wayne_larmon

May 12, 2014

This is not simply a matter of slapping a macro lens on a dSLR, however. But hey, if it works for you....go to it.

Have you ever wondered why so many slide copying devices (tube and slide holder type) are available on eBay in "like-new" condition? Even Nikon and Canon devices, not just Spiratone.

</blockquote>

They don't work well because they either

<ol>

<li>have cheap optical elements that kill quality right there. Or</li>

<li>suspend the slide/negative carrier with a non-adjustable tube that most likely isn't the correct length for your macro lens.</li>

</ol>

I just tried out a Spiraton Video-Dupliscope from eBay and, yep, it produced much softer results than I get with my Canon 60D + Canon 60mm macro lens + <a href="http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html">Photosolve Xtend-a-Slide</a>. The Dupliscope is an inexpensive device that has an inexpensive lens. Cheap lens == bad image quality. Well, duh.

The Xtend-a-Slide has no internal optical elements so the resolution is as good as your camera + macro lens can deliver. The length of the tube that supports the slide or negative is adjustable so it will work with a lens of any focal length.

If you already have a decent DSLR/mirrorless body and macro lens that has a flat focal field (and is internal focus (like Canon macro lenses are), so it can support the weight of an Xtend-a-slide without being damaged), then camera scanning is worth looking into. Again, you get the same resolution and image quality that your digital camera already gives you.

JDM, please stop trotting out the Spiratones whenever somebody brings up camera scanning. Camera scanning is like other forms of photography: garbage in, garbage out. If you use quality equipment and use intelligent techniques, you will get quality results. If you use inferior equipment and/or inferior techniques, well, you will get inferior results.

April 5, 2014

Yes and worse, assume the dispaly is "72dpi" since "all displays output at that resolution"

</blockquote>

Well, it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable assumption that the hardware driver will know basic facts about the hardware that it is controlling, no? Printer drivers get over this hurdle. "Print at actual size" will work with all printers. Without breaking out tape measures.

Could you get back to my reference in passing about v2 ICC profiles? Am I correct in remembering that you do not recommend using v4 profiles? At least not at the current time?

April 4, 2014

I'm going to pass on most of the meat of your response (because I have a fuzzy head this evening, but thanks for the information), but want to pick up on

If Adobe took out "View at actual print size" because it was causing problems.

It didn't and still doesn't work (it doesn't do what most people think it does).

</blockquote>

I read the earlier thread on this (from a few months ag) and am still confused about "it doesn't do what most people think it does." To me, "View at actual print size" was very simple: For example, I use a NEC PA241W and I know what the native resolution is. I only use it at its native resolution. I take out a tape measure and measure the actual dimensions of the screen, do some elementary arithmetic and figure out how many pixels per inch my screen has.

Then I go into PS's options and plug the PPI number into (I forget which dialog--I don't have PS on this machine.) But in any event, I tell PS how many PPI my screen has.

Then I (for example again), crop an image with the crop tool set to 8x10 by 300 PPI. When I click on "View at actual size" I take out my tape measure and it measures 8 inches by 10 inches. Just as I'd expected.

This has always seemed very elementary to me. How could people have problems following this very simple procedure? And what did "what most people think it does"? (Are you saying that most people skipped the "take out the tape measure and calculate the actual PPI of their specific monitor" step?)

Back to a bit of the meat of your response. I thought that you have been recommending that people not use v. 4 profiles.

and

And LR has a useful OOG overlay that looks at the gamut of the display compared to the data, we could use that in Photoshop.

</blockquote>

I'm beginning to feel a bit queasy about things appearing in LR that aren't in PS. Is Adobe trying to tell us something?

April 4, 2014

Huge difference! OOG (Out of Gamut) warning predates Photoshop 5's use of ICC profiles for soft proofing and conversions. It's buggy, it's unnecessary.

</blockquote>

Why is it still there in Photoshop? If Adobe took out "View at actual print size" because it was causing problems (with OSX Retina display size compensation contortions), then why did they leave OOG warning? That causes problems with all displays.

