syd

<p>Ok ... the first link is to the image is a crop of the stairs at 50% of full res ... no sign of Moire - http://i31.tinypic.com/z3bpg.jpg</p>

<p>The second image is the same image at Web res ... about 13% of full res from memory ... you will see the Moire Pattern. http://i29.tinypic.com/2hgwqjl.jpg</p>

<p>Never figured out how to get images to show in threads in this forum, sorry ...</p>

<p>Hey Tom,</p>

<p>My steps were simply ... scan on Nikon V at 14bit @ max res 4000dpi ... saved as TIFF in Nikon View ... then imported into into Paintshop just for some basic experimentation. I then just resized within Paintshop from memory using % of original and then resized from 4000 to 300 in pixels from memory. I have PS CS5 also ... I may have resized for the web in there for one of the images.</p>

<p>I will crop an example of the pattern at web res and one at full to show the difference.</p>

<p>Hey Tom</p>

<p>Thanks for chiming in mate ... I am viewing the images in Paintshop Pro but the images have been uploaded to the web also and the Moire patterns are the same online ... so it can't be a viewing program issue. It has got something to do with the way the colour gamut is perhaps not dealing with being sized down? I am not an expert in this in any way but I can see that at 100% the images are fine but if I roll them down with my mouse the whacky Moire patterns appear in certain places. I am assuming that as the image gets sized down, the pixels are being compressed in a way that in certain circumstances creates this Moire effect?</p>

<p>I am now wondering if I need to scan at a lower res for the web and use only the highest res scans for printing ... if I scan at a lower res and size then these Moire patterns ought not to show up at all ... right?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I already posted it and my wife checked it on another monitor from her work place ... it is there and I have had other confirmation from outside my system as well. If I reduce the image size to 1-2 or 50% it is fine ... once I go below 50% the Moire patterns show up very bold.</p>

<p>I have now noticed that a similar candy pattern effect has shown up on the resize of a totally different image... this time on railings of a shopping center ... the railings start to go into what looks like small alternating colours like candy strips along the railing. When the image is at full size nothing ... but by 1-5 they show up. What gives?</p>

<p>I am not seeing the Moire pattern at 100% but when reduced to 1-7 size which is essentially web size, it is very strong indeed. There must be a way to fix this ... the patterns are nowhere to be seen on the original transparency. Is there something I can do at the scan stage to avoid this?</p>

<p>In the meantime I'll do a search on Moire' and see if anything jumps out.</p>

<p>P.S I have noted that when I apply lots of Gaussian Blur the banding goes away, but then one is left with a soft set of steps.</p>

<p>Simon.</p>

<p>G'day all</p>

<p>I have just scanned some transparency film on a Nikon V at the max res 4000 and have noticed that at the full image viewing size this particular image is fine, however. The image contains a large section of tightly stacked stairs under artificial light ... when viewed at 100% it is fine but when I reduce the size or resize down ... there is severe geometric arch shaped banding that covers all the stairs and it makes the image look 'Shagadelic baby'.</p>

<p>So ... how do I resize the image down for web viewing and avoid this geometric banding to preserve the normal view? At first I thought it might have been the scanner ... but it isn't.</p>

<p>Thanks, Simon.</p>

<p>Well I just bought a 2nd hand Nikon V ED and had exactly the same problem with ROC not running post on my system after preview. I did a search for the problem and tried replacing the Dll's as per the above instructions and so far so good! Huge thanks to Mark Huth ... the system was buggy but now seems fixed.</p>

<p>Simon.</p>

<p>I can't pretend to be anything like my heroes, I am my own man so far as the work I produce and have my own way of seeing ... I wouldn't change it for the world either. I can easily cite the photographers whose work inspires my own however. Brassai is top of my list always ... Cartier Bresson and Weegee would be amongst my top 3 also. As for the others ... any of the unsung war photographers of WW1 and WW2.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p>The RAM + Virtual Memory things seems key ... I am running CS5 on an almost empty system with 8GB and after playing with some very large files scanned at full resolution (4000dpi from Nikon V) I got a warning that the system was going to have to expand the virtual memory capacity to keep schtum. After I deleted some of the working copies of those large image files, everything was peachy again.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p>Problem solved gents ... I have worked it out. For those who were like me, and are are still scratching their heads - and to ensure that this post was not a complete waste of bandwidth - here is what I did.</p>

