cabbiinc

<p>First things first. Is anything modified with the scanner or holder? How are you connecting to the computer (I assume USB since it's the easiest). If you have another USB cord try it. Are you using InfraRed Clean?</p> <p>Next, make sure the Input> Media is set to Slide Film.</p> <p>Next after you insert the slide holder into the scanner, click Scanner> Calibrate. This should move the holder to between the slide #1 and #2 position and run a calibration routine on the scanner's light and sensor. If you're using IR clean make sure that Input> Bits Per Pixel is set to 64 bit RGBI first to include the IR channel in the calibration. If there's something blocking the area between #1 and #2 on the slide holder that may interfere with the calibration routine.</p> <p>Most people skip the film profiles in the Color tab, set the Slide Vendor to Generic. They are only the profiles that the film manufacturers provide, they are not reverse engineered from film scans themselves by any one else. I'd think that the film manufacturers put these together for commercial scanners rather than the scan at home crowd. At any rate they haven't released anything new in a very long time.</p> <p>Turn off everything on the Filter tab, set the Color Balance to Neutral, and click Preview. Does the image that's being scanned look the same after the preview has finished?</p> <p> </p>

<p>Get a card reader and try that.</p>

<p>These are called Newton Rings. It happens when the film touches the glass sometimes. If you don't have a film holder that holds the film off the glass try flipping the film over.</p>

<p>I used and liked SmugMug for a while. I don't do anything that I would upload to SmugMug any more though so it's been a while and now it appears my account has been deleted entirely. I did like using them because the prints seemed to match the color of what I saw on the monitor. I have not used any of the other services so I can't tell you how they compare. I believe you can try a few of these out for free. I'd suggest to do so and order a print for yourself to see how it all looks. I know you're concerned about the final product.</p>

<p>Eric I should have worded that differently. I should have simply said that you should just suggest the correct forum to use, which you did. But you question before you suggest, which sets a tone. I'm guilty of that myself and apologize.</p>

<p>Well seeing how more than half of Tim's postings to Photo.net have been in this very discussion I'd say that he tried to put it in the place he felt suited his question. He's trying to make a change to his business. He's not shooting weddings or events, but rather selling fine art. So why should he think it would need to go into the weddings and events forum?<br> If you want to talk Costco you honestly should start your own discussion. It doesn't pertain to Tim's question.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm not sure if the two labs I recommend fit the bill for the OP or not. They <em>might</em>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Do you even know what an online portfolio is?</p>

<p>It would appear that the OP has left the conversation, and still never received a recommendation to an online portfolio and fulfillment site. But hey, at least he knows all about Costco.</p>

<p>That's all so very fascinating. So which pro printing service do you use that you know uses a larger color space than sRGB? I've yet to see anyone post that info, just that you should find one.</p>

<p>Tim, if you find a service that actually uses something other than sRGB let us know. As for SmugMug you should read this http://help.smugmug.com/customer/portal/articles/93362-what-colorspace-should-my-files-be-in-</p> <blockquote> <h3 >What's best for printing?</h3> <p>That depends on both the photo and the printer.<br> The printers in most commercial labs, such as WHCC (one of our labs), Bay Photo (one of our labs), Mpix, EZ Prints (yep, another lab of ours), Shutterfly (whom we used to use), Kodak, Fujifilm, Photobox, Costco, Snapfish, Wolfe's, etc., shine light on photographic paper, similar to the way film prints are made. They have similar color range to the sRGB color space. Most of them expect your file to be in sRGB and if it isn't, your prints will look washed out.</p> </blockquote> <p>They go on to say</p> <blockquote> <h3 >When SmugMug receives non-sRGB photos, what do you do?</h3> <p>We learned from hard experience to convert CMYK, Adobe 98, and ProPhoto images to sRGB. Otherwise they look bad both online and in print, benefitting no one.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've yet to find someone who prints in the Adobe RGB space. Although I haven't spent too much time on the subject either. I've just gone with a sRGB output in my workflow since I was using SmugMug at the time, but maybe things have changed since then.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The Lightroom license allows you to set up on two different computers.</p> </blockquote> <p>Most software these days allows for two computers, some allow three.</p>

<p>If there is a filter on the lens please tell us what it is, or what it says around the rim, if anything.<br> Also make certain that the AF is switched ON on the side of the lens. Do you hear the lens focusing when you half press the shutter button?</p>

<p>At the bottom, if there's a More or Advanced button click it until there is no more More or Advanced. This gets you to the most settings that you can set.</p> <p>On the Input tab set Batch Scan to On, or List, or Auto. Personally I usually go with List.</p> <p>Go to the Crop tab. What do you have set for Multi-Crop? What do you have set for Crop Size (should be 6x6cm)?</p> <p>If you get a good size for the first frame, and it's just the size for the second and third frames that need help then get your first frame set up to the size you want and check the All Frames box at the bottom of the list of adjustments. This will set the rest of the frames to the same size as the one that you're on.</p> <p>If the placement of the scan is what's off try turning off Auto Offset on the Crop tab and move the crop boxes manually after your preview scan.</p> <p>I don't have any experience with a 9000ED or IVED, but I do own an LS-2000. If you're referring to the SA-20 feeder or the like it actually works rather automatically usually.</p> <p>If none of this makes sense or something just doesn't look like you think it should post a screenshot and ask again. There's plenty of VueScan users out there.</p>

