upscan
-
Posts
601 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by upscan
-
-
<html>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff">
<p>The high contrast comes with Velvia. To overcome it you should rate Velvia at 40 ASA or less, never at the specified 50. Making matters worse, the DMax, -dynamic range of flatbed scans is quite poor resulting in blocked shadows and narrow tonal range. With such scanners, contrasty slides will look even worse. Your other problems are part and parcel of dry scanning. Under the heat of the lamp the slides buckle downward and can come near the glass or even in extreme cases in contact with the glassbed. That causes Newton rings. </p>
<p>The only way to cure both problems is to avoid conventional dry mounting altogether and instead, use wet mounting -the standard technique for mounting with the sky priced drum scanners. Wet mounting opens up the shadows and also prevents Newton rings. Additionally, it practically eliminates dust (optically). To read more about wet mounting <a href="(EmptyReference!)" target="http://www3.sympatico.ca/gluemax/ScanMax/Scanplus_kit_brochure.pdf">go to the link</a>, </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
</body>
</html>
-
Epson's recommendations to scan with emulsion side up are not "erroneous", by doing that the image does not require reversing twice later. Another issue with flatbeds is sharpness and tonal range. There is only one way of getting the max out of flatbeds and that is wet mounting. Wet mounting makes fundamental improvements to the optics not otherwise attainable with any film holders. Additionally, it helps remove dust and with it you do not need the software tools for dust removal which have a negative effect on quality, however slight.
-
Using Monaco is child's play. If you are going to the expense, to make it worth while you shluld invest in a good scanner. Resolution is just one thing that makes a scanner good but the weak link in flat bed scanners is DMax qhich equates with the range of tones. One you have color correct images, why bother if they are going to look like if taken with a disposable camera? Granted, for 4X6 images it will probably do but for enlargements, no. Getting color management software and a cheap scanner does not make any sense. You will be disappointed. For scanners, get the Epson 3200 or 4800.
Having done that, discard the scanner's film carriers and use wet-mounting and you will get excellent results. If you wish to learn more about wet mounting go to:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/gluemax/ScanMax/scanplus_kitbrochure.pdf
-
Sanders: NO! Others have said it, the emulsion will soften in contact with water. Neither water nor alcohols nor any other hydrophilic substances or active solvents should be used. There is no neeed to reinvent the wheel. There are tried and true procedures that you should use. As to Newton rings, they are an optical phenomenon that occurs when two surfaces are at a slight angle and a relative short distance from one another. There will not be Newton rings in wet mounting because the optically the two surfaces disappear when the fluid is properly applied and fills the interface between the two surfaces.
Additionally, the glass bed is not the thing onto which wet mount. The plane of optimum focus out of the factory in any well calibrated scanner will be above the glass bed.
If you wish to learn more about wet mounting, click the link:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/gluemax/ScanMax/scanplus_kitbrochure.pdf
-
NO. Your question suggests you confuse elecromagnetic sensitive material like audio or video tape with light and chemically sensitive material like film. Film is not affected by electromagnetic fields but by Xrays.
-
Robin: NO! Get a film scanner. Use flat beds for MF or LF. Forget the "resolution numbers" stated for flatbeds and do not use those numbers to compare scanners. The comparison is meaningless. Forget about unsharp masking as a way to get around the issue. Yes it helps but do not bet on a lame horse hoping that the splint (unsharp masking) on its leg will pull it through.
-
I have the pro package in the E3200 and I would not give up Silverfast 6Ai for anything. In Silverfast you will know the max that you can get out of a slide before wating for Photoshop to find out. The Pro is the absolute package the extra is worth it many times. Yes, Vuescan is reasonably good software but crude and clunky compared to Silverfast and without color management software you will soon find yourself wasting a lot of time and paper. The Monaco color management software will help you tremendously by enabling you to create printer and paper profiles. Do not leave the store without the Pro.
-
Butch: you have some lovely shots that you have every reason to be proud of. The criticism you received is not altogether well founded in my opinion but I would have one word of advice with regards to a few (not all) of your shots: Do not be a "Forensic Photographer". Be more selective and get rid of what I call the forensic shots, those that picture a landscape as a record for a catalogue or history museum, although there is no emotion about them or something in shape, form or texture that makes them memorable. This is hard to do. Often I think we see what we want to see and what we remember about the image adds content to it in our minds, content that is not in the image. Looking at great photography is one way of sensitizing and inspiring yourself. I'd recomend you spend sometime studying the photography of Paul Schilliger from Switzerland. To my way of seeing he has to be one of the great landscape artists living. It can not fail yo inspire you. (paulschilliger.com) Yes, it is in colour and that makes it far more difficult as the photographer does not have the help of BW in simplifying and abstracting. In your photographs you will know in your heart of hearts what moves you and what is only pretty. Go for what moves you , get rid of the rest and do not worry about other's opinions including my own. And remember, printing technique is only the means to and end and not the end itself. Platinum, quadtone and all the current fashions can pretty up an image but not make it live. You love what you do and you love your subjects and because of that you will succeed.
