. They do have
> smaller sensors, though. That's a mixed blessing -- all my fast
> lenses getting effectively 50% longer is *not* all bad.
>
> All of which is to say that this stuff is only affordable for the
> professional or the very serious (and employed) hobbyist, but it is
> out there in the market today; it's not some future possibility.
That's exciting stuff! And for me, the good news is that I can
reasonably expect cameras like that to fall under the $1000 mark
within a few years.
Seems to me that we're now getting to the point where storage capacity
is a problem again. With a 14megapixel camera I'd think that a 512MB
compact flash card, or even a 1GB microdrive, would feel pretty
cramped.
Michael Kube-McDowell
Dal Dan) wrote:
>mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>
>> These days i work in a camera store.
>>
>> I'm still not the least bit interested in going digital until the
>> cameras that are in the $5000+ range today (or their equivalents) get
>> down to the sub-$500 range.
>>
>> That is, six to eight megapixels, true SLR body, and a 24-by-36mm
>> sensor, making it *almost* as good as a cheap SLR with decent glass
>> shooting ordinary colour film...
>
>Yesterday I decided to buy myself a Christmas present and bought a film
>scanner: good enough quality for me and it was a good one at a good
>price (I'm scanning the slides I have been shooting, and not enjoying,
>these past ten years). After walking away I asked them how much the
>Nikon D100 was, and was suprised that it's only 2500 euros. Not that I'd
>consider buying it, but I may end up buying something like it in a
>couple of years. I'd like to be able to use my lenses. Until then, it's
>slides.
Which film/slide scanner did you settle on? My Microtek Scanmaker X6EL
and Photoshop are standing me in good stead insofar as 35 years of
prints are concerned, but there's a 10-year hole shaping up in the
digital photo album thanks to a period when I shot slide almost
exclusively (at least when I wasn't working). I've been tempted by
some of the new higher-resolution flatbeds with negative/slide
illuminators built into the lid (the 'free' LightLid35 which came with
the Microtek was a "Nice try, but--").
K-Mac
--
Michael Kube-McDowell, author and packrat
New novel VECTORS (Bantam Spectra) now in stores.
Preview at http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac/Vectors.htm
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Which film/slide scanner did you settle on?
I found a Nikon Coolscan IV ED at a bit more than half the selling price
here ( 550 eu). That was lucky; I wouldn't have paid the full price
(1020 eu) for it. It's _great_. I just lost a day to it, and I love it.
I have been coveting something like this for ages. Slides give much
better results than negatives, and I have bitterly repented touring
Scotland armed with 400 Asa negative film exclusively, and I really
should have paid more attention to field of focus, or just plain focus
in some cases - no chance to go back and re-shoot that yellowing leaves.
But even then, compared to the results I was getting from scanning the
prints, this is just impressive.
Oh, and I've also found this nice little freeware program:
http://www.datadosen.se/jalbum/
Which I think I'll happily start to use to upload things.
I'm a bit chastened by realizing that during the first burst of
enthusiasm I had around 1993 I shot some of the best stuff I've got
around. Also, I have a suspicion that I should really go back to the
fixed lenses I used to use. But my father riappropriated the 50mm, and a
feckless friend _lost_ my 135mm when I had loaned here the camera (yes:
I have since broken up with her, thought not over this). I have a
wondrous 85 mm, but it's not a focal lengths I much like.
My Microtek Scanmaker X6EL
> and Photoshop are standing me in good stead insofar as 35 years of
> prints are concerned, but there's a 10-year hole shaping up in the
> digital photo album thanks to a period when I shot slide almost
> exclusively (at least when I wasn't working). I've been tempted by
> some of the new higher-resolution flatbeds with negative/slide
> illuminators built into the lid (the 'free' LightLid35 which came with
> the Microtek was a "Nice try, but--").
My father bought an Epson with the negative scanner on the lid. We used
it I think three times and then gave up in disgust. Unless they've
become much, much better...
But there are nice quality film scanner coming along at very nice
prices. I know there is a ?Scandisk? one that was supposed to be around
500 $ and it was of very good quality - I seem to remember 4000 dpi but
I'm probably dreaming here.
Karen Lofstrom
> The other thing you might want to look at, which can definitely be done
> in that price range, is to get a compact film camera and a scanner.
> Expenses are higher and picture to web isn't so fast, but there are lots
> of other uses for a scanner.
A year ago, that WAS my chosen solution. I spent money on a nice flatbed
scanner. But I soon found that scanned prints aren't as sharp as the
digital camera output. Plus I never use my film camera because the
taking-pictures-to-be-developed-and-then-picking-them-up stage is such a
bother. I ended up just begging pictures from the zendo members who have
digital cameras.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A product of Happy People's Recycled Food Cooperative Division Three
mike weber
wrote:
>mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> writes:
>
>All of which is to say that this stuff is only affordable for the
>professional or the very serious (and employed) hobbyist, but it is
>out there in the market today; it's not some future possibility.
Oh, yeah. But, as i said, it's out of my price range, just as much as
a Hasselblad, say, always has been.
When the prices drop, then i buy.
But i'll always miss film.
David Dyer-Bennet
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > > I've just bought a film scanner, and have been confronting images
> > > resulting either from scanning prints (at 1200 dpi) or from scanning
> > > film at 2900. Even with files of the same dimensions, 768x1024, and
> > > about the same size, 200k, the difference in detail is astonishing.
> >
> > I'm croggled. The physics doesn't work that way, and my experience
> > doesn't work that way (600x1200 flatbed, 2700dpi film scanner, both
> > several years old so several years of experience).
> >
> > The final quality is no *better* than what you start out with, though,
> > I can agree with that much.
> >
> > You may have bad software with one of the scanners. All the scanners
> > we're talking about *always* scan at the full optical resolution; any
> > lower resolution is interpolated down in the scanner software. If it
> > does that badly, that may produce bad results.
>
> Uh... what is it that croggles you? You say yourself that the quality is
> no better than what you start out with, which was my point. Where's the
> problem?
>
> The higher the resolution a scanner (or digital camera) is capable of,
> the finer the detail, right? The better, more detailed and precise, is
> the end image going to be. I mean, when you say that it's a good idea
> to scan at maximum resolution, that's the idea, no?
What croggles me is the idea that scanning at a higher res and
downsampling produces better results than scanning at a lower res
directly. Unless the scanner software is doing that downsampling
badly, which I suppose is possible.
I scan at the maximum resolution *that I wish to archive*, which is
only sometimes the maximum resolution of the scanner.
David Dyer-Bennet
I've had some problems scanning 4x5 negatives on my flatbed with
transparency adapter in that area. My flatbed is really just barely
marginal for that sort of use. Some of the worse cases show *bad*
"comb" histograms.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > It also depends on how *much* you're going to shoot. I'm a photo
> > hobbyist, so I shoot a *lot* of pictures when I get going. I tend to
> > measure it by the roll when I'm shooting film (always 36 exposure
> > rolls). 6 rolls in Kew Gardens, 5 rolls at Kennilworth castle,
> > whatever. Most people don't shoot like that of course.
>
> I used to. Half of that though was usually black and white: cheaper to
> develop if you shoot that much film (because you do it yourself), but
> still painful.
Yes, the pile of developing to deal with afterwards can influence me
to moderate my shooting. It's also probably why I shot less B&W than
usual on my couple of big international trips.
joy beeson
> Most people don't shoot like that of course.
On film, that is. I never took pictures at all when all the
cameras in the house used film, but I've been known to
borrow the digital and fill up a floppy.
Joy Beeson
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~joybeeson/ -- needlework
http://home.earthlink.net/~beeson_n3f/ -- Writers' Exchange
joy beeson at earthlink dot net
David Dyer-Bennet
I *hope* so. But note that the film bodies at serious levels are
around $1000 themselves. A digital based on those bodies will be
significantly more. (One of the drawbacks of the D100, that I'm
willing to live with, is that it's based on the N80 body, not one of
their best.)
> Seems to me that we're now getting to the point where storage capacity
> is a problem again. With a 14megapixel camera I'd think that a 512MB
> compact flash card, or even a 1GB microdrive, would feel pretty
> cramped.
