nick_bryans3

<div></div>

Northampton - on an international forum, wow! I'm from there too - never shoot there though, far too familiar to inspire me.

<div></div>

Not a direct answer to the question, but I've had one of these for a few years now, also bought used, for 220GBP or so. It's a superb monitor, runs at 2048*1536. I don't have any calibration tools, just use Adobe gamma, but using standard print profiles my prints match the screen, so something must be right. I don't know how much you're goiung to pay, but if aif anything like what I paid it's a great value for money option. Just make sure you have a big desk!

This happened to me about a year ago, same symptoms, started suddenly. It was a failure of the CCD - plenty of info out there about this in netland. Fuji fixed it for free, despite being out of warranty, but you might have to argue your case, so I'd suggest a bit of googling, if they know that you know it's a generic problem & they have fixed many out of warranty cameras you have a better chance they will agree do do yours. If not it's a 5/600 GBP repair - ouch. The good news is they fixed mine in one day.

Do a google for TTNview, I think this is what you are looking for, it's a little program that shows the EXIF data for files in a directory in an explorer sytle window, with columns for each EXIF property. Very useful, and free I think.

Ken, you have to understand that all of those 'd's in dpi must come from a pixel somewhere. Just considering it in one dimension, if you have an 1800 * xxx pixel image, then printing at 6" you will get one dot per pixel (6*300 = 1800 dots), if you were to print the same image at 6ft, you'll get (6*12*300=) 21600 dots, /1800 pixels = 12 . ie. 12 dots per pixel. In other words you just end up with a print made up of bigger clumps of colour.

 

As has already been said if you view this from a distance where the apparent size is the same as that 6*9" print the appearance of sharpness is the same.

 

If you want apparent sharpness to be the same as the 6*9" at the same distance you need more pixels, much more, in this case 144 times more (12 hieght diension * 12 width).

 

Having said all that, if you did have a big enough image to give 1 dot per pixel at 6*9 ft, then the 'real' sharpness would be identical with the 6*9" print.

 

Upsizing the 1800 pixel image to 21600, will not give the same result as a true 21600 pixel capture, as it will just guess the missing pixels & produce a result similar to the 12 dots/pixel the printer would have done, though depending on subject matter it can sometimes be succesfully done (but 144 * is rather extreme).

Try "www.fixationuk.com" near Vauxhall. I've only used them for a quote, but they are a Nikon Service centre

So the PROOF that film is dying begins with "I heard a rumour..", hmmm. Film may well be dying but passing on a rumour hardly constitutes proof. Let's hope you're not a judge.

<div></div>

<div></div>

Funnily enough I've had once of these sitting on my shelf, unused for a few years now. I was doing some - very unscientific - testing of my newly aquired 35-70 2.8 vs my 60mm Micro (which has always impressed me on the S2). For some reason thought I'd compare this old zoom at the same time, I did & it is not even close to the other two, which it hardly a surprise. I don't remember getting any shots with this lens that ever gave me that 'wow' impression.

 

I think it was well regarded in it's time, I paid 150 odd GBP for mine, used, maybe 15 years ago. I'll probably be ebaying it soon, but I don't expect to get much for it.

Thanks for the replies so far. Shun, I did know it's 35 not sure how I ended up typing 30 all those times, pity it's not though!

 

Jus to explain a bit more I already have the 20-35 & the 80-200 AFDs, I'm doing a lot of people shooting these days, from full body to portrait, with a Fuji S2. I mostly use the 20-35 & a 60, which leaves a big hole that I want to fill. I also find the 20-35 a bit unsuitable for some shots because of the perpective 'distortion', model's feet/legs looking too prominent for example. I am sure the 28-70 is a wonderful lens but I just can't justify that kind of expense. I have the chance to buy a used 35-70 & I guess I'm just looking for a bit of reassurance that I won't be disappointed with it optically.

Hi all,

 

Just wondering if anyone has any comparisons with the AFD 20-35 vs AFS

17-35, AFD 30-70 vs AFS 28-70, in particular for use with Digital bodies.

 

I'm considering getting a 30-70, as the 28-70 AFS is just too much

money. I've read that the 30-70 is a fine lens, but in the digital age

is there any reason, on optical quality alone, to prefer the 28-70 AFS?

Glad to have helped! As I sadi there is no driver for this scanner, any drivers are at the SCSI & ASPI layer, so don't worry about the yellow thing. I guess it's already had the firmware update, otherwise NS3+ would not work. Have fun with it, it's still a good scanner, I ended up with a Minolta SDIV when my LS30 died, and the used one I tried to replace it woth turned out to be faulty too. Even though the SDIV is 4-5 years newer & slightly higher resolution, i don't find the scans any better then the LS30.

I'm not so sure that there is a 'driver' as such for the LS-30, it's controlled by an application via the SCSI interface, this can be the NikonScan software or Vuescan. How is your SCSI set up, this will need drivers for the SCSI card, and you'll need something called ASPI, which is a layer between XP & SCSI to be able to communicate with the LS-30 under XP. If the SCSI set up is correct the systen should be able to 'see' the LS-30, without any driver being present.

 

Another thing is that the LS-30 requires a firmware update to be able to use NikonScan 3+, this is also available from Nikons web site.

