bob_krueger

Thank you both very much for your answers. I am going to go ahead and order both the Velvia and the Provia/Astia/Sensia targets from Wolf Faust. Now all I have to do is figure out exactly what to do with the reference files that come in only a choice of MS-DOS or Amiga (does someone actually still have one of those?) formats on floppies. It appears that I can download them from his site once I figure out which of the two Velvia ones to retrieve. Modern Macs don't even HAVE floppy drives. Once I get them, I assume they will go into the VueScan directory somewhere, but I don't claim to know that for sure. So many things to learn; so little time.

By the way, Q.T., I visited your site. VERY nice. You surely must do a LOT of traveling.

I have searched the archives and failed to find anything that

specifically addresses this question.

I have a Canon FS4000US film scanner that I use to scan slides

into Photoshop 6 on a Macintosh running OS 9.1. Using FilmGet,

the included software, the scans are sometimes alright, but

usually not great, as regards color accuracy compared to the

slide. I shoot Velvia a lot, and they're especially bad with that film.

The saturation is good, but color accuracy is not. So I purchased

the professional version of VueScan a week or so ago and have

been playing with it as time permits. The scans with VueScan

are better as regards color accuracy no matter what settings I

use, but have other issues, like inadequate saturation, at

settings that others recommend here at Photo.net. My results

have been worst with the color balance setting of "neutral" that

many others seem to use successfully. "White balance" was

better, but the most accurate scan I've done so far was with the

color balance set to "manual," white and black point settings of

1%, and other color settings left alone. The media type is set to

"image"; I saw no meaningful improvement using "slide film"

and the complementary E6 color setting. I sure wish Ed Hamrick

had more built-in Fuji profiles. To tell the truth, I'm a long way

from knowing what I'm doing with this software at this point, but I

like the fact that it allows me to choose from many variables, that

it works with both of my scanners, and that it will allow me to

calibrate my equipment.

The next thing I'm considering doing in order to gain more

control over my system is purchase an IT8 target slide from Wolf

Faust. Since I shoot mostly Velvia (the new 100F much of the

time), if I were buying one slide, the Velvia one would be it,

although I assume it is based on Velvia 50, which I also shoot

sometimes. I also shoot a little Provia, though not much, and

Sensia for motorsports.

My main question is - do I want to purchase more than one IT8

target slide, since Wolf Faust also has one for

Provia/Astia/Sensia, and why would I want/need to do that? If the

slide is simply matching the color numbers that are known to be

on the slide with the color numbers that my scanner sees, and

then writing a file to translate one into the other, are not all of the

colors on all of the slides part of the same general color gamut?

And if they are, if I match the colors on one slide, would not the

colors on the other slides be accurate post-calibration as well? If

I need multiple scanner calibration files for multiple film types,

then I guess I would have to reference another file every time I

scan a different film type with VueScan. Is that true? I apologize

for the fact that I'm confused.

By the way, yes, my monitor (LaCie 19" Electron Blue) has been

calibrated with a GretagMacbeth Eye One Display colorimeter

and I use the Tim Grey profiles for luster and archival matte

papers for my Epson 2200...and I do use those papers and

Epson inks. So if I could just get accurate scans into the

computer in the first place I could hopefully minimize the amount

of color correction I have to do in Photoshop. I'd very much like to

do that, since I'm not exactly the king of the mountain yet when it

comes to that either. Despite the fact that I have read "Real World

Photoshop" and I'm working on getting better at being subtle, you

should see what I can do to a scan that requires heavy-handed

correction; it ain't pretty!

>>I haven't seen mailers in years - do they still exist?

Check out http://www.aandi.com/mailers.html

Do any of these software packages (Cumulus, Portfolio, iView

Media Pro) have OS 9.X versions available? Or will the OS X

versions function in 9.X as well? Some of us Mac users are still

stuck comfortably in the past (I'm still using 9.1 - what the heck,

it's doing what I need done, it isn't crashing, and Canon and its

drivers can't seem to keep up with current Macintosh operating

systems anyway).

Curious about this myself, since I live in San Diego and know that there is a Canon service center in Irvine, CA, I decided I'd call 800-OK CANON and ask whether such a lens could be sent or delivered to Irvine instead of sent all the way to Illinois for repair.

The gentleman who answered the phone put me on hold for a minute and then came back and said that yes, that lens could be repaired in Irvine. The Canon service center's address there is...

Canon Factory Service Center

15955 Alton Parkway

Irvine, CA 92618

The phone number is 949-753-4200.

If you're familiar with the Orange County area, this is in the little triangular area just to the north of where interstates 5 and 405 merge/split. Mazda USA and a rather large shopping center are also in that area. Since you're in Riverside, you may find it even more convenient to take a drive down and hand deliver the lens if they will allow that and it will make the repair cycle quicker. Although I don't have anything that's broken at the moment, it's still nice to know that there is a "local" place with which I can deal if and when I do.

Hey, Sam, thanks for asking that question!