Real raw storage is considerably smaller than tiff, so that sometimes
helps a lot (1/3 the size, just to start with). And very high-quality
jpeg levels still give 10:1 compression often. And I think with a 14
megapixel camera I might finally start not shooting everything at max
res.
David Dyer-Bennet
Slides are hard for consumer flatbeds -- the DMAX is too high on the
slides.
Randolph Fritz
> Randolph Fritz <rand...@panix.com> writes:
>
>> Not necessarily. If the end image is going to be reduced to 72 dpi
>> for display, detail is lost anyway, in the process of reduction. But
>> detail can also be lost through "loss of tonal separation." That is
>> to say, a poor scanner (or film) can fail to distinguish between
>> differences of tone, and lose detail that way, even though it can
>> produce a perfectly respectable number of pixels.
>
> I've had some problems scanning 4x5 negatives on my flatbed with
> transparency adapter in that area. My flatbed is really just barely
> marginal for that sort of use. Some of the worse cases show *bad*
> "comb" histograms.
Oh, interesting. What model flatbed?
David Dyer-Bennet
> Michael Kube-McDowell <kubemc...@excite.com.dev.null> wrote:
>
> > Which film/slide scanner did you settle on?
>
> I found a Nikon Coolscan IV ED at a bit more than half the selling price
> here ( 550 eu). That was lucky; I wouldn't have paid the full price
> (1020 eu) for it. It's _great_. I just lost a day to it, and I love it.
> I have been coveting something like this for ages. Slides give much
> better results than negatives, and I have bitterly repented touring
> Scotland armed with 400 Asa negative film exclusively, and I really
> should have paid more attention to field of focus, or just plain focus
> in some cases - no chance to go back and re-shoot that yellowing leaves.
> But even then, compared to the results I was getting from scanning the
> prints, this is just impressive.
I haven't used that scanner, but I have the LS-2000, a close
relative. I'd guess you'll be really happy with the Coolscan IV.
Isn't ICE wonderful? And does that one have ROC and GEM? I have ROC
only as a photoshop plugin, and don't have GEM at all, and I could
probably get a lot of benefit out of it. ROC is really worth getting
to know for working with old photos or unusual lighting (daylight film
under tungsten light, or such).
> Oh, and I've also found this nice little freeware program:
> http://www.datadosen.se/jalbum/
>
> Which I think I'll happily start to use to upload things.
>
> I'm a bit chastened by realizing that during the first burst of
> enthusiasm I had around 1993 I shot some of the best stuff I've got
> around. Also, I have a suspicion that I should really go back to the
> fixed lenses I used to use. But my father riappropriated the 50mm, and a
> feckless friend _lost_ my 135mm when I had loaned here the camera (yes:
> I have since broken up with her, thought not over this). I have a
> wondrous 85 mm, but it's not a focal lengths I much like.
Too bad; 85mm is a nice length. I had a Leitz 90mm that I loved, then
a Nikon 105 that I didn't (though I still have it), then an Olympus
85mm that I liked a lot.
I've never gotten along with 28mm for some reason I don't understand,
although it's a widely popular length as well. Although I do use that
end of some zooms sometimes.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 22 Dec 2002 12:39:09 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
> >mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> writes:
> >
>
> >All of which is to say that this stuff is only affordable for the
> >professional or the very serious (and employed) hobbyist, but it is
> >out there in the market today; it's not some future possibility.
>
> Oh, yeah. But, as i said, it's out of my price range, just as much as
> a Hasselblad, say, always has been.
>
> When the prices drop, then i buy.
When I get some money, then I buy; the prices have dropped enough.
Though I may benefit from further imposed delay.
> But i'll always miss film.
I'm enthusiastically departing from it, myself. In particular, I'm
*so* glad not to be spending hour doing spotting any more.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>In article <sCL8m6Ar...@ffutures.demon.co.uk>, Marcus L. Rowland wrote:
>
>> The other thing you might want to look at, which can definitely be done
>> in that price range, is to get a compact film camera and a scanner.
>> Expenses are higher and picture to web isn't so fast, but there are lots
>> of other uses for a scanner.
>
>A year ago, that WAS my chosen solution. I spent money on a nice flatbed
>scanner. But I soon found that scanned prints aren't as sharp as the
>digital camera output. Plus I never use my film camera because the
>taking-pictures-to-be-developed-and-then-picking-them-up stage is such a
>bother. I ended up just begging pictures from the zendo members who have
>digital cameras.
Stuff I scan is almost *always* sharper than things I take digital
pictures of (even with the tripod). But then, I scan directly on the
scanner, I don't take pictures in between.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Michael Kube-McDowell
wrote:
>> Which film/slide scanner did you settle on? My Microtek Scanmaker X6EL
>> and Photoshop are standing me in good stead insofar as 35 years of
>> prints are concerned, but there's a 10-year hole shaping up in the
>> digital photo album thanks to a period when I shot slide almost
>> exclusively (at least when I wasn't working). I've been tempted by
>> some of the new higher-resolution flatbeds with negative/slide
>> illuminators built into the lid (the 'free' LightLid35 which came with
>> the Microtek was a "Nice try, but--").
>
>Slides are hard for consumer flatbeds -- the DMAX is too high on the
>slides.
Alas, professional scanning service for ten years of slides* is too
hard on the wallet, and so the slides sit in their dark little
boxes--even -I- don't get to see them.
The new mid-range HP (7400c, frex) and Microtek (6700, frex) scanners
go to 2400dpi in hardware, and they're pushing the slide/negative
adapters as quality features, so I'd like to see what one can do.
K-Mac
*The ten years of slides ended when my first wife insisted on having
prints of our baby to show/share/pin on the wall. "But the projected
Kodachrome slide is color photography at its best," I protested, to no
avail.
--
Michael Kube-McDowell - author of VECTORS, now in stores
Karen Lofstrom
> Stuff I scan is almost *always* sharper than things I take digital
> pictures of (even with the tripod). But then, I scan directly on the
> scanner, I don't take pictures in between.
[*]
You're scanning negatives or slides, as some of the other participants in
this thread say they do?
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ta hifo ki liku 'o tou siale
Kakala nanamu ke tui tavale
Robert Sneddon
<kubemc...@excite.com.dev.null> writes
>>slides.
>
>Alas, professional scanning service for ten years of slides* is too
>hard on the wallet, and so the slides sit in their dark little
>boxes--even -I- don't get to see them.
I reckon there is a market for rental of higher-end film/slide scanners
for those people currently transitioning from film/slide to digital.
They would rent a scanner for a month or so to move their collection
into digital format and then return the scanner to the rental pool
having no further use for it. A hundred bucks a month (plus a credit-
card deposit in case of damage or loss) would probably suffice. The
professional services are mainly charging for the operator's time to
load and unload the slides/neg strips into the scanners.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
Ulrika O'Brien
says...
> Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
> > Stuff I scan is almost *always* sharper than things I take digital
> > pictures of (even with the tripod). But then, I scan directly on the
> > scanner, I don't take pictures in between.
>
> [*]
>
> You're scanning negatives or slides, as some of the other participants in
> this thread say they do?
No she's essentially taking photographs of objects using her scanner.
Scanning the object itself, usually with a bit of fabric draped over it
to provide background, rather than taking a photo of the object
and then scanning the picture. This works very well with objects small
and flat enough to fit on the scanner glass, like beads, or jewelry.
If you look at the Marilee's gallery page, there's an image of a
necklace and bracelet that I made using Marilee's Bali beads,
photographed by the same method.
--
Oh, to have a clever .sig file
Ulrika O'Brien, still without portfolio
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) writes:
>
> > Michael Kube-McDowell <kubemc...@excite.com.dev.null> wrote:
> >
> > > Which film/slide scanner did you settle on?
> >
> > I found a Nikon Coolscan IV ED at a bit more than half the selling price
> > here ( 550 eu). That was lucky; I wouldn't have paid the full price
> > (1020 eu) for it. It's _great_. I just lost a day to it, and I love it.
