dave_powell2

Hello Everyone,

 

This question just became meaningful this weekend. A friend gave me his old

Minolta Quick Scan 35 film scanner, which uses a SCSI interface and cable. I

also started shopping for a new PC this weekend, since my old Windows 98 beast

is starting to expire. The Windows PCs at CompUSA do not "natively" support

SCSI interfacing. So I'm wondering how others may have solved this problem on

their PCs?

 

One thought...Does any kind of SCSI-to-USB converter-cable exist that I could

use to link the scanner to the PC's USB port? And if so, would the PC

recognize the scanner through USB?

 

P.S. I'm currently favoring two PC brands: HP and Acer...If that affects the

answer!

 

Many Thanks, as always!

 

Dave

Over this past rainy weekend, I had another entirely different thought about this question! RAW also may be a preferred capture format if you plan to dramatically enlarge your photos using Photoshop Elements 3 (but I don't know if this also applies to 4).

 

I purchased Elements 3 when the photo mags claimed that it "supported 16-bit processing." This appealed because (when I had access to full Photoshop) I routinely did extensive digital enlargement for my exhibits. And the image quality remains better when an image is converted into 16-bit mode prior to upscaling.

 

I was a bit disappointed, though, to discover that Elements 3 would NOT convert the 8-bit JPEGs from my camera to 16-bit mode. It WOULD process photos that had ALREADY been converted to 16-bit mode. And that's where my Catch-22 remained until I bought a camera that output RAW files.

 

Elements 3 CAN open and process many cameras' RAW files (I have done so with Canon CRW and Minolta MRW). And the RAW processing window includes a check-box for converting the file to 16-bit mode!

 

So...with Elements 3 anyway...if I continue to shoot just JPEG, I lose the ability to upscale the images in 16-bit mode (unless I buy some sort of plug-in). But if I shoot RAW, I can convert to 16-bit mode for digital enlarging.

 

A subtle advantage (compared with RAW's other image-quality strengths). But meaningful to me!

Over this past rainy weekend, I had another thought about this question! RAW also may be a preferred capture format if you plan to dramatically enlarge your photos using Photoshop Elements 3.

 

I purchased Elements 3 when the photo mags claimed that it "supported 16-bit processing." This appealed because (when I had access to full Photoshop) I routinely did extensive digital enlargement for my exhibits. And the image quality remains better when an image is converted into 16-bit mode prior to upscaling.

 

I was a bit disappointed, though, to discover that Elements 3 would NOT convert the 8-bit JPEGs from my camera to 16-bit mode. It WOULD process photos that had ALREADY been converted to 16-bit mode. And that's where my Catch-22 remained until I bought a camera that output RAW files.

 

Elements 3 CAN open and process many cameras' RAW files (I have done so with Canon CRW and Minolta MRW). And the RAW processing window includes a check-box for converting the file to 16-bit mode!

 

So...with Elements 3 anyway...if I continue to shoot just JPEG, I lose the ability to upscale the images in 16-bit mode (unless I buy some sort of plug-in). But if I shoot RAW, I can convert to 16-bit mode for digital enlarging.

 

A subtle advantage (compared with RAW's other image-quality strengths). But meaningful to me!

Over this past rainy weekend, I had another thought about this question! Over TIFF and JPEG, RAW also may be a preferred capture format if you plan to dramatically enlarge your photos using Photoshop Elements 3.

 

I purchased Elements 3 when the photo mags claimed that it "supported 16-bit processing." This appealed because (when I had access to full Photoshop) I routinely did extensive digital enlargement for my exhibits. And the image quality remains better when an image is converted into 16-bit mode prior to upscaling.

 

I was a bit disappointed, though, to discover that Elements 3 would NOT convert the 8-bit JPEGs or TIFFs from my camera to 16-bit mode. It WOULD process photos that had ALREADY been converted to 16-bit mode. And that's where my Catch-22 remained until I bought a camera that output RAW files.