Or (better yet) replace it with something that works. I'm mostly a programmer/web developer and I often work in ProPhoto (so that ACR doesn't auto-clip colors when exporting to PS) but always deliver in sRGB. I am struggling to find a civilized way of converting from ProPhoto to sRGB without getting clipping and borderline posterization, A working OOG warning might be real handy. The tender mercies of ICC v.2 rendering intents, not so much,

Wayne

Posted March 15, 2014 · March 15, 2014

It arrived yesterday. I unpacked it, turned it on, and suddenly realized that I have no real understanding of how the various preset monitor modes (sRGB, Adobe RGB, etc.) that can be loaded into the monitor's LUT interact with the working color space within PS and the ICC profiles already on my PC.

</blockquote>

I have a NEC PA241W with Spectraview II and an X-Rite i1 Display Pro. I do everything with Spectraview. I never do anything with controls on the monitor. My requirements are modest: I need the monitor to be in sRGB emulation mode sometimes and in native wide gamut mode other times, both at 130 cd/m2 and gamma 2.2. So I set up two targets in Spectraview (identical, except for the gamut) and do a calibration for each target. I do a calibration once a month.

When I need to switch between sRGB emulation mode or (native) wide gamut mode, I fire up SpectraView and choose the appropriate target from the dropdown. Spectraview then reprograms the monitor to match the target and swaps around the .ICC profile that Windows uses as the system profile so that the .ICC profile matches whatever the monitor is. You can set up as many targets as you want. With the main thing being that you need to redo the calibration every month for all the targets you are using. (I also exit PS whenever I use Spectraview to change the monitor target.)

I don't own a printer and most of the photo prep I do is for web sites, so I mostly use sRGB emulation. This makes life easier in Windows because it covers up the jarring differences between how color managed and non-color managed programs handle color. Assuming that any images you look at are sRGB. If you look at images that are in a large color space (like Adobe RGB) in a non-color managed application, they will look wrong, even if the monitor is in sRGB emulation. (The Windows desktop is not color managed...) If you leave the monitor in a wide gamut mode, you will see differences in how colors are rendered depending how whether or not a program is color managed. (When I have my monitor in wide gamut mode, some of the icons on the Windows desktop look radioactive.)

I use Windows 7. The Windows 7 photo viewer is color managed but the slideshow that the photo viewer runs is not color managed. You can verify this: start out with a sRGB image and duplicate it twice in PS and change the color space so that each version is different (i.e., sRGB, Adobe RGB, and ProPhoto) and save the three images. If you look at the three images with Windows photo viewer, they should look identical. (They should also look identical in PS.) But if you start the Windows Viewer slideshow, each image will look different.

If you bought the wide gamut monitor because you want to edit photos to print on a wide gamut printer, then you'd probably want to keep the monitor in the widest gamut possible (native) whenever you are working on photos in PS. But if you aren't using PS (or other color managed program), then switching the monitor to sRGB emulation will make life easier when switching between non-graphics programs (like web browsers--which is another horror story.)

Being able to use Spectraview to easily switch the monitor between multiple targets quickly and easily is what makes the whole setup worthwhile. Well, in addition to the increased color accuracy that you get because the calibration is done in the monitor's hardware and not in an 8 bit video card LUT.

March 13, 2014

If you need to replace it, get the NEC branded i1-Display Pro from NEC. Should be less then getting the X-rite branded unit although the later can also be used on other systems (but don't expect the qualities of this SpectraView system with the same colorimeter).

</blockquote>

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here, but if you are saying that the NEC branded i1 Display Pro works better with Spectraview than the retail i1 Display Pro, then Will Hollingworth (of NEC) says otherwise:

Since you already have the SpectraView II software, you just need a color sensor if you feel you need to upgrade. You could either go with the the full X-Rite iOne Display Pro package (sensor+software), or the alternate is to get the NEC SpectraSensor Pro sensor for $200. So the extra $50 would get you essentially the same device, but with the addition of the X-Rite software (which you wouldn't use with the LCD2690WUXi anyway).

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=55382.msg476865#msg476865">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=55382.msg476865#msg476865</a>

</blockquote>

The extra $50 for the retail i1DP is well worth it IMO, because you can use it to calibrate non-NEC monitors (using XRite's software.) The NEC branded i1DP only works with NEC monitors. Otherwise, they are "essentially the same device".

January 31, 2014

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1540525">Lad Lueck</a> , Jan 10, 2014; 10:06 p.m. These are spectrums from a Gretag Macbeth i1 Spectrophotometer...