<p>For photo storage, for an external drive, I just don't see an SSD doing you any good over a good traditional external HDD. For the price that you'll spend on some 250gb SSDs you can get a 1tb external HDD. You could even spend a little more and get a Network Attached Storage solution and be able to use the files anywhere you had internet connections. Just one example at this http://store.westerndigital.com/store/wdus/en_US/DisplayCategoryListPage/ThemeID.21986300/categoryID.56796900</p>

<blockquote> <p>And one could attempt similar on multiple saved scans within Photoshop (what a drag).</p> </blockquote> <p>True, but VueScan's multi-sample does it in one pass with no alignment problems that can happen with multiple passes, and it will do it in a fraction of the time compared to multiple passes to try to achieve the same thing. But hey, if you just want to argue for the sake of arguing go ahead and knock yourself out.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>I am using an Epson V700 to scan 20-30 year old photos.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>In this context, is there anything I am missed out by using Epson Scan instead of SilverFast AI or VueScan? In other words, do they offer anything other than just post processing? Do they so anything "special" that I won't be able to do later in Photoshop?</p> </blockquote> <p>I have the Epson 4990, the predecessor to the V700. About the only thing I can see that VueScan does that Epson Scan won't is multi-sampling. As the name implies it takes multiple samples of each pixel, averaging the results, before moving on. But please don't think that this is a cure-all for a number of ills. The only thing it's supposed to help with is digital noise in the scans themselves. If you don't see any noticeable digital noise then there's no real reason to need it.</p> <p>And as has been said when you asked a very similar question a year and a half ago you should try the trials of VueScan and Silverfast to see if there's anything that jumps out at you.</p>

<p>Jos, please see this random googled blog posting about the D3 and high speed sync http://neilvn.com/tangents/high-speed-flash-sync/ It explains it pretty well from someone who has the camera and is intent on getting it to do faster than X-sync speeds.<br> The D3 also uses a CMOS sensor, not a CCD needed for electronic shutters. See http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/2<br> Now please see this posting on the YN 622 having Super Sync http://flashhavoc.com/new-yn-622-tx-has-manual-supersync-timing-adjustment/</p> <p>It's not the D3, it's the trigger. By the way it has been discussed quite a bit if you know where to look.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The fact that he was able to get a proper flash exposure with a focal plane shutter led me to the conclusion that the shutter was fully opened and then read out electronically at speeds shorter than the sync speed.</p> </blockquote> <p>There's that pesky problem of the fact that this particular camera <strong>CAN'T DO</strong> <strong> THAT</strong> (see the video in my link). <em>"...the video depicts a camera firing continuously at 11 fps with a shutter speed of 1/4000 of a second. At that speed, the second curtain is literally chasing the first across the frame." </em>Max X-sync isn't just a silly thing that manufacturers dream up to drive photographers crazy. It's when the second curtain starts to impede the sensor/film before the first curtain has finish opening all the way. In other words, it's past the point when the sensor/film is completely open to exposure.</p>

<p>Well he has to be doing something funny. The problem is that with a focal plane shutter camera not set to FP Sync (or similar) is that it won't give the flash the fire command until the first curtain has opened the entire way. When you're over your max X-sync speed that means that your second curtain is already started to travel at that point, with 1/8000th of a second being that the second curtain is right behind the first curtain. It's not even going to get the fire command until most of the exposure is already over, so you'd only get a tiny slit of light.</p> <p>The YN 622n triggers support iTTL passthrough as well as FP Sync (I think that's what Nikon calls it). If he's not using an iTTL flash then why did he spend the extra cash for the more expensive 622 and didn't just get a 603 or the like? If he has an iTTL flash set to Manual (no pre-flashes) and the rest set to optical slave then he's likely setting off the slaves at the right time and they have such a slow burn rate that they illuminate, albeit unevenly, throughout the exposure, with the iTTL light doing a lot of the filling in.</p>

<p>http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/03/video-nikon-d3-shutter-activation-super-slow-motion<br> It's a focal plane shutter, so no it doesn't have an electronic shutter. It would be nice to see some examples of what you're describing. What was he using as a trigger?</p>

<blockquote> <p>...a couple of Nikon film scanners...</p> </blockquote> <p>How do those scanners connect to the computer? If it's Firewire then you'll need to be sure that you can get Firewire on your new computer. If it's SCSI then it's even tougher. What programs do you use to scan with? Are they supported on either of the OS's that you're thinking of? Of course, you could always keep the current computer as a scanning station if it's needed.</p> <p>I'm a PC guy and I'd say that if you're invested in Mac, you know and like Mac, and you don't mind the cost, stick with Mac. Just politely tell your coworker that you're sticking with what you're comfortable with and thank him for the offer.</p>

<p>Yes, the scan head is bellow the scanner glass. The light source is in the lid.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Btw im scanning between two antinewton glasses directly on the scanner glass.</p> </blockquote> <p>You won't want A/N glass between the negative and the scanner head. You won't want the negative flat against the scanner bed glass either. Can you tape the neg to the A/N glass to flatten then raise it a bit?</p>

<p>If the Nikon's failures were due in part to rough use you may want to look at one of the semi-pro model cameras. 70D, 60D, 5Dmk2, 7D, etc... or the Nikon equivalent. They have beefier build and are more sealed against the weather. They also cost more for those reasons.</p>

<p>The 650 is 3 fps, the 500N is 1 fps. Other than that the 500N would be my choice, even if you never used any of the manual modes.</p>