Photography 35mm

Question:

My prints made with an Epson 785EPX do not have the same color and tone as prints made from 35mm film.  I seem to be getting brownish hues where I know from the picture it should be black.  This is particularly true when I use the custom setting with the mode set at "photorealistic." The colors seem pretty true on my monitor (which was calibrated with Adobe’s gamma loader program).  I am scanning the negatives with an Epson 2450 scanner set at 2400 dpi.  My image editor is Adobe Photoshop Elements.  The only editing I’ve done so far is to "auto level"  and "Unsharp Mask Filter" (set to 150%, radius 2 pixels, threshold 6 levels).   There are so many permutations and combinations!  Any help would be much appreciated.

Response:

  You have entered the wonderful world of colour management – it’s like lion taming but without the whip, or the chair, or the cage, or the tame lion.    There are a couple websites that can help you get started, especially computerdarkroom which is available from the links page at: http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. A few pictures are available at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My prints made with an Epson 785EPX do not have the same color and tone as prints made from 35mm film.  I seem to be getting brownish hues where I know from the picture it should be black.  This is particularly true when I use the custom setting with the mode set at "photorealistic." The colors seem pretty true on my monitor (which was calibrated with Adobe’s gamma loader program).  I am scanning the negatives with an Epson 2450 scanner set at 2400 dpi.  My image editor is Adobe Photoshop Elements.  The only editing I’ve done so far is to "auto level"  and "Unsharp Mask Filter" (set to 150%, radius 2 pixels, threshold 6 levels).   There are so many permutations and combinations!  Any help would be much appreciated.

Response:

My prints made with an Epson 785EPX do not have the same color and tone as prints made from 35mm film.  I seem to be getting brownish hues where I know from the picture it should be black.  This is particularly true when I use the custom setting with the mode set at "photorealistic." The colors seem pretty true on my monitor (which was calibrated with Adobe’s gamma loader program).  I am scanning the negatives with an Epson 2450 scanner set at 2400 dpi.  My image editor is Adobe Photoshop Elements.  The only editing I’ve done so far is to "auto level"  and "Unsharp Mask Filter" (set to 150%, radius 2 pixels, threshold 6 levels).   There are so many permutations and combinations!  Any help would be much appreciated.

The following might be worth a try. If your scanner driver allows you to scan into specific color spaces, select sRGB. If not, and Elements allows you to convert to a different color space, convert the scanned images you intend to print to sRGB. In Photoshop this is done by going to image/mode/convert to profile. Many of the home inkjet photo printers do better color matching with sRGB files. Auto levels is a hit or miss manipulation. It works well with some images and not so well with others. You’d might be better served by learning how to manually adjust levels. — If replying via email, remove NO from my email address Steve Hoffmann http://www.sphoto.com 35mm and 4X5 Photography Landscapes, scenics, zoo animals and macro photographs of insects and flowers. Extensive photo tech tips and digital imaging content.

Response:

Question:

   It is 35mm related. I’ve got a new scanner and need to upgrade my OS to Windows 98 SE (second edition) and then load in updates to that (Which came with the scanner) in order to install a firewire card. I’m using a Pentium II, 450megahertz – it was blazingly fast in 1999 — way back in the last millenium.    I’ve used 98 SE – my wife’s computer has it for an OS – and I can’t tell any difference between it and the first edition my computer uses. It strikes me that I’m not getting much for the 95 bucks I would pay for the upgrade.    There is also Windows ME – for 99 bucks. I know nothing about it, but assume that being newer it has firewire support built in. Asking on the computer related forums I got snide answers like — "Throw out that old dog and get XP on a PIV" and "That’s why you should have got a Mac." So I figured I’d ask here where people have computers, know something about them, but don’t think of a Pentium II as ancient history.   I’m pretty sure XP would not run well on my machine. What little I’ve read indicates it needs a PIII running at 500 to chug along at a comfy speed. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. A few pictures are available at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