</blockquote>

I missed this the first time around. I want to be able to make these measurements (spectrum plot, CRI, etc.) What do I need to get to be able to do this? Hardware, software, etc. (I use 64 bit Windows 7.)

I know that XRite has various combinations of hardware and software. I don't need to profile anything (I already have an i1DP for my monitors and I don't own a printer.) I just want to measure light characteristics. And maybe spot colors.

January 27, 2014

Lenny, I read what you wrote on <a href="http://www.eigerphoto.com/services_technology_ep.php">your services page</a> and indeed camera scanning can't duplicate what you are doing. With a reasonable amount of effort. I am well aware of the grain aliasing issue. Theoretically, a camera scanner could match the grain size by adjusting magnification. But if you add that to stitching and HDR, this would probably take an unreasonable amount of time.

I am curious about your film characterization CMS files. I'm assuming that the CMS file contains data that describes each R, G, and B curve. How does your scanner operate such that it uses the CMS data while scanning? Instead of applying the curve "after the fact." This is another area where camera scanning (and consumer grade scanners?) falls down. I do do a lot of radical curve adjusting in Photoshop to color correct negatives and I do shudder at the data loss. (I do work in 16 bit, but still...) But in my realm of scanning 35mm snapshots, this isn't really critical. I won't be making any poster size prints that need to withstand nose-against-the-glass scrutiny.

How does your scanner use the CMS data to digitize without losing bits? How does the scanner adjust the R, G and B curves before it generates the digital data? (If I understand what is going on with CMS files.)

Your position seems to be that if an image isn't museum quality, then it is worthless. But some people need better quality than <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk">can be achieved with an Epson V700</a> but don't need full museum quality. This is where camera scanning may be worthwhile. Depending on how much of the equipment the user already owns. Do you accept the camera scan vs. V700 shots displayed on the above linked page? They show a more radical difference than the camera scan vs. drum scan shots did. <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/plustek.shtml">A review on Luminous Landscape</a> showed Epson V750 ~= Plustek 7600i ~= Nikon 5000ED.

For me, I need better quality from my transparencies than my Epson V600 gives, but found that the workflow for my Plustek 7600i is too oppressive (five or so minutes of tedious fiddling for each frame.) And I can't <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nikon%20scanner&sprefix=nikon+scan%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Anikon%20scanner">afford a Nikon scanner</a>. Single shot camera scanning with my 60D is easier and gives results comparable to what my 7600i gives. Which is more than adequate for 35mm snapshots.

But I do agree that if somebody needs a museum quality print from a frame of medium or large format film, then your services are a bargain.

January 26, 2014

With my 18 megapixel Canon 60D I can achieve results from my 35mm film comparable to the Dwayne's eight megapixel scans. Maybe a bit better. And comparable in resolution to what I can get from my Plustek 7600i scanner. I think I get smoother tone than the Plustek gives. Partially because I use a massively diffused light source. None of the real scanners (that I have used) do any light diffusing. Diffusion makes a big difference in reducing the effect of scratches and dings. Scans from my scanners (V600 for prints) exaggerate scratches and glitches compared to what the originals look like in real life. Eight honest megapixels is probably the best that can be extracted from consumer quality negatives. But maybe not enough for reversal (slide) film.

I don't think the 50D would compare, however. It's only 6 megapixels! 9 years old!

</blockquote>

Minor correction. The 50D is 15 megapixels and was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_50D">released in 2008</a>. I think that you are thinking of the 10D that was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_10D">released in 2004</a> and has a similar body to the 50D, but was only six megapixels.

The 50D isn't bad, but the 50D sensor isn't quite as good as the 18 megapixel crop sensors that Canon has used for a number of years. And isn't as good as FF Canon sensors. And the newer Nikon (and Sony) DSLRs have several stops more dynamic range than any of the Canon sensors do. The 36 megapixel Nikon D800 has <a href="http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD800.html">14 stops of dynamic range</a>.

I went back and looked at some the 35mm test film I took. I looked at the Dwayne's eight megapixel scans. The scans from the negatives (Kodak Gold 200, Fuju 200) were decidedly inferior to my EOS-M images. But the scans from Extrachrome 100 were a lot closer and probably one of your drum scans would be closer still.

