lfbrown

<p>Les,<br>

Do you happen to have a test chart (like what you posted earlier with 5000, V700, & V500) shot using the V750? It would be interesting now to see the technical comparison. </p>

<p>And the detail:</p><div></div>

<p>Here's one of my "semi-pro" scans done by my local dedicated photo shop and a 100% detail area.</p><div></div>

<p>For some reason my second photo wouldn't load so I'm trying again here:</p><div></div>

<p>Nice illustration of scanners and film results, Les, I appreciate that. Sorta' no contest between the Nikon and the Epsons. And speaking of, here are the two scans I mentioned earlier. Both from Fujichromes, not sure which ISO's, and both scanned at 3200 with no adjustments other than auto adjust for brightness. And no ICE. <br>

They've both been downsized to around 180K from around 24MB scans. You can still see, however, or at least I think I can, that the detail in the cat picture is far better than the detail, especially the edge junctures, in the mountain vista shot. Truthfully I haven't examined either under a microscope which I will do tomorrow but my gut feeling is both are very sharp transparencies. <br>

Having seen Les Sarile's chart scans, however, neither of my scans are up to standard.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I just got back to the forum after the weekend and am catching up on all the posts. I appreciate very much all of the uploads and links. I had not considered fully how much difference the film type would make. I probably don't have to worry about Kodachrome but I have a lot of Ektachrome that may be addressed at some time. What I'm really looking towards at the moment, however, is using my film gear with color neg film (one or more of the Fuji products) to end up with the 12 X 18 exhibition quality b&w's aforementioned. <br>

If Philip wouldn't mind posting me the example he mentioned in his first post I would appreciate it. <br>

Something I noticed contrasting Philip Wilson's mountain shot details with Mauro Franic's photographs of the little girl was how much sharper Mauro's example seemed. I may be comparing apples and oranges here but it is similar to the difference in scans I've been getting my newly acquired Epson V500 (I know: flatbed: yuk - but I need one for what they're good for and this one was highly rated for film scanning as well). <br>

Anyway, I've noticed that scans of close up subjects seem much, much better than when working with scenery . Is some of what I took for bad scan quality an atmospheric effect in the more distant subject matter? I'll upload an example of what I'm talking about this evening. <br>

Les Sarile: "What is a semi pro scanner exactly and do you have examples of what you've gotten from them?"<br>

We have a local dedicated photographic store here that does automated processing but of a noticeably higher quality than Walmart. They can use their equipment to produce scans to cd which have been adequate for my purposes. I'll post one those tonight also. I call them semi pro because they are not using drum scanners or even dedicated scanners.<br>

I don't have the microscope you mentioned but I do have several lighter weight units at work - I think 120X is my max. I'll check out the film I've been working with on the V500 to see where my sharpenss is on the film. These were all taken with my Nikon FM2n with one or the other of my lenses so any softness I would attribute to my eye or lack of steadiness when making the exposure.<br>

Thanks again to all.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 1280 is a fantastic b&w printer when using the Ultratone 2 inks from MIS <a href="http://www.inksupply.com/qn.cfm">http://www.inksupply.com/qn.cfm</a>. It does suffer from head clogging between sessions, however. With that in mind, you would be better off making it a dedicated b&w printer and avoid the headaches changing out inks.<br>

I would still be using mine had it not suffered a fatal hardware breakdown. When I could find nothing but used ones as replacements I went for the new 1400 but haven't gotten it up and running yet so have no info to offer there. </p>

<p>The 1280 is a fantastic b&w printer when using the Ultratone 2 inks from MIS <a href="http://www.inksupply.com/qn.cfm">http://www.inksupply.com/qn.cfm</a>. It does suffer from head clogging between sessions, however. With that in mind, you would be better off making it a dedicated b&w printer and avoid the headaches of changing out inks.<br>

I would still be using mine had it not suffered a fatal hardware breakdown. When I could find nothing but used ones as replacements I went for the new 1400 but haven't gotten it up and running yet so have no info to offer there. </p>

<p>Thanks to Phillip Wilson & Mendel Leisk. I was impressed with the difference in b&w quality between the Nikon and the Minolta. Am I taking your implication correctly that the Nikon, while inferior with b&w, is better with color negs? <br>

I did check on Ebay and there are a couple of the Scan Elite 5400's offered there but, as you say, the future is bleak for keeping them running.<br>

I'm going to research Plustek as it has some pretty affordable units. From the criticisms I've read the most common is how slow it is to work with being manual load one at a time.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To answer your primary question re corollaries to Van Gogh or Munch, you might try Eugene Atget. The short bio at this link <a href="http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/eugene.htm">http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/eugene.htm</a> does not do justice to the privations and hardships he suffered for his work but perhaps you can seek out more on this bona fide artist/photographer. <br>