> > I have been coveting something like this for ages. Slides give much
> > better results than negatives, and I have bitterly repented touring
> > Scotland armed with 400 Asa negative film exclusively, and I really
> > should have paid more attention to field of focus, or just plain focus
> > in some cases - no chance to go back and re-shoot that yellowing leaves.
> > But even then, compared to the results I was getting from scanning the
> > prints, this is just impressive.
>
> I haven't used that scanner, but I have the LS-2000, a close
> relative. I'd guess you'll be really happy with the Coolscan IV.
> Isn't ICE wonderful?
It's _unbelievable_. The closest thing to a magic wand I've ever seen.
If I think of all the time I spent patiently erasing scratches in dust,
both on Photoshop and with tiny brushes on my prints...
And does that one have ROC and GEM? I have ROC
> only as a photoshop plugin, and don't have GEM at all, and I could
> probably get a lot of benefit out of it. ROC is really worth getting
> to know for working with old photos or unusual lighting (daylight film
> under tungsten light, or such).
It does have both, but I haven't been as impressed. I tried saving some
old and faded slides but I couldn't much tell the difference. Maybe I
just haven't met the right conditions.
> > Oh, and I've also found this nice little freeware program:
> > http://www.datadosen.se/jalbum/
> >
> > Which I think I'll happily start to use to upload things.
> >
> > I'm a bit chastened by realizing that during the first burst of
> > enthusiasm I had around 1993 I shot some of the best stuff I've got
> > around. Also, I have a suspicion that I should really go back to the
> > fixed lenses I used to use. But my father riappropriated the 50mm, and a
> > feckless friend _lost_ my 135mm when I had loaned here the camera (yes:
> > I have since broken up with her, thought not over this). I have a
> > wondrous 85 mm, but it's not a focal lengths I much like.
>
> Too bad; 85mm is a nice length.
I know. I should use it more. Part of the problem is that when you're
leaving on a plane and you don't want to trust your lenses to the hold,
and you've also got a heavy laptop... well, the zoom becomes much more
attractive. Same when you're out walking, really. It's not a bad lens,
the 24-120. But still of inferior quality.
I had a Leitz 90mm that I loved, then
> a Nikon 105 that I didn't (though I still have it), then an Olympus
> 85mm that I liked a lot.
>
> I've never gotten along with 28mm for some reason I don't understand,
> although it's a widely popular length as well. Although I do use that
> end of some zooms sometimes.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) writes:
>
> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >
> > > It also depends on how *much* you're going to shoot. I'm a photo
> > > hobbyist, so I shoot a *lot* of pictures when I get going. I tend to
> > > measure it by the roll when I'm shooting film (always 36 exposure
> > > rolls). 6 rolls in Kew Gardens, 5 rolls at Kennilworth castle,
> > > whatever. Most people don't shoot like that of course.
> >
> > I used to. Half of that though was usually black and white: cheaper to
> > develop if you shoot that much film (because you do it yourself), but
> > still painful.
>
> Yes, the pile of developing to deal with afterwards can influence me
> to moderate my shooting. It's also probably why I shot less B&W than
> usual on my couple of big international trips.
Ah, well, if you do it all at the same time it's not _that_ bad. I used
to have (I still have, they're there somewhere) two three-rolls
developing tanks and one two-rolls, and I could go through a lot of film
in a weekend. And the thrill of seeing what came out of the tank was
really something... It's when you have to go through all the trouble,
prepare the chemicals (throw away the old ones, go out to the sticks to
buy new ones), care for temperature and times and load the tanks and so
on - for _one_ blasted roll that you give up and go to the nearest
photographer. Which also doesn't get any dust on it, as I used to (I
developed, and dried the film, in my mother's laundry).
Then the traitorous thought "but since you've exhausted the wall-space
and you're mostly going digital anyway and Photoshop does have a
"discard color information" feature...." began to dawn... Though that
gives different results from a b&w film, I suspect.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Oh, yeah. But, as i said, it's out of my price range, just as much as
> a Hasselblad, say, always has been.
Amen.
>
> When the prices drop, then i buy.
>
> But i'll always miss film.
Ah, and to think we'll get to Really Mighty Digital before having had
the thrill to pass through 6x6. Sigh.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> > The higher the resolution a scanner (or digital camera) is capable of,
> > the finer the detail, right? The better, more detailed and precise, is
> > the end image going to be. I mean, when you say that it's a good idea
> > to scan at maximum resolution, that's the idea, no?
>
> What croggles me is the idea that scanning at a higher res and
> downsampling produces better results than scanning at a lower res
> directly. Unless the scanner software is doing that downsampling
> badly, which I suppose is possible.
>
> I scan at the maximum resolution *that I wish to archive*, which is
> only sometimes the maximum resolution of the scanner.
Yes, I think I see where we miscomunicated. I always scan at maximum
resultion, and I don't know how scanning a film and scanning a print can
compare, really. But what I've been doing this past few days is scanning
images I already had scanned from the print with the flatbed, only this
time scanning the negative, and then reducing them in size to my desktop
format (1024x768) and then, to my amazement, saving them in jpeg yield
surprisingly light images, 200 k or so, that still pretend they've got a
2900 resolution and are markedly better than the 72 dpi images I used
before. I'm not really _that_ much surprised that a machine capable of
2900 dpi gives better results than a 1650 dpi one, after all. I'd be a
bit disappointed if it didn't. The film scanner images report smaller
dimensions (couple of centimeters instead of a dozen) but I don't have
to print them, after all. So "downsizing" I meant making them smaller in
width pixels per height pixels, not reducing the resolution. The images
I got from the flatbed were bad because to get a decently light file I
had to go down to 72 dpi. I guess the density of information in the
original comes into play here.
I have a hard time making sense of measurements in this field. I can
tell that a 600 dpi image is better than a 72 dpi one - but that's about
all.
Bernard Peek
<dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>What croggles me is the idea that scanning at a higher res and
>downsampling produces better results than scanning at a lower res
>directly. Unless the scanner software is doing that downsampling
>badly, which I suppose is possible.
It seems probable. The scanner has a fixed distance between its sensors
so it probably has to downsample. Scanners probably have less-powerful
processors than a PC.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
www.diversebooks.com: SF & Computing book reviews and more.....
In search of cognoscenti
Kip Williams
> and you're mostly going digital anyway and Photoshop does have a
> "discard color information" feature...." began to dawn... Though that
> gives different results from a b&w film, I suspect.
Sure. I edit curves before converting to b&w, so that it emphasizes
what I want it to. (Depending on the situation, I may also look at
the three plates and just pick the one I want to use.)
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!" --Kodos
Kip Williams
> In message <m2smwpq...@gw.dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet
> <dd...@dd-b.net> writes
>
>
>> What croggles me is the idea that scanning at a higher res and
>> downsampling produces better results than scanning at a lower res
>> directly. Unless the scanner software is doing that downsampling
>> badly, which I suppose is possible.
>
>
> It seems probable. The scanner has a fixed distance between its sensors
> so it probably has to downsample. Scanners probably have less-powerful
> processors than a PC.
I usually scan at about 300 dpi, and then reduce the image. 50%
reduction, then sharpen carefully, then reduce again until it's as
small as desired, and it seems to have lots more detail.
David Dyer-Bennet
Ah, part of this is the confusion introduced by the "dots-per-inch"
value that's sometimes stored in an image file. The simple answer is
that it's *completely meaningless*. (The simple answer isn't 100.00%
true, but pretty close). Especially on the web, it means nothing; it
doesn't change how anything displays. (Sometimes it sets the default
size if you bring the image into a print layout program, but you can
change it even then.)
There *are* cases where one might prefer to scan from a print -- but
not on a consumer-grade flatbed. And those cases start with a print
made by a master-printer, whose nuances you wish to preserve.
Otherwise, as you've found, film scanners are the way to go when
possible.
David Dyer-Bennet
Umax Astra 1220U. 600 dpi optical (it half-steps to get 1200 dpi one
direction). With a full-page transparency adapter that cost as much
as the scanner did. This setup is actually very hard to duplicate now
-- you can't get a full-page transparency adapter except on the
professional graphic arts scanners, thus not at this price point.