 

So you need to give a few more details about what you can & cannot do. Does the systen see the scanner in device manager? Do you have ASPI installed ? Once you can see the scanner you should be OK, try downloading the trial of Vuescan & see if that can operate the device.

 

I've been where you are with a used LS-30 that I couln't get to work, it turned out to be dead anyway but I learnt a lot trying to get it to work.

I use an S9000, whoich I think - correct me if i'm wrong - uses the same inkset as the printers you mention. I've had good results with Printasia, also with the Fuji five star glossy, but despite reading so many good reports about the Galerie series I cannot get a decent result with them. The ink comes out in visible clumps. I'm sure it's me since so many people can't all be wrong. Anyone have any suggestions for the best profile/settings with Galerie, I would really like to set this working properly.

I have just begun to use an SDIV, which has replaced a broken Nikon LS-30, which did have ICE. I shoot mostly digital these days so didn't want to make a big investment in a scanner & the SDIV fitted the bill.

 

I can only say I was horrified at the amount of dust specks on my, OK probably badly stored, and OK, old, slides. I never noticed this using the Nikon over the past 5 years or so, the occasional blobs but nothing like I'm seeing now. For my own purposes it doesn't bother me much as I'll not be scanning large numbers & the price differential was too much for the use I'll be making of the unit. The dust brush also seems pretty useless to me so far, but I may need to practice more to get the best results.

 

One thing that does occur to me though is that if you're just going to be archiving, do you really need to remove all the dust right now? Why not just archive the raw scans & clean up as & when required, if it's a few years from now there will probably be better software for dust removal available.

 

Comapring the two scanners on other respects I can't see a lot of difference, SDIV has higher resolution but it seems to me has a bit more nasty digital noise. I can only assume that a current Nikon would be better than the aging LS-30, how much better I've no idea.

 

If you take a look at my folders the HongKong shots are from the SDIV, Philippines shots from LS30. I know this won't tell you a lot at these low resolutions but you're welcome to draw any conclusions you like.

Just to put this one to bed, turns out the scanner was knackered. I returned it & it's unrepairable. Now have a new Scan Dual IV which is OK. similar quality but still seems a bit noisier (visual rather than audible) than the old LS-30, but I'm reasonably happy with it, and the price is good now I mostly shoot with digital.

 

Thanks for all the suggestions though.

mm yeah, the other thing I've noticed about this printer is that questions about it often get no replys at all (: .

I've been using a canon S9000 for a couple of years now. While I'm

very happy with the results, they don't always match the screen

exactly (INMO this is a difficult thing to judge anyway).

 

I realise that I really don't know how to control my results, so I'm

looking for advice from any of you with more knowledge or experience

than me.

 

I've read all about profiling with the various hardware devices,

these are not financially feasible for me at the moment, so I just

use adobe gamma & I think the monitor (a Sun badged high end Sony)is

at least reasonable. I expect I'll get the usual responses that it's

imposssible without proper profiling, that's fine go ahead.

 

To get to more specific questions, first are there any profiles out

there for the S9000 ? Seems like this printer has far less of this

kind of support than the Epsons. I do use some I found on the web,

named SPK**, for Canon PPP, & the Ilford Galerie papers. The strnage

thing is using the profile for Ilford Classic Pearl seem to work best

with most papers including PPP. I use Qimage for printing & choose

the profile I want.

 

Next question, how does one adjust any settings for this printer. I

just bought some new paper (FujiHunt glossy) it has instructions to

adjust Yellow -15, intensity +5, using my usual ICP profile prints do

indeed come aout a bit yellow/red, but I just have no idea how to

adjust this in the Canon driver, does anyone know ? Is that the

purpose of the calibration tools, to create a profile, is there no

manual way to set up & fiddle with a profile until it looks good ?

 

There's a lot of questions here, & I hope you can see I'm not

completley ignorant, I'm just missing something inportant for control

& repeatability & I don't know what it is, so any advice will be much

appreciated.

I've been using Qimage for a while now, I printed an A3 with PS6 & the trial Qimage, and while the difference was not great the Qimage print was visbly better close up, I bought Qimage & have been using it ever since. Apart from any quality issues I find Qimage very easy to use.

OK I've been testing, my old scanner is recognised fine (trouble is it doesn't work anymore) switching to the new one by just swapping the SCSI & power cables, reboot & no scanner anymore. Seems to leave only two options, the new scanner has a fault or the firmware on it doesn't work with XP. I'm using Vuescan which i think doesn't care about the firmware version anyone know if that's true?

I didn't see it no, but then I didn't look too closely. I can't reboot right now but will check later. I'll also see if it works under W2K, the old unit certainly did, I'm not too sure if the old unit was broken before I installed XP or not, so maybe it's nevere worked here.

Hi everyone,

 

I've just bought a used LS-30 to replace my old one which needed

uneconomic repairs. I though it would be just a straight swap of the

unti & eveything would be fine, but the scanner is not seen by

anything (Vuescan or Nikonscan). I'm running XP pro, ASPI look OK

(version 4.6), terminator is set to on (no other SCSI devices). SCSI

Id is 2. I had upgared the firmwaer in the old scanner to use

NikonScan 3.1, I'm not sure what the firmware f the new one is (&

won't know till I can see it!).

 

Anyone have any ideas what is wrong?

 

Thanks a lot