<p>Go into Edit and select preferences inside PS CS5 -> select Camera Raw -> selected the bars to allow support of both TIFF and JPEG -> done. Now go into Bridge, select the file with the images you want to work on, select the image, then go to FILE in Bridge ... select Open in RAW. A new browser will appear for ACR and you will have all the sliders at your command.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p>G'day all,<br>

I am very new to Photoshop CS5, just got the student/teacher edition with In Design et al. I have the book my Martin Evening where he states that all the operations of Digital Raw can be applied to scanned film but my problem is this. I am running the 30 day trial version while waiting to get my Adobe confirmation to operate the full version - when I viewed Martins Movies from the DVD provided they show him working in Raw and the controls for Exposure are very detailed an comprehensive - things like Recovery - Fill light - White balance - Tint - etc etc etc - you get the idea. When I am viewing my scanned film images I am getting a very limited array of options for exposure and I only see Exposure, Offset and Gamma Correction.</p>

<p>I fully expected to have access to the exact same array of options and settings for my scanned film images ... can anybody explain to me how I can make this happen and/or what I am missing here? I am obviously locked out of Camera Raw because I am a film user ... thanks for any advice and suggestions.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p>G'day all,<br /> I'm a pretty rare creature in these parts ... best described as a Luddite. Well this Luddite who still shoots only film just bought his first film scanner ; 'Welcome to the 90's', I hear you all say. Yes I know, where the hell have I been all this time? Ans = shooting rather than scanning. I just bought the Nikon Coolscan V ED and have also just bought Photoshop CS5 (How ya like me now?) to run along with it. Being a relative neophyte in regard to best scanning protocol - (Oh, and Photoshop) - I really need some help getting my head around how to organize my scanning work flow to achieve best scan results. I know many of you out there have much experience with the Nikons and Coolscan V, and have long been experienced in getting excellent results with them ... so...</p>

<p>My requirements? Fair question ... (More about me then .. )</p>

<p>I want to scan my images for both web publishing and for printing both. I am hoping to scan the highest quality archival and then have the option to work those images for any purpose - whether that be sending to pro labs for printing or printing at home. I am predominantly scanning Transparencies.</p>

<p>Questions, questions -</p>

<p># - Do I need Silverfast if I don't already have it? Cause I don't ...</p>

<p># - Is there a consensus for best method for scanning with the Nikon to achieve best results before working in any Photoshop prog and/or CS5? ie -</p>

<p># - A am led to understand there's a method of working in RAW with my film scans scanning from Coolscan, like Digital shooters do? I have the new book on CS5 in which Martin Evening states that you can perform the same operations of working in RAW with film just as you can in Digital. Since much discussion on RAW applies to Digital these days and not film, is there anything I should be doing at the scan process to allow me to work my images in RAW later? If so, please advise.</p>

<p>#- What plug ins should I be using for best noise reduction? I know there are many out there such as Ninja etc. Do I require a stand alone Noise Reduction program or is CS5 up to snuff?</p>

<p># - Any other must have plug-ins for the man about town? Don't hold back ...</p>

<p># - Do I need Lightroom? And what the hell is Lightroom? Yes I can look that up ... but should I get it?</p>

<p># - Please feel free to give me a bullet point run down of your steps for scanning trannies with the best results from a Coolscan V ED.</p>

<p>All advice greatly appreciated ... Best, Simon.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I noticed that the NEC model that gets frequent mention, though more expensive by about $500, actually has slightly lower resolution that the ViewSonic ... however, I don't know what the life expectancy is like from the NEC by comparison to the ViewSonic. From a review I read elsewhere it stated that the NEC had a better Colour gamut than the ViewSonic but not better resolution. This being the case, if the life expectancy of both units is comparable, then the ViewSonic might be a better option anyway?</p>

