final cut cafe

Wow..you would not recomend this technique for making 4x6" prints? Now if only I could

speed up my scanner!

I saw a Sony UY-S90 on eBay and i was going fo $1,500. The auction wasn't over yet, but

that is a little out of my price range for what I want to do!

I'm using the Canon 8400F and it comes with a slide and a negative holder. The slide

holder for this model only does 4 at a time, and with 1-2 minutes scan time for each slide

plus time spent switching out the slides, you can imagine how long it takes to do 500

slides. That is why I am thinking of alternatives that do not require me purchasing a new

scanner.

Thanks for your help. I will try to make the projected image as large as possible. I think

also it would be good to use a small aperature on my camera..say f8. That sound good?

Would the image be as sharp as my flatbed?

There's no way I'm buying this kit, but I just wanted to know the optimal distance to have

the camera from the screen and theo optimal porjected image size.

<br><br>

But what about quality? I imagine it would be good enough quality to make a DVD/

computer slide-show, but would it be good enough quality to make 4x6" or 5x7" prints at

a Frontier lab?

If I were to do this myself, what would be the best surface to project on to? I have access

to two different slide projector screens, one is white and one is silver. I would like to work

with somewhat of a smaller surface. Now, Im' wondering how big I should project the

image to keep it very sharp. I'm thinking making the image around 4-6 inches wide on my

projection surface. What would be an optimal distance to maintain between digital SLR and

projection surface?

Thanks for clearing my vision! I didn't realise it was so simple! If I were to do this

technique, I would project the image so that it is not very big. This would hopefuly keep

the projected image very sharp. But how would the quality compare to scanning on a

flatbed scanner? I wouldn't mind sacrifising a little if it would mean doing thousands of

slides in a fraction of the time, but I would only sacrifise a little. ;)

There is this product called, "Slide to Photo" which is designed for people taking large

quantities (hundreds or thousands) of slides and scanning them in a quick fashion. The

system uses your slide projector to project the slides and your digital camera to capture

the image. They claim that you can scan a thousand images in much quicker time than

using your flatbed scanner and that the quality is quite good. Before jumping into buying

this, I wanted to run this by some people here. What sort of quality could I expect to get

out of digitising slides using this tool and method? I would be using an 8MP dSLR with 4/3

aspect ratio. The system sells on their website for $50.<BR><BR>

 

<a href="http://www.slidetophoto.com/site/556375/page/138524">http://

www.slidetophoto.com/site/556375/page/138524</a>

I should ad that I do not know about INPUT RESOLUTION on the 8400F scanner because it does not give me that option in ScanGear CS.

Hello all and thanks for the input! Actualy, my scanner is a model 8400F. When I prepare a scan, I create the scan image area at or above what I want the size of my print. In this case I am scanning hundreds of slides, 4 at a time. I'm using the flatbed scanner with the provided plastic tool that allows me to place the slides (and negatives) correctly on the glass. This model also has a light on the top part (the part that opens) and projects this light on the back-side of the slide or film as it lays flat on and gets lits from underneath the flatbed area.

<br><br>

To scan, I am using ScanGear CS and load it from within Photoshop CS. ScanGear CS came with my Canon 8400F scanner. This is exactly what I do for scanning hundreds of color slides that I want to make 4x6" prints out of at a Frontier lab:

<br><br>

INPUT SETTINGS:

<BR>

Select Source: Color Positive Film

<BR>

Film Size: 35mm Film Strip

<BR><BR>

OUTPUT SETTINGS:

<BR>

Color Mode: Color

<BR>

Output Resolution: 300 DPI

<BR>

Output Size: 1200 x 1800

<BR><BR>

IMAGE SETTINGS:

<BR>

Auto Tone: OFF

<BR>

Unsharp Mask: OFF

<BR>

Remove Dust And Scratches: LOW

<BR><BR>

 

With these settings, I got slides that were the correct resolution BUT they were a bit soft. After I scanned them, I did a quick color correction on them and that was it. I realise I should have probably turned unsharpen mask ON on the scanner settings OR have applied unsharpen mask in Photoshop after I did my color correcting, but I was doing hundreds.. so you can imagine.

<br><br>

In ScanGear CS under Output Resolution I set it at 300 DPI because that is what have heard the Frontier prints at. However, I have the option of selecting up to 3200 DPI. When selecting this option, each slide or negative takes a painfully long time to scan and creates an insanly huge file size.

<BR><BR>

I have the option of setting my color to 48-bit, but I figure when scanning hundreds of slides at 4 at a time, this would increase the time required by too much.

<br><BR>

Am I doing thing correctly in this real scenario? When scanning large quantities and you don't have enough time to go through each frame and do lots of work on them, would it be best to just set the unsharp mask feature on the scanner to ON to avoid getting slightly soft faces in my pictures?

<BR><BR>

Now, if I want to scan an image that I want to create an 8x12" print out of a 35mm slide or negative, what should I change in my scenario to do this? In this case, I would spend a LOT more time on each frame.