 

Elements 3 CAN open and process many cameras' RAW files (I have done so with Canon CRW and Minolta MRW). And the RAW processing window includes a check-box for converting the file to 16-bit mode!

 

So...with Elements 3 anyway...if I continue to shoot just JPEG or TIFF, I lose the ability to upscale the images in 16-bit mode (unless I buy some sort of plug-in). But if I shoot RAW, I can convert to 16-bit mode for digital enlarging.

 

A subtle advantage (compared with RAW's other image-quality strengths). But meaningful to me!

Over this past rainy weekend, I had another thought about this question! RAW also may be a preferred capture format if you plan to dramatically enlarge your photos using Photoshop Elements 3.

 

I purchased Elements 3 when the photo mags claimed that it "supported 16-bit processing." This appealed because (when I had access to full Photoshop) I routinely did extensive digital enlargement for my exhibits. And the image quality remains better when an image is converted into 16-bit mode prior to upscaling.

 

I was a bit disappointed, though, to discover that Elements 3 would NOT convert the 8-bit JPEGs from my camera to 16-bit mode. It WOULD process photos that had ALREADY been converted to 16-bit mode. And that's where my Catch-22 remained until I bought a camera that output RAW files.

 

Elements 3 CAN open and process many cameras' RAW files (I have done so with Canon CRW and Minolta MRW). And the RAW processing window includes a check-box for converting the file to 16-bit mode!

 

So...with Elements 3 anyway...if I continue to shoot just JPEG, I lose the ability to upscale the images in 16-bit mode (unless I buy some sort of plug-in). But if I shoot RAW, I can convert to 16-bit mode for digital enlarging.

 

A subtle advantage (compared with RAW's other image-quality strengths). But meaningful to me!

Over this past rainy weekend, I had another thought about this question! RAW also may be a preferred capture format if you plan to dramatically enlarge your photos using Photoshop Elements 3.

 

I purchased Elements 3 when the photo mags claimed that it "supported 16-bit processing." This appealed because (when I had access to full Photoshop) I routinely did extensive digital enlargement for my exhibits. And the image quality remains better when an image is converted into 16-bit mode prior to upscaling.

 

I was a bit disappointed, though, to discover that Elements 3 would NOT convert the 8-bit JPEGs from my camera to 16-bit mode. It WOULD process photos that had ALREADY been converted to 16-bit mode. And that's where my Catch-22 remained until I bought a camera that output RAW files.

 

Elements 3 CAN open and process many cameras' RAW files (I have done so with Canon CRW and Minolta MRW). And the RAW processing window includes a check-box for converting the file to 16-bit mode!

 

So...with Elements 3 anyway...if I continue to shoot just JPEG, I lose the ability to upscale the images in 16-bit mode (unless I buy some sort of plug-in). But if I shoot RAW, I can convert to 16-bit mode for digital enlarging.

 

A subtle advantage (compared with RAW's other image-quality strengths). But meaningful to me!

Jim's info raises an issue that you may want to be aware of! It sounds like his filters have their own threads for attaching to the lens. And they would not, therefore, require an adapter of any type. (They would require step-up or step-down rings, if you wanted to fix them to a lens with a different thread diameter.)

 

My (older) filters have smooth metal rims around the glass, and require an extra adapter for attaching to the lens. I noticed in my post that I said that I screwed the Series adapters onto the lens...but actually, all of my adapters are the older friction-fit push-on type. When B&H says that they have "Series adapters," you might want to confirm whether they are push-on or threaded!

I'm not sure, but they could be the Series 5, Series 6, and Series 7 adapters that were used to attach older (non-threaded) "Series" filters to classic camera lenses. The larger numbers are for larger glass filters. You put the filter in the holder, screwed in a retaining ring to lock the filter in place, and screwed the lot onto the lens. If you have non-threaded glass filters, they are probably labeled "Series x" on the rim...where "x" is 5, 6, 7, etc. COuld this be it? These are very useful for attaching old filters to newer cameras. Hope this helps! --Dave

One way to come close to this in full Photoshop or Elements is to:

 

1.Convert the image to Grayscale mode.

