martha_k.j.

I am wondering how accurate the koni/rapid omega viewfinders are in terms of

framing and composition. I realize that rangefinders in general are not known

for super accurate framing, and that the rapids and konis were designed to be

used handheld. Having a limited budget, I picked up a rapid 100 with 120 back

and 90mm omegon lens for $100. Before I send it off to Greg Weber, I wanted to

find out whether it will work for carefully composed work with a tripod on slow

film.

I was wondering if anyone had any idea what format Larry Sultan used in "The

Valley" and in "Pictures from Home". I was also wondering about Todd Hido. I

have searched extensively and haven't found equipment information on either of

these two photographers. If anyone has any information on format, camera, or

film I would love to know, thanks!

"Time scans with and without mult-sample, open both versions and compare to see if

multi-sample is worth it to you. Make up you own mind."

I will admit that I am looking for quick solutions. I did some comparisons and saw no

difference between one scan and two scans of the same negative. What I was mostly

concerned with was scanner shake creating a subtle blur. I don't know if this happens but

it seems like it could.

"*you* are the one who can clear it up for yourself, through reading, research,

experimentation, careful record keeping, and logic."

I use forums and user reviews as a readily available source of information. It takes a bit of

time to read through and filter, but it is still one of the most useful tools we have at on

hand today. I have been researching and comparing my own results, but I am a student

and It is helpful to know how other people are working on top of that. Everyone has to be

taught eventually, whether it is from a book, website, or asking around. I choose to use

every source that I have access to.

Mendel, I agree after some trials that multi sampling does take much longer than it is

worth. I may have seen a difference with an 8X or 16X multi sampling, but I don't know if I

have the patience for these particular images.

Are you suggesting that I make backups of my scans before any further processing, and

then only resize just before printing? Also, is it normal to be working with 130mb files?

This seems excessive to me, because I am seeing people with digital SLRs working with

40mb files.

I am having a hard time finding information on this. I read the advice of many

photo.net members and scantips.com, but I feel like I am missing something. I

just need some advice on what my next step is now that I have these huge image

files.

I have available a Nikon super coolscan 8000, and 9000, and I am currently using

them both, scanning at a resolution of 4000. Also, I was using the PS import

function, but I heard that this is a bad way to do it, so I switched to Nikon

Scan 4. I leave the default crop, disable everything except Digital ICE,

auto-focus and auto-expose, and I change the bit rate from 8 to 16 (14 on the

coolscan 8000). I also have it set for 2X multi-sample.

First question:

Is it necessary to multi-sample? Some recommend 16X, some none at all. I figured

2X would help, but not slow me down too much. I am worried about losing

sharpness, is this a possibility?

Second question:

I am backing up my original scans, and making copies before doing any post

processing. Simply put, at what stage can I make my files smaller without losing

detail? I will be printing 11X14 on an Epson 2400, as well as a 3800. I have

asked this question before and I got this answer:

"Yes, scan at 4000dpi (input) resolution. In Photoshop uncheck resample and

change dpi to 360. Then recheck resample and resize to whatever size in inches

or centimeters you want to print at. That will drastically increase your image

quality compared to what you're doing."

At what stage should I resize my images? Will this reduce my file size, or does

reducing the file size always mean losing resolution? I do not have a lack of

space, it does get tedious waiting for files to save and editing is slowed down

when working with these large file sizes.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can clear this up for me!

Hey, I am new to this forum and I have a couple of related questions. First off

I am scanning color negatives with a nikon coolscan at 1000 resolution. When I

scan I only change the resolution. So I get an image in .psd format at 1000

resolution and 1 X 1.47. I am then editing levels and contrast and crop the

image with the crop in photoshop set to 8.75 X 13 at 1000 resolution, and save

in .tif. This results in a very very large file size, and I am unhappy with the

image quality being produced with an epson 2200. I have begun to leave the image

1 x 1.47 and doing my editing leaving the image crop/resize to the last step,

just to save space and time that it takes for me to open a file. If anyone has

any suggestions for me to change my methods please let me know, I am fairly new

to all this and I would like to know if any of these things is drastically

reducing my image quality.