-
To Leonard's point, an analogy might be in order. Sampling means the number of buckets used in the scan, so for the 3200 a maximum of 3200 buckets can be used. How much remains in the buckets by the time the scanned pixels come to your hard drive or ram is another matter. The buckets leak or spill in transfer (due to the limitations of the optics) so in the end you only get about 50% of what was in those buckets. Epson can go on an on increasing the number of buckets which looks good in advertising but in the end it is the limitations of the optics that will determine how much of that you get to keep. The 'resolution' numbers do not tell us that. Newbies look at the number of buckets and say, well, that is almost as many as Nikon's or Canon's, that should do. Wrong. I think manufacturers should start coming clean about this as their numbers are discredited with any one that knows a little about them. An important improvement in the 4870 is the light. It travels along, and therefore should be more concentrated on the area being sampled this increasing DMax. This might also improve resolution. However, I believe that some of the 'leaks' are due to film curvature, which reduce not only resolution but DMax by increasing the amount of reflected light as opposed to the amount transmitted through the film. Comparisons I have seen between a dedicated film scanner with the 4870 put the 4870 at still a good distance from film. Digital sharpening seems to improve sharpness but so what, it also does with all scans and with an increase in noise. All that said, is there a more cost effective alternative for medium and large format scanning?
-
Vuescan stand alone is my choice instead of plug-in. You can use photoshop to edit while scanning in Vuescan, etc. My choice however is Silverfast. Silverfast gives complete and very intuitive control. I have it with the Epson 3200 and would love to use it with the Canon FS4000 if I had it. For me Silverfat goes well beyond Vuescan, giving the user the power to extract the most that is in your film before you get into PS. That said, I use Vuescan with the FS4000, it is a good program and is much less expensive than SF.
-
It is a pity that Fuji decided to go with the F version, as in getting the "F" some nasty baggage came with it. I have not seen the RVP100 but if it is better than RVP50, that is the ticket. Looks like the marketing guys at Fuji went haywire over the hype potential of the F version and forgot what really counts. It is good of you Chuk to tell us of your results, thanks.
-
Yuri: The range of tones seems richer than I would expect from the E3200. The resolution seems better. I'd be concerned about more empty pixels that clutter the hard drives without any real benefit, however in this scan resolution does seem OK. HAve you made scans on both the E3200 and the 4870 so that they can be compared side by side? That would be interesting. Quite a nice shot too, thanks for posting.
-
Hey Bob: The baby had trouble just getting out of its diapers this time; it must learn to walk before it can run. After that I will second your motion. As for the dust, no problem, the rover will by then be quite adept at using the dark cloth and his new Sekonic lightmeter is already dust proof.
-
Ernie: The optimum focus plane of the scanner is 0.5 mm and placing the film with the emulsion upwards causes it to bend down and close enough to the glass to cause Newton rings. However, the downward curl brings the emulsion from being too high above the glass, (since 1.0 mm being the height of the film base placed on the film holder), to nearer the plane of optimum focus, 0.5 mm. Placing the shiny side up, will result in an upward curl and bring the emulsion further away from optimum focus.
Granted, a sharper image is no good trade off for Newton rings.
This problem is a built-in deficiency with most flat bed scanners. I am looking forward to a glass-less scanner for trannies such as the new Microtek i900. It has two optical systems, one for transparencies, the other for reflective. That scanner can't overcome the curling either but at least it surely puts Newton in its place!
-
Alex, thanks. Yor comments on SCSI swapability explain what I had to find the hard way but was still unsure if it had a remedy I was not aware of. Enjoy your Canon 4000.
-
Alex: most users will agree with you, I do. I do not know who has propagated the idea that SCSI is the only good way to connect this scanner, it is not. I have SCSI and connected the Canon 4000 to SCSI and compared that with USB1 output rate running the same slide under the same settings. There was no difference, none! Additionally SCSI presented some unwelcome problems, for after trying several SCSI settings I could not overcome the problem that cwhen I turned off the scanner while running Windows XP, the OS acted anomalously. Under USB1 it is no problem turning off the scanner while running WXP because WXP seems to regard the scanner runing in USB as a temporary connection. I actually connect to a USB2 port, which accepts the Canon 4000, although it connects at USB1 rates even when connected to a USB2 port. I agree that the Canon 4000 is slow with either SCSI or USB1, but there are lots of things I can do in the computer while scanning so that is not a problem. I looked at the Minolta, being very impressed with its specs. I am generally jaded with manufacturer's specs, and sometimes the online comparisons in onlinemags and paper mags and I do not think you can judge the machine through either. iPhoto for example seems to sell the Minolta 5400 on the basis of comparisons with the lowly Nikon LS30, while a comparison with the Nikon Coolscan 4000 or the Canon 4000 would have been more relevant. The results of that comparison is that the Minolta 5400 shines, as could be predicted in advance. The input from users however seems less than 100% enthusiastic and Alex's is but one of others I have seen voicing complaints. The Canon 4000 is a very sound machine which with good software does quite well. I use Vuescan which is quite good but would recommend if you can afford it Silverfast 6i which is far more powerful and for me any way, more intuitive. (unfortunately I do not have the Silverfast version tht runs the Canon. That said, I get great scans with Vuescan. Alex, I like to say good luck! but I see you already are lucky.
