greg lockrey

Either the 750V or Microtek M1 will fit the bill. The M1 is said to render a better gamma range especially in low end zones.

but it is also said to be a more fragile machine. I have the 750V and scan stereo slides (albeit 35mm and 120 film) just fine.

You can custom size your scanning with either machine.

I would send your files to different perspective printers and have them make sample sections say 12x16" of work at full

size and compare the quality. I'm sure that they would do this for you since a 44x66" print is a major commitment in cost

for you.

John Kelly , Aug 28, 2008; 10:13 a.m.

Gregory and Gary, great examples.

 

...other than laboring with Photoshop, trial and error, is there a way to even out densities at sky splices?

 

AutopanoPro is so sophisticated that you do not need to identify which files to use in your pano. Say for example you

shot 4 different panos in a day and you upload all of your files to an address. AutopanoPro will identify which files go to

which pano including HDR and will do most of your corrections automatically. If however you do see an issue then you

can manually override the stitching procedure yourself. I am very new at this myself and have used CS3 which does a

good job too but can take over an hour even on my very fast Mac. AutoPpanoPro will do the same file in minutes

including setting up several panos at the same time. Well worth the $145 I paid for it.

I use AutopanPro. You can practically shoot handheld. This is a 2 x 10 with the camera in vertical position.<div></div>

No. The battery is going dead. If the other two are fine it's definitely not the fault of the charger.

Huub L , Jul 15, 2008; 03:41 p.m.

Don't sell the M3. You'll regret it the moment it's out of your hands!

 

Dittoes!

My 150 mm Schneider Symmar S folds up into the camera with no problems.

I would use a gloss laminate on the matt paper. Looks great and seems to give a bounce in the gamma. I use Seal Gloss

with a Seal 210M drymount press.

What Kory said and keep an eye on the volume when it gets near half full on the bar graph otherwise you could draw a

vacuum.

Oh crap! They are sold out.

Luminous Landscape: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

Me too. ;)

I'm starting to hear good things about the Feisol brand ballhead. I know first and that

their tripods are first rate. www.reallybigcameras.com or www.feisol.com. Really Big

Cameras is in the US and Feisol is in China. Both will give terrific service.

Print on a cheaper paper like HP Everyday Matt. It starts to fade pretty quick.

Van, just so you know where I come from personaly, with film 8x diagonal enlargement max and nothing smaller than 8x10. With digital I scan 95% to make my copies at 720 lpi but if the work is too large, I use a 12mp Canon hooked up to a Sinar and stitch up to 3x3" to get about 80 mp so I can make my 30x40's. (I can't afford a mf digital since I care for a wife with MS. That's dirty and expensive disease.) Anything beyond that becomes poster grade and a charge my clients accordingly. If they want it, they get it. I also have all that you have with German lenses except for a couple zooms for the Canon. Even my Poor Man's scanner (Canon/Sinar) uses a Schneider. My first 35 mm was a M4 purchased in 1971 and I still use it. As for the OP, I think we lost him. ;)

Van, not to belabor the point, I once made a 30x40 on canvas for a guy to enter into The Toledo Area Artists Show. Which is pretty presitigous for the locals and there is prize money to boot. Well his particular image was made with a 3.1 mp camera and he hit the "watercolor button twice" in Photoshop. I know exactly what he did because he did it here on my computer. I don't know if the judges didn't see that it was labled as digital photogrpahy or just plain thought that he was a heck of a painter. Anyway, he took second over all and from then on the professional artists have been boycotting the show. Lesson: art is in they eye of the beholder.