As a film neophyte, it looks to me that film can approach digital quality if you choose the film stock to match your subject. Reversal (slide) film has finer grain and smoother tone. But has a limited dynamic range compared to the best digital sensors. Negative film has coarser grain but has a lot wider dynamic range. (I haven't looked at B/W film.) The grain issues would be reduced if you used a larger piece of film. So, if you used large format film (chosen for the subject matter), good equipment and technique, and high quality scanning, then, yes, I can see film beating affordable digital. When used in the field on real world subjects that quite often won't stand still long enough to allow stitching.

But transparencies don't move and there is no intrinsic reason why stitching techniques could not be used to digitize transparencies. And HDR techniques can be used to achieve any required dynamic range. Both stitching and HDR are established techniques. There is no intrinsic limit to either resolution or dynamic range when using camera scanning techniques.

I don't see how it is a disservice to people to point out what is possible with equipment that they may already own. Even if it involves learning new techniques. For 35mm film (that probably doesn't require stitching) everything is readily available, off the shelf. (DSLR/mirrorless body, macro lens, PhotoSolve Extend-a-Slide. And Photoshop or VueScan to convert negatives.) For medium and large format film, you'd have to assemble some combination of copy stand (or tripod) and macro rails to allow precise stitching. I don't have any medium or large format film so I haven't attempted this. But other people do stitching (and HDR), so it is within the realm of feasible techniques.

January 26, 2014

This one is still being made. <a href="http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/scanners.aspx" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/scanners.aspx</a>

</blockquote>

which is technically true but <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463799-REG/Hasselblad_70380201_Flextight_X1_Scanner.html">starting at almost $14,000</a>, it might be overkill for the described task of scanning family snapshots. There is a lot more detail in 35mm negatives than most people have ever seen in the original prints, which is why I am encouraging people to dig through shoeboxes and scan the 35mm negatives (and slides.) But consumer grade cameras probably didn't capture enough detail to warrant a scanner like this.

But I introduced the topic of scanning family snapshot negatives and slides. This scanner might be applicable for the original poster that wanted to make a 30x40 print from a medium format transparency. If the original poster doesn't want to use one of the other alternatives that have been discussed in this thread. Adding $450 macro lens to his 50D would be more economical and <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk">may achieve results comparable to the Hasselblad scanner</a>. If the original poster doesn't mind spending some time learning a new photographic technique. But posters on this forum seem averse to learning new photographic techniques, so maybe buying an expensive scanner would be the best alternative.

January 26, 2014

I'm a large format photographer. I don't really consider 35mm a tool for quality printing. Anyone interested in quality printing should move to at least medium format...

</blockquote>

OK Lenny, I'll back out of most of my challenge. We are coming from two very different places so it would be futile to debate this any further.

I'm not a fine art photographer and have no intention of becoming one. Where I'm coming from is needing to scan existing film. Meaning that in the predigital age, family snapshots that were commonly done on 35mm negatives (or 35mm slides) most likely still exist in various shoeboxes. But the problem is that quality 35mm scanners are not being made anymore. Nikon transparency scanners still exist in limited quantities but <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nikon%209000%20scanner&sprefix=nikon+9000+%2Caps&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Anikon%209000%20scanner">are kind of pricy</a>. And service is dicey (i.e., not from Nikon anymore, AFAIK.) It is a similar situation for other high quality 35mm transparency scanners.

But many people already have a decent DSLR (or mirrorless body) and macro lens and I will maintain that a reasonably modern DSLR/mirrorless body + macro lens is more than capable of capturing all the information that is on a frame of 35mm film. Without getting into stitching. But if you need more than 35mm quality, stitching is an established technique and should be considered (if you already have the camera/ macro lens.)

I believe that you are understating the image quality that digital is capable of achieving, but I am not the person that can prove this in the realm of fine art or commercial photography. I'll leave it to others to debate the image quality of film vs. digital (chocolatey smooth tones, etc.) for high end photography.

But based on my own experience of spending several years of digitizing 35mm film from family snapshots, digital beats consumer grade film by a mile and I'd have no problem proving this. (I recently did several rounds of shooting film and digital of the same scenes. With consumer grade film that is comparable to what exists in millions of shoe boxes. Kodak Gold, etc. My goal was not to embarrass film, but wanting to refine my techniques for digitizing film so I can do a better job of digitizing archival film. Having digital and film images of the same scenes, taken at the same time, gives me something concrete to match.)