David Dyer-Bennet
And then you have to go in the darkroom and make contact sheets of all
of them.
And sometimes, then, you're too worn down to make many prints.
I found some interesting negatives on 30-year-old rolls of film last
summer that I'm reasonably certain had *never* been printed before.
I'd often have one roll left-over to save for the next batch; I had to
be pretty motivated to run a one-roll batch.
I've still got a 4-roll tank or two somewhere around, and 2, and 1. I
don't remember every meeting a *3* roll tank. But mine are the old
stainless-steel, I haven't owned the good new plastic tanks and reels
(though I've developed a hundred or so rolls of slides in them with
various friends out East).
> Then the traitorous thought "but since you've exhausted the wall-space
> and you're mostly going digital anyway and Photoshop does have a
> "discard color information" feature...." began to dawn... Though that
> gives different results from a b&w film, I suspect.
Exactly the same as a particular B&W film, no. But very useful
anyway. Especially if you use the channel mixer insted of just
converting to greyscale (so you get to choose how much of each RGB
channel goes into the B&W result). Among other things, it gives you
the chance to apply all those handy B&W filters for tone adjustment
*after* you took the picture.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > Most people don't shoot like that of course.
>
> On film, that is. I never took pictures at all when all the
> cameras in the house used film, but I've been known to
> borrow the digital and fill up a floppy.
It looks to me like digital is getting quite a few more people either
into photography, or *back* into photography. And film is still
easily available and will be for a while, so I wouldn't think it's
driving anybody out.
Around 10-20 years from now we'll start seeing the adult work of the
people who got a decent digital camera when they were 10 years old as
a pass-along from a parent who upgraded, and got to go through a big
chunk of their childhood with a decent camera and no financial
problems feeding it film. A few of those people will probably be
really good.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 22 Dec 2002 21:43:57 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Which film/slide scanner did you settle on? My Microtek Scanmaker X6EL
> >> and Photoshop are standing me in good stead insofar as 35 years of
> >> prints are concerned, but there's a 10-year hole shaping up in the
> >> digital photo album thanks to a period when I shot slide almost
> >> exclusively (at least when I wasn't working). I've been tempted by
> >> some of the new higher-resolution flatbeds with negative/slide
> >> illuminators built into the lid (the 'free' LightLid35 which came with
> >> the Microtek was a "Nice try, but--").
> >
> >Slides are hard for consumer flatbeds -- the DMAX is too high on the
> >slides.
>
> Alas, professional scanning service for ten years of slides* is too
> hard on the wallet, and so the slides sit in their dark little
> boxes--even -I- don't get to see them.
>
> The new mid-range HP (7400c, frex) and Microtek (6700, frex) scanners
> go to 2400dpi in hardware, and they're pushing the slide/negative
> adapters as quality features, so I'd like to see what one can do.
I haven't looked at that generation (the Epson 2450 Photo should be on
the list too) flatbed, but on raw specs it's worth a try, I agree.
On the other hand, you can get some pretty good film scanners in the
same price-range -- even the Nikon Coolscan IV is only about 20%
more.
> *The ten years of slides ended when my first wife insisted on having
> prints of our baby to show/share/pin on the wall. "But the projected
> Kodachrome slide is color photography at its best," I protested, to no
> avail.
Could have been viewed as an opportunity to take up color
printing....
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) writes:
> >
> > > Michael Kube-McDowell <kubemc...@excite.com.dev.null> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Which film/slide scanner did you settle on?
> > >
> > > I found a Nikon Coolscan IV ED at a bit more than half the selling price
> > > here ( 550 eu). That was lucky; I wouldn't have paid the full price
> > > (1020 eu) for it. It's _great_. I just lost a day to it, and I love it.
> > > I have been coveting something like this for ages. Slides give much
> > > better results than negatives, and I have bitterly repented touring
> > > Scotland armed with 400 Asa negative film exclusively, and I really
> > > should have paid more attention to field of focus, or just plain focus
> > > in some cases - no chance to go back and re-shoot that yellowing leaves.
> > > But even then, compared to the results I was getting from scanning the
> > > prints, this is just impressive.
> >
> > I haven't used that scanner, but I have the LS-2000, a close
> > relative. I'd guess you'll be really happy with the Coolscan IV.
> > Isn't ICE wonderful?
>
> It's _unbelievable_. The closest thing to a magic wand I've ever seen.
> If I think of all the time I spent patiently erasing scratches in dust,
> both on Photoshop and with tiny brushes on my prints...
For a while, I didn't realize it was doing much. Then I found some
*strange* blocks of emptiness in one scan, and looked at the original
-- and found the most *amazing* huge glop of gunk, of which those few
pixels were the only trace left in the scan. Wow.
I was reminded again last summer, when I was scanning a lot of old B&W
film. ICE doesn't work with traditional B&W film (where the silver
particles form the actual image), so I was back to retouching for
ages.
(For those not familiar with ICE, it uses a fourth scanning channel,
infrared, to look for dust and hairs and scratches and things on the
negative, and then some software that must be *really* clever to fill
in the voids. The dyes in color slides and negatives are transparent
in the infrared. It's by a company called "Applied Science Fiction".
I suspected it must be pretty cool when I saw that my Nikon scanner's
box had the Applied Science Fiction logo on the outside of it; that
argued a *very* good negotiating position.)
> > And does that one have ROC and GEM? I have ROC
> > only as a photoshop plugin, and don't have GEM at all, and I could
> > probably get a lot of benefit out of it. ROC is really worth getting
> > to know for working with old photos or unusual lighting (daylight film
> > under tungsten light, or such).
>
> It does have both, but I haven't been as impressed. I tried saving some
> old and faded slides but I couldn't much tell the difference. Maybe I
> just haven't met the right conditions.
Interesting, I've been quite happy with ROC. But maybe I'm dealing
with more thoroughly munged color, or am not as fussy about the
results, or something. I've used it to reconstruct some 30-year-old
slides I scanned and it helped a *lot*. Oh, or the *other* other
possibility is that you're better than me at reconstructing color
through curves editing. It has been "snapshot" (or record shot, at
least) level reconstruction, not "art".
> > > Oh, and I've also found this nice little freeware program:
> > > http://www.datadosen.se/jalbum/
> > >
> > > Which I think I'll happily start to use to upload things.
> > >
> > > I'm a bit chastened by realizing that during the first burst of
> > > enthusiasm I had around 1993 I shot some of the best stuff I've got
> > > around. Also, I have a suspicion that I should really go back to the
> > > fixed lenses I used to use. But my father riappropriated the 50mm, and a
> > > feckless friend _lost_ my 135mm when I had loaned here the camera (yes:
> > > I have since broken up with her, thought not over this). I have a
> > > wondrous 85 mm, but it's not a focal lengths I much like.
> >
> > Too bad; 85mm is a nice length.
>
> I know. I should use it more. Part of the problem is that when you're
> leaving on a plane and you don't want to trust your lenses to the hold,
> and you've also got a heavy laptop... well, the zoom becomes much more
> attractive. Same when you're out walking, really. It's not a bad lens,
> the 24-120. But still of inferior quality.
Ah, I think I've been tempted by that lens in catalogs. It's slower
than I allow, but it's *such* a useful range.
David Dyer-Bennet
That's very strange to me. But there's a lot of variation in digital
cameras.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <v0d7mno...@corp.supernews.com>, lofs...@lava.net
> says...
> > Marilee J. Layman wrote:
> >
> > > Stuff I scan is almost *always* sharper than things I take digital
> > > pictures of (even with the tripod). But then, I scan directly on the
> > > scanner, I don't take pictures in between.
> >
> > [*]
> >
> > You're scanning negatives or slides, as some of the other participants in
> > this thread say they do?
>
> No she's essentially taking photographs of objects using her scanner.
> Scanning the object itself, usually with a bit of fabric draped over it
> to provide background, rather than taking a photo of the object
> and then scanning the picture. This works very well with objects small
> and flat enough to fit on the scanner glass, like beads, or jewelry.
Although the lighting isn't very controllable. (I was scanning some
old army insignia of my father's the other day and ran into some
troubles with that.)