I have used EZprints (www.ezprints.com) because they print of Fuji Crystal Archive paper and they provide a very long list of print sizes and photo products!

I would like to know if anyone has any preference to one or the other.

I have used EZprints because they print on Crystal Archive paper. I

liked that paper very much when I shot 35mm. I've seen recomendations

for Mpix and Mpix's website claims to re-produce better colors in

their prints. I noticed that Mpix uses Kodak paper. I've enjoyed using

Fuji printing because of the photo paper they use. Is the Kodak paper

that Mpix uses also photo paper or is it some other Die-Sub or Ink

Jet-like paper? Pricing asie, is there a noticable difference in

quality from prints made at EZprints or Mpix?

I have an image that I want to send to a printer. The image is its

original size. I have not yet cropped it or sized it to my desired

output size yet. There are some corrections I wish to do with the

Shadow Tool and then I plan on turning the image into black and white

with the Channel Mixer. I've noticed that I get better results when I

use the Shadow Tool first THEN use the Channel Mixer. But my question

here is, should I make these corrections with the Shadow Tool and

Channel Mixer BEFORE or AFTER I crop and resize the image? Or does it

not matter?

I'm scanning slides and negatives I have with a Canon CanoScan that is

capable of up to 3200dpi. I have a couple hundred slides that I want

to scan, but it takes an incredibly long time to scan at 3200dpi. I've

tried scanning some slided at 300dpi for printing at 4x6". Am I

scanning at poor quality if I have the scanner software set to 300dpi

when it can go up to 3200dpi? I chose to scan the slides myself,

because at my local Frontier lag they charge a lot more for this

service than they do regular re-prints. The thing is, I noticed when I

give them a slide, all they do is scan it in and print it. What

settings do they have set on the Frontier's scanner?

<br><br>

I also have some negatives that I want to scan and make large prints

out of. Is it still a good idea to scan at 300dpi or 3200dpi? My

output resolution of the files that I will send to the printer will be

300dpi. For these files, I am specifying in the Canon scanning

software that I want it to scan the negative and create an 8x12" image

in the file. I've done that with the scanner set to 300dpi at 24-bit

color depth. Should I do the same but at 3200dpi? When I select this

option in the scanner software, it warns me that the file will be

extremely large, in the several hundred megabytes in size. If I want

to make a high quality 8x12" print from a 35mm negative, do I want the

file to be that big?

Ok thanks. I will do that. But as far as resampling is concerned, should I use Bicubic, Bicubic Smoother or Bicubic Sharper for my situation?

I just stitched 4-5 8MP images in ArcSoft PanoramaMaker and saved as a

TIFF. Now I have the image loaded in Photoshop CS and have noticed the

image size is: 3090x5828 at 72 ppi. When I change the ppi to 300, the

resolution jumps to 12875x24283. Well, there are 4-5 images there. My

question is, before I resample the image to 300 ppi, should I use

Bicubic, Bicubic Smoother or Bicubic Sharper? Or does it not make a

difference when resampling an image from 72 to 300 ppi? After

resampling the image ro 300ppi I will then be shrinking that almost

900MB image down to the size I will have printed at the lab.

Thanks everyone for your help! I'm hoping to improve my abilities to sharpen

in Photoshop. I've noticed shots that I have over-sharpened and they crearte

very unatractive "haloes" ohe borders of subjects. I guess you have to be

careful when sharpening and spend a long time getting it right! But when is

too much sharpening?

I've tried comparing images. One sharpened in the RAW editor and the other with the Unsharpen Mask tool. Maybe I'm not using the Unsharpen Mask tool to its fullest, but the Unsharpen Mask tool looks harsh and jagged. The RAW editor sharpening looks more natural.

Also, I'm worried about over sharpening and undersharpening as well. What is a good range to stick with in RAW editor sharpness?

I just shot my first set of images in RAW format. When looking at one

of them in the Photoshop CS RAW editor, I noticed the option of

sharpness. The RAW file was a little soft despite being shot at f8. Is

it better to do the sharpening on RAW files in the RAW editor or do it

at the end with the Unsharp Mask tool? In this case, I will be doing

very little manipulation or correcting once the file passes through

the RAW editor.

Barry,

<br><br>

I have looked up the Prostar (at xxtremenotebooks.com) and am very impressed with them! Mind you, I'm not going to be using the laptop to make a living, but rather for my own personal use. With the prostar, there are Intel and AMD processor models. I noticd you recomended the series that is Intel Pentium powered. Why did you recomend that instead of an AMD Athlod 64? (800mhx bus in Intel vs. 1600mhz bus in Amd64)

<br><br>

An extended warrenty can raise the cost of such a laptop considerably. Why do you recomend this? Do you recomend this EVEN if I will not be using the laptop to make a living?

<br><br>

Photographing on a charter boat sounds fun!

Thanks for the help! I have updated the firmware and adjusted the LCD brightness to -2. I have also set the exposure compensation to +2.0 but its dark now so I don't know how it will effect my daylight photos.