I am not going to claim that DSLR/stitching can beat what you are doing. This would be too much of a stretch for me based on my own personal experience. But camera scanning should be considered as a viable alternative for scanning transparencies. Depending.

January 25, 2014

I also wouldn't do large prints with a "scan" from a digital camera. I don't believe the research that's been presented at all.

</blockquote>

You don't believe the <a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/2012/11/23/best-film-scanner-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-drum-scanner-vs-epson-v700/">examples on this page</a>? (Linked <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk">from this photo.net post</a>.) This photo.net post was posted on Dec 10, 2012 and I'm pretty sure that nobody else has challenged it. Other than you just now.

Your claim is true in a tautological sense. You own a drum scanner and know how to use it. I'm sure that it is easier for you to scan an image with your drum scanner that it would be for you to figure out camera scanning stitching techniques. But for people that don't own a drum scanner and that have a need to digitize more than a few images at high quality, camera scanning stitching techniques should be worth considering.

I will yield that paying for drum scanning for a single image probably makes more sense than stitching camera scans, if better-than-V700 quality is required.

Let me just point out that a digital camera still uses a CCD device, which is far less sensitive than a PMT.

</blockquote>

These are the same digital cameras that photographers have overwhelmingly switched to. Are you claiming that the results that can be achieved with garden variety DSLRs are inferior to the results that can be achieved by shooting film and then drum scanning? Meaning that switching back to film (and drum scans) would yield better quality images than can be achieved with digital cameras? (I am not claiming that a single image from a 35mm (full frame) sensor is equal to what can be achieved with medium and large format film and drum scanning. But is equal to, or better than, what can be achieved with a frame of 35mm film and drum scanning. For the fat part of the bell curve that contains pro and advanced amateur photography. I'm excluding the edge cases of targets that are chosen solely to measure well on certain very low ISO film stocks. I'm referring to subject matter that would be considered standard photography. People, trees, buildings, mountains, oceans, skies, etc.)

FWIW, digital cameras also use <a href="http://www.techhive.com/article/246931/cmos_is_winning_the_camera_sensor_battle_and_heres_why.html">CMOS sensors</a>.

January 23, 2014

If you must use a camera, then a copystand/macro lens/light source combo like the Repronar will work much better, I think.

</blockquote>

The problem is expense. AFAIK, the only copy stand/slide-negative carrier/light source that is currently on the market is from Kaiser. And the <a href="http://www.adorama.com/KRSD.html">slide/negative carrier/light sourc</a>e alone (without copy stand) is over $900. And you still need to buy a copy stand after that.

Used ones might pop up on eBay from time to time, but the last time I looked, the things similar to your Repronar were selling for about $600. And it wasn't clear to me if any of them would work with a modern 35mm DLSR (or mirrorless) camera without needing to make a trip to a machinist and have some custom parts made.

The Extend-a-Slide may not be the optimum solution, but it is under $100, is currently in production, and doesn't require any trips to a machinist.

One thing that makes discussions about digitizing transparencies be difficult is that experienced film photographers got their transparency digitizing equipment a decade or so ago, when the getting was easy. In 2014, for those of us without a basement full of darkroom equipment the pickings are a lot slimmer.

January 23, 2014

The simple copiers that attach to the camera/bellows (yes, I have those too, having tried every which way I could think of), even the Nikon ones et al. (various PB series), are simply not worth the trouble in my experience. There is a good reason so many are offered in the original boxes, like-new, on the internet. Normal people usually tried them once or twice--and into the closet with them after that.

</blockquote>

Again, the <a href="http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html">PhotoSolve Extend-a-Slide</a> works fine. If used with a real macro lens (not a screw-on "closeup" lens). And if the lens is internal focus. And if you use manual focus using liveview at 5-10x.

The Nikon adapters are more trouble than they are worth IMO, because the length of the tube isn't adjustable, which means a nightmare of searching the Internet finding various adapters to adjust the length of the tube. The length of the tube of the Extend-a-Slide is completely adjustable.