Ulrika O'Brien
> Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:51:42 -0000, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <sCL8m6Ar...@ffutures.demon.co.uk>, Marcus L. Rowland wrote:
> > >
> > >> The other thing you might want to look at, which can definitely be done
> > >> in that price range, is to get a compact film camera and a scanner.
> > >> Expenses are higher and picture to web isn't so fast, but there are lots
> > >> of other uses for a scanner.
> > >
> > >A year ago, that WAS my chosen solution. I spent money on a nice flatbed
> > >scanner. But I soon found that scanned prints aren't as sharp as the
> > >digital camera output. Plus I never use my film camera because the
> > >taking-pictures-to-be-developed-and-then-picking-them-up stage is such a
> > >bother. I ended up just begging pictures from the zendo members who have
> > >digital cameras.
> >
> > Stuff I scan is almost *always* sharper than things I take digital
> > pictures of (even with the tripod). But then, I scan directly on the
> > scanner, I don't take pictures in between.
>
> That's very strange to me. But there's a lot of variation in digital
> cameras.
Digital cameras aren't part of the equation she's talking about. I
suspect it's the difference between a scan of a photograph taken without
a good macro lens of a very small object and a direct scan of the object
itself which makes the difference for her.
David Dyer-Bennet
And in that case it's perfectly understandandable, I agree.
Randolph Fritz
> Randolph Fritz <rand...@panix.com> writes:
>
> Umax Astra 1220U. 600 dpi optical (it half-steps to get 1200 dpi one
> direction). With a full-page transparency adapter that cost as much
> as the scanner did. This setup is actually very hard to duplicate now
> -- you can't get a full-page transparency adapter except on the
> professional graphic arts scanners, thus not at this price point.
Oh, ick. I got to hate the Umax scanners we had at school. Epson
offers a good series of transparency adapters--up to 4x5--with one of
their consumer "Perfection" models. I've used those with good
results.
Randolph
Marcus L. Rowland
>direction). With a full-page transparency adapter that cost as much as
>the scanner did. This setup is actually very hard to duplicate now --
>you can't get a full-page transparency adapter except on the
>professional graphic arts scanners, thus not at this price point.
Damn, I have the 1220S (the SCSI version, bought second hand for twenty-
five pounds earlier this year) and could have got the transparency top
for an extra 20 quid. I never really thought of large format film, I was
just thinking of using it for OHPs, so I didn't bother.
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.ffutures.demon.co.uk/
http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
"Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda
Marcus L. Rowland
<rand...@panix.com> writes
>Oh, ick. I got to hate the Umax scanners we had at school.
Let me guess; parallel or USB connections? I've been using a Umax 1220s
most of this years, and have no complaints apart from it being a little
slow. But that one has a SCSI connector, and I suspect that it's a lot
more reliable than the other versions.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> > I know. I should use it more. Part of the problem is that when you're
> > leaving on a plane and you don't want to trust your lenses to the hold,
> > and you've also got a heavy laptop... well, the zoom becomes much more
> > attractive. Same when you're out walking, really. It's not a bad lens,
> > the 24-120. But still of inferior quality.
>
> Ah, I think I've been tempted by that lens in catalogs. It's slower
> than I allow, but it's *such* a useful range.
Yes, it's slow, which results in a higher than average "moved" (don't
know the English word) shots with somebody with a nervous hand like me;
but on the other hand, it's good quality. The only thing I'm a bit
unhappy at is that at some focal length it's got a bit of "pillow"
(another word I don't know) effect.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> > Then the traitorous thought "but since you've exhausted the wall-space
> > and you're mostly going digital anyway and Photoshop does have a
> > "discard color information" feature...." began to dawn... Though that
> > gives different results from a b&w film, I suspect.
>
> Exactly the same as a particular B&W film, no. But very useful
> anyway. Especially if you use the channel mixer insted of just
> converting to greyscale (so you get to choose how much of each RGB
> channel goes into the B&W result). Among other things, it gives you
> the chance to apply all those handy B&W filters for tone adjustment
> *after* you took the picture.
Ahhh. Yes.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>I was reminded again last summer, when I was scanning a lot of old B&W
>film. ICE doesn't work with traditional B&W film (where the silver
>particles form the actual image), so I was back to retouching for
>ages.
If you have the money, binuscan PhotoRetouch Pro. There is a reasaon
why it's called Pro. Not only because it costs $749. You can try a
demo, though.
http://www.binuscan.com/us/prp/info.html
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Marilee J. Layman
I like my Umax, but I mostly scan beads and jewelry.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Marilee J. Layman
<mrow...@ffutures.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <slrnb0eq9j....@panix1.panix.com>, Randolph Fritz
><rand...@panix.com> writes
>>Oh, ick. I got to hate the Umax scanners we had at school.
>
>Let me guess; parallel or USB connections? I've been using a Umax 1220s
>most of this years, and have no complaints apart from it being a little
>slow. But that one has a SCSI connector, and I suspect that it's a lot
>more reliable than the other versions.
I don't have any problems with my Umax & the parallel connection. It
does have to be on for the printer to work, of course.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>
>> Stuff I scan is almost *always* sharper than things I take digital
>> pictures of (even with the tripod). But then, I scan directly on the
>> scanner, I don't take pictures in between.
>
>[*]
>
>You're scanning negatives or slides, as some of the other participants in
>this thread say they do?
Nope, beads or jewelry.
Marilee J. Layman
<uaob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <v0d7mno...@corp.supernews.com>, lofs...@lava.net
>says...
>> Marilee J. Layman wrote:
>>
>> > Stuff I scan is almost *always* sharper than things I take digital
>> > pictures of (even with the tripod). But then, I scan directly on the
>> > scanner, I don't take pictures in between.
>>
>> [*]
>>
>> You're scanning negatives or slides, as some of the other participants in
>> this thread say they do?
>
>No she's essentially taking photographs of objects using her scanner.
>Scanning the object itself, usually with a bit of fabric draped over it
>to provide background, rather than taking a photo of the object
>and then scanning the picture. This works very well with objects small
>and flat enough to fit on the scanner glass, like beads, or jewelry.
Yeah, I actually use light blue paper most of the time, it sets off
most colors nicely. The table of beads on my sale page are done with
my hot pink gauze tunic over them.
>If you look at the Marilee's gallery page, there's an image of a
>necklace and bracelet that I made using Marilee's Bali beads,
>photographed by the same method.
That page takes forever to come in, here's Ulrika's pieces:
http://gallery.basicbali.com/ulrika.jpg
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:51:42 -0000, lofs...@lava.net (Karen Lofstrom)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <sCL8m6Ar...@ffutures.demon.co.uk>, Marcus L. Rowland wrote:
>> >
>> >> The other thing you might want to look at, which can definitely be done
>> >> in that price range, is to get a compact film camera and a scanner.
>> >> Expenses are higher and picture to web isn't so fast, but there are lots
>> >> of other uses for a scanner.
>> >
>> >A year ago, that WAS my chosen solution. I spent money on a nice flatbed
>> >scanner. But I soon found that scanned prints aren't as sharp as the
>> >digital camera output. Plus I never use my film camera because the
>> >taking-pictures-to-be-developed-and-then-picking-them-up stage is such a
>> >bother. I ended up just begging pictures from the zendo members who have
>> >digital cameras.
>>
>> Stuff I scan is almost *always* sharper than things I take digital
>> pictures of (even with the tripod). But then, I scan directly on the
>> scanner, I don't take pictures in between.
>
>That's very strange to me. But there's a lot of variation in digital
>cameras.
Oh, the camera is probably fine, I'm just not good at picture-taking.
Even on the tripod I can make it wobble when I push the button.
Marilee J. Layman
Well, I did mean the camera. Mine has a macro lens, I'm just not good
at holding it very still. Even on the tripod I can make it wobble
when I push the button (I should probably use the timer).
David G. Bell
<1fnnuz2.12qh1c0zfx3icN%ada...@spamcop.net>
ada...@spamcop.net "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > > I know. I should use it more. Part of the problem is that when you're
> > > leaving on a plane and you don't want to trust your lenses to the hold,
> > > and you've also got a heavy laptop... well, the zoom becomes much more
> > > attractive. Same when you're out walking, really. It's not a bad lens,
> > > the 24-120. But still of inferior quality.