<p>Simon.</p>

<p>G'day all,</p>

<p>I''m looking at an entry level Monitor for photo editing and have seen the ViewSonic range as another option besides the NEC and Samsung units. Does anybdy have any experience with these LCD Monitors from ViewSonic? They sport IPS screens also - The model I am looking at has these specs ...<br>

Size: 23" <br /> Colour: Black<br /> Max Res: 1920 x 1080<br /> Input: VGA, DVI <br /> Contrast(max): 20,000:1 (DCR) <br /> Contrast(typ): 1,000:1 <br /> Brightness: 300cd/m2<br /> Viewing Angle: 178/178<br /> Response Time: 5ms<br /> Speaker: None <br /> Warranty: 3yrs limited on-site.<br /> 30 day Zero Dead pixel</p>

<p>Additional blurb from a review states...</p>

<p>"The screen has a tough, protective anti-glare coating that will appeal to designers, rather than the glossy, reflective finish that many manufacturers favour these days. The pedestal stand allows you to tilt and swivel the screen freely, and to adjust the height of the ViewSonic VP2365wb as well. You can also pivot the screen around into upright, portrait mode, which will be useful for page-layout and photo-editing work. Another useful feature is the four-port USB hub that’s situated at the back of the unit, right beside the DVI and VGA video connectors.</p>

<p>Despite the ViewSonic VP2365wb monitor’s relatively low cost, Viewsonic has still been able to use a high-quality IPS display that produces a bright, colourful image. The 1,920x1,080 resolution will allow you to play full HD video. The viewing angle is particularly good, with the image remaining bright and clear even at extreme angles, so it will be a good choice for presentations too. We were also pleased to see that Viewsonic was one of the few manufacturers that included a Mac version of its setup software, which can install the monitor’s colour profile and ColorSync files on to your PC."</p>

<p>Any thoughts welcome ... best, Simon.</p>

<p>Thanks to all for their contributions so far, greatly appreciated. I have checked the websites of a couple of other Landscape photographers who are selling work professionally and in both cases they favoured Fuji Crystal Archive paper for their highest quality prints. Apparently ...</p>

<p>"Fuji Crystal Archive prints have three advantages over other papers: Archival permanency, sharpness, and color brilliance. It offers clean uncontaminated colors with higher saturation, resulting in output with sharper, crisp appearance. Fuji Crystal Archive Paper has excellent light storage stability, ideal for display, high image stability during long-term dark storage, as well as sharply improved stability with respect to nitrogen oxide, ozone and other gases."</p>

<p>This is certainly the kind of information I was hoping for - I looked at some prints on Metallic yesterday and it really is not an effect I wold utilize for nature work or landscapes since the metallic qualities totally alters the look of the original image ... you end up with a metallic version of your image.</p>

<p>It is interesting to note some of the sizes offered at these websites ... one pro who I know is shooting panoramic on 35mm via a Noblex was offering sizes from 30, 40, 50, 60 inch. I am trying to figure out the rest of those dimensions though ... 30 inch x what? I assume these are standards though and that it means 30" across ... and 60" across for panoramic?</p>

<p>I am going to try and work my own scans if possible but am new to the digital dark room so the learning curve will be steep. I will need to calibrate my monitor et al but I much prefer to control the re-touching process myself and know exactly what my finish product is going to be than leave it to somebody else to be honest. The printing I am happy to leave to the pro's. I have to assume my scanner is up to the job of translating my transparencies being that both have the same dynamic range.</p>

<p>I have also seen some of the large canvas framed landscapes recently and they were quite impressive actually - one had quite a 3D effect which could be seen as gimicky, but it was a landscape and it worked very well. The loss of punch and saturation in the colour rendition from the original is clearly obvious but you have to view the image as a separate media ... it's more like a painting at that stage.</p>

<p>I welcome any further thoughts and suggestions</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Greetings all,<br>