There are also a host of cheap lens mounted copiers that include built-in closeup lenses. They are targeted to people that use them on either a kit zoom lens (bad) or on a P&S (even worse.) I'm not surprised that people aren't happy with these. (The Extend-a-Slide has no optics, so you get whatever your DSLR + lens is capable of giving.)

Um, I am a little bit surprised that nobody picked on the "drum quality" part of my previous post. The <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk">thread I linked to</a> has been around for a while and, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has questioned it. Indeed, several other people responded that they duplicated the results. (Note that I am not equating the Extend-a-Slide with "drum quality." There were two distinct points in my previous post. One point was about a method of achieving drum quality with camera scanning (for those that need drum quality and don't have their own drum scanner) and the second point was about the Extend-a-slide.)

January 23, 2014

Another person posted here a while back demonstrating that he got drum scan quality using his DSLR:

Digital camera scanning technique: comparison against an Epson v700 (and a drum) <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk</a>

The trick is that he used a stitch technique to achieve high resolution. So it involves a DSLR that you already have, a macro lens that you don't have, and some time reading and practicing how to stitch. And maybe buying something to support the slide better.

Even though you will most likely need to get a macro lens in order to make a quality 30x40 print, you can do a feasibility test with what you already have. i.e., figure out the best way to support and illuminate your slide and learn how to stitch.

If you get past your feasibility test, Canon makes the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html">MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro</a><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html"> lens</a> that might work for photographing small sections of your slide (to stitch together.) On the cheap side, I get good results on my 60D with the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183199-USA/Canon_2540A002_Macro_Photo_MP_E_65mm.html">Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens</a>. The 60mm macro lens is good to 1:1, which is about half the size of a frame of 35mm film. (I have never tried the stitch technique, but I do use 1:1 to digitize 110 frames.) I use a <a href="http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html">PhotoSolve-Extend-a-Slide</a> for my 35mm slides and negatives. (The owner of PhotoSolve made me a custom negative carrier for 110 film.)

January 19, 2014

It sounds like one of the app's isn't color managed

</blockquote>

Andrew, FYI, in Windows the Windows Viewer program is color managed and pays attention to embedded profiles. If you have three images with embedded profiles that are otherwise identical, in sRGB, in Adobe RGB (1996), and in ProPhoto, they will look identical in the Windows Viewer (like they would in PhotoShop.)

The Slideshow app (that is launched from the Windows Viewer) is not color managed. (At least for Windows 7. I don't know about Windows 8.) The above mentioned three images would look drastically different from each other.

January 17, 2014

...you can just change the field to 300.

</blockquote>

I think the point is that the customer doesn't want to have to set this field him(her)self. I described how people use InDesign and how InDesign uses the DPI field. If the DPI field in the image is set to 300, then, when the image is placed (imported) in InDesign, the layout artist can instantly see if the image has enough pixels for their need. If the DPI field isn't set to 300, then they can't. Unless they open the image in PhotoShop and set it themself.

Yes, they could write a Perl (etc.) script that calls EXIFTool and auto-sets the field to 300 DPI for all incoming images. But maybe they don't know how to write scripts. Or don't trust ExifTool writing to images. They don't want to set this field. They want you to set it. They have a need for it being set to 300 DPI.

I don't know that the InDesign scenario I described is the reason why you are being asked to set the DPI field to 300, but I use InDesign and if I were buying images, I would want the DPI field to be set to 300. For the reasons I described. If it isn't set to 300 DPI then it means added work to manually set it. Times however many images.

January 17, 2014

But DPI is still meaningless unless you know the size of the space on the page.

</blockquote>

But we do know the size of the space on the page. I was referring to people doing layout using InDesign. The page size is defined. The resolution that is being used for the layout is defined (usually 300 DPI.) When an image is imported to be placed, the number of pixels in the image is known (by InDesign.) If the DPI field in the image is set to 300, then InDesign will display the image at the size it would be at 300 DPI. If it shows up on the page larger than is needed, then good--there are pixels to spare for cropping (if needed.) It can always be resampled down to 300 DPI at the final size. But if it shows up on the page too small, then it is immediately obviously that there aren't enough pixels for the intended purpose.

If the image shows up at an unreasonable size (say, if the DPI field was set at 72 DPI), then this louses things up and the layout person will need to take extra time to solve the problem.

