mattb1

I'am a mp geek, and I hope that the new 5D will have a lot more than 21mp. But, 36 mp is pretty much at the theoretical

limits of lenses and 35mm format. Anything above 28mp would be OK with me.

But, mp's were not the things that really defined the 5D II. ISO and video were.

So many things could be better, but I would also like more mp's LOL.

Most definitely let them resize. That goes for any time you are using a print service IMO. Use what you have is my

saying. Don't worry too much about resolution, take photos on the largest size and least amount of compression. I don't

think the camera that you are looking at has RAW, but if it does it can be helpful.

I'am with puppy face on this one!

The kits are both great match ups. Either will do a great job. But, a little caution, either will show up user errors when

pixel peeping. I know I had to do a better job.

When you are changing to 360 dpi you must have "resample" on. Resampling will make your file larger. Turn it off and

the editor should leave the pixel count the same.

Now, your phone most likely has no way to set the dpi. Kind of sucks, but as others have pointed out, it is pretty much

meaningless. So, don't fixate on it.

A decent point and shoot can do a good job. But, it is still a lot of work. Find someone local to copy them for you. You

will have to spend a lot of time just putting names to faces and places anyway.

I upgraded from a 400d to the 5D II, but I did it for specific short comings of the 400d. I needed better high ISO

performance and wanted spot metering and some other things. The 5D II filled my needs very well. However, that does

not mean the my 400d now takes bad photos. Too be honest, it keeps up well with the 5D II in good lighting. Unless you

have a specific need, invest in good techniques (practice) and maybe a good lens. I really like my EFS 17-55 2.8 IS, it

can take great photos.

By the way, cameras like the 5D or 7D are like race cars, they can show bad technique much more than a 400d.

Ya, let's see, I lost data to cd and DVD discs physical damage but no choice made sense. I have raid back ups, but no

choices for that. Also, no mention of home file servers. Clouds would be nice, but no practical way of storing large photo

libraries on them. No mention of back up software.

Scan tips is ok. IMO the tutorials at marginal software dot com are better. After that you would do well taking the advice

of others using your hardware, a lot of what I had to do on my old Epson are forgotten after I moved up to dedicated

scanners.

Using an iPad, All I get is the loading message. IMO, skip flash an any exotic extras, they may look cool on your machine

and/or for a short time. All you will really get is compatibility and maintenance headaches.

I do not know what you are using, and that should concern you.

IMO, do not add or subtract pixels. Use what you have in the original raw file. For most recent printers they will handle

any necessary processing better than most people. For resampling to have a positive effect you have to have a printer

that needs it and you have to know what you are doing. IMO, the vast majority of photos do not need it. And, your

subject will look good printed large if the photo is good, not because of resampling. Bad resampling can negatively

impact image quality.

Also, 300 dpi is really only true for photos that originally were shot with film. Film needs that dpi to recreate colors well.

Digital is a lot different, and because the files are so clean and sharp they print large with less.

LOL, too funy. Film never had good color fedility. All film had to have color adjustments when printed or scanned. I shot

positive film because of this, but still I used films that exaggerated colors. Now with digital, things are so much easier

and better.

Do a search for scan services, there are some inexpensive international services.

While I think it is great that some love their Epsons, I do not like them. Be aware that not everyone has the same goals or

vision. When taking advice really look at the source and see what you have in common.

Another route is to get the small prints and then use your digital camera to take a photo of it, high lights and getting

square to the print are the biggest issues. I have done some old prints like this and get good results, you avoid issues

like grain, dust, film curl, and such...

Scanning has a steep learning curve, think of it as taking a photo of your film. Less expensive gear means more work

from you to get good results.

Way more complicated than using a DSLR and for most photos not as good IMO. Digital capture gives you so much

more control over image quality and artistic possibilities it is great. However, I can understand the appeal of film.

IMO, in your case have someone scan for you. Spend your time taking photos and editing the scans (where the real

artistic options come into play).

I would mostly agree with Scott. But, what printer are you using? Some manufactures have great third party RIPs and

some do not. Older printers may not have great drivers. If you state what hardware you have someone may have a

recomendation. But, in general Scott is right, you mst likely do not need one.

No. If you like your scans now, you will not be able recreate them with an Epson. You will waste time trying. Sell the

9000 if you need. But, send your film to a service to be scanned if you do.

Oh great, now I will have to buy a new 4k TV. Just kidding. This is so cool, and we photographers will benifits from it as

well i'm sure. It just cracks me up that video on the 5D was kind of an after thought, they had no idea it would go in these

directions. I just love the new possibilities that show up in each generation of digital.

For scanning on the glass, check out fluid scanning, it will resolve newton rings. But it is a lot more labor intensive. Scan

magic I think has some low toxic fluid.

The scanners film holders should be made for the scanners focus point. I'm not sure about your scanner but higher end

models perform auto focus. Vuescan I think allows you to pick a focus point. So, give that a try and see if it allows it for

your scanner.

All digital capture requires some sharpening, just a fact of life because of the hardware. A good scanner will require less

effort. Play around with the curves in the capture, local contrast will help out a lot in perceived sharpness. Also, IMO it is

best to make as many alterations in the scanner software as possible. And, pay attention to the histogram. It will tell you

a lot about your scan.

Also, IMO when taking someone's advice on techniques be sure to compare your needs and requirements against what

the other persons needs are. For example, if you want extreme image quality then opinions of people who are scanning

for web may not be applicable. Since you are just starting out I'd suggest making it as easy as possible, and only explore

when you have a image quality issue.

Very cool. Canon has really created something special, even if it was not intended. Really shaking up the movie industry

and helping out the little guys as well! Can not wait to see where films and TV go with it.

IMO, it is a good tool to have, but you can just send the lens and camera in for adjustment. I think most of the talk around

the web about it is more about the operator and less about actually fixing an issue. When I first got my 5D II, I got all my

lenses out and played around with it and found none of my lenses needed adjustment. But, then got a 100-400 L, and it

does have an issue. I was able to get it to a useable state, but not perfect. Still think I would be better off sending it in.

You could look in to wet scanning as well. I have not tried it, but though I heard it would help. IMO I like the Nikon

software better than the other options.

C-41 B&W is not bad, but is a lot different than silver.

Not a wedding photog, but I think the OP should post the pixel dimensions of the photos. I have seen it before where a

customer thinks they have been cheated when in fact they had the correct size files for the camera used. It would be nice

to see the exif data as well. Without seeing the actual photo I think it would pretty hard to advise on how to remove a

water mark.

If they are in fact low res files, and the watermark is significant, then a full review of the correspondence by a qualified

professional is needed. Only if the dispute could not be resolved would I advise the removal of a watermark/copyright.

But, I get the feeling that there is more to this particular story.

Their is a large format printer group on yahoo, try asking there or on the luminous landscape forums, both are good

sources of info.

I don't use Epsons so I can not say, but sometimes a forward step is not 100% forward.

Lenses are the best investment, there are some great EFS lenses that are not too expensive. I have a 17-55 f2.8 IS on a

old rebel 450D and it produces great images. A 40D or 50D, both will give great images. I could not tell you which is a

better deal. But, I would put more money in to a good lens than a body. And, given the budget I would suggest a good

EFS lens than a L lens.

Good luck!