I bought the 24-70 f2.8L about a month ago and noticed the same thing. The lens is working fine, so I figured it must be OK; but it's nicer to KNOW that it's OK without having to be the one accused of being a "Leica fondler." :-)

Ethan,

Thank you very much for your VERY thorough answer to my question.

I just purchased a LaCie Electron Blue 19 and I calibrated it several days ago with my ColorVision spyder (using PhotoCAL) at 6500 degrees and a 1.8 gamma setting. My computer is a Mac G4 using OS 9.1 and I use Photoshop 6 for photo editing. The result is far better than it was on the NEC FE 950 that preceded this display, but I assume that the fact that the NEC was failing and finally died completely has a lot to do with that (it died under warranty, thank God, and the replacement FE 990 monitor that NEC sent is now working fine on my wife's computer).

During the calibration, I noticed that I had to back pretty far off the green and blue guns, especially the blue, to get them balanced with the red one, and when I saw your recommendation for a gamma of 2.2 I thought perhaps I should try going back and re-calibrating with that setting. Now that I've read your response, I think I just might do that.

I've also been looking at the new GretagMacbeth Eye-One Display colorimeter as a replacement for my ColorVision spyder, since it seems to be highly recommended as an option to the ColorVision unit (including by you, of course), and partly because of the reported bias in the ColorVision software for all temperatures other than 5000, since I'm using 6500. 5000 just looks too "muddy" to my eyes, especially for the uses the computer gets other than photo editing. If I can get more accurate calibrations at 6500 and widen the gamut with a setting of 2.2 while staying accurate vis-a-vis the printer (Epson 2200), that sounds like the way to go to me.

Thanks again.

Hmmm...well, I guess nobody's got an answer for my

Velvia/Sensia question.

Ethan,

In your review, you say "A gamma of 2.2 and a color temperature of 6500°K are preferred for modern monitors. This produces a wider display gamut, and often better matching to a D50 light box than do the defaults of 1.8/5000K - even on Macintosh computers."

Since I have read so many places that a gamma of 1.8 is appropriate for Macs, and that's what I use, I just wanted to check with you to see if you are firm in the belief that even on a Mac a gamma of 2.2 and color temperature of 6500 (which is what I use) is preferable for accurate results.

I have the Canon FS4000US and have used FilmGet for some time. Like others have reported, the color accuracy of the scans generally leaves something to be desired, and I am considering trying VueScan. I guess the main reason I have stayed with FilmGet is that I like the results that the FARE dust removal software gives. The color, however, usually requires major tweaking in Photoshop to match the slide, and sometimes I can't get all of the way to a perfect match without messing up the color balance of the whole frame. My talent with Photoshop at this time is admittedly limited.

I shoot slides...usually Fuji Velvia for landscapes and Sensia for motorsports (although I saw some Velvia shots recently in "F1 Racing" magazine that looked interesting, and I thought that now that Velvia 100F is available I might try that with some racing shots). Does VueScan typically do a better job with these films as regards color accuracy than FilmGet can do?

I'm also running my 2200 with a 15-foot USB cable with no

problems. The only place I had for the printer is at the far side of

another piece of furniture in the room.

It's one of those fancy-dancy "Monster"-style cables with the gold

plated connectors and all that jazz, but that's just because a

friend picked it up for me and he said that's all they had in stock. I

doubt that makes a bit of difference.

<<Printing 2880 vs 1440 does NOT consume significantly more ink. If you want to know the hard data, buy an Epson wide format; the printer utilities allow you to print reports detailing such data, as well as telling you how many total prints you've made, ink use per print, print time, etc. I subscribe to several diff. Yahoo groups (EpsonWideFormat, 9600) where these kinds of dicsussions take place/have taken place, but frankly, I've forgotten the details of the discussions. You could join the groups and see what you can find there.>>

Good information! Although the original question wasn't mine, as an Epson 2200 owner I am at least peripherally interested in the relative ink usage issue. After all, other than the time to print question (given the time it takes for my Canon FS4000 to scan a slide, I can wait for a print), if it doesn't use significantly more ink to print at 2880, why NOT print that way?

Thanks for the leads.

<<Re You could tare out the paper and weigh the prints on an analytical balance, I suppose, but that would seem to be a bit over the top. How else do you know?

BR>When doing this method; one can cut a sample say 3 inches square; with a decent cutter; and weigh the samples..The samples will both drop in weight; as the ink dries; they WILL continue to drop in weight over many days; if one has a balance with A LOT of precision.....Mine is a Mettler to 160 grams; measures a 1/10,000 of a gram.....Then the samples will reach equalibrium with the room humidity; and wander around with the daily humidity....The samples will weigh more;if touched by hand; the balance measures the moisture from ones fingers....>>

Hmmm...sounds like a process with way too many environmental variables to be very practical, especially since the total net weight difference, even if 2880 does use more ink, is probably pretty small. I'm not sure it matters a whole lot in the real world anyway; if a 2880 print looks better to the person doing the printing, that should be enough reason to print that way. If John Shaw sells prints from his 2200 done at 1440, that's enough reason for him to print that way. But I'd still like to know (empirically, not by hearsay) whether printing at 2880 v. 1440 REALLY uses significantly more ink, or if that's just a "common sense" assumption that many think must be the case and gets passed around like fact.

