jack paradise

Tests done and puplished in Dec. 2003 by french magazine Chasseur d'Images showed that the difference between the Coolscan V and the Colscan 5000 in terms of image quality are very slight. The Coolscan 5000 will get more from dense films such as underexposed slides or overexposed negatives.

 

For normally exposed films, the difference is almost non-existant.

And what's a 12 megapixel 35mm camera or a 12 megapixel medium format camera ?

When I bought the Coolscan V, the first thing I did was to recans those negatives that were scanned on PhotoCD Pro. First, they came out a lot sharper. Second, I started noticing that the Coolscan V was holding the highlights that PhotoCD had blown. Don't known if it's usual for PhotoCD or if it was because of the operator. And third, the histograms from PhotoCD showed missing data as indicated by the toothcomb effect. And fourth, all my PhotoCD Pro scans are only 8 bits, so less data to play with in the first place. This might explain the toothcomb effect.

Buy the Ilford Galerie sample pack containing two sheets of 4 different papers: Classic and Smooth Gloss, Classic Pearl and Smooth Pearl.

Best if he waited when he gets to Paris and asked around. There's several pro labs in Paris that will handle any type of prints from any type of media. Let him start with the Fnac stores.

Well, good for you Scott. But I'm staying with 35mm for b&w prints until such time that dslr do not produce posterisation in b&w prints at A3+ size and that there is a new crop of photosensor that no longer give prints that detail lacking digital look in b&w prints.

 

To get optimum quality from a 6mp dslr, one needs to size the prints at 240dpi which is not enough for A3+ size prints.

 

But if it works for work, then enjoy!

Check with https://www.bwguys.com/purchase.aspx

 

They are selling 220ml carts for both the Epson 7600 and 9600

Nikon Coolscan V scans are sharp and needs only light to moderate sharpening. While screen viewing is ok, final image sharpness needs to be judged on a print. So print both an unsharpened image and compare with a sharpened image.

 

I dont know about Paint Shop for b&w photography, but you might want try Picture Window Pro (www.dl-c.com). There's a one month trial version available for download. It's sharpening tool is very good.

Probably the best color printer for 13x19 prints. If you only want to print to 8.5x11" then I would suggest an Epson R800.

 

For paper you might want to try these in addition to Epson papers:

Hahnemuhle Sample Pack 8.5x11" - 8 sheets http://www.adorama.com/IHUSP.html?searchinfo=ilfrod%20sample&item_no=10

 

Ilford Galerie paper http://www.inkjetart.com/photo_papers/ilford/samples.html

 

Legion Digital Art Paper Sampler Pack http://www.adorama.com/ILSSPN.html?searchinfo=ilfrod%20sample&item_no=15

 

For a canned profile for your Inkjet paper, once you've settle on a paper, $25.00 each

 

http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/cm/profiles-download.html

This also makes for interesting reading on the above subject.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/hd-back.shtml

Brett,

 

Here's that magical number you've been looking for the Microtek 120tf scanner: it's 3141 dpi! according to the german magazines already cited above.

Some resolution tests have been done by two german magazines, Ct's and Foto.

 

But resolution alone is practically meaningless. There are other factors to take into considerations: Signal to Noise ratio, Dmax, Resolution, Uniformity of Illumination and Dynamic range. And of course, center sharpness compared to edge sharpness. Next come Pixel shift in Pixel, DOF and DeltaE

 

Take a scanner that has high true resolution but has edge sharpness problems and you end up with having to make customs unsharp masking to hold the center.

 

True resolution being about 90% of advertised resolutions with the new crop of dedicated film scanners (Coolscan V, Coolscan 5000 and Minolta 5400) to less than 50% with the flatbeds.

The new Coolscan V and 5000 do not have that shallow depth of field associated with fomer Nikon scanners. The image is sharp center and off center. The Minolta 5400 is also a very good scanner but suffering from unsharp image off center due to negative curling. This can be offset with unsharp masking but it is tedious as one needs to hold the center of the image which is sharp. If only Minolta would offer a glass negative carrier.

 

The new Nikon software is much improved, ICE4 Advanced, ROC, GEM and DEE which let users adjust both highlights and shadows independently. GEM works wonderfully well on grain.

 

You can also use Vuescan on both scanners.

