rhaytana__tim_adams_

A used F100 in good shape still sells for $600 plus; add another couple of hundred for the lens, minimum, and you have something worth stealing. I think it's smart to invest two minutes to cover the logo with gaffer's tape. Thanks for the idea, Mr. Kelly.

You might want to post this query in the comp.periphs.scanners newsgroup -- http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&group=comp.periphs.scanners -- which gets lots of traffic from scanning buffs. Vuescan author Ed Hamrick also posts here, although there's no guarantee that he'll respond to you personally.

 

For anything related to Vuescan, that's where I'd go first.

Good luck. The inexpensive Adaptec 2930CU SCSI controller has worked well for me, and is what an Adaptec tech recommended when I called. "You don't need high horsepower for a film scanner," was his comment, or something similar.

You also might try downloading the Vuescan scanning program -- http://www.hamrick.com/ -- and seeing if Vuescan sees your FS4000. This should be a 'lot to gain and little to lose' troubleshooting step; Vuescan is free to try, and installs cleanly; if the step doesn't work, you can get rid of Vuescan quickly and be out only a few minutes of time.

 

If Vuescan DOES see the FS4000, I'd be inclined to troubleshoot Photoshop.

 

A more time consuming step: borrowing a SCSI adapter and seeing if PS sees the FS4000 that way.

 

I should hope you won't have to reinstall the OS. Very time consuming, if you have a lot loaded on your computer.

You'll find a long discussion of tif vs. other formats in Real World Photoshop. FWIW, author Fraser writes that he almost always uses .tif.

You might be interested in an article on Ken Rockwell's site related to this: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm

 

This non-expert photog uses FP Sync when I've got a roll of high speed film in my F100 in bright sun, I don't have the option of changing rolls and I want to get some kind of fill flash into the shot. My results are less predictable than with TTL flash, but often better than no flash at all.

The Hogan F100 book has the answer: the part # for the 10 pin remote release is 1K467-156; for the sync socket, it's 1K467-157. The appropriate Nikon phone # is 310 516-7124.

I suspect I'm a lot less knowledgeable than others who have responded, but no one else has mentioned it so here goes: switching to less-expensive non-Epson ink may not be a free lunch. You may want to investigate the archival qualities of the replacement inks, ICC profiles to yield the kind of results you might expect from Epson inks printing on Epson papers, etc.

 

That said, Calumet Photo sells a 'Cave Paint' ink feed system for the Epson: http://www.calumetphoto.com/ctl?PAGE=Controller&ac.ui.pn=cat.CatItemDetail&ac.item.itemNo=LY1000&ac.cat.CatTreeSearch.detail=y&type=SPDSEARCH

 

And here's a link to the Cone site: http://www.inkjetmall.com/index.html

Thanks, all, for the responses. I think I'm going to continue to play it safe and continue to protect the developed negatives from sunlight, as much as possible.

I know I need to protect unexposed and undeveloped film from light,

but how about after I get the negatives back from the processor?

 

Why I'm asking: I scan the film in a room with many windows, and

fret a bit about the light pouring through on the film strips lying

on my table. I now carefully protect the film strips from light,

but that's only because I don't know how sensitive they are to light

damage. Perhaps I needn't be so careful with developed film.

 

Thanks.

For those who follow message threads to their happy or bitter conclusions, I thought I'd post a short update on my struggles with Vuescan.

 

I seem to get my best results with color balance set to none, as per the Dale Cotton tutorial linked above. I used the advance workflow to scan a black frame and set the film base colors, downloaded and set an .icm profile for the scanner, tweaked a few other Vuescan settings, and set up a workflow in Photoshop to massage the Vuescan scans after they're done.

 

The result: in some cases, I now get better results from Vuescan. In some cases. But the problem of washed out, desaturated colors remains. I often still like the Filmget results better.

 

A sample is linked below.

 

I shall now take this discussion over to comp.periphs.scanners, as this seems to be where the Vuescan faithful congregate.

Thanks, everyone, for taking the time to respond. Albert Lui, the pointer to the daystarvisions tutorial was particularly helpful. I'm still not happy with my Vuescan results, but the program may not vanish from my hard disk quite yet.

My results scanning color negative film with Vuescan and a Canon

FS4000 have never compared with what I get from FilmGet, the

software Canon supplies with their scanner. Vuescan scans look

desaturated, washed out.

 

I�ve experimented with different versions of Vuescan, have

calibrated and recalibrated the scanner, changed film types

specified under color setting, changed brightness and black and

white point compensation ... but nothing seems to take.

 

And yet I know others rave about Vuescan, and the user interface

certainly suggests a more robust product than FilmGet. Plus I�m a

registered FilmGet user. I�d like to give the program a fair trial

before giving it up to good.

 

These samples will do as well as any. The top scan is from FilmGet;

the bottom one, from Vuescan. Tinkering with Vuescan settings does

change color cast, but the overall problem is the same: washed out

colors without life or punch, compared to Filmget.

 

I scan through the SCSI port under Windows XP Pro. I shoot color

negative film exclusively, usually Fuji 400 or 800 Press.

I've still got plenty to learn about shooting in this mode, but you've received only one response, so I'll throw in my two cents:

 

I use it for fill flash when I take an F100 loaded with high-speed film outdoors, and the light is too bright for me to sync at 1/250. That's the only time I use it. FP has given me some great shots, but in general, my results with it are less preditable than with 3DMBFF.