The Dpreview notes that the underexposing issue is a "metering bug." Does that mean

it could be corrected if Olympus were to provide a Firmware update? I checked for

updates on the firmware about two weeks ago, so I don't know if anything has

changed since.

In my film days I always used a Center-Weighted metering mode and I had excellent

results. Since getting into digital, my exposures have been some-what different. I

purchased an Olympus E-300 and have been very pleased with it. It offers exactly

what I want with little confusion.

<br><br>

I used my E-300 to take photos indoors in a large room and my subjects were people.

I used only the built-in flip-up flash [which I know is not very powerful] and ESP

metering mode. All the photos looked great on the camera's LCD monitor. When I put

them into Photoshop, they were very dark. I used the shadow/highlight tool to make

them look beautiful again. It seemed most of what was lost was in the shadow, but

the LCD did not have so much shadow. Was this a fault of the flash, or me not using a

powerful enough flash, like the Olympus Fl-36? Or was this the fault of me using ESP

metering mode instead of Center-Weighted? Or was this the fault of the E-300's

underexposing dendencies. To tell you the truth, I have not noticed underexposure

with the E-300 except for whem shooting indoors with the flash. Outdoors on a

sunny or partialy sunny day, the exposures are better.

<br><br>

I noticed one test done on photo.net that included the E-300 on the topic of

exposure metering. All tests for the E-300 and the other cameras showed better

metering when the subject was off-center. Does this mean I shouldn't use the center

dot in the viewfinder to get exposure? Or should I frame my subject off-center and

use the center dot to get my exposure, then while the shutter-release is presssed

half-way I re-frame?

<br><br>

The Olympus E-300 offers SPOT, Cener-Weighted and ESP metering modes. I'm losing

confidence in the ESP metering mode, as with my old Canon Elan 7 (EOS 33), I never

used matrix or whatever the easy metering mode was. I always used Center-

Weighted. Now I feel I have the choice of either Wenter-Weighted or SPOT. To avoid

underexposure, which metering mode is best to use with my digital camera for

everyday use? I tend to take a mixture of indoor and outdoor photos. I also enjoy

night photography of scenes without flash and using a tripod. I asume for this SPOT

might be better. But for everyday shooting of people indoors and outdoors, would

Center-Weighted be my best bet on the E-300? When photographing people

(casualy, not for business uses), I focus and attain metering from their faces. I don't

mind being a little underexposed for special images I intend on

spending time in Photoshop on, but for everyday images where I may want to make

20, 30 or 40 prints, I would prefer not to have to work on each one individualy.

<br><br>

The Olympus E-300 has exposure compensation, which I have not yet put to use. To

compensate for what people are calling an underexposure flaw in the camera, what

degree of exposure compensation should I apply to offset?

<br><br>

I have left most settings to default, like color, contrast, saturation and sharpness. Is it

a good idea to take any of these settings off the factory setting?

<br><br>

Thanks in advance for helping!

I LOVE the E-300. The design of the camera (lack of a prism) has received mixed

reviews, but I'm not bothered by it at all. I find it to be a good looking camera. What I

enjoy most of the E-300 is the 4/3's format because of its compatibility with the

ratios of most sizes of enlargments. EZPRINTS.COM will also print 4x5" prints which

will offer the least (if any) cropping in the small size where 4x6 would crop some. I

have shot mostly with 100 and 200 ISO, which is the ISO range I frequented with film

in the past. To me, it is very sharp. The 8 MP files open up big in photoshop and

create a canvas that is near 8 inches by 10 inches. I haven't printed anything from the

camera over 4x6 yet, however when I use Bicubic Smoother to enlarge in Photoshop, I

have noticed that this 8MP digital negative the E-300 produces is very sharp at 16x20

without Genuine Fractals. I have not tried to enlarge beyond that yet. The only

comparison I saw in person was 4x6 inch prints from the E-300 side-by-side with a

Sony DSC digicam and even at 4x6 there was no comparison. The ultrasonic wave

filter does its job. I have noticed noise when taking test shots at 800 or 1600 ISO, but

I imagine NeatImage would help in that department. The only time I have noticed

under-exposed images was when I took pictures INDOORS with the little on-camera

flash. Maybe if I got the bigger FL-36 flash, that wouldn't be a problem. I have tried

using exposure compensation of +2.0 but I have not noticed much difference. Is

there a better way to adjust the under-exposure tendancy of this camera? Those

under-exposed images I took indoors with the included flip-up flash were easily

corrected in photoshop by adjusting shadow/highlight. The camera wasn't as small or

as light as I was given the impression of, but all-in-all, I am very pleased with my

purchase. I too had considered the Nikon D70, but I was attracted to the E-300 for its

increased megapixel resolution, ultrasonic wave filter and 4/3" sensor which to me

makes complete sense if you plan on making enlargments. With the traditional

sensors, an 8x10 or 11x14 would crop a lot and only use a portion of the digital

negative. So I was impressed that so much (if not almost all) of the digital negative

would be used by the 4/3" system to make enlargments in my most common choice

of sizes.