>is there any reason to choose the nikon 4000 over the canon 4000? the
nikon is more expensive, but includes a firewire >connection. the canon
usb connection is only 1.1 i think, not the faster 2.0 (i could be wrong
about that).
The canon also supports the use of a scsi interface (very fast!!).
In terms of quality it has some advantages over the nikon like the 14
bit adc (12 in nikon).
I own one for a year now and I'm quite glad with it. You can see some
results at www.sebastiao.com (requires fast connection).
Nuno sebastiao
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Topic: [filmscanners] RE: New Epson 3200 Photo
=========================================
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:42:59 -0500
From: bob geoghegan <bobgeo@dgiinc.com>
----------------------------------------
It'll be interesting to see what real resolution of the new Epson
delivers
under testing. Can flatbed optics actually deliver the equiv. of a 3200
dpi filmscanner? Or will the 2700-2800dpi class of filmscanners have it
beat? (I'd bet on the latter).
Lloyd's got a good point about the limits of the tranny lid. If only it
were larger....
Bob G
At 03:24 PM 11/27/2002, you wrote:
>If the nitwits had enlarged that tranny lid from 4x9 to at least 8x10
>to make contact sheets possible, I'd have that scanner. I don't know
>any photographer having 20-30 rolls of negs to proof that wants to scan
>a single 120 strip or perhaps 2-3 35mm strips at a time. As it stands,
>I'll keep my Powerlook III.
>
>I'm disappointed, because I just upgraded to a Sprintscan 4000 Plus. If
>the Epson scanner had the larger tranny lid, I would have bought it and
>not needed both firewire and SCSI cards in my system. :(
>
>Lloyd
>
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:50:56 -0500
From: Bruce Kinch <pvx@rcn.com>
----------------------------------------
>It'll be interesting to see what real resolution of the new Epson
>delivers under testing. Can flatbed optics actually deliver the equiv.
>of a 3200 dpi filmscanner? Or will the 2700-2800dpi class of
>filmscanners have it beat? (I'd bet on the latter).
>
>Lloyd's got a good point about the limits of the tranny lid. If only
>it were larger....
>
>Bob G
As a 5x7 and 8x10 shooter, I have to agree. Still, I'll probably get
one to replace my 2450, which appears to share the same chassis. I
will then disassemble the 2450, line the interior with black velvet,
and replace the glass with an aluminum plate with a 4.5 x 9 cutout.
The former to increase separation in dense areas by reducing internal
reflections, the latter to provide a clear optical path. In other
words, convert it to a dedicated film scanner.
If the results improve as much as I suspect, I'd do the same on the
3200.
--
Bruce C. Kinch
Associate Professor of Photography
The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:40:16 -0500
From: Andre <am1000@videotron.ca>
----------------------------------------
Bruce,
Wouldnt the black velvet induce dust in the scanner ? Could some black
as such used in darkroom do the same without the dust ?
Please keep us posted as to how your modifications come out. Cheers,
Andre
As a 5x7 and 8x10 shooter, I have to agree. Still, I'll probably get one
to replace my 2450, which appears to share the same chassis. I will then
disassemble the 2450, line the interior with black velvet, and replace
the glass with an aluminum plate with a 4.5 x 9 cutout. The former to
increase separation in dense areas by reducing internal reflections, the
latter to provide a clear optical path. In other words, convert it to a
dedicated film scanner.
If the results improve as much as I suspect, I'd do the same on the
3200.
--
Bruce C. Kinch
Associate Professor of Photography
The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
the message title or body
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:02:23 -0500
From: Andre <am1000@videotron.ca>
----------------------------------------
Sorry, I meant black paint.
Andre
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andre" <am1000@videotron.ca>
To: <am1000@videotron.ca>
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 11:40 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: New Epson 3200 Photo
Bruce,
Wouldnt the black velvet induce dust in the scanner ? Could some black
as such used in darkroom do the same without the dust ?
