mendel_leisk

<p>Another way to look at it: ACR has the ability to <em>produce</em> a jpeg, or tiff, or various other formats. Your raw file is left alone, but ACR will remember your preferences for producing the viewable image.</p>

<p>^ Good to know, thanks.</p>

<p>I'd strongly recommend to start with black and white film. Also, liquid concentrate chemicals are much easier to mix, especially in small quantities, compared to powders.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Are you thinking to do old-school enlarging as well, or just film developing, and then scan? If it's just developing film you're going to undertake, a small bathroom is good, preferably windowless. Safelights are not a factor, you need total darkness, and just until the film is loading into the canister.</p> <p>When light sealing the room I would suggest to check by just sitting in there for a few minutes, then looking for light leaks, as your eyes get more sensitive. You really don't want to see any. Everything helps. For example, with my setup (which I use very infrequently, lol) I would only develop film at night: bright daylight outside might overpower my efforts. :)</p>

<p>David, you mention having a changing bag. Did you use one before, and you're comfortable with it? Just my thought: if you can light seal a small bathroom it makes things a lot easier.</p>

<p>Dedicated film scanner? Though the main players of yesteryear are out of production, support gone, and compatibility with latest operating systems getting very iffy.</p> <p>I'm looking at a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 (first version) and a Nikon V, sitting on the upper shelf of my station. But both are very dusty...</p>

<p>+1 for Windows Snipping Tool, very fast and convenient. Assign it a hot-key, say "S", then no matter what program you're in, just do ctrl-alt-S to invoke it.</p>

<p>The phone's ubiquity <em>alone</em> is threatening the DSLR. You always carry your phone. A bulky camera, perhaps with a menagerie of lens, stifles spontaneity. Yeah, I have one of those, a Canon 5DIII, and the arsenal of lens, sadly not seeing not much use.</p>

<p>If and when you purchase Vuescan, go for Pro version. The cheaper one only allows updates for one year, and I believe also locks out the (invaluable) Raw Scan file function.</p> <p>I wouldn't hesitate to use it sooner; wouldn't consider it just an adjunct to lack of Microsoft support. It's very useful for any other scanners you might have too, say a flatbed.</p> <p>https://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc11.htm#appendixa</p>

<p>Your old scanner too, is just using some software to deal with color negative film. As previously mentioned, you might try Vuescan with it, see how it works, and if it allows you to run it with your newer computer as well.</p>

<p>There's several references in the article to external hard drives, that's all. Anyone using <em>internal</em> hard drives, ie: an extra hard drive inside the case, say d:? That's worked for me, for several decades, coupled with dual dvd disc archives, when space requires.</p> <p>On a windows system robocopy is indispensable for me, very effective in a batch file.</p>

<p>Hah, thought this would be about "dodging" prints.</p>

<p>And, just run a scan or two, at that resolution and down a it lower, see how it works out. 240 dpi might be a bit high, considering the purpose.</p>

<p>What you can do to lube filter threads: is run your finger along the side your nose, picking up a little skin oil, then run your finger along the filter threads.</p>

<p>Try it. Go for the Vuescan Pro version.</p>

<p>To bear witness, to what intrigues, attracts, fascinates.</p><div></div>

<p>I'm not sure what scanners are currently on the market, but I sense the home scanning "wave" has come and gone. There are some still, and many more available used.</p> <p>I started with a Minolta Scan Dual II, which scanned at a modest 2820 dpi, and didn't have "ICE".</p> <p>ICE is a hardware/software concept that uses infrared light to detect dust and scratches, and automate deletion from the scan. It's not usable with conventional b/w silver-based films like Tri-X, so not a factor with them. Apologies, but I can't recall what the acronym stands for.</p> <p>I initially scanned my b/w collection with the Scan Dual II, and was quite happy with the results. While there are times when the scanner supplied software is very useful, with the b/w I opted to run the scanner with Vuescan Pro. It is well worth getting, and Pro is THE version to get.</p> <p>I next got a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 (first version), which has ICE, scans at 5400 dpi. I used this scanner with my color slides, and in order to utilize ICE, used the scanner supplied software. This scanner is very high resolution, like it's predecessor, it has a relatively diffuse light source, which tends to be better able to discriminate between image and scratches/dust. To improve this factor further, the scanner has a mechanical paddle that can be swung into the light path with a frosted glass piece, to further diffuse the light source.</p> <p>Next I picked up a Nikon V., which also has ICE, and scans at a very good 4000 dpi. This scanner is faster then the 5400, and was markedly better at achieving corner-to-corner focus. I used this scanner for scanning colour negatives, exclusively using Vuescan to drive it. Vuescan has an ICE alternative, but it is not very effective or seamless. Fortunately my color negatives were clean enough that it would do. The main downside with the V, it has a very directional light source, and will render every scratch and dust mote faithfully. Also, it is not very good for Kodachromes needing ICE treatment, creates strange artifacts at sharply contrasted edges.</p> <p>Since the above I continue to shoot Tri-X, very sporadically. I home process it with Kodak HC110 dilution B. It is quite easy to do at home. You need a light-tight room with a sink, in my case a windowless powder room with a bit of sealing does the trick. You also need a canister and reel, developer, short stop (water with a bit of acetic acid) and fixer, which strips the undeveloped silver and film backing material.</p> <p>I then scan the strips with my Scan Elite 5400 and Vuescan Pro. A few years back I got some rolls of Tri-X and chemicals from B&H. I believe it's all still available now, albeit you might need to make different choices for chemicals, not sure how viable Kodak is at present.</p> <p>To be perfectly candid, my shooting/scanning is pretty much at a halt now, lol. I've got a 5DIII and a full kit of lens, and IT'S sitting idly for the most part as well. My wife has my previous 5D, with a 24-105, it's not getting much use either.</p> <p>Nowadays I'm mainly just using my iPhone to snap scenes, but that's ok too. :)</p>

<p>How are the negatives looking? I'd put it down to the scanning process, they don't seem to be competent, suitable for scanning black and white: why are the scans in color?</p> <p>Perhaps pick up a scanner, do your own? Actually, if you want to take it further, home processing of a black and white film like Tri-X is one of the easiest.</p>

<blockquote> <p><a name="00dgql"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2845441">Rajesh Kallaje</a>, Jan 15, 2016; 02:19 p.m.</p> <p>I agree with Wayne about RAW but what I am saying is about a clear red wash over the RAW images and RAW images only. JPEG pix are normal.</p> </blockquote> <p>Raw files are <em>not</em> images. They contain the data to produce an image, with a raw processing program. The "normal" jpeg was also produced from the data in that raw file, by some raw processor. The color caste you're seeing is almost surely due to settings in that particular raw processor. Maybe you're default settings were changed?</p>

<p>Depends too, on what body you're using it on: full frame or crop. It's the traditional "standard" lens on full frame, provides normal perspective. it's compact and fast, quite sharp, well suited for walkabout when you don't want to be burdened.</p>

<p>Any problems or shortcomings with the 9000?</p>

<p>Kenny, what make are all these? Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, other?</p> <p>(This does feel like an Ali g episode....)</p>

<p>The photo's are files, aren't they? Just confusing choice of words, nitpicking. :)</p> <p>What's the advantage of this over just writing the files to a second hard drive? Off-site storage, redundancy? It will be very slow though?</p>

<p><strong>If</strong> you can check the film by feel only, see if you can find some way to open it in complete darkness?</p>

<p>^ There ya go. :)</p>