Response:

Hi Tony, First off, stay away from Windows ME at all costs! It was a stop gap to fill the space until 2000/XP was released and really wasn’t the greatest product ever released by Microsoft. Even if it has firewire support built in, it will almost certainly be the identical support you’d get with Win98SE + the firewire updates you have. Windows 98SE is a pretty good OS in my opinion – it is substantially more stable than the earlier 95/98 releases, as is always the case when you’re dealing with the 3rd generation of product. It looks the same, but has better support for things like firewire, etc and generally is more stable and (I think) somewhat faster than its predecessors. The biggest issue you have when considering XP is not the speed of the processor, as it is the amount of RAM you need for it to function correctly. You’ll need a minimum of 128 Mb of RAM to run XP, and 256Mb would be a better call especially as you do a lot of graphics intensive work.  Windows 98SE doesn’t handle more than 128Mb of RAM especially well. It’s hard to say whether XP would run okay on your machine – I suspect that it would if you installed enough RAM. Look at it this way, the Pentium II 450Mhz was a server-class processor at one point in its life and so would definitely have been running Windows NT and maybe even an early version of Windows 2000 and been regarded as offering great performance. There’s not a lot different "under the hood" between Win NT and Win XP, and very little difference between 2000 and XP. I would go with Windows 98SE on your system, in fact that would make your setup very similar to what I have at home. It’s not the fastest out there or the latest and greatest, but it will serve the purpose quite nicely. That said, it might be worth going the XP route if you plan to upgrade your system in the future and it’ll support a lot more new technoligies than 98 does. According to the information I have, Microsoft will limit support for 98SE on 30 June 2002, and discontinue all support on 30 June 2003. Manufacturers will drop support at around that time to, I imagine – certainly, my company will. What do I know about all this? I program for a living mainly on the Microsoft range of OS’s, and have some experience in hardware design and development for PCs. I’ve been involved in PCs for about 12 years. Ian

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    It is 35mm related. I’ve got a new scanner and need to upgrade my OS to Windows 98 SE (second edition) and then load in updates to that (Which came with the scanner) in order to install a firewire card. I’m using a Pentium II, 450megahertz – it was blazingly fast in 1999 — way back in the last millenium.    I’ve used 98 SE – my wife’s computer has it for an OS – and I can’t tell any difference between it and the first edition my computer uses. It strikes me that I’m not getting much for the 95 bucks I would pay for the upgrade.    There is also Windows ME – for 99 bucks. I know nothing about it, but assume that being newer it has firewire support built in. Asking on the computer related forums I got snide answers like — "Throw out that old dog and get XP on a PIV" and "That’s why you should have got a Mac." So I figured I’d ask here where people have computers, know something about them, but don’t think of a Pentium II as ancient history.   I’m pretty sure XP would not run well on my machine. What little I’ve read indicates it needs a PIII running at 500 to chug along at a comfy speed. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. A few pictures are available at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

Response:

It is 35mm related. I’ve got a new scanner and need to upgrade my OS to Windows 98 SE (second edition) and then load in updates to that [blah blah blah]

Hey, Tony. Invest as much concern and consideration into your computer hardware as you would for your camera gear and you will be a happier man. Take a deep breath and walk away from that platform.

Response:

  I’m pretty sure XP would not run well on my machine. What little I’ve read indicates it needs a PIII running at 500 to chug along at a comfy speed.

hi, just give it a try, it wont be blazingly fast but it will work fine i tried running win xp pro on my celeron 300 with 256mb ram not bad, even faster than win2000 but i revert back to win 2000 due to some preference of the older os (driver issue due old hardware) havent run any win9x os for quite sometime due to i hate the instabilities also have a laptop running win me but i dun like it unstabilities but cant justify the upgrade

Response:

I have gone from win 95 to win me, and am now at win xp, and must say that in my experience xp beats them all barnone. I believe Ian mentioned that the pen II 450 was a server class processor, not unless it was the pro version with the much larger cache would it be considered server class by many. As for memory to run xp, I would imagine the more the better, I am at the high side at 1 gig, and will be going to 1.5 gig shortly, by the way this is also ecc memory, which is a bit slower than none ecc, but it helps thwart problems before they arise, with this machine( I built my own,I was ms oem builder)I have had no problems at all, not one blue screen of death, or fatal errors. I can not say the same for the previous versions, when I had 98se it was a down hill battle, and then I decided to upgrade to me, and that was the lowest of the low, constant battle, to just work with the pc with out having a fatal error. I would probably not recommend you upgrade your machine to xp, unless if you have a sufficient amount of memory.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    It is 35mm related. I’ve got a new scanner and need to upgrade my OS to Windows 98 SE (second edition) and then load in updates to that (Which came with the scanner) in order to install a firewire card. I’m using a Pentium II, 450megahertz – it was blazingly fast in 1999 — way back in the last millenium.    I’ve used 98 SE – my wife’s computer has it for an OS – and I can’t tell any difference between it and the first edition my computer uses. It strikes me that I’m not getting much for the 95 bucks I would pay for the upgrade.    There is also Windows ME – for 99 bucks. I know nothing about it, but assume that being newer it has firewire support built in. Asking on the computer related forums I got snide answers like — "Throw out that old dog and get XP on a PIV" and "That’s why you should have got a Mac." So I figured I’d ask here where people have computers, know something about them, but don’t think of a Pentium II as ancient history.   I’m pretty sure XP would not run well on my machine. What little I’ve read indicates it needs a PIII running at 500 to chug along at a comfy speed. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. A few pictures are available at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

Response:

I have some suggestions if you’d care to contact me at home on the subject. Matt

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    It is 35mm related. I’ve got a new scanner and need to upgrade my OS to Windows 98 SE (second edition) and then load in updates to that (Which came with the scanner) in order to install a firewire card. I’m using a Pentium II, 450megahertz – it was blazingly fast in 1999 — way back in the last millenium.    I’ve used 98 SE – my wife’s computer has it for an OS – and I can’t tell any difference between it and the first edition my computer uses. It strikes me that I’m not getting much for the 95 bucks I would pay for the upgrade.    There is also Windows ME – for 99 bucks. I know nothing about it, but assume that being newer it has firewire support built in. Asking on the computer related forums I got snide answers like — "Throw out that old dog and get XP on a PIV" and "That’s why you should have got a Mac." So I figured I’d ask here where people have computers, know something about them, but don’t think of a Pentium II as ancient history.   I’m pretty sure XP would not run well on my machine. What little I’ve read indicates it needs a PIII running at 500 to chug along at a comfy speed. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. A few pictures are available at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

+—Posted via NewsGroups.Com, Your Premier Usenet Provider—-+ | Over 80,000 Newsgroups – All New Servers, totally Uncensored |

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   It is 35mm related. I’ve got a new scanner and need to upgrade my OS to Windows 98 SE (second edition) and then load in updates to that (Which came with the scanner) in order to install a firewire card. I’m using a Pentium II, 450megahertz – it was blazingly fast in 1999 — way back in the last millenium.   I’ve used 98 SE – my wife’s computer has it for an OS – and I can’t tell any difference between it and the first edition my computer uses. It strikes me that I’m not getting much for the 95 bucks I would pay for the upgrade.   There is also Windows ME – for 99 bucks. I know nothing about it, but assume that being newer it has firewire support built in. Asking on the computer related forums I got snide answers like — "Throw out that old dog and get XP on a PIV" and "That’s why you should have got a Mac." So I figured I’d ask here where people have computers, know something about them, but don’t think of a Pentium II as ancient history.  I’m pretty sure XP would not run well on my machine. What little I’ve read indicates it needs a PIII running at 500 to chug along at a comfy speed.

