alan_cox3

<p>I think that was EXACTLY Lenny's point ... we don't know. Why is that?</p>

<p>When you say you have (one?) 24MP camera, that tells me you may not be overflowing with hardware to throw at this. HOWEVER, if that design firm really wants what they want, and has the pockets for it, then consider the following.</p> <p>If the scene has no close foreground, (where parallax would be an issue), consider using multiple synchronized cameras and lenses to take "the shot". Then stitching can be done without artifacts. You might contact Canon (or Nikon) Marketing for their assistance with the gear. Otherwise you rent.</p> <p>@Matt, If it's an action shot of rowers, then the differences in splashes and waves will make stitching frames taken at slightly different times pretty well impossible to get good results. Even synchronized cameras have to be adjusted to be dead on taking the frames at EXACTLY the same time.</p>

<p>Yes, Perfect Resize, and consider printing it on canvas. The texture will help mask any apparent pixelation and lack of resolution. Canvas mounting can be less expensive and lighter. With something that large you need to be aware of reflections as well. Depending on lighting there may be no good vantage point to avoid them. So regardless of the actual paper/canvas, you may have to resort to a matte or luster finish.</p>

<p>I'm using PhotoAcute, for 2x resolution improvement, as well as noise reduction. However, I'm not sure of it's current support and sales status. </p>

<p>Naveed, I think you will find it very difficult to select the subjects in photos and discriminate between the areas in photo that are blurred intentionally and the cases where the blurring is an accident. Just because the image contains SOMETHING that's sharp doesn't mean it's not the background, and the subject is mush.</p> <p>More useful would be a tool that would give a Relative Edge Response numeric score to a selectable slanted edge in an image. Imatest does this, but not everyone wants to pay $300 for even the cheapest version.</p>

<p>The technology in either one will not be the limiting factor. They are both good enough, such that your technique can overcome any weaknesses in dynamic range, noise, or resolution.</p> <p>The sensors in current DSLR sensors and electronics are slightly better for light gathering than what's in the scanner. Just like a modern digital camera can capture details in those low light shadows better than film. (I love film, but sadly my medium and large format cameras are sitting idle for this reason.) The analog-to-digital conversion process in the scanner is only 8 bits per color channel. Current DSLRs all use at least 14 bits, assuming you are shooting in RAW.</p> <p>The risk in DSLR captures is the lighting and setup. Even lighting and correct focus are not always straightforward to achieve. The optics and sensor in the scanner will only get you to around 2400 dpi with the best technique, and that is once you get the height of the carrier dialed in. The DSLR and a good macro lens and/or extension tubes on a copy stand can get you way past the resolution of your film grain. If you are willing to splice 20 or more DSLR frames together, you can achieve around a very real 4000 DPI or more. It just depends on how far "over the top" you want to take it.</p> <p>If you have a lot of negs to scan, use the scanner on all but your most prized 4x5's. It will still require learning the best workflow and practice for both cases. Good Luck.</p>

<p>I believe my response <strong>was</strong> to the point:</p> <blockquote> <p>" .. love digitize. I can't afford drum scans or ... "<br> " am wondering if any of your guys have real life experience comparing film scanned with flatbed TMA vs shooting it with DSLR?"<br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Ethan, I have in fact done <strong>both</strong>, and like many technical problems, many times the solutions require either a lot of money or a lot of effort, or both.<br> <br> With a little effort, a flatbed scanner with TMA will give <strong>good results</strong>. With a little effort, a DSLR will give <strong>so-so results</strong>.<br> <br> With a lot of expense, drum scans give <strong>great</strong> results, but have been ruled out. And contrary to statements made here, <strong>with a lot of effort DSLR captures can also give great results</strong>. I've done them. (I have a background in both drum scanner and flatbed scanner software development and military image processing and techniques, and used to shoot Tech Pan in my 4x5. So I'm kind of a sharpness freak.)<br /><br> <br> Ethan, your eyes do not deceive you. Getting the results you've seen from a DSLR is possible. If you cherish your 4x5 negatives like I do mine, then I'm sure you'll invest the effort to capture them using either device.<br> <br> <br> <br> </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"a 4x5 has tons more information that a DSLR could possibly capture"</em></p> </blockquote> <p><em>This assumes only a casual commitment to the DSLR technique. I've done both, and have a V750 that gets the job done faster and is more appropriate for volume scanning. But when I really want an obscene amount of detail, then the DSLR with a macro lens is the clear winner. But it's not a quick single scan. I'll do multiple shots of several "panels", perform super resolution and HDR on each panel using PhotoAcute, and then use CS6 to stitch the .hdr files into a final single .hdr file. Then Photomatix is used to do normal "photo realistic" tone mapping, producing a 16-bit TIFF. I'll put these up against any drum scan. But just like drum scans, they are not cheap when you consider your time. It all comes down to commitment and balancing how much detail is needed against the technique. <br /></em><br /> <br /> <em>Ditto the recommendation on FocusMagic, too.<br /></em></p>

<p>Well, if your scene is static so that you can even think about focus stacking, then you can also use stitching and either point the center of the lens at several places left-to-right and up and down, and then stitch them all together. You could also stitch using a longer lens with better edge-to-edge sharpness.</p>

<p>I'd stay away from Lenova. They are the ones recent caught shipping sneak-ware hidden on their computers. Experts claimed it compromised the security of all those computers as well. Goggle for exact story.</p>

<p>Randy,<br> I didn't recall the exact graphics card you had. My comment was a generic one in that regard. Your card is great.</p> <p>As to memory, I just built a new system using the ASUS A-99 card as well. My reasoning in selecting that was that it allowed eventually going to 64GB. I put 32 in for now, and let Photoshop have 28 of that if it wants. When prices on DDR4 come down, I'll fill out the rest. Just guessing your performance issue is with CS5, though .. but this is JUST A GUESS. </p> <p>Alan<br> comment</p>