Please keep us posted as to how your modifications come out. Cheers,
Andre
As a 5x7 and 8x10 shooter, I have to agree. Still, I'll probably get one
to replace my 2450, which appears to share the same chassis. I will then
disassemble the 2450, line the interior with black velvet, and replace
the glass with an aluminum plate with a 4.5 x 9 cutout. The former to
increase separation in dense areas by reducing internal reflections, the
latter to provide a clear optical path. In other words, convert it to a
dedicated film scanner.
If the results improve as much as I suspect, I'd do the same on the
3200.
--
Bruce C. Kinch
Associate Professor of Photography
The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
the message title or body
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
the message title or body
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Topic: [filmscanners] Re: shoot first, fix it later
==============================================
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 23:10:50 -0800
From: "Karl Schulmeisters" <karlsch@earthlink.net>
----------------------------------------
Hey, why bother shooting the building at all, just scan any tall
building in a magazine and fix it in photoshop - the customer will never
know the difference. Why bother developing a skill in lighting a model
properly when you can simply introduce any sort of lighting you want in
photoshop using the dodge and burn in brush. After all, no one can
really tell the difference between 'photoshopped' images and something
captured correctly the first time....
----- Original Message -----
From: <focus@adnc.com>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 1:11 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: shoot first, fix it later
I think it's perfectly valid to "shoot first, fix later" if that's the
most expedient way to get it done - Say you need a quarter page image of
a particular tall building--does it make more sense to shoot a consumer
digital and fix the perspective in Photoshop, or drag out the 4 x 5 so
you have shifts for perspective control? Conversely, is it quicker to
spend a minute giving a model's skin a little powder, or spend a half
hour retouching to fix the same problem? It's important to know how to
achieve an image in both a fix-first and a fix-later methodology so you
can determine which one is most efficient in a given situation--neither
one is always the right or even reasonable answer.
Where trouble arises is with Photoshop-illiterate types who think
computers provide instant miracles, and thus feel free to shot sloppily,
then scream when they get the bill for two hours retouching. It's never
"Gosh, I should have shot more carefully." it's "What kind of a
worthless computer operator are you that it took you two hours to do
this. Why, if I learned computers I could've done it in 10 minutes."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in
the message title or body
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Topic: Kodachrome green / scanner colorimetry
========================================
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:16:10 -0600
From: Tim Schooler <tschooler@cox-internet.com>
----------------------------------------
At 12:00 AM 11/28/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>fails or you are out in the field without flash, crew, etc. and you see
>that perfect scene where you can put the sun behind your granddaughter
>to capture the light coming through her hair, you need something to put
>"light" on her face. If you don't have anything with you, fix it when
>you get back to your digital darkroom. How do you fix it? There are a
>number of ways. I just know I want Digital SHO in my tool box for when
>I need it.
Jack, I don't disagree that there are great tools out there to fix
problems, but I don't think its a good idea to suggest poor technique,
then fix it in Photoshop. I'm sure thats not what you really meant. I
also acknowledge that there are good tools for taking a short cut at
times. I occasionally use
iCorrect
to balance color when I'm in a hurry. But doing it right by the numbers
is the best way in my opinion. I can't imagine what Digital SHO can do
that someone experienced in Photoshop can't, thats all I'm saying.
Best Regards,
Tim Schooler
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
Topic: shoot first, fix it later
===========================
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:12:42 -0600
From: Tim Schooler <tschooler@cox-internet.com>
----------------------------------------
At 12:00 AM 11/28/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>I think it's perfectly valid to "shoot first, fix later" if that's the
>most expedient way to get it done
For amateurs (and there are good amateur photographers), perhaps it
doesn't
matter.
If you're billing someone for the work, then you should take the time to
shoot it
right. If you goof, then you deal with fixing it later.
>- Say you need a quarter page image of a particular tall building--does
it
>make more sense to shoot a consumer digital and fix the perspective in
>Photoshop, or dragout the 4 x 5 so you have shifts for perspective
control?
This must be a rhetorical question. Obviously the answer is use a lens
with
perspective control.
Best Regards,
Tim Schooler
-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