Curiosity gone wild, I guess. Maybe someday someone will present a good case to prove it one way or another.

I'm serious with this question - not trying to be a smart aleck. How do you know that printing at 2880 rather than 1440 uses more ink? You could tare out the paper and weigh the prints on an analytical balance, I suppose, but that would seem to be a bit over the top. How else do you know?

I attended Epson's Print Academy last weekend and asked Vincent Versace this very question. He said that it does NOT use more ink to print at 2880...that it is an issue of dot distribution, not ink use. He also claimed there is a visible difference when 2880 is used with some papers. Is that difference worthwhile? Well,if I'm using no more ink, perhaps. He recommended using 2880 with the gloss, semi-gloss, and luster papers and 1440 with the more porous matte, etc.

On the other hand, John Shaw says to use 1440 all of the time for the same reasons claimed here - it uses less ink and yields no meaningful difference in appearance.

So who's right? Both camps can't be.

Carl,

John Shaw uses an Epson 2200 and premium luster paper for many of the prints that he sells (he also uses the larger 7600 and 9600 printers).

Thanks, everyone, for the clarifications. I thought that must be the

case, but just thought I'd ask the rest of you to be sure. This isn't

the only place where the manual is at least misleading. It also

says, on another page, as a blanket statement, that when you

select spot metering, it will be linked to the selected focus point.

Well, that's true when custom function 13 is set to 1 or 3, but not

true when set to 0 or 2.

Anyway, I'm slowly learning from responses like Petr's that this

may not always be the place to ask a question that isn't at the

post-graduate level. As I said, I just got this body and have had

the opportunity thus far to get out with it only once, when I took

some shots to check various ISO settings with some Velvia and

did some evaluative v. spot metering with manual compensation

shots to calibrate the Velvia ISO with this body and see if all is

well with the metering. Other than that, I''ve pretty much been

cooped up by the day job and the demands of my small

business. Sitting here at 11:00 PM re-reading the manual for

things I may have missed, I came upon this sentence that didn't

seem to make sense, so I asked about it. One thing I had not

done on my test day was use the DOF button, and last night at

11 o'clock wasn't really a good photo op time, so I thought I'd

simply ask.

Sorry; my error, I guess. Because I saved some money to buy a

top-of-the-line body does not mean I know everything (yet).

Thanks again for the mostly useful responses.

Right. I agree that that makes perfect sense. But that doesn't

mean you have to physically move the switch on the lens into

manual focus mode, does it? That's what the note seems to

imply.

I recently upgraded my camera body from an A2e to a 1v, and

although I'm pretty familiar with how things work on this body, I

read something tonight, during my second pass through the

owner's manual, of which I was not aware.

It says "The depth-of-field preview button does not function

during AF operation." Does that mean that I have to switch the

lens to MF prior to using the DOF preview or that it won't function

if the lens is still looking for focus?

The A2e DOF preview ONLY functioned in eye-controlled focus

mode (the little checkmark at the top left of the viewfinder), so it

would seem pretty weird if I had to switch the lens to MF mode to

get it to work on the 1v.

Well, since this seems to be a better source of information on

the EOS Link software than Canon (why am I not surprised?),

maybe someone here uses it with a Macintosh?

Canon's Web site says that version 1.3 of that software works

with Mac OS versions up to 9.0.4. I use 9.1, and in my experience

most things that work with OS 9 work with OS 9 in all of its

versions, so I called Canon tech support and later Canon

Customer Support, and neither of them knew anything beyond

what the Web site says. They didn't really say it didn't work, they

said things more like "Well, the book says...and that's all that I

can tell you." I can understand why they might stop development

at 9 and not be rushing to work on a version that works with OS

X, but 9.0.4 is not a logical place to stop in my mind, and I told

them that I didn't think they were supporting their Mac customers

very well if that was really the last OS this EOS Link software

would work with, since that version is three or more years old.

There are still a LOT of OS 9 uses out there, but probably not

many 9.0.4 users. I think the real story is that they simply don't

know whether it will work with 9.1, 9.2.1, or 9.2.2 or not because

none of their software developers has bothered to try to find out.

Anyway, is anyone here using the EOS Link software with a

Macintosh running a later version of system 9 than 9.0.4, and if

so, does it work well and not crash the computer?

Thanks for any help. I plan to upgrade to an EOS 1v later this

year and I'd like to be able to use this software if possible, but I

ain't goin' back to 9.0.4 to do it.

This news is a real bummer! I just sent the link to these profiles

to myself at home from work the other day, and I hadn't

downloaded them yet because I have yet to get my 2200. I

recently attended a John Shaw seminar and he told us about

these profiles because he said they were very good.

Now they are no longer available (I just tried the link and got a

404 error too). Like I said, a definite bummer.