-
Technikas are famous for their toughness. I know someone that dropped his down a cliff, it rolled about 20 feet and was not the worse for wear after that. Yes, Toyos and Linhofs are both metal but not likely the same metal. You do not get something for nothing, although the reverse is sometimes true. The Technika IV is David Muench's favorite, and his must have rolled down cliffs as David scoured the country for years and years. He still uses the Technika IV although he could choose anything he pleases.
-
Robert: The wide angle hood will look good on one of the CBS/NBC rigs but it is otherwise, backpacking et al, monstruous and heavy. Lee probably sells 3 or 4 a year? Hope you got it for a good price, the previous owner will surely agree with you now. Also, one of the most useful filters is the neutral density, those are resin only. You don't need those many filters unless you get into funny effects that makes the high cost of resin more bearable, and yes, Lee will sell you tons of filters most of which few people need. Optically resin filters are best although I have used on occasion polyester without problems. I do not recall they needed extra frames.
-
Mark: I would not get too excited: Manfrotto makes one very good 3D head, it is very nicely machined, do not recall the number but is very heavy. As for their ball heads, if the new one is like the others also made at the same forge that makes horseshoes, well, you will get a rough ride. Really good ball heads IMHO are beautifully smooth and that requires excellent machining and special teflon bearings. The Arca and Foba are excellently made but expensive. There may be others but I have always found Manfrotto/Bogen and Gitzo jerky. Good ball heads are not cheap. Some people swear by (not at?) the Acratech, I have no experience with that one.
-
Scott: The Technika gives you most flexibility in the choice of lenses because of its bellows draw which allows you to use lenses from 58 mm to 300mm without having to resort to telephotos for the 300. Most other cameras like toyo field do not sport such bellows draw. In the Technika you will need the wide angle adapter for the 58 and 65 mm lenses and yes these adapters are expensive and quite rare in eBay and their $1200 new price quite formidable. As for the tilting /rotating on the Technika back I leave the knobs snug and loosening and re-tightening the knobs is not as much of a hassle. The 75 mm lens can be awckward to set up on the Technika but otherwise I find the speed and ease of setting up the Technika an overwhelming advantage. Technikas are expensive, not because they are a brand-pride item like designer jeans but because of their marvelous construction and design; this is why they keep their value more than other cameras and for good reason. A Technika weighs 6 pounds, not a feather but still quite portable and compact.
-
The unpleasant reds and psycho blues are not the result of processing, witness the most careful, technically proficient and critical processing imaginable: Fuji's own. Fuji's finely produced and expensive brochure on V100F will show you the colours people are complaining about. It is all there, and no, these lavishly produced things are not casual efforts but products of the most concerted effort, no expense spared. We are not talking of Kodak here or of the Kodak's corner printing store that does their cheap brochures. Fuji's marketing department always excells in their high quality and accurate film brochures. Why worry, try Ektachrome G100G, the UV film (?)= (Un-Velvia.)
-
Not a very smart marketing move. There is I think some cock-suredness or arrogance in this on the part of Fuji that their new stuff has to be so very good because they think it is so very good, ignoring user's opinions. As for this user, no problem, there is Kodak's E100G, the "un-velvia". Arnab, your friends in India need not worry.
-
One problem with flatbeds which like the E3200 position the object on different planes although the scanner can focus on only one. My tests on the E3200 show that the scanner focuses halfway between the position for reflective, (0 mm, i.e. the plane of the glass bed) and 1.0 mm, (the plane of the film base for transparencies placed on the carrier). Thus, my scanner focuses exactly at 0.5 mm. Actually, if we take into consideration film thickness, the emulsion sits a little higher by an amount equal to the thickness of the film base.
People often talk about depth of field when referring to the E3200 as indeed it must rely on that due to the fact that two different planes are involved but only one focus plane which happens to be neither of the planes on which the objects are placed. Complicating things, the film base will NEVER stay flat to the carrier, the heat of the light always causes it to warp with the film base forming a downward arch which comes in some cases close to the glass bed. In such a close focusing situation depth of field is extremely shadow, more so that some people assume. These idiosyncracies seem to indicate that flat beds constructed as the E3200 are handicapped by their design and that a better approach would be that of glass-less scanners such as the Microtek i900 in which reflective and transparency each has its own optical system. In this system, the flat bed gets a little closer to a dedicated film scanner when scanning transparencies. I understand some of the Epson flatbeds have manual focus adjustment, that would be helpful as the film can not be secured to one focus plane, but that would add to the cost. Pity.
-
Waldemar: if your film was drum scanned you could probably 'mine' the shadows in PS because of the very high DMax commonly found in drum scanners. The poorer the scanner the less likely that you will be able to dig out detail from shadow areas. If you are using wide angle lenses that require a center filter, use it. In that way you will get on film what you are seeking. Digitally there are no magic potions to dig out what is not there.
Epson 4870 software
in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing
Posted