Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'scanning'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General Photography Discussion
    • Beginner Questions
    • Education & Resource
    • Business of Photography
    • News from the Photo World
    • Casual Photo Conversations
    • The History & Philosophy of Photography
  • Image Boards & Discussion
    • No Words
    • Seeking Critique
    • Abstract
    • Landscape
    • Nature
    • Phone & Mobile
    • Street & Documentary
  • CreativeLive Photography Classes
  • Practice & Technique Discussion
    • The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing
    • The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry
    • Macro & Micro Photography
    • Portraits & Fashion
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Wedding & Event
    • Aerial & Drone
  • Gear & Equipment Discussion
    • DSLR & Assisted Film Cameras
    • Mirrorless Digital Cameras
    • Leica and Rangefinders
    • Classic Manual Film Cameras
    • Extreme, Retro, Instant and More
    • Minox/Miniature
    • Accessories
  • Community & Help Center
    • PhotoNet Site Help
    • New User Introductions
    • Member's Photo News
    • Member Classified Ads
  • Additional Topics
    • Video
    • Website Creation
    • Test Posting

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me

About Me



Yahoo! Messenger








Custom Title

  1. Results of one 35mm roll developed in a Patterson 2 reel tank via c-41. Other roll in tank came out near perfect. The negatives looked very dark and hazy overall. tried repeating BLIX and Stab and all that resulted was the extra dark marks. Help ? Shot on
  2. Exposure Date: 2011:09:02 00:06:34; Copyright: Photo Retouching and keywording by KeyIndia Graphics, Photo is not clicked by KeyIndia Graphics, we have only retouched this photo; Make: Canon; Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II; ExposureTime: 1/1000 s; FNumber: f/5; ISOSpeedRatings: 250; ExposureProgram: Aperture priority; ExposureBiasValue: 4294967295/3; MeteringMode: Pattern; Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode; FocalLength: 50 mm; Software: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows;
  3. Copyright: Photo Retouching and keywording by KeyIndia Graphics, Photo is not clicked by KeyIndia Graphics, we have only retouched this photo; Software: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows;
  4. Exposure Date: 2011:04:27 20:59:42; Copyright: Photo Retouching and keywording by KeyIndia Graphics, Photo is not clicked by KeyIndia Graphics, we have only retouched this photo; Make: Canon; Model: Canon EOS 500D; ExposureTime: 1/125 s; FNumber: f/25; ISOSpeedRatings: 100; ExposureBiasValue: 0/1; Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode; FocalLength: 55 mm; Software: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows;
  5. I was disappointed to discover today that Peak Imaging in the UK has ceased trading. I shoot film - not much - maybe 8-12 rolls of 120 C-41/E-6 per year - but Peak Imaging has always been my go-to lab for developing and scanning. Good prices, but more importantly, always professional, efficient and reliable. I guess the question now is... what UK processor should I switch to? Any recommendations?
  6. Should photos made with a flatbed scanner be called imaging or photography? Image made with Epson flatbed scanner. Selection from Anatomy of an 8mm Cine' Kodachrome project. ...and should photos of chromes or negs made with a digital camera be called scanning?
  7. Hello, I recently purchased a Pakon F235 and I noticed something weird. Previously I owned a F135 and while I think it did some cropping of the frame, what I'm seeing in the F235 is very noticeable, especially in the bottom of the frame. Looks like it's cropping maybe ~4mm vertically. I changed the Crop35mm DWORD in the registry, but this doesn't seem to help. Has anyone else experienced something similar? What's the best way to get it to scan as much as possible from the frame? Never had problems like this with the F135. Thanks in advance!
  8. Hi Everyone, I know there are strong advocates on both sides of this debate, but I wanted to hear what are the pros and cons of DSLR scanning over something like the popular Epson V600? I have heard a lot of negative comments about Epsons software and user interface. Is that worth a reason to adopt DSLR scanning technique? Thanks for any insights from your workflows. note: I have a Nikon D600 that I would be filming the negatives with (if that information helps)