> >
> > Ah, I think I've been tempted by that lens in catalogs. It's slower
> > than I allow, but it's *such* a useful range.
>
> Yes, it's slow, which results in a higher than average "moved" (don't
> know the English word) shots with somebody with a nervous hand like me;
> but on the other hand, it's good quality. The only thing I'm a bit
> unhappy at is that at some focal length it's got a bit of "pillow"
> (another word I don't know) effect.
"moved" is probably what we call "camera shake".
There's two kinds of lens distortion which might be "pillow". Imagine a
square shape. If the side appear to bend outwards on the picture,
that's "barrel" distortion. The opposite shape is "pincushion"
distortion.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"Let me get this straight. You're the KGB's core AI, but you're afraid
of a copyright infringement lawsuit over your translator semiotics?"
From "Lobsters" by Charles Stross.
Kris Hasson-Jones
<mjla...@erols.com> posted the following for all to see:
>On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 08:05:16 GMT, Ulrika O'Brien
><uaob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>No she's essentially taking photographs of objects using her scanner.
>>Scanning the object itself, usually with a bit of fabric draped over it
>>to provide background, rather than taking a photo of the object
>>and then scanning the picture. This works very well with objects small
>>and flat enough to fit on the scanner glass, like beads, or jewelry.
>
>Yeah, I actually use light blue paper most of the time, it sets off
>most colors nicely. The table of beads on my sale page are done with
>my hot pink gauze tunic over them.
>
>>If you look at the Marilee's gallery page, there's an image of a
>>necklace and bracelet that I made using Marilee's Bali beads,
>>photographed by the same method.
That's how I scanned my pieces for your webpage, too. I used a light
purple silk scarf behind them.
In fact, the tech who installed the scanner for me picked up something
off my desk and set it on the scanner to calibrate it. It happened to
be a teddy bear. That gave me the clue that you could scan 3-D
objects, not just flat things like photographs and pages of text.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
I'd amuse a lot of lurkers, and show up all
the smirkers, if I only had a .sig....
David Dyer-Bennet
I'd like to get the Epson 2450 photo model -- has a 4x9" transparency
adapter. That's important, because it lets me do at least half
contact-sheets of negatives, which I find very useful. 4x5 isn't
enough for 6-shot 35mm strips or 4-shot 120 strips.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <slrnb0eq9j....@panix1.panix.com>, Randolph Fritz
> <rand...@panix.com> writes
> >Oh, ick. I got to hate the Umax scanners we had at school.
>
> Let me guess; parallel or USB connections? I've been using a Umax 1220s
> most of this years, and have no complaints apart from it being a little
> slow. But that one has a SCSI connector, and I suspect that it's a lot
> more reliable than the other versions.
Actually, I had the 1220s for a while, and essentially swapped it for
a 1220u. They both worked equally well for me. I swapped it because
there was a conflict of some sort between the 1220s and my Nikon
LS-2000 on the SCSI chain. I know SCSI pretty well, used to run lots
of disks that way, am still running 3 devices on the SCSI chain
without the Umax, so I don't think it was one of the basic installer
SCSI mistakes, either.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
> > > I know. I should use it more. Part of the problem is that when you're
> > > leaving on a plane and you don't want to trust your lenses to the hold,
> > > and you've also got a heavy laptop... well, the zoom becomes much more
> > > attractive. Same when you're out walking, really. It's not a bad lens,
> > > the 24-120. But still of inferior quality.
> >
> > Ah, I think I've been tempted by that lens in catalogs. It's slower
> > than I allow, but it's *such* a useful range.
>
> Yes, it's slow, which results in a higher than average "moved" (don't
Motion blur, semi-technically. Just "blur" in common usage.
> know the English word) shots with somebody with a nervous hand like me;
> but on the other hand, it's good quality. The only thing I'm a bit
> unhappy at is that at some focal length it's got a bit of "pillow"
> (another word I don't know) effect.
"pin-cushion" distortion. As contrasted with the other direction,
barrel distortion.
David Dyer-Bennet
Do you use something to protect the glass from the hard stuff you're
putting on it? Is it something easily available? Or have you found
that, despite putting hundreds of things directly on the glass, you've
never scratched it? Either conclusion would be useful to me :-).
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>Marilee J. Layman <mjla...@erols.com> writes:
I recommend this all the time -- put a transparency on. It's clear
and it will protect the glass. If the transparency gets damaged, it's
cheap to replace, although I've been using the same one for a couple
of years (got it from my friend who owns a furniture store, I didn't
want to buy an entire box).
Robert Sneddon
Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> writes
>
>In fact, the tech who installed the scanner for me picked up something
>off my desk and set it on the scanner to calibrate it. It happened to
>be a teddy bear. That gave me the clue that you could scan 3-D
>objects, not just flat things like photographs and pages of text.
The CCD bar that scans beloww the flatbed glass consists of an array of
very small sensors which are to all intents and purposes pinhole
cameras. The wonderful thing about pinhole cameras is their virtually
infinite depth of field, hence the scanner's ability to take "pictures"
of 3-D objects.
I will echo the safety suggestion given in the newspapers recently to
those attending office parties that photocopiers will not safely take
the weight of a butt-naked human being; this is similarly true for
scanners. A face, however, does scan quite well.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
David Dyer-Bennet
Thanks. I might even have a blank one around, from a box I bought for
a presentation I prepared. Seems unlikely I came out *exactly* the
right number of slides.
I suspect I've been under-rating the utility of a scanner for
this sort of work. Do you find you have to re-tip things to get the
lighting to come out decent fairly often? Glancing at your pages it
seems to work out at least "okay" more often than I would have
guessed, and more often than it has when I've tried a few object
scans.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
wrote:
>ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio Dal Dan) writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > I know. I should use it more. Part of the problem is that when you're
>> > > leaving on a plane and you don't want to trust your lenses to the hold,
>> > > and you've also got a heavy laptop... well, the zoom becomes much more
>> > > attractive. Same when you're out walking, really. It's not a bad lens,
>> > > the 24-120. But still of inferior quality.
>> >
>> > Ah, I think I've been tempted by that lens in catalogs. It's slower
>> > than I allow, but it's *such* a useful range.
>>
>> Yes, it's slow, which results in a higher than average "moved" (don't
>
>Motion blur, semi-technically. Just "blur" in common usage.
>
>> know the English word) shots with somebody with a nervous hand like me;
>> but on the other hand, it's good quality. The only thing I'm a bit
>> unhappy at is that at some focal length it's got a bit of "pillow"
>> (another word I don't know) effect.
>
>"pin-cushion" distortion. As contrasted with the other direction,
>barrel distortion.
And not "fish-eye"? Some shorter lens have that. My Vivitar idiot has
sometimes very noticeable fish-eye effect. But the lens is only 28mm.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> On Monday, in article
> <1fnnuz2.12qh1c0zfx3icN%ada...@spamcop.net>
> ada...@spamcop.net "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" wrote:
>
> > David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > I know. I should use it more. Part of the problem is that when you're
> > > > leaving on a plane and you don't want to trust your lenses to the hold,
> > > > and you've also got a heavy laptop... well, the zoom becomes much more
> > > > attractive. Same when you're out walking, really. It's not a bad lens,
> > > > the 24-120. But still of inferior quality.
> > >
> > > Ah, I think I've been tempted by that lens in catalogs. It's slower
> > > than I allow, but it's *such* a useful range.
> >
> > Yes, it's slow, which results in a higher than average "moved" (don't
> > know the English word) shots with somebody with a nervous hand like me;
> > but on the other hand, it's good quality. The only thing I'm a bit
> > unhappy at is that at some focal length it's got a bit of "pillow"
> > (another word I don't know) effect.
>
> "moved" is probably what we call "camera shake".
>
> There's two kinds of lens distortion which might be "pillow". Imagine a
> square shape. If the side appear to bend outwards on the picture,
> that's "barrel" distortion. The opposite shape is "pincushion"
> distortion.