 

2.Open its levels histogram.

 

3.Adjust the histogram's black-point, white-point, and mid-tone markers until you get a result you like. This image does have a little pure white in the eyes, so (if it was manipulated in Photoshop) the white point was probably moved back just to the far-right tip of the histogram curve. But a lot of detail seems to have vanished from the darker areas. So you could try to simulate this look by moving the black-point marker to the right--into the histogram curve--until a little of the shadow detail vanishes into black (always use a copy of the original file for this!). If you make the above changes gradually, you can also try to move the mid-tone marker back and forth to achieve similar darkening of the skin tones.

 

By playing around with the histogram in this way--or by doing similar operations with Curves (if your Photoshop version supports Curves)--you can probably come close to this look.

 

I once used this technique to make a sunny photo of Halloween pumpkins look like it was actually taken on a moonlit night. Smoothing out some of the dark-area detail using the black-point marker rather nicely simulates our night vision, since the eyes can't see as much detail at night as they do during the day.

 

Please post your results!

 

--Dave

The following thread on this site is an ongoing discussion about using the GRD for digital infrared:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GvKS&tag=

 

There are also some general comments about the camera, plus links to sample infrared images...which show how the camera handles a difficult low-light shooting situation! --Dave

"Utterly unnecessary to print strictly at 300 ppi... but I find that digital capture photographs often print just as well at 200ppi or even 180ppi."

 

I second (or third) this as well...with a proviso! It's quite true, if you are printing on your own equipment. I rarely notice significant differences between prints done from 200 to 300 dpi (except for the fact that the 300-dpi prints use a lot more ink!). But if an outside lab is printing the image, they may want your files to be sized to a standard paper size at 300 dpi.

Hi Craig,

 

I think, when you say that you get a 45in by 34in picture, you mean that Photoshop's Image Size window says it would print this huge at the program's "default" Resolution setting of 72 dpi! A digital image file actually has no inherent print size. Its real-world "paper" size will depend on the dpi setting that the printer uses. Most commercial photo printers, for example, prefer to receive files that are pre-sized to output at some target height and width when output at 300 dpi.

 

So if you open your image again in Photoshop, go to the Image Size window, uncheck the Resample box, and then type 300 into the Resolution field, you'll see how big the photo would be on paper, if your local 1-hour PhotoQuick (or other photo processor) printed it.

 

An earlier respondent was correct to say that you might also need to combine rescaling and cropping to reach the 8x10 print size. If cropping is out of the question, though, Photoshop does offer a couple workarounds:

 

(1) If the aspect ratio is close to 8 x 10 (as it seems to be in your case), you could uncheck Constrain Proportions in the Image Size window, and stretch or shrink the image as needed in one or both dimensions. Try it, and see if the results are OK!

 

(2) Rescale the image (at 300 dpi, or whatever your printer will use) until it falls somewhere within the target 8 x 10 size. Then, use Photoshop's Canvas Size command to add an 8 x 10 black, white, or tinted frame around it...sorta like an integral "mat"! (This little trick has worked very well for me when framing images for exhibition. My single-matted images even ended up look double-matted!)

 

Some thoughts from a Newbie...hope they help!

 

Dave

 

P.S. You also asked whether rescaling will remove image detail. It definitely will during downsizing, because pixels are removed. And it also will NOT enhance image detail during upscaling. That's why it's best to do these operations on a copy of the original file.

 

Related to this, though, I must share a surprising result I recently noticed. I was looking at a condo listing on the Web, and the teensie-tiny leetle bitmap image of the facility's front sign was totally unreadable. So I grabbed the image off the web, and very carefully upscaled it in the best possible way (in 16-bit mode, using a series of gradual size increases). And though the sign in the bitmap was completely unreadable (even when magnified), I could easily read both the facility name and address in my upscaled version! So I'm beginning to wonder just how much information is truly lost when an image is downsized in Photoshop!