<p>Randy, you are probably aware of this, but I'll state it for the record. When testing the use of Photoshop memory, be sure to go into Photoshop settings and bump the memory cap up close to the amount of real memory. Otherwise, it will only use something much smaller than that, no matter how much memory you have. This originally led to me believing that Photoshop would not benefit from additional memory. (I'm slow, but at least I do learn these things.)</p> <p>If the GPU's are involved, then your graphics card (old wimpy vs new high end with gobs of cores) could make a big difference. </p>

<p>I should also add that I've seen "clogging" symptoms when in fact it was an air bubble that got into one or more of the ink lines. That's a different problem, and I'm not an expert, but may indicate that service is needed on the capping station. When that happens you lose most or all of the nozzles for a particular color at the same time. You may even be able to observe the bubble in the lines. A cleaning generally puts enough ink through the lines to remove the bubble.</p>

<p>My own particular experience with an Epson 4000 and now a 7800 are that I only have problems when I let them set for months. Then a couple of cleanings later all is well. Ink has to be formulated to dry quickly. Otherwise, we be complaining about how messy our prints were. Like Mac, I'd guess that you just don't hear about all the large format printers that are just working. Those folks are happy, busy, and know what's working for them.</p>

<p>BTW, If you have real-time anti-virus protection running, and you move all your scratch files to a new (SSD) drive, then you may get back a bunch of performance by telling the RTP not to bother checking the files on the scratch drive.</p>

<p>Just a few clarifying comments on the repartitioning idea. Don't try the same thing on a non-SSD. It ONLY has a benefit if the disk is a non-rotating SSD, that has no physical moving arm. Repartitioning is about the same as putting the temp stuff on the original SSD drive (C: I imagine), except that it avoids having to back up that part of the physical SSD when the C: drive is backed up.</p>

<p>Christopher, I use Bitlocker all the time for USB drives and laptops, since they are somewhat likely to get stolen or lost. I use the same (somewhat long) password for all of these Bitlocker devices, and have left a copy of it in the safe.</p> <p>I keep all my photos on a separate 3TB drive from my 120GB OS SSD. It gets a (differential) backup every night.</p>

<p>As others have stated, there is a wide range of commercial labs, and there is a wide range of "home" printers and levels of expertise. (My "home" printer is a 24" roll-fed printer -- the same exact model used by the local big-name mini lab.) I think it's like everything else, you can get remarkable results if you <strong>commit</strong> -- either by acquiring the tools and learning to do it yourself, or paying someone that's already done so. You just have to decide how much of a commitment your images are worth.</p>

<p>In my opinion, buying a professional (Epson) inkjet printer can be a great deal. I'm not talking the little 11" or 13" things. I wouldn't touch anything without K3 inks, either. If you have room for a 24" printer, GO for it. I got my 7800 for $800, and it came with $500 worth of ink! A large printer isn't something you'll be expected to pick up in a parking lot. You can go to the seller's location and TRY it. Print a nozzle check. Run a test print. Even if you never print 24" or 44" wide, the cost savings in using 220+ ml cartridges adds up quickly. I ran the numbers when a friend of mine got his 3800, and the cross-over point in his case was going to be just about two years with buying a NEW 4xxx vs. the 3xxx that he was considering. With a good used roll printer, that cross-over comes in a month or two. </p> <p>If you need help deciding whether to use 3rd-party inks, then considering everything that's involved, buying someone else's printer is probably a bad idea for you. And if $1000 is no big deal, then get TWO new printers. That way you have a backup. </p>

<p>Another consideration on using third-party inks is resale of the printer. I've seen ones like that sit around on the auction sites forever, since folks don't want to take a chance on them. I had a fellow nearly offer a 7600 like that, if I'd offer ANYTHING. But it wasn't even worth having to flush and start with a whole new load of ink, if he gave it to me for FREE.</p>

<p>Those "cheap" printers can end up costing you TWICE AS MUCH over their lifetime!</p>

<p>It could be that anti-virus software is attempting to check all the image files before unlocking the drive for normal use. If you have "active" antivirus software, try turning it off.</p>

<p>Glad I could help. I know how frustrating stuff like this can be. Happy printing, Jack.</p>

<p>Hi Jack,</p> <p>The pattern looks rather like the printer is configured to do an Automatic Nozzle Check (or whatever name it goes by), when the printer is turned on. I don't have any guesses about the draft that's coming out next, though.</p> <p>Alan</p>

<p>The brightness of the print boxes is intentional I'm sure, to allow a higher DR. (And they are not adjustable.) They are the standard Photographic Society of America boxes. (I was going to provide a link to the PDF they use to have online for building them, but it looks like they've moved it offline.) The older boxes have a combination of incandescent bulbs and deluxe cool white fluorescent bulbs. The newer ones use "Full Spectrum" 5500 K CFL bulbs. I doubt anyone knows the CRI of either box, though. <br /> <br /> Yes, folks contributing prints to be judged are cautioned about the brightness of the boxes. These competitions are kind of a unique area of print making -- but VERY competitive. The resulting prints are normally darker that what the makers will want to display at home. But learning to handle challenges of this sort thing helps with other forms of print making as well.</p> <p>It's a shame that Ansel's stuff was not displayed well. Seeing one of his prints, back in the late 70's before I ever knew his name or reputation, is what really activated my interest in photography. Then immediately researching him, and reading his works, I realized that the reason for his success was in his dedicated mastery of the technical issues. That technical mastery is what allowed him to achieve the vision he had for his prints.</p>