That'll be pincushion then. Very annoying.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> >> know the English word) shots with somebody with a nervous hand like me;
> >> but on the other hand, it's good quality. The only thing I'm a bit
> >> unhappy at is that at some focal length it's got a bit of "pillow"
> >> (another word I don't know) effect.
> >
> >"pin-cushion" distortion. As contrasted with the other direction,
> >barrel distortion.
>
> And not "fish-eye"? Some shorter lens have that. My Vivitar idiot has
> sometimes very noticeable fish-eye effect. But the lens is only 28mm.
That's barrel distortion.
Kip Williams
> In fact, the tech who installed the scanner for me picked up something
> off my desk and set it on the scanner to calibrate it. It happened to
> be a teddy bear. That gave me the clue that you could scan 3-D
> objects, not just flat things like photographs and pages of text.
I scanned things like that at work, back when we didn't have a good
digital camera. Need an autumn leaf? Go out and get one from the
October Glory[*] in the parking lot. Now I have a good camera, but
it's still convenient to grab the old piece of art sometimes.
[*] Climates being what they are, this one peaks on November.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!" --Kodos
Arthur Aldridge
<uaob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <m2bs3d9...@gw.dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...
>
>> Even if I'm saving only $10 per roll, I save a LOT of money a year
>> shooting digitally.
>
>oh, yeah. One of the big revelations for us was how *much* more
>shooting we tend to do because of the non-cost of film-and-developing
>with the digital. About a year and a half ago I bought the Kodak
>DC4800 for Hal for his birthday, and we promptly took it with us on our
>trip to Sweden. We collectively took enough pictures there to more than
>half pay for the camera in saved film costs, and more importantly to me,
>we took pictures so freely that we have a bunch of pictures we just
>wouldn't have without it.
I like having a Digital along for snap shots and what not for this
reason. I rarely need prints and it's much easier to share pictures
when all that's needed is to email or make them available by web.
Though I still shoot a good deal of film for quality sake. It's one
of the reasons I'm a touch upset about the local Filmworks (Seattle
Photoworks) shops having closed. While I prefer to shoot high speed
color slide film it's bloody overkill and expensive to boot. Cost of
film and processing drives me to shoot a good deal of random color
print and at photoworks I could get it developed and printed to slides
for $8 a roll. Since they've closed shop I'm back to my stand by of
having the film developed and having a proof sheet made. Which I can
use to decide which frames I want to stuff into the slide/film
scanner.
Of course if you have $8000 handy film has finally succumbed to
digital. The new Canon Eos 1Ds beats 35mm film hands down and while it
doesn't quite match the resolution of medium format it does provide
better quality digital images than you can get from scanning medium
format slides. Now if someone will just be kind enough to gift me $20k
for christmas I can get my new camera rig sorted and be quit of film
for good.
>But for all that, then as now the DC4800 was over $300, so I, too, am
>skeptical of finding a worthwhile digital in the vicinity of $100.
Ebay, some of the earlier Olympus D series can be had for the $100
range. I'm sure other makes and models can be found that fit the
budget.
--
AJ
David Dyer-Bennet
I think of "fish-eye" as a deliberate ultra-wide lens rendering. You
can get them in either fish-eye or rectilinear, at various focal
lengths from 16mm on up (I don't recall seeing a rectilinear wider
than 12mm yet). I don't know if that's just extreme deliberate barrel
distortion, or something slightly different.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 19:26:44 GMT, Ulrika O'Brien
> <uaob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <m2bs3d9...@gw.dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...
> >
> >> Even if I'm saving only $10 per roll, I save a LOT of money a year
> >> shooting digitally.
> >
> >oh, yeah. One of the big revelations for us was how *much* more
> >shooting we tend to do because of the non-cost of film-and-developing
> >with the digital. About a year and a half ago I bought the Kodak
> >DC4800 for Hal for his birthday, and we promptly took it with us on our
> >trip to Sweden. We collectively took enough pictures there to more than
> >half pay for the camera in saved film costs, and more importantly to me,
> >we took pictures so freely that we have a bunch of pictures we just
> >wouldn't have without it.
>
> I like having a Digital along for snap shots and what not for this
> reason. I rarely need prints and it's much easier to share pictures
> when all that's needed is to email or make them available by web.
Yes, that's another clear benefit of digital presentation (which is
easier if you start with digital originals).
> Though I still shoot a good deal of film for quality sake. It's one
> of the reasons I'm a touch upset about the local Filmworks (Seattle
> Photoworks) shops having closed. While I prefer to shoot high speed
> color slide film it's bloody overkill and expensive to boot. Cost of
> film and processing drives me to shoot a good deal of random color
> print and at photoworks I could get it developed and printed to slides
> for $8 a roll. Since they've closed shop I'm back to my stand by of
> having the film developed and having a proof sheet made. Which I can
> use to decide which frames I want to stuff into the slide/film
> scanner.
> Of course if you have $8000 handy film has finally succumbed to
> digital. The new Canon Eos 1Ds beats 35mm film hands down and while it
> doesn't quite match the resolution of medium format it does provide
> better quality digital images than you can get from scanning medium
> format slides. Now if someone will just be kind enough to gift me $20k
> for christmas I can get my new camera rig sorted and be quit of film
> for good.
And I so rarely exploit the full potential of film anyway. I'll
happily settle for a 6mp D-60 (or Nikon D100 in my case, to match the
existing lenses).
David G. Bell
<0bvg0vkn9mgf22t2o...@4ax.com>
use...@yasashi.net "Arthur Aldridge" wrote:
> Ebay, some of the earlier Olympus D series can be had for the $100
> range. I'm sure other makes and models can be found that fit the
> budget.
Here in the UK the post-christmas sales look promising, but 2-megapixel
cameras may drop further, fairly soon.
Though I hear reports of the usual sales-staff ignorance about memory
cards and stuff.
mike weber
Dal Dan) wrote:
>mike weber <mike....@electronictiger.com> wrote:
>
>> Oh, yeah. But, as i said, it's out of my price range, just as much as
>> a Hasselblad, say, always has been.
>
>Amen.
>>
>> When the prices drop, then i buy.
>>
>> But i'll always miss film.
>
>Ah, and to think we'll get to Really Mighty Digital before having had
>the thrill to pass through 6x6. Sigh.
I loved my Yashica Mat 124G TLRs.
Too bad the burglars loved them more than i did.
But there is very litle an amateur can shoot that is nicer than
transparencies in 6x6...
--
mike weber mike....@electronictiger.com
==========================================================
The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns
something that will always be useful and which never will
grow dim or doubtful. -- Mark Twain.
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Michael Kube-McDowell
<use...@yasashi.net> wrote:
> I like having a Digital along for snap shots and what not for this
>reason. I rarely need prints and it's much easier to share pictures
>when all that's needed is to email or make them available by web.
Unfortunately, I have important relatives who do not have e-mail (or,
in one case, even a computer), so I'm still living in
Double-Prints-Please Land.
I am trying to digitize everything for the -next- generation, though.
K-Mac
--
Michael Kube-McDowell, author and packrat
New novel VECTORS (Bantam Spectra) now in stores.
Preview at http://www.sff.net/people/K-Mac/Vectors.htm
Marcus L. Rowland
Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> writes
>
>Then the traitorous thought "but since you've exhausted the wall-space
>and you're mostly going digital anyway and Photoshop does have a
>"discard color information" feature...." began to dawn... Though that
>gives different results from a b&w film, I suspect.
There's something very satisfying about doing this then hand-tinting the
resulting b&w image using colorising tools, as in e.g. my Xmas card.
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.ffutures.demon.co.uk/
http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
"Life is chaos; Chaos is life; Control is an illusion." - Andromeda
Randolph Fritz
Technically, fish-eye is the name of a type of lens; the result of the
use of such a lens is not considered distortion, since it's a desired
effect.
Randolph
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
Most of what I scan goes online and is scanned at 100dpi, so has to be
made brighter (72 in PhotoDeluxe), then I click the sharpen button,
then I Trim and Export to .jpg. I only have to rescan when I've set
the boundaries wrong and missed some of the object.