It is all about fitting the customer's workflow--not your workflow.

January 17, 2014

"Tell your creative directory to better educate him or herself."

Career limiting response!

</blockquote>

Indeed! All the "PPI is meaningless" responses are short sighted (to be kind.) If you are talking about "art" or "creative" directors, they are most likely the liaison between the people that capture the images (photographers) and the people that use images when preparing content for publication.

Which means using a program like InDesign. When you use InDesign and "place" an image, InDesign refers to the DPI (not PPI!-check the specs for <a href="http://www.jpeg.org/public/jfif.pdf">JPG</a> and <a href="http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/en/tiff/TIFF6.pdf">TIFF</a>. Resolution in the JPEG and TIFF specs is DPI not PPI.) when initially sizing the image on the display. Typically InDesign is configured for 300 DPI. So if an image is placed and displays larger than the space on the page where the image will be going (calculated at 300 dots per inch), then the designer knows that there are pixels to spare, so the image can be cropped or downsampled. But if the image show up smaller then the space where is to be placed, then the designer knows instantly that the image does not have enough pixels. So it is deleted and another image is tried.

People using InDesign really, really want this process to work smoothly. Generally, there isn't much slop in print deadlines. If the photographer has ignored instructions and has not put the proper value in the DPI field, then the process breaks down.

Uh, yeah, filling the DPI field can be meaningless if you are only printing to a printer that is connected to your own computer. But if you are preparing images for others, then it is wise to pay attention to the specifications that they give.

December 2, 2013

I'm sorry but tell me what internal focus us. When I focus my 55mm lens the focusing barrel moves in and out, visibly, so I suppose I have external focus.

</blockquote>

Well, not internal focus. I don't know if "external focus" means anything. From Wikipedia

An internal focus lens (sometimes known as IF) is a photographic lens design in which focus is shifted by moving the inner lens group or groups only, without any rotation or shifting of the front lens element. This makes it easy to use, for example, a screwed-in polarizing filter or a petal shaped lens hood. During macro photography, using an internal focus lens reduces the risk of the front of the lens accidentally hitting the subject during focusing as the front element does not move.[1] The physical size of an internal focusing lens does not change during focus, nor does the front of the lens rotate. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_focus_lens">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_focus_lens</a>

The exterior of my Canon 60mm macro lens is a solid tube, as described above. The front does not move at all when it is being focused. My Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS is the same.

The front element, of course, does not rotate. But the front element not rotating, by itself, does not define internal focus. There are lots of lenses whose front elements do not rotate that aren't internal focus. Some people <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/006Nad">get confused</a> about this. I don't know if this is a Nikon thing because (apparently) Nikon doesn't have many internal focus lenses...? Maybe? I don't know--my only experience is with Canon. The thread I linked to in this paragraph is whack, because it sounds like none of the participants knows what internal focus means.

The Wikipedia article doesn't help when it drags in polarizers and petal hoods, because it can lead people to the false conclusion of believing that, if the front element doesn't rotate then the lens is internal focus and that they can hang as much weight as they want on the front element.

The main point, as far as this discussion is concerned, is that any weight that the front element of a non-internal focus lens bears is bearing on the internal gears, which can be bad. Your strategy of using a lens cap to support the front is probably wise. But doing this might not occur to people that mount their camera on a tripod.

December 2, 2013

However what I like about the ES-1 is that we can use our 55mm Nikkor lenses...

</blockquote>

Could you explain what this means? For people that don't use Nikon equipment.

For context for my question, I'm a big believer of camera scanning. I have had good luck with my PhotoSolve Extend-a-Slide, and have been happy working with the owner of PhotoSolve. He has worked with me to make several custom negative carriers. But other than that I have no financial ties to PhotoSolve.

If you are referring to my caveats about only recommending using the Extend-a-Slide on internal focus lenses, this also applies to the ES-1. You shouldn't use any kind of slide/negative mounting system that mounts onto the front of the lens (with no additional support, such as a bellows/rail system) on any lens that isn't internal focus.

