mendel_leisk

<p>Just curious, I've been out of the loop for a while: is Photoshop <em>only</em> available on subscription basis now?</p>

<p>Kerosene? The question mark because I'm not sure about the "without damaging". Start with the least important photo, in a corner, use as little as possible, and so on.</p>

<p>The subject of this thread is completely counter to what I'd expected from the title, lol. Guess I'm about 20 years behind the times.</p>

<p>You seem to have little interest in answering the questions in responses; I'm outa here.</p>

<p>I'd agree with Steven Clark: your posted example looks pretty good.</p> <p>What sort of film are you scanning? This might help responders.</p> <p>Also, have you been in touch with Ed Hamrick, the Vuescan author? He WILL get on it.</p>

<blockquote> <p><a name="00dUZX"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=859499">Jim Appleyard</a>, Sep 15, 2015; 04:07 p.m.</p> <p>You can dev Tri-X in vulture vomit...</p> </blockquote> <p>Love it.</p> <p>Yeah, just to pile on: HC110, skip the hypo clear, and use Ilford rinse method. With the latter I typically do a few more rinses, for insurance. My stored films seem to be holding up ok; I do scan them right away.</p>

<p ><a name="00dURO"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3835189">Marcus Ian</a>, Sep 14, 2015; 10:02 a.m.</p> <blockquote> <p>I used nothing but 2GB cards, with a 20D, a 30D, and a 5D. Then with a 5DIII I went to 32GB. Still have the 5D, my wife's using it, but we stick with 2GB cards for that body.</p> </blockquote> <p>Just so you know, the 5D (As well as my old XTi) works just fine with 32GB cards - At least mine did ;)</p> <p>I suspected as much. I'm a little behind the curve, lol.</p>

<p>What Bob said.</p> <p>I used nothing but 2GB cards, with a 20D, a 30D, and a 5D. Then with a 5DIII I went to 32GB. Still have the 5D, my wife's using it, but we stick with 2GB cards for that body.</p>

<p>A link to The Digital Picture review:</p> <p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

<p>Geesh, I almost forgot, beside the Scan Elite 5400, I've got a Scan Dual II in a box under my desk, somewhere, lol.</p> <p>It's sad, there was a wave of scanning, about a decade back, it came and went.</p>

<p>For slides and b/w I like my Minolta Scan Elite 5400 (first version). It's light source is diffuse, and the Grain Dissolver diffuses it further, making it possible to scan Kodachrome with ICE. Does a nice job with b/w too. I've run it with both Vuescan and Minolta's supplied software, in Windows 7.</p> <p>For color negatives I'm using a Coolscan V, running it just with Vuescan. That combo seems to work well. I'm embarrassed to say it's been some years tho, haven't tried it under Windows 7 as yet.</p>

<p>Oh, I see: glass is one side only, didn't pay enough attention. That will we less effective at flattening?</p> <p>It IS anti-Newton Ring glass tho.</p>

<p>I took one shot with my new DSLR, in Toronto's city hall plaza. Later noticed these super fine diagonal lines: very concerned there was some sorta defect in the sensor. Was back there a year or two later, saw there were fine wires crossing the plaza, lol.</p> <p>Anyway, your moire-like pattern, if it's only on that one shot, is likely something physical going on. Shot through a window?</p> <p>Editorial: Leszek, it's "posterize", not "pasteurize".</p>

<p>I'd love to see something like this work. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details: I found glass sandwiches degraded quality and introduced Newton Rings. Put a texture on the glass to "defeat" Newton Rings was only partially successful, and degraded image quality further.</p> <p>Tensionsioning my 35 mm format slides with special mounts was the best I could do. Still not flat, but flatter.</p>

<p>What Les said. What's the scanner btw?</p>

<blockquote> <p ><a name="00dTHG"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5880808">Jay Drew</a>, Sep 02, 2015; 03:54 p.m.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>Mendel, could U refer me to a photo or two that have an example of what your are referring to.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is the sort of thing I had in mind. It's a HDR image taken with an IPhone, and at the peripherals of the highlights you can see an odd putty-like zone. Funny enough, the histogram shows little or no spiking, so maybe my example is poor, lol.</p> <div></div>

<p>A spike along a histogram indicates an extreme number of pixels at that tone, for whatever reason. Most typically it's due to image degradation, some sort of posterizing going on. Say for example a blended exposure image, where you'll notice unusual halos at some tonal transition zone. The tone of those numerous halos will likely cause a spike.</p>

<p>Thanks for that William. I quick-read it and conclude "ok, for me, a duffer, one-stop'll do, tanned or not", lol. And yeah, that's where "automatic" metering falls apart, with exceptionally light (or dark) subjects, you've got to bias the metering.</p>

<p>It's possible to set the depth of focus preview to switch on-the-fly to Servo focus. I also use the rear * button for focus.<br> So if I need servo focus, I depress DOF button with right fourth finger (it's down along side of barrel) and also press the * button.</p>

<p>I've used Canon Service (Canada) a couple of time, and would echo your impressions: a VERY structured, by (their) book outfit.</p>

<p>It get's interesting if you have a frame with a matt. If for example you start with a matt that's a one inch strip all 'round, then increase the matt width to 2". The ratio of the matt opening get's ever more extreme, as you increase it's width. I find AutoCAD handy for working these out.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Good to know!</p> <p>Are prices in Australian dollar?</p>

<p>Dang: not on Canadian Netflix.</p>

<p>Tony, thanks for additional explanation. Seems to me professional labs and their foibles are the main issue. Not sure if it'd work for you but what I do:</p> <p>Shoot digital in the main, and with a film slr shoot Kodak Tri-X. I home process the film, b/w is relatively easy, and chemicals still available. I then scan myself. Acquiring a scanner is getting tough now, though. And the learning curve for DIY scanning is daunting.</p> <p>Depending on your perseverance it may or may not work for you. Good luck, anyway.</p> <p>P.S.: my film shooting and home processing/scanning has slowed to a snails pace. Even my digital slr use is getting sporadic: just shooting pics with my smart phone more and more. I'm becoming a photography drop out, lol. Kinda sad, in the '60's I was mixing my own chemistry from scratch.</p>