To not blow the highlights using Curves Adjustements, start with a 10x10 grid in Curves. Anchor the middle point. Start your S-shape curves at the lower left then raise the middle anchor point a notch (up a line). From there, make it a straight to the upper right corner using anchor points along the line. That will give you extra contrast while holding the highlights.

If you want optimum print quality, for DSLR it starts at 240dpi unlike film which starts at 300dpi.

 

For film, I would qualify that further: 300dpi at the scanner's real output resolution, not it's advertised resolution. For example, Nikon Coolscan 8000's real resolution is around 2850, not 4000dpi. So, 2850 / 300 = 9.5x negative enlargement.

 

It's then up to you to decide if a higher enlargement factor is acceptable or not.

Craig is right. I've tried several actions/plugin for color to b&w conversion and no longer use them.

 

Here's a start in Photoshop and if your image is in 16bits, all the better

 

In Photoshop go to Image -- Adjustement -- Channel Mixer. Check Monochrome and enter these numbers: 70, 20, 10. Now go to Levels and adjust the end points. Then middle slider if needed. (Go lightly). Next, go to Curves and apply a light S-shaped curve.

 

When you're done, go back to Levels and check the histogram for any vertical white lines, indicating missing data.

 

Next time, play with the numbers and see how they affect your image.

Again, if you can acquire your image in 16 bits, all the better.

Just read this non-news article. A waist of time. Must have been a slow day at the NY Times.

I'm not about to subscribe to the NY times for this article. So if you could give the essentials , that would be fine

Let me quality this further: any resolution less than those that I've stated would be at less than optimum resolution.

Up to 11x14 I would tend to say that the difference is minimal, but its still there. It's for sizes larger than this that digital starts to fall apart when compared to mf film.

 

Digital's minimum acceptable print resolution is around 240dpi, while film is at 300dpi at the scanner's real output resolution, not the advertised resolution. For example the Nikon Coolscan 8000 real resolution is 2850dpi.

 

Dslr's have a long way to go before they can equal mf film in term of print size. For practical purposes, there are just about equal at sizes up to 11x14"

I'm using the Coolscan V to scan b&w negatives. Believe me, you want to use 14 bits. While you may not see a difference right away, there will be a huge one later on when you start post-processing in Photoshop. You'll have more data to work with and the image will not degrade as fast with each successive adjustement.

 

Check the histogram for the toothcomb effect (missing data) after making full adjusments to an 8 bits scan and to an 14 bits scan. That where you'll see the difference.

When I first started to use my Coolscan V, I was getting scratches likes those from b&w films and I thought they were coming from the scanner.

 

So I started to examine all negs with an 8x loupe and scanned only those that did not have any scratches. And the resulting scans did not show any scratches either.

 

If the scratches are on the b&w negative, they will stand up like a sore thumb on the scan.

And there are better slide films than Velvia 50.

 

And as professional photographer Alain Briot has noted, "Velvia increases both the color saturation and the contrast of the original scene, it is important to select scenes that have a low contrast range and low color saturation. In turn, this means you will have to avoid certain specific natural situations which, if photographed with Velvia, will result in blown highlights and overexaggerated colors".

 

Get yourself some Provia 100F.

"It seems that the A2 with it's 8 megapixels is less dated than the 300D at 6.3 megapixels so it's tempting me."

 

I got news for you. The Minolta A2 photo sensor is inferior to that of any 6mp dslr! The 8mp of the Minolta A2 sit on a tiny photosensor measuring 8.6x6.6mm while the Canon 300D has a 22.7 x 15.1mm photo sensor for 6mp.

 

It means that the pixels on the Minolta A2 and of all the other p&s 8mp camera (they all use the same photo sensor) are so tiny that the camera is barely usable at iso of 200 or more. They are noisy! In fact the new crop of 8mp camera are barely better the the former 5mp p&s camera!

 

The 6mp dslr are way ahead of any of the 8mp p&s digicam. It's not about pixel count alone, it's about photo sensor size plus pixel count! And the Minolta A2, like all other cameras in its class, has a photo sensor that is 5.87 times smaller than any 6mp dslr.

Don't worry about the Epson R800. Its about the best printer there is, bar none and it's a color pigment base printer. It will give all dye ink manufacturers a run for their money in that from now on it may be that only graphic printers will actually use dye inks. A lot a people are waiting for a A3+ size version of this printer.

 

See this Epson R800 review by Alain Briot, a photographer who actually sells his prints and makes a living from it!

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/epson-r800.shtml