This is covered on Peter Krogh's <a href="http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/camera-scanning">Camera Scanning</a> website. The explicit warning about damage to non-internal focus lenses is in one of the videos. (He has a less explicit warning in the text.) This site is somewhat informative, but he mostly discusses things that haven't been made in decades ("bench", bellows and rail mounting systems.) AFAIK the only slide and negative mounting system that is still being made is the Extend-a-Slide. The ES-1 for slides only and the ES-1 requires (maybe) needing to chase down various adapters from all over the internet.

I even get decent results with 110 megatives (with a custom PhotoSolve 110 negative carrier.) My 60D is a crop camera. My 60mm macro lens goes to 1:1. 1:1 on a crop camera means the lens can focus down to a subject that is the size of the sensor, which is only a little bit larger than the size of a frame of 110 film.

November 30, 2013

Actually, the first link I posted shows setups which use no bellows. In fact the setup I use (I think it's the first one in the article) is very much like what you mentioned: The Nikon slide copier is a sliding affair, the tube telescopes in and out. In addition there is one extension ring, I think it's about 10 or 11 mm.

</blockquote>

I've read the Scantips article before. The salient point is that what you say is only true for full frame (FX in Nikon jargon.) The Nikon ES-1 adapter does not adjust enough when you are using a crop (DX) camera. The Scantips article <a href="http://www.scantips.com/es-1b.html">has a 2nd page that explains that</a>. And also explains that Nikon does not currently make any adapters or extension tubes that will let an ES-1 work on a DX.

Now it is possible that the Scantips article is out of date and that Nikon does now make extension tubes that work with DX. I was going by what the Scantips page I linked to (previous paragraph) said. In which case, it is cool if the ES-1 works for crop (DX.) Alternatives are always good.

Does the ES-1 also work with negatives? The Extend-a-Slide has a carrier that <a href="http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/carrier_film.html">works with 35mm negatives</a>.

November 29, 2013

Here's where I learned about the setup I mentioned in my post: <a href="http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html</a>

Here's another site: <a href="http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles_tips_digitise.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.throughthefmount.com/articles_tips_digitise.html</a>

Most of what I've learned is in the first site... hope this helps!

</blockquote>

These are well and good, but some of those Nikon bellows arrangements are truly baroque! I've had good luck with a <a href="http://www.photosolve.com/main/product/xtendaslide/index.html">PhotoSolve Extend-a-Slide</a>. The Extend-a-Slide barrel is made of tube sections that you screw together, so you adjust the length of the tube by first screwing together enough tube sections so that the slide/negative carrier is a portion of a tube length too long. And then loosen the nylon set screw on the farthest tube section and slide the carrier end back and forth until the tube assembly is the correct length. Then tighten the nylon setscrew.

The only warning is that the Extend-a-slide is made from aluminum and screws to the end of your lens. You probably should only use it with lenses that are inner focus. (If the front of your lens moves at all, in any direction, when you focus it, it isn't inner focus.) Most (or all) Canon macro lenses are inner focus. I understand that some Nikon macro lenses aren't inner focus and could be damaged by mounting something as heavy as the Extend-a-Slide on the front of the lens.

I've used my Extend-a-Slide heavily on my Canon 60D with Canon 60mm macro lens for several years with no problems.

November 6, 2013

If you ask for your 35mm transparency film to be returned unmounted it is just rolled up in a cardboard tube unsleeved.

</blockquote>

I had a roll of 35mm transparency film processed recently by Dwayne's. They have an extra cost ($1) option to have unmounted 35mm film sleeved. It came rolled in a cardboard box, in a sleeve. (I had requested that it be cut into strips of four. They ignored this request and returned it uncut. But it was sleeved. Negatives were cut into strips of four.)

Check the PDF order blank. The option for sleeving is there.

August 7, 2013

Both the 60D and the T5i have approximately the same sensor so image quality will be very similar. But there are a lot of differences with features. You need to study both cameras to determine which would best suit your needs.

Be aware that there are two versions of the 18-135mm lens. The STM version is a lot better than the non-STM version. I think that Canon was bundling the non-STM 18-135 lens with 60Ds. If so, then avoid a kit with the non-STM lens--it got universally lousy reviews. The STM version gets great reviews.

I have a 60D and a T2i. (The T2i also has the same 18 megapixel sensor.) The 60D is the better camera feature wise, but I usually reach for the T2i because it is smaller and lighter.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by wayne_larmon