jack paradise

It all depends on your intended use of the scans. Are they for prints, web use. If for prints are they for your own enjoyement or for galleries and art shows ?

 

For best print quality, you need to size your scanned images at 300PPI in Photoshop or whatever graphic software you may use. (PPI=Pixel per inch). Assuming that the FS2710 has a resolution of 2700dpi that would translate to a printed image size of 2700/300= 9" x 24.75 for the Noblex negative.

 

You can do the same math for a scanner having a resolution of 4000dpi.

 

If the printed images are for your own use, you can size them at 240PPI and get larger prints but with less resolution: (2700/240)= 11.25" x 31"

 

If your question is will I get better scanned images with a 4000dpi scanner, the answer is yes if you use the latest crop of 4000dpi scanners. But not by very much.

 

HTH

http://groups.yahoo.com/invite/SCANMAX?

"Your images have gaps in the tonal scale..."

 

Don't forget to crop out the white borders of the image before looking at levels adjustement.

I think that you should look at a brand new hi-tech Holga. It wouldn't be too much of a camera and you could take all the pics you want. Besides, it weighs a lot less than a Canon G6.

Brad,

 

You're in luck. You have an Epson 2200. You can make beautifull b&w prints with this printer and the Ultrachrome inkset. You just need one thing: QTR (Quadtone RIP) from Roy Harrington. Try before you buy. $50.00 if you like it.

 

And while you're are it, join the QTR forum on yahoo.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/

 

Another place to learn about QTR is on this list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/

 

Roy Harrington:

http://harrington.com/QuadToneRIP.html

 

You can download QTR today!

I know of Vuescan scanning software, if that is what you're looking for.

 

http://www.hamrick.com/

"To my mind, any review of Vuescan should mention just how staggeringly frequently it is updated."

 

Like about 50 times per year. You have to wonder why...

 

"Does this photo-i guy know what he's doing?"

Yep, and I'll take his word over your anytime!

"Should I buy the 7960 or wait till the price falls on the 8450?"

 

Since the price of the printer does matter, you should know that HP inks are not what I would call bargains. Check to see if the printer has individual ink cartridge. If not, when one color runs out, you need to replace to whole cartrdige even though there is still ink in the other chambers of the cartridge.

 

And if light fastness is a concern (it may no be), then you are stuck with HP brands of paper.

"oh no! only 6.1mp. photography is doomed."

 

This has nothing to do with photography. Nikon is not being very competitive with Canon. The way the market works, people will choose 8mp over 6mp anytime if the price matches and I dont see the D50 being way cheaper than the Canon Rebel XT. All Canon dslr are now 8mp or more.

Nikon D50 and D70s

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-6465-7712

"It would be nice if you gave some clue as to which was which as well"

 

One image has a resolution of 2336dpi and the other 4000dpi.

 

Can you guess which one comes from the 2336x3504 DSLR and which one from the 4000 dpi scanner ?

"Andrew said: Converting to LAB also causes a good deal of data loss on 8-bit data."

 

So, converting the file to 16 bits before converting to LAB would prevent some, most or all of the data loss ?

<a href = "http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pr/PRht.html" target

= "_blank">Ilford press release</a><br>

 

<br>

The print permanence rating is acheived with the combination of HP ink and paper. A dye inkset is used but the paper sold by HP has swellable polymers. Without the swellable polymers, the HP paper ink combination would nothing in term of print permanence.

 

Anyone here that can confirm that Ilford's paper have swellable polymers ? If you can, please state your source not just "independant test".

What Craig said.

 

For a digicam, optimum image quality starts at around 240ppi. It does not stop there, but you would be hard pressed to find much differecne with the same printed image sized at 300ppi.

 

Optical lens quality also play a major role in attainable print size. The higher the lens resolution, the higher the print size you'll be alble to achieve with good results versus an image captured with an inferior lens.

EEM is one of the better proofing paper. EEM's dmax is higher than their regular matt paper. But, both paper are not acid free, so they may yellow more rapidly than acid free papers.

1- Its the best scanner at this price level.

 

2- At this price level, no scanner are worth considering!

Report the photo theft to eBay. They'll act on your complaints.

David,

 

In a few years your buddy's prints won't look so cool!

What Beau said!

Some one said: 3MP - 5x7, 6MP - 7x10 , 12MP - 10x15 , 16MP - 11x16

 

And to think that today professionals are making prints up to 40"x60" from digital cameras.

 

But some people still think that they need to size their digital images at 300PPI for printing. That was the norm with negatives scanned on not so accurate film scanners of several years ago.

Your camera has an image size of 2000x3000, hence de 3:2 aspect ratio.

 

For printing 8x12 you can use 11x14" paper or you can print an image sized at 12"x18" on 13"x19" paper.

 

Your camera has enough resolution for those print size.

To upsize in PS CS use Bicubic Smooter, not just Bicubic.

Using channel mixer to convert rgb to grayscale is only a first step.

 

You need to look at your histogram and make any correction in levels. Follow this with a curve adjustement to boost contrast, if needed. Go easy with curves adjustement, you dont want to blow both shadows and highlights.

If there's shadow details on your negative, you might want to try this scanning workflow. It tends to produce a low contrast image preserving both shadows and highlights. It may or may not work for you.

 

http://www.shutterbug.net/features/0902sb_bw/index.html