screeny

Dear all,

 

For a while I have been palying around with my website showing my images.

Currently I'm using the wellknown Simpleviewer free to download software to

create gallery. It uses flash for the rest I have a non-flash site (pure HTML &

CSS). The great thing about SimpleViewer is that it is simple to use, simple to

manipulate a bit and it makes the transition from one image to the other image

just that little more smooth.

However I always thought the images looked just a little less contrasty, colors

little less punchier then they looked in photoshop. Surely I read a lot hear

about colormanagement etc. And in the end the difference was still there but

rather small, images looking in Photoshop better then on my website using

Simpleviewer, long time I thought either it is my imagination or it was a

problem I had to leive with as webbrowsers don't color management,

recognised/use ICC profiles etcetc

 

However for the fun I just dowloaded and installed Mircosoft's HTML Slide show

Wizard and after making a quick an dirty slide show using the same JPG's ...the

look better then my simpleviewer website, they look just like in photoshop. Ok

I'm getting crazy or is it my imagination?

 

Could it be that Simpleviewer and/or Flash is degrating/displaying my jpg's

different way?

 

Any simple viewers out there who have similar experience?

 

cheers

 

 

Marc

I did some searching but couldn't find a clear answer: I want 35mm slides

scanned (afterwhich I proces them through PS and have them printed on a Epson

9800 at a lab).

Untill now I rented a Konica Minolta Dual Scan IV for scanning the slides. I'm

happy but allways curious. So what will give better results:

buying/renting a Coolscan V OR having it scanned on a Fuji Frontier?

 

(actually it;s more a question on the scan qualities of the Frontier as I have

been reading a lot on the coolscan but can't seem to find some info on the

Frontier scan quality)

 

thx & cheers

 

Marc

"- it would have VR, which so many people want."

What's VR?

I don't know the Canon AE-1 but recently I picked up a Pentax Pz-1P which is preety good camera from my experience. it has all the bell's and whistles you can wish for. a.o.: spotmetering, matrixmetering, brightview finder, 1/250 sync speed, DoF preview, a neat little treak called Hyper mode (i.e. when in manual or semi manual mode you can with one touch of a button get a auto reading on a correct exposure) and some more.

The con's: no battery pack has been made for this camera, and the autofocus seems to be totally outdated (tough I never use autofocus so I just repeat what I have been reading)

 

hope this is usefull in a way

 

cheers

 

Marc

Thx all for the swift and very usefull answers!

 

cheers

 

 

Marc

I have a calibrated monitor, I downloaded several printer profiles from various

labs with high end printers., I scan my slides on a coolscan V or a konica IV. I

proces my scans through PS7.0. Once I'm finished and happy what i see on my

screen I select a printer profile in the soft proof set up, hit soft proof...and

see my lovely image turn...well kind of liek a grey-ish lace has been laid over

it. All the "glimmer" and shininess has gone and it looks liek a dull,

contrastless image..on screen. Now am i expecting too much? will the prints turn

out good afterall? do I need to keep the soft proof and and fidlle around,? to

elaborate on the latter: I tried that but with the soft proof on no way I can

get a good result the more I fiddel around with curves, saturation etc the more

wierd and unnatural the image on my screen gets.

So what am i missing here? or is this soft proffing this somefink overrated and

works only if I have top nodge high end equipment? Or should pay no atention to

the soft proof?

 

thx and cheers

 

Marc

Ok I finally reached the point to see how my 35mm slides, scanned on a

dedeciated filmscanner (minolta IV & coolscan V) look an 11 x 16 (A3) prints. I

selected one color and one b&w as test files.

 

I did soem research and found 3 fotolabs which are near enough where I live. Now

the choice I have are:

- Epsilon Durst (kodak Endura paper)

- Cymbolic Lightjet 430 (paper I haven't found out yet)

and lab with a inkjet:

- Epson Stylus 9800 3 (several papers choices luste, mat and glossy)

 

Now my photo's are kind of landscape, vivid colors (at least I try...)

(forget about the b&w print for a moment)

Question: will there be a difference? I suppose their will be and if so what is

the general opinion among you: which combo would suit my kind of landscape images?

 

(mhh yeah I probably will make prints at all three and see which I like best but

he I haven't asked a question for a long time :) )

 

cheers

 

Marc

-

 

Epsilon Durst & Kodak Endura

...one day...i will have a 6x6 as well, hopefully I will reach your level of photogrphic skills

 

cheers

 

Marc

Bought a Pentax Pz-1P camera 4 weeks ago bargain rated, except for a hardly to be seen 1mm dent it's in perfect and clean condition. This dent saved me $65,- so I'm happy with it.

Seems to me KEH is taking it's clients seriously and they know they are being discussed on forums like this; no room for error from their side.

 

cheers

 

Marc

<div></div>

Another Thumbs up for KEH. two weeks ago I ordered for the first time: a Pentax Pz-1P, bargain rated for $149. It's crisp clean, up till now now problems admiteadly it has one 1mm scratch, I only noticed a week after I recieved it.