Van, first you aren't looking at this print up close and in person. It's really not that bad for only 5 mp and only 360 dpi printing. I get more mural jobs by potential commercial clients than you can imagine by showing that low rez print. Believe it or not I do know something about making mural size prints. I've been doing it for 40 years now. I merely showed this example to demonstrate to Simon and to back up Aaron's suggestion about Qimage. Another point is, I deal with artists everyday some of them are world reknown and I'm positive that you have seen their work, it's my bread and butter making limited editions for artists to sell at their art shows. So I do know a thing or two about what it necessary to sell. That's why I'm kept busy 12/7. I've made numerous 1st prize winners for clients that can only afford 6mp cameras. I guess they are getting judged on the content of their work vs how expensive their camera might be. Sometimes that "fuzzy" look makes it "artistic" . You might be surprized to know that not everyone can afford a MF digital system. So when kid comes to a forum like this and instead of dashing his dreams, I like to encourage him a little instead of getting elitist on him. I do the same here in my studio. I get new artschool newbies everyday. That's always been my gripe about photographers is that there is this equipment envy. Let him make that 20x30 and see for himself. He might like the effect, or dislike how his jubject looks different at that size. He won't know until he tries.

Look... my intention of making that print wasn't for anything resembling fine art but to be used as a holiday display for Halloween. With that said, my point was that it was only a 5 mp file and that Qimage interpolation did a far better job in enlarging this file beyond my expectation. I have to laugh today about how when I got started in largeformat photography in the late 60's early 70's that "you can not make anything larger than 8x10" with a 35 mm negative and maybe you can pull off a 11x14 if you used German lenses and a 4x5 get's you a 16x20 or a 20x24 if the lens is high quality". Today if you scan 35mm to 65 mp you can make 30x40"s. So which is it? If it's done digitally you can make it larger? I made that image ten years ago with the technology of that time. Today it is light years improved. Film on the otherhand hasn't done a thing. To put any idea that I'm a digital vs film kind of guy, forget it. I use all media where it's advantageous for the task at hand. I spent 30 plus years in a commercial wet lab before getting into digital about 10 years ago. At the time that Oly was pretty much state of the art for professionals. Today a 16-22 is pretty common place. Now the MF backs are getting easier to use and more on the scene. I certianly didn't want to get into any kind of pissing match with you all. With my little digital printing operation I run an average of 200 sq ft a day 7 days a week. There are a lot of decent 6 mp images out there. Could they be better with more mp? Certianly, not arguing that. But when a guy asks if he can make a 20x30 for an "art show", why not? Some people call crops of 54 pixels on a 20x30 as art. You can get away with alot by calling it "art". Now if it was a photo contest... then it might be a different story. Then no one could compete with that 6 ft polaroid in Venice either.

Patrick it is surprisingly sharp. I was amazed myself when I made it and the printing is

at low 360 ppi where the printer is capable of 1440. You can still count the bricks on

the house. How sharp does it have to be? Besides, you usually look at prints at twice

the diagonal anyway. Anything closer just strains the eyes including looking at perfect

8x10" closer than reading distance.

What Aaron says. I have made 8x10' (yes, that's feet) posters for displays that were

originally 8x10" 300 dpi files just using Qimage and nothing else. One I made was

taken with a Olympus e-20 5 mp camera. I routinely make 20x30" prints for clients that

enter into art shows with their prosumer 6 mp cameras. Unless you tell the observer

about your image, most people will stand back to look at it. Only those anal-retentives

that count pixels will want to look up close with their ten power magnifying glasses.

Here is an example of a 6x8' taken with an Olympus e-20 5 mp camera.<div></div>

Sharpen in CS3. You don't need the camera to do anything especially if you are shooting

RAW.

I use an even more simple method. I print for 3 months look at my total cost subtract it from

the gross receipts divide it by the number of hours worked, ask myself if I made enough,

adjust my price accordingly. ;)

Bill Mitchell, Apr 02, 2008; 02:02 p.m.

It appears that we learned NOTHING from this futile war!

 

We learned to make synthetic rubber and no longer needed the rubber plantations that the

French were trying to keep. Now if we could learn how to make synthetic gasoline....

Here is an example of a rlr tryptic for x and parallel viewing. Shot with a Canon 5D with a De

Wijis 3.6:1 f/90 6.5mm lens separation

I use a Stereo Realist for slide work and a pair of Sony V1 with a Lanc Controller for digital

prints. On both cameras I have a level mounted on to aid in keeping the camera aligned

properly. For making my prints I also use Qimage and II am able to set the left and right

alignments just so.