 

It's a bit off topic, but you might be interested in this article about sync speed: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm

For whatever it's worth, I noticed the same problem (or idiosyncrasy, anyway) after buying my F100 a year ago. Still does the same thing with some rolls, and the problem hasn't gotten any worse after 6,000 plus frames.

I don't know how much this will help, Margaret, but here's a link to a Luminous Landscape article on B&W printing with the Epson:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/2200-bw.shtml

 

... plus the new Epson ICC profiles:

 

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/EditorialAnnouncement.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=42114986

This might be of interest, too: Sharpening 101, from Thom Hogan's site:

 

http://www.bythom.com/sharpening.htm

Many thanks to everyone who has taken the time to respond. This forum is great! I'll stick with flat paper, and leave the store with an extra set of ink cartridges.

 

One follow-up question: has anyone had troubles using this printer with a long (10 foot) firewire cable? I know that 6' is the more-or-less standard size, but for my place 10' will be a lot more convenient.

<P>I'm thinking of buying an <B>Epson Stylus Photo 2200</B>. This

will be my first ink jet and my first photo printer.</P>

 

<P>I'm sure I'll be in for some surprises after I get it, in terms

of paper to use, accessories I'll need, fiddling with drivers and

settings that I didn't anticipate fiddling with, and so on. I want

to minimize the pain by seeking advice here beforehand.</P>

 

<P>Some specific questions:</P>

 

<UL><LI>I gather that I can use either roll paper or cut sheet

paper, and that I don't need to buy anything additional to use

either type. What are the advantages/disadvantages of the different

paper types with the 2200? Does it generally yield better results

with matte paper? Should I always use Epson brand paper, or do some

third party brands work reliably?</LI></UL>

 

<UL><LI>How many 8 x 10s can I expect (roughly) from a set of seven

ultrachrome ink cartridges? (I'm wondering if I should leave the

store with a complete second set.) Also, I gather that I can choose

between photo black ink and matte black ink. What are the pros and

cons of each?</LI></UL>

 

<UL><LI>I'll be using it with Windows XP Pro. Do Epson drivers work well with this OS?</LI></UL>

 

<P>If there is any other advice you'd like to pass on regarding the

2200, I'm all ears. You might save me a lot of grief! I've already

scoured threads here, read the review on <I>Steve's Digicams</I> and

message threads on <I>photographyreview.com</I></P>

 

<P>Thank you!</P>

As a regular visitor here, I'm grateful for the effort to edit out the more mean-spirited comments. Mr. Stone, this isn't intended a reflection on your writing; I haven't noticed your name in this respect, one way or the other. I'm writing it here only because it's the first chance I've seen to comment on online forum etiquette without going way off topic.

 

I have participated in online communities since the days of BBSing and PC Pursuit. Most users are polite. Some are exceptionally generous with their time. (At least once, knowledgeable photo.net users have saved me from sending my Nikon in for repairs it didn't need.) But there has always been a small but destructive number who consistently write insulting, belittling responses to the most innocent questions, driving away newcomers and making other users feel small for daring to admit that they don't already know something or want to find something out. I think that users of this type can do harm far out of proportion to their number. Who wants to feel stupid for not already knowing what type of lens to buy or metering to use? The easiest 'solution' is to just go away.

 

True, sometimes users ask questions that have been answered elsewhere a dozen times. I don't need to answer. (In my case, I usually don't know the answer anyway! An expert I'm not.) I also can remind myself that I was once brand new to photography, too.

 

Shun Cheung, thank you for your efforts to monitor the forum.

This was the first question I clicked on today, as the answer may influence a future camera purchase. I don't understand why anyone would offer a snide answer to this perfectly legitimate inquiry.

Is this what you're looking for?

 

http://www.amedesign.ro/F100.htm

 

I found this link on the FAQ page for Camera Companion, an excellent (I think so, anyway) substitute for Photo Secretary. The link to the FAQ: http://web.wanadoo.be/dia/ccfaq.html

Yep, I meant processing only. No way I'd hire a while-u-wait to do any important printing; for that, I go to a high end shop.

 

Still, thanks to one and all for your replies.

I guess the photo gods didn't think that last comment of mine should go unchallenged. I posted the message above on 8/21. The next time I went to the hole in the wall referred to above -- the *very next time,* after having successfully processed 150 - 200 rolls there -- they wiped out two rolls. Work salvageable, but useless.

As these online threads may be perused by curious Googlers years from now, I feel honor bound to add one more message regarding the results of this experiment with C41 processors. (Although years from now, maybe no one will care about anything related to film.)

 

I took several rolls to a high end lab. Big, big difference in ambience, professionalism of the staff, and the general packaging of what was returned to me. Difference in the clientele, too. Obvious professionals, people dropping off several dozen rolls of slide film at a time. Most of the lab's business is with E6 processing.

 

But differences in the results? Virtually none. Whatever they're doing in the while-u-wait shop seems to put a slight yellow cast in the negatives, easily removed in Photoshop.

 

To go to the high end shop, I have to bring the stuff over there, drop it off, go back, pick it up, and pay double.

 

For the while-u-wait, I take it in, wait 20 to 30 minutes, and pay half the price, for virtually the same results.

 

The while-u-wait shop damaged one roll, once, and -- as noted above -- almost made a present of my work to a wedding photographer. But for me, I think they make a lot more sense.

 

Consider it recorded for posterity, and here's hoping I don't regret the choice.