I know people who, when scanning beads that won't sit flat, will use
the blue tacky stuff to stick them to a colored cardboard tacked to a
picture frame. That seems to work well, too.
Michael Kube-McDowell
wrote:
>> *The ten years of slides ended when my first wife insisted on having
>> prints of our baby to show/share/pin on the wall. "But the projected
>> Kodachrome slide is color photography at its best," I protested, to no
>> avail.
>
>Could have been viewed as an opportunity to take up color
>printing....
I never got into doing my own developing and printing--b&w, slide,
color, anything. No early opportunity to learn without investing more
money than I ever had to spend--no darkroom at my junior high or high
school, no photo club, no friend or relative who was into it already.
By the time I might have been able to afford it, my habits were
already well ingrained--I shot b&w for the newspaper (they did their
own processing, of course), color slide for myself (when I wanted
8x10s or 8x12s to hang, I used a reasonably priced pro-oriented lab in
Chicago). I suppose I'm an 'acoustic' photographer. My primary
interests are what you do in the viewfinder, rather than the
darkroom--composition, light, angles, anticipating the moment. My
newspaper work taught me that it's perfectly reasonable to shoot a
whole roll to get one image that works.
Of course, most of that went out the window with the arrival of my
first child. Now I largely content myself with trying to get
better-than-average documentary snapshots.
Signed,
Photos By Dad
Marilee J. Layman
Yesterday, the local NBC station had an interview with a photographer
who took pictures with a fish-eye lens looking up, they were really
neat. Unfortunately, I can't find the review on their site and I
don't remember the guy's name.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 23 Dec 2002 10:58:55 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> *The ten years of slides ended when my first wife insisted on having
> >> prints of our baby to show/share/pin on the wall. "But the projected
> >> Kodachrome slide is color photography at its best," I protested, to no
> >> avail.
> >
> >Could have been viewed as an opportunity to take up color
> >printing....
>
> I never got into doing my own developing and printing--b&w, slide,
> color, anything. No early opportunity to learn without investing more
> money than I ever had to spend--no darkroom at my junior high or high
> school, no photo club, no friend or relative who was into it already.
I got into processing for myself largely for the money. I actually
got into it slightly before I got my first job, and at that point I
had *no* money (relative to what photography costs). My first few
experiences were using a friend's darkroom, but I equipped my own
fairly soon. $35 for the enlarger as I recall (bought new from a
local dealer, even), and probably something like that for everything
else put together. Then I shot a lot of B&W film that I rolled myself
from 100-foot spools, which cost about one cent a frame. I did use
the darkroom at the highschool a little later, but while their
equipment was nominally better, I kept mine in more consistent
condition.
> By the time I might have been able to afford it, my habits were
> already well ingrained--I shot b&w for the newspaper (they did their
> own processing, of course), color slide for myself (when I wanted
> 8x10s or 8x12s to hang, I used a reasonably priced pro-oriented lab in
> Chicago). I suppose I'm an 'acoustic' photographer. My primary
> interests are what you do in the viewfinder, rather than the
> darkroom--composition, light, angles, anticipating the moment. My
> newspaper work taught me that it's perfectly reasonable to shoot a
> whole roll to get one image that works.
Yes, it certainly is. Nice to have somebody else pay for film. I
hardly ever had that, I don't think; even when I was working for the
Carleton Alumni Publications Office (replacing their professional
photographer who'd quite, during a money crunch when they couldn't
hire another). On the other hand I got paid enough for the photos
they bought to come out ahead, and I did get to use their darkroom,
which was far the best on campus. In fact I was the *only* person
using their darkroom at the time. Proper size stainless steel sinks.
Omega D3V enlarger with good assortment of lenses. Pako ferrotype
drum print dryer with 3-foot drum. And I could use it for my own
work, too. And their work got done on their paper and chemistry,
which was a lot more expensive than the film.
And now, I tell people "shoot a lot, film used to be cheap". Actually
the advent of digital is making the "shoot a lot" advice more
practical for beginners on a budget again.
> Of course, most of that went out the window with the arrival of my
> first child. Now I largely content myself with trying to get
> better-than-average documentary snapshots.
"Journalistic photography" is just somebody elses snapshots.
aRJay
Kube-McDowell <kubemc...@excite.com.dev.null> writes
>On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 18:22:38 +0100, ada...@spamcop.net (Anna Feruglio>>> These days i work in a camera store.
>>>
>>> I'm still not the least bit interested in going digital until the
>>> cameras that are in the $5000+ range today (or their equivalents) get
>>> down to the sub-$500 range.
>>>
>>> That is, six to eight megapixels, true SLR body, and a 24-by-36mm
>>> sensor, making it *almost* as good as a cheap SLR with decent glass
>>> shooting ordinary colour film...
>>
>>Yesterday I decided to buy myself a Christmas present and bought a film
>>scanner: good enough quality for me and it was a good one at a good
>>price (I'm scanning the slides I have been shooting, and not enjoying,
>>these past ten years). After walking away I asked them how much the
>>Nikon D100 was, and was suprised that it's only 2500 euros. Not that I'd
>>consider buying it, but I may end up buying something like it in a
>>couple of years. I'd like to be able to use my lenses. Until then, it's
>>slides.
>
>Which film/slide scanner did you settle on? My Microtek Scanmaker X6EL
>and Photoshop are standing me in good stead insofar as 35 years of
>prints are concerned, but there's a 10-year hole shaping up in the
>digital photo album thanks to a period when I shot slide almost
>exclusively (at least when I wasn't working). I've been tempted by
>some of the new higher-resolution flatbeds with negative/slide
>illuminators built into the lid (the 'free' LightLid35 which came with
>the Microtek was a "Nice try, but--").
>
I'm supposed[1] to be scanning in my fathers old slides and negatives, I
thought about film scanners but as he seems to have been shooting all
sorts of formats from half frame 35mm up to (but hopefully not beyond)
5x4 I went the flatbed route and bought a Canon D2400UF which I am very
happy with.
[1] Stalled out for far to long, must get going again in that.
--
aRJay
"In this great and creatorless universe, where so much beautiful has
come to be out of the chance interactions of the basic properties of
matter, it seems so important that we love one another."
- Lucy Kemnitzer
Arthur Aldridge
<kubemc...@excite.com.dev.null> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 07:55:01 -0800, Arthur Aldridge
><use...@yasashi.net> wrote:
>
>> I like having a Digital along for snap shots and what not for this
>>reason. I rarely need prints and it's much easier to share pictures
>>when all that's needed is to email or make them available by web.
>
>Unfortunately, I have important relatives who do not have e-mail (or,
>in one case, even a computer), so I'm still living in
>Double-Prints-Please Land.
>
>I am trying to digitize everything for the -next- generation, though.
Ah well there is always you friendly neighborhood color laser
printer. ;-)
--
AJ
Arthur Aldridge
wrote:
>Around 10-20 years from now we'll start seeing the adult work of the
>people who got a decent digital camera when they were 10 years old as
>a pass-along from a parent who upgraded, and got to go through a big
>chunk of their childhood with a decent camera and no financial
>problems feeding it film. A few of those people will probably be
>really good.
I wish I could remember the quote precisely and it's attribution but
I recall some famous photographer saying that a major key to being
good is all about shooting massive amounts of film and picking the
best frames.
--
AJ
John Lorentz
wrote:
>3) There are lots of name-brand 1.3 Mpixel or so cameras available used
>for around $100 on ebay; there will probably be a lot more after Xmas,
>when everyone who got a shiny new 4 Mpixel camera tries to unload their
>old cameras. There are even some new-in-box ones in that price range.
>If you're comfortable buying on eBay, you can probably get something
>comparable to my DC-240.
Actually, there were plenty of _new_ name-brand 1.3 Megapixel cameras
in the stores for $100 or less this last week. Probably even more in
the after-Christmas sales. 2mp camera (name-brand) were going for
$130 to $150.
We now have a Canon 2mp digital camera. It isn't one I'd buy for
myself (4X optical-only zoom, complicated controls), but as a gift I
didn't turn it down.
--
John