I have been invited to exhibit my work at a gallery of some repute and it will be my first foray into high quality printing. I am a bit overwhelmed by the sheer array of papers and techniques right now and need some basic bullet points from a consensus to get my head straight. My work is largely landscapes and adventure travel imagery - predominantly from colour transparencies. I want to both exhibit and sell work through my website so understanding what papers and media/inks etc to use is going to be extremely important. My questions then ...</p>

<p># - Is there a consensus of the best archival quality papers and looks for fine art landscapes these days? In other words, are the top guys ( Art Wolfe, Colin Prior et al ) selling their landscapes using a commonly accepted print media process?</p>

<p># - I shoot 35mm, MF and LF but this will be mostly from my 35mm work ... how big can I expect to go and still maintain a high visual standard with 35mm? I have seen some very big work from 35mm that was drum scanned some years ago, a seascape image, and it looked exceptional. Others seem to feel you cannot go this big with 35mm ...</p>

<p># - I will not be doing my own printing but will have a pro lab doing the work ... should I have them do the scanning too? I have a Nikon Coolscan V ED which is 4000 DPI and has a Dynamic range (4.2) equal to the film I shoot = Velvia 50/100 ... is the Nikon good enough to produce high quality scans for exhibition and sale or should I get it done professionally and just use the Nikon for web presentation and smaller prints?</p>

<p># - Any suggestions in regards to sizes of Landscapes and nature scenes for a gallery environment and sales?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your time, advice and suggestions.</p>

<p>Best regards, Simon.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm way too late on this but I have owned the Pentax 5.5 for about ten years myself and it is an absolutely stellar loupe to use. I have never had any issues with it and I have not observed any major pin cushion distortion on 35mm or 6x7 viewing off the light box. Bottom line, fantastic product and I don't see needing another loupe in my lifetime, short of dropping it.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p>Eyal,<br>

Vision Graphics are very good and I have used them for many years also but I have also used another outfit in the City who I strongly recommend, called The LAB. You can't go wrong with either one.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p>David,</p>

<p>Thanks for the heads up ... I've decided to plump for a Tamron SP 17mm f3.5 - found an old photography mag from 1995 where they did a wide angle round up that had the Zeiss 18mm f4 Distagon up against the Tamron and in terms of overall value the Tamron won. The Zeiss is certainly a little sharper and is more contrasty ( something I like in a lens myself ) but unless you cropped and enlarged by 100% you couldn't tell the difference. The Zeiss was also reported to have some other small issues that the Tamron did not. Tamron it is then ...</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p>Mark, honestly, I'd rather buy $600 bucks worth of film ... if you read the thread through you'll find I decided to stick with film.</p>

<p>Philip,<br>

I hear you mate, thank you for all your fantastic assistance throughout - greatly appreciated as I said before. I'm just a happy camper with Film I think ... it is what I know and what looks and feels right to me at this point. I just bought a Nikon Coolscan V since this thread finished and feel I have made the right choice ... for me.</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p>I am not familiar with M42 ... I am assuming this is a type of mount for other camera's? I know the reputation of the Tamron 17mm is that it is a bit soft but perhaps I can live with it and use it as a starting point for experimentation at this focal length and then move into something like the 18mm Distagon at a later date.<br>

Alternatively ... can you mate Canon lenses to a Contax with the right adapter?</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>

<p>The 15mm would be closer to my requirements than the 18mm ... I have seen the 18mm F4? Distagon for sale recently, they certainly hold their value. I have no experience or knowledge of the qualities of the Tamron 17mm SP ... what about Yashica, anything in the ML line that is in the super wide ranks?</p>

<p>Cheers, Simon.</p>

<p>Greetings all,</p>

<p>Please give me your thoughts on the best wide manual focus lenses for a Contax SLR please? I am predominantly looking for primes and I already have a stunning Yashica 24mm ML that has been my mainstay for many years. What I want is something that covers the super wide end ... perhaps 16mm or thereabouts. I am not a averse to 3rd party brands as long as the lens is superb ... what would you suggest for my requirements?</p>

<p>I shoot Landscapes and some Architecture ...</p>

<p>Best, Simon.</p>