The problem with win98 is you will have to download so many updates to get it running properly.. I have been using win2000 pro with no problems.. Win ME is a memory hog as is XP so you would have to upgrade your memory.. Colyn Goodson Ft. Worth, Texas Leica Camera/Lens Information http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Veranda/9472

Response:

Avoid ME (many driver issues/other probls.) and XP (Microshaft’s new licensing and slower than Win2000). Win98se is okay, Windows 2000 w/ service pack 2 rules. bg

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    It is 35mm related. I’ve got a new scanner and need to upgrade my OS to Windows 98 SE (second edition) and then load in updates to that (Which came with the scanner) in order to install a firewire card. I’m using a Pentium II, 450megahertz – it was blazingly fast in 1999 — way back in the last millenium.    I’ve used 98 SE – my wife’s computer has it for an OS – and I can’t tell any difference between it and the first edition my computer uses. It strikes me that I’m not getting much for the 95 bucks I would pay for the upgrade.    There is also Windows ME – for 99 bucks. I know nothing about it, but assume that being newer it has firewire support built in. Asking on the computer related forums I got snide answers like — "Throw out that old dog and get XP on a PIV" and "That’s why you should have got a Mac." So I figured I’d ask here where people have computers, know something about them, but don’t think of a Pentium II as ancient history.   I’m pretty sure XP would not run well on my machine. What little I’ve read indicates it needs a PIII running at 500 to chug along at a comfy speed. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. A few pictures are available at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

Response:

Nonsense (at least as it relates to Me).  It’s a stable, fine OS. I would avoid XP though… Mark

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Avoid ME (many driver issues/other probls.) and XP (Microshaft’s new licensing and slower than Win2000). Win98se is okay, Windows 2000 w/ service pack 2 rules. bg    It is 35mm related. I’ve got a new scanner and need to upgrade my OS to Windows 98 SE (second edition) and then load in updates to that (Which came with the scanner) in order to install a firewire card. I’m using a Pentium II, 450megahertz – it was blazingly fast in 1999 — way back in the last millenium.    I’ve used 98 SE – my wife’s computer has it for an OS – and I can’t tell any difference between it and the first edition my computer uses. It strikes me that I’m not getting much for the 95 bucks I would pay for the upgrade.    There is also Windows ME – for 99 bucks. I know nothing about it, but assume that being newer it has firewire support built in. Asking on the computer related forums I got snide answers like — "Throw out that old dog and get XP on a PIV" and "That’s why you should have got a Mac." So I figured I’d ask here where people have computers, know something about them, but don’t think of a Pentium II as ancient history.   I’m pretty sure XP would not run well on my machine. What little I’ve read indicates it needs a PIII running at 500 to chug along at a comfy speed. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. A few pictures are available at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

Response:

I had Win98 — hated it. Every few months, another piece of software would die. By the time I replaced it with XP, disconnecting from the Internet would cause the computer to do reset itself. Win98 sucked. WinXP — aside from the activation scheme — is infinitely more stable. There are driver issues to consider — some hardware still doesn’t have drivers. In some cases (Epson scanner), you can use Win2000 drivers. In other cases (Plextor SCSI 4×12 CD burner), you’re out of luck. Overall though, beats my experience with Win98 by leaps and bounds. Let me repeat — Win98 sucked. Running XP on an overclocked 300 mhz = 450 mhz Celeron with 256 mb RAM. No problems with the overclocked CPU — been running daily for nearly three years. And the Win98 problems were not CPU-related. They were the fault of the OS and all of the many layers that had been piled on it since Win95. -Mike Elek

Response:

   It is 35mm related. I’ve got a new scanner and need to upgrade my OS to Windows 98 SE (second edition) and then load in updates to that (Which came with the scanner) in order to install a firewire card. I’m using a Pentium II, 450megahertz – it was blazingly fast in 1999 — way back in the last millenium.