In my opinion, however, photographers share the lot of practitioners in any field in that there are those who strive, achieve, and also succeed financially, those who strive and achieve yet go unrecognized or aren't recognized until after their deaths, and those who strive and fail. </p>

<h1 id="firstHeading" ></h1>

<p>For almost any consumer or pro-leaning digital camera one can find many image samples on the internet. I'm looking for a film scanner now, however, which will give me the quality necessary to take a 35mm neg or transparency to 12 X 18 for exhibition purposes. <br>

While I can find all the specs and technical details in various reviews no one seems to have actual scan samples for download. Before I invest in a CoolScan 5000, 8000, or 9000 I would like to see if the quality achievable matches or exceeds what a local "semi-pro" lab has been able to do for me.<br>

If anyone knows of links for such examples I would appreciate it. <br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

L F Brown</p>

<p>Maybe a dumb question but having only seen pictures of Horseman mounted Topcor lenses I'm in the dark as to how married the lens is to the board. The pc connection seems to be mounted in the board itself although the shutter mechanisms appear normal otherwise. Is it possible to remove one from the Horseman board and use it with another camera's lensboard?<br>

I ask because used these lenses are fairly reasonable in price compared to other brands. <br>

Any help appreciated.<br>

Thanks,</p>

<p>L F Brown</p>

<p>I believe this problem was also noted by Edward Weston in either one of the daybooks or an article he wrote. He took secret delight in such comments knowing that he had fairly delapidated, second hand equipment. The modern facts are, however, that cameras do take the picture to whatever degree the photographer allows it to, Afterall, you could attach the camera to the tripod loosely, set the timer, give the camera a spin, and where ever the shutter released an image would be captured. If that image happened to be of the last DoDo bird could you legitimately take credit for it?<br>

With an audience not present at the exposure you're just stuck with such comments. When people are thje subjects, however, if you take a long time in composing, adjusting (or pretending to), and shooting several different angles you'll distract them from what the camera's roll is and get them focused on yours.</p>

<p>I'm looking for recommendations for companies that do B&W, archival, fine art printing on fiber based silver halide papers from digital files.<br>

Any suggestions greatly appreciated.<br>

L F Brown</p>

Thanks to John and Patrick. John's QuickGamma has the same problem as Adobe Gamma: the controls won't

function on the Acer. I think, as Patrick suggests, that I'll just go back to the value scale and pure color swatches I

have been using to get my color close to actual.

In a first attempt to calibrate my Acer 1660 laptop with an ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 graphics card (XP Pro, P4, 2G)

using Adobe Gamma I have discovered that the built in sliders of the Adobe Gamma window have no visible affect - I

cannot correct or change the gamma. I'm assuming that there is a communications problem but I can find no info on

the web whether or not this is correctable.

 

Any input appreciated.

RGB is all the web uses. The problem is that she can't seem to get rid of the Adobe RGB profile attached to the images. At least that's what I'm assuming in the shift in color and density when she views it on the web as opposed to in her Lightroom software.

I have a colleague who is experiencing a lack of contrast and saturation in

images edited in LightRoom and then uploaded to a photo site called Etsy. I

figured she was having profile problems and made some suggestions. Here's what

she sent me back after trying my ideas:

 

<I've been into Lightroom's preferences and changed the colour settings to

ProPhoto RGB (it was set to Adobe RGB 1998 beforehand). I deleted my previously

saved files from my pictures directory and exported them from Lightroom again,

making sure that it was still set to ProPhoto RGB. All seemed to go well and

the settings were still correct when I closed it down and reopened it. However,

I then went to Etsy, removed the offending pictures and uploaded the newly saved

ones and they are even more olive drab than they were before! Very confusing

indeed. I'm very confused as I must have done something wrong or omitted to do

something important.>

 

I don't actually own Lightroom and am only giving suggestions based on a similar

problem I solved in PS CS2.

 

Any input would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Les Brown

This may be coming a little late but I believe I have solved the problem. I would appreciate confirmation. It does, however, make the the same image appear the same across all of my software and in emails to other computers (screen variances aside).

 

In the color settings window set your Working Space in RGB to "sRGB IEC61966-2.1". Set Color Management Policies RGB to "Convert to Working RGB". Conversion Options Intent to Relative Colormetric. Check Black Point Compensation.

 

You then need to click OK, close PS, and re-open. From here on out image appearance, regardless of monitor settings and profiles, will appear the same across all of your software.

 

What this means for those working in other color spaces but needing to work with images across several applications I don't know.

 

If this doesn't solve the cross-application problem for you, or you need more clarification please let me know.

 

lfbrown<div></div>