Thanks, Frank. You did a good day's work there. I did especially like your
favorite EC 175. Very nice image.
Hersch
At 08:45 PM 02/03/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>Here are 54 scans of Velvia at 1280X1024 so you can see some detail. Subject
>matter: world famous Eagle Creek Trail in the Columbia Gorge on the Oregon
>side, taken 1/27/2001 on a sunny day. Total length of hike: 10 miles, 5 in
>and 5 out.
>
>
>
>These photos illustrate what I have been able to accomplish so far with my
>SS4000 under VueScan and Photoshop, and they have benefited from much
>information I have gleaned from this list.
>
>When you click on a thumbnail, you will only see a 640X480 image. To see the
>full resolution 1280X1024, you have to click on the 640X480 image. These
>were compressed by Photoshop using maximum image quality (10), so as JPG's
>go, they aren't going to get any better. The files average a megabyte each,
>so may the gods give you patience if you have a slow internet connection and
>you want to see the full-size images.
>
>This is my first usage of Velvia. It is stunning, but it often produces
>problems for scanning, as I document in my notes on the various images. A
>couple of times, I couldn't get satisfactory results from VueScan and had to
>resort to Polacolor Insight. The slides of the canyon in deep shadows
>required substantial removal of blue cast with Photoshop curves, as I
>mention in my notes. Often they also required adding some red. I never had
>to touch green. Not surprisingly, my best results were on images that were
>either fully illuminated by sunlight, or submerged completely in deep
>shadows. I could not get good scans from these Velvia slides with mixed
>sunlight and shadows, even though they looked great on the light table,
>better than any other slide film I've used with mixed sunlight and shadows,
>a lighting situation I generally try to avoid, even with negative film.
>
>In a few cases, I have shown two different scans of the same slide, one with
>VueScan and one with Polacolor Insight. In other cases, I show the same
>scene shot around noon and then three hours later. In every case, the images
>shot later in the day scanned much better, not to say that the original
>slides were any better. The heavy blue casts of the VueScan images were not
>a problem in Photoshop and removing them did not degrade the final image in
>any way. I always scanned 48 bit TIFF files and operated on them in that
>mode in Photoshop, then when I was satisfied converted the full-res (4000
>dpi) image to 24 bits before saving. No sharpening was performed until after
>decimating to 1280X1024. In most cases, the sharpening was relatively
>benign: 75 strength, .75 radius, threshhold 3. I keep all 4000 dpi scans in
>the original, unsharpened state so that I can fool with them later if I am
>so inclined.
>
>All of these pictures were taken on a tripod. Exposures varied from about
>1/30 of a second to about 15 seconds. I took and used the following lenses
>on this hike: 17mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, 28mm-70mm f2.8, 135mm f2, 180mm f2.8,
>and 300mm f4. All are autofocus Nikon lenses in current production except
>the 17mm, which is a Tokina, also in current production. I shot with a Nikon
>F100.
>
>I don't mind anyone making 3X5 prints from these scans for personal use, or
>using them as your monitor wallpaper.
>
>Frank Paris
>marshalt@spiritone.com
>
