eric_boutilier_brown1

Technically, scanning at 600ppi would be the way to double your image size, as 300ppi is the standard print resolution. A 20"x240" print would be incredibly huge which creates an issue, as Photoshop cannot save files larger than 2gb in size. You'd have to stitch your print together from 3 or so files...

Hi Aalok,

 

It is easy for dust to attach itself to your sensor when you take photos, even if you never change your lens - every time you focus or zoom, air moves in and out of the lens (it has to - if it was sealed, it would be a vacuum inside, and nothing could move). This air can have dust in it. Then, when you mirror moves up to take a photo, it stirs up the air, making any small pieces of dust airborn...remmeber, if you see a small speck, 2-3 pixels wide, it is 1/1500th of an inch wide...VERY small dust indeed.

Why are they too big to store? Why not burn them to DVD's (130/DVD, two copies at least, so minimum back-up). That would cost you...$0.007 per image, assuming you paid $50 per DVD...why is that too much to spend for a high resolution scan. You can always resize the scan to a smaller size for storage on your computer (I call these Reference Images)...but if you paid for the scan, why not get the most out of your investment!

Assuming the colour and exposure of the two images are identical, all you need to do is make your adjustments to the first image using adjustment layers, and then drag the layers from the first image to the second, producing an identical edit on the two images.

I am running a Coolscan 8000 with Vista 32-bit. It is running with the Vista drivers from Nikon's website...

I am trying to make some 15"x53" prints, and am becoming increasingly

frustrated. In the past, with an XP machine, I have made numerous 50"-60" prints

with CS2 on my 4800, but now, with Vista 64 and CS3, my printer will not preview

beyond 44" of the print - and that is an improvement - in the past, it said that

due to an equipment error, my print cannot be made anytime the print was over

44" long. Now the error message doesn't happen, but the preview is blank beyond

44", and I am loathe to print anything 5' long, only to find that the end

doesn't print.

 

I have e-mailed Epson for support, and they indicated it was an issue with CS3.

I have tried this from two other machines with Vista 32 on them, and have the

same issue.

 

Anyone have any idea of how to get the printer to actually output an image over

44" long?

You definitely DON'T want to stop down to f/16 - you'll get serious softness from diffraction, AND possibly a hot spot from a reflection from the rear elements from the lens.

 

You can correct the focus on some Canon cameras (the XT included) to correct it for IR, but it tends to be lens specific, so it is something you'd have to test before deciding to go on this route.

 

e.

Definately a single softbox...large, close, with baffles to keep the light off the background, and nothing reflecting light onto the other side of the model. Also could be done with a window, but the room must have NO other light, and good baffling around the window, to keep the fill light down...

www.blurb.com

I use a D80 in s studio (and have used every DSLR I've owned over 5 years - seven bodies in total) - it doesn't have a sync plug, so you'd need a wireless transmitter, or hot-shoe sync to trigger the flash. That is the only issue. I use WL X800 and X1600 heads with the D80 BTW, so there isn't any problem with shorting (using a wireless trigger).

The problem with most LCD monitors is they are 6-bit displays, with only 65,000 colours available for display. When given a 8-bit file, they dither colours...but instead of seeing a full 16.7 million colours, you only are seeing an approximation. CRT monitors have no problems displaying an 8-bit image, and many can even handle 12 or even 16 bit (billions of colours). I frequently work on an Apple 20" cinema display, and still prefer my CRT for colour accuracy...

 

You are likely looking at the $600-1000 range for a true 8-bit LCD display, and many of these are too bright (designed for gaming). If you want the best of the best with LCD, there is a new one over $5K that has a 12-bit look-up-table (LUT) for colour that is supposed to be amazing!

Absolutely. You can do them by hand, which gives the best result, or by using the Photomerge engine, which often works reasonably well, though with very large stitches (20-50 images) it tends to crash on my system. The CS3 Photomerge is quite a bit better than CS2, in terms of image adjustment and frame blending, but in my experience, nothing replaces doing it by hand!

 

And example of an 18 frame stitch (3 rows of 6 images) is on my blog at http://evolvingbeauty.com/wblog/?PHPSESSID=be8e22fa893c0be092b15ed7e0555510

 

e.

The 8000 will scan at 4000 ppi if cranked to the maximum resolution. This will give more than 8,100 pixels to a 2 1/4" wide film (on the 2 1/4" side), which, if printed at 300 ppi would give you a print 27" wide, so it will certainly do a 14" print!

I true UV/Haze filter shouldn't alter the colour balance, but a Skylight filter would - it has a slight pink cast (to counter blue shadows on slide film)...though, if you are using auto white balance, the camera would simply compensate, removing the difference.

Diffraction and depth of field are two separate features in an image. Diffraction reduces sharpness in an image, while depth of field refers to how much is in focus. As your aperture gets smaller, you gain depth of field, but will gradually loose sharpness. Personally, I don't use apertures smaller than f/11 (and even then, I hesitate to use f/11 except when absolutely necessary) because of the loss of sharpness diffraction introduces.

 

An easy why to see this in work, is to make two images. Choose a highly detailed subject and make two images using a tripod and cable release - one at f/8 and one at your smallest aperture (say f/22 to f/45, depending on the lens). You will ALWAYS find the f/8 image is sharper. However, if your subject is three dimensional, you will also see that the smaller aperture leads to more of the subject being in focus...it just won't be as crisp or detailed as the in focus sections of the image made at f/8.

<div></div>

All you need to do is enter a User Defined print size in the print properties - with roll paper (which I assume you are using) you can print up to 59.055" long with the Epson driver, longer with a RIP.

The softness is coming from the low-res image (500 pixels wide)...when you can count the eye-lashes, the focus is there...<div></div>

For my portraits (usually at f/1.4-2.8) I use only the centre AF point, focus on the eyes, turn the AF off, recompose and shoot. All of this is done on a tripod usually, though occasionally it is also done hand-held. Focus never is an issue, with the eyes sharp.<div></div>

If you already own Photoshop, then only one options costs money (the buying the filters). Also, grad ND's only work well if you have a straight horizon...nothing passing across the graduated part. Blending exposures is easier, cheaper, and generally (from my experience) more realistic...

I would concur with others about the speed issues - all the images are too large in KB size. As an example, on the first page, the small flower (http://heatherrenestudios.com/DSC_0626%20copy.jpg) is 858 KB in size...it should be something like 10KB, given its displayed pixel size. The reason why is that you didn't resize your image - if you "view image" it is a full sized 2464 x 2592 pixel file...not only are you giving away a free, full resolution image, you are slowing your site down in a major way! Resizing your images to the size they will be displayed is always recommended!

The i900 is OK for MF scans, but compared to a Nikon Coolscan 8000, which I also have, it is a poor second place. The i900 can do good scans for reference and proofing (and is much faster for this than the Coolscan) buta 15"x15" print from the i900 looks much softer than the same size print from a scan on the Coolscan...though the price difference (when new) between the two does something to explain this, of course.

Tripod, self-timer (as they are self portraits) and Photoshop with layers and an eraser or mask...very simple.

Is your printer calibrated, or just your screen? The screen calibration just corrects the image on the screen - you need separate hardware and software to build a profile for your printer.

Could you let me know where you ordered the paper from? I haven't found anywhere with the paper in stock yet.