 

They used Fedex for transportation (to Netherlands) cost me $49 which seems a good deal.

 

Now I'm the proud owner of a 99,99% perfect Pz-1P for less then $200,--, I'm happy

 

cheers,

 

 

Marc

http://strobist.blogspot.com/

I'm no expert but the hard part is that the images are not taken from the exact same position...However quick and dirty I gave it a try.

I use the "layer mask" technique:

first layer the dark image on top the light image which a added a layer mask on. Do a search in the forum on "layer mask" and "merging images" or so and you will find lot's of detailed descriptions.

 

good luck<div></div>

<div></div>

Lucas who?

Well I don't want to go in to the resolution, sharpness yadda yadaa but as every one forget, as always, take in mind this:

Way back most agreed that Velvia was colorwise somefink special, so special it was not possible to simulate in PS. I guess this hasn't changed so is a DSLR better then a pro-scanned Velvia? gues not as you can't get that specific Velvia look. Please bear in mind this is not my experience as I hardly use velvia but just a conclusion made up of 2 years of reading all kinds comments, reviews and threads. So probably pure technical wise a DSLR beats a scanned 35 but colorwise don't expect to get that color palette like Velvia.

NO

I would not bother about the pro. Think of it this way: here a person who actually probably made of his hobby his work, i.e. he does all day what he loves and get's, most of the time, well paid for it. So this person should not be too bothered or be walked in the way, however all this whining of pro's about uncle Bob and aunt Mina being in their profesional way....pfffff flash ahead!

 

:)

 

cheers

I have kind of the same with music. Some tunes/songs I hear for the first time on the radio and images I make I instantly like and think they are great. Most of the time after hearing/seeing them a couple of times the "catchiness" of it fades or so and they start to bore me. Then there are plain bad songs and images which I dislike form the start and they never get good. However a few songs and images are at first more or less neutral at first sight but somehow there is this "somefink" a little repeating sound that is tentalising, or just that cetrtain tone of color in an image that makes it interesting tough the rest of song or image do not comply to "standard rules" of catchiness. The more I listen and look at it the more I grow attached and these somgs and images become my favorites. Big differnce in between the songs and images is ofcourse that the songs are not made by me and the images are so this analogue is far from being objective but it kind of works that way for me. hard part is to NOT throw away the slides I don't instantly like...

by the way, what's this Kenwood-bashing on this iste everytime his name is mentioned some one comes up and, well is not so positive about this guy?

Digital vs film? pfff I don't know, best thing for me would be to buy a DSLR and see for my self whether I like it better then my film camera I use now. Point is, at the moment I'm happy I can pay for a couple of slide rolls each month and have it developed. For now a DSLR is budgetaraly out of the question.

However since I have been following this site for the last two years I lately came to a strange conclusion:

Way back 2 years ago (?) the pro- and con-Velvia discusion was THE debate on this site. Some loved Velvia, others found it too much Disney colors. A minority had the clever insight: all film & slide have there usage (sounds familiar?). However the pro-Velvia crowd was so fanatical that Velvia was the total summit of film/slide and it was unreplacable. Those who suggested that Velvia was easily and more cost effective imitated by using photoshop, were burned down. No way that Velvia was to be simulated, it was so unique in appearance. Combined with the fact that for landscape only Velvia was to be used, I'm now totally confused that in this digital vs film rantings no one ever brings up this element in the discusion. Lot of Digital shooters are landscape photographers but apparently their DSLR's made them forget their precious Velvia.

Point I'm making, if any, is that memory is short, first only Velvia was good enough for landscapes, now it seems that a Canon 5D delivers better results? I'm not want to make a judgement which is true but it's funny how THE debate changed so fast in a such a short time.

for the record: all I said above is a general statement.

 

cheers

 

Marc

Same here mate,

 

Mow that summer slowly slides into autum I'm hoping for that morning mist. This morning early out of bed, on my way for some morning mist, unfortunately their wasn't the reall nice semi-thick one that get's this real nice shine when the sun just tips over the horizon. Took some shot but they probably not worth any, hav eto wait untll the lab returns my slides.

But this year's autum I made "mist-images" my project

 

good luck to you

 

cheers

 

Marc

do the more "creative" stuff...comes from the photographers creativity..not from a more expensive camera...

Sell the canon 20D :)

I'm with the same problem as well at it seems the anser is clear: color & glossy: r1800, B&W/mat R2400.

the choice glossy/lustre/mat etc seems to be a personal choice. However if I don't owe any of those printers but planning to buy one it's kind of a catch22...

So in generally if you look at my portfolio which is kind of glossy or semi-glossy or luste or mat or?? would suit that kind of images? or is it really a matter of trying to get some test prints of both printers? I could imagine that for example color portrait/wedding are better in lustre (?) (in general) and typical color are best on Glossy (?)(in general)