  9. I bought one to replace my old 2009 desktop iMac. The new M1 doesn't have firewire so I have to still use the Nikon LS 8000 scanner with the old computer. I haven't been able to get Epsonscan 2 to work on the M1 for my Epson V800 scanner after following all of Epson's instructions. My Epson R2400 printer just shoots blank paper out after instilling the printer's driver. So far, Vuescan (trial version) is all that works. I haven't downloaded any other trial versions of anything, but this M1 computer has certain advantages over the old one, it doesn't get hot (my old Mac needs an external fan to cool it). The screen is higher resolution, nice and clear and sharp, but did I make a mistake buying this new computer for the photo work I want to do, scanning, editing and printing ?
  10. I've been debating between adapting an enlarger lens like a rodenstock apo or using a clinically sharp zeiss macro prime. Relatively speaking, what would yield sharper results for 35mm DSLR scanning? Thanks.
  11. This is a follow up to a discussion started in another thread, and triggered by looking at the published curves of (chemically) push-processed film. From those curves it appears that push-processing reversal film buys you next to nothing in added shadow detail. At least, nothing that couldn't be got from alternative digital enhancement techniques. So I thought I'd post some pictures to illustrate. The following two shots were taken years ago on 50 ISO Fujichrome. The underexposed shot (bottom) was a genuine mistake, and got underexposed by about two stops before I reset the camera ISO to take the top picture. There's also quite strong lens vignetting that adds to the underexposure in the corners. Both slides were copied in RAW format with a digital camera at the same 'scanning' exposure. I.e. the copying exposure was set just short of highlight-clipping for the correctly exposed slide and the same settings used for the underexposed slide. This gives an idea of how dark that slide appears to the eye. Next is the digitally 'pushed' version of the underexposed slide. Extra camera-copying exposure was given, in addition to a tweak of the curves in Photoshop and a slight saturation boost. The aim was to try and match the shot exposed correctly in the camera. A pretty successful exercise, IMO. Here are 100% crops of the deepest shadow areas of the two slides. I don't see much shadow detail loss, apart from an increase in noise in the pushed version. In my view, the noise is actually less obtrusive than the increased grain and colour shift that you'd get from conventional push processing. Therefore it's my opinion that scanning and using digital enhancent techniques can make chemical 'pushing' a thing of the past. This is the 21st century after all.
  12. Hello! I'm trying to lock in a scanning workflow for B/W 35mm and I've had such a love/hate relationship with my Coolscan 5000 and Vuescan. The detail extracted is second to none, but I'm seeing EVERY flaw as well. There are hairline surface scratches that explode on the screen from these scans that are nowhere to be found on a mirrorless camera scan or a darkroom print. Is this just inherent to the scanning physics? Is it scanning the surface and therefore every film base scratch is seen? Again, if you backlight the negative, all of these tiny scratches are invisible. Hence why they don't show up in camera scans or darkroom prints. Any ideas?
  13. Dear Sirs, I scan my old films with family photos. Scanning of some from them are of ugly quality. The sample is on the photo attached. I heard it can be because of wrong exposition or underdeveloping. I use Vuescan for this job. I want to get as many details on resulting image as possible. Please write me, which scanners do you recommend or point criterias for scanner choice. The list of preferrable scanners is below. I do not want to use chemicals for films, because of no knowledge and equipment. Nikon ls 4000 ed Coolscan IV ED Coolscan IV ED PrimeFilm 3650u PIE PrimeFilm 3600PRO PIE PrimeFilm 3600U PIE PrimeFilm 3610AFL PrimeFilm 3650LAB PrimeFilm 7250U Pro 3 PrimeFilm 7250 Pro3 PrimeFilm XA PrimeFilm Xas CrystalScan 7200 Reflecta ProScan 3600 Reflecta ProScan 4000 Reflecta RPS 10M Reflecta RPS 3600 Reflecta RPS 7200 Reflecta Silverscan 3600 Kodak RFS 3600 FilmScan 2700 Microtek filmscan 3600 PrimeFilm 2700 PrimeFilm 3650 Pro3 iScan 3600 Reflecta ProScan 4000 SmartDisk SmartScan 2700 SmartDisk SmartScan 3600 MediaX SilverScan 2700 Pro
  14. I’ve diagnosed that my Nikon LS 4000 scanner needs a FireWire chip costing $185 for the repair. For the price of the repair, and selling my LS 4000 for parts, I could buy the Nikon V. I know the Nikon V won’t accept the bulk slide holder, which doesn’t really bother me. Are there other improvements in the Nikon V that would warrant getting it instead of repairing the LS 4000? I think the Nikon V is next version of ICE, but don’t know that that would make much difference since most of what I have are old Kodachromes. I know that the V won't do multi-scanning, but don't know if that's really significant. Any thoughts or suggestions appreciated! Reid
  • Create New...