I happen to know about what scanner are you talking. This remains me precisely on my dilemma: The W98-W98SE upgrade was gone, available was only the $95 W95-W98SE "compatible update", or the WinME for the same $99. Naturally now with the WinXP out the choice is harder, but WinXP has several important improvements added at last, such as real multitasking and a protected kernel. It shares the technology with WinNT/W2000.   The paradox about this scanner installation is that the original W98 runs with firewire without a problem, assuming that you will install the drivers. Only the card provided with the scanner on purpose does not have the W98 drivers (but the other cards of http://www.ratocsystems.com/english/ does have the W98 first edition drivers.) Last but not least, the scanning software itself and the scanner driver refuse to install on a W98 first edition. So you must upgrade, even if you will afterwards use only Vuescan. The difference between W98 and WinME is like nothing, except a gigantic increase in system disk use for junk you might never want to have, such as a movie editor declared to be an non-uninstallable part of… an operating system. Unbelievable. That’s the power of monopoly which the legal system of this country is not capable of to recognize as such and to stop. In my case I was even forced to re-partition my disk in order to be able to run the setup.exe from the WinME disk! I have no intention to update yet again to WinXP, I suffered enough from this WinME transition for no any gain. I will take the WinXP mark II or mark III with a next generation PC next year or so… Thomas. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    I’ve used 98 SE – my wife’s computer has it for an OS – and I can’t tell any difference between it and the first edition my computer uses. It strikes me that I’m not getting much for the 95 bucks I would pay for the upgrade.    There is also Windows ME – for 99 bucks. I know nothing about it, but assume that being newer it has firewire support built in. Asking on the computer related forums I got snide answers like — "Throw out that old dog and get XP on a PIV" and "That’s why you should have got a Mac." So I figured I’d ask here where people have computers, know something about them, but don’t think of a Pentium II as ancient history.   I’m pretty sure XP would not run well on my machine. What little I’ve read indicates it needs a PIII running at 500 to chug along at a comfy speed. — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. A few pictures are available at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

Response:

I agree with Mark – WinME is very stable. It is basically a refined and slightly upgraded Win98SE. It has the advantage (over Win98SE) of having System Restore which is a nifty way of restoring the system to a previous working state if new software/drivers hose things up. Some of my older hardware devices (tape drive, QuickCam camera) do not have ME drivers, but the 98 drivers work perfectly on my system. Based on what I read in the newsgroup for my video card, WinXP is very risky -especially if you have older hardware (many manufacturers have decided not to supply XP drivers for older hardware). Jean

| Nonsense (at least as it relates to Me).  It’s a stable, fine OS. | | I would avoid XP though… | | Mark | |

| Avoid ME (many driver issues/other probls.) and XP (Microshaft’s new | licensing and slower than Win2000). Win98se is okay, Windows 2000 w/ | service | pack 2 rules. | bg | |    It is 35mm related. I’ve got a new scanner and need to upgrade my OS | to | Windows 98 SE (second edition) and then load in updates to that (Which | came | with the scanner) in order to install a firewire card. I’m using a | Pentium | II, 450megahertz – it was blazingly fast in 1999 — way back in the | last | millenium. |    I’ve used 98 SE – my wife’s computer has it for an OS – and I can’t | tell | any difference between it and the first edition my computer uses. It | strikes | me that I’m not getting much for the 95 bucks I would pay for the | upgrade. |    There is also Windows ME – for 99 bucks. I know nothing about it, but | assume that being newer it has firewire support built in. Asking on the | computer related forums I got snide answers like — "Throw out that old | dog | and get XP on a PIV" and "That’s why you should have got a Mac." So I | figured I’d ask here where people have computers, know something about | them, | but don’t think of a Pentium II as ancient history. |   I’m pretty sure XP would not run well on my machine. What little I’ve | read | indicates it needs a PIII running at 500 to chug along at a comfy speed. | | — | http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ | The Camera-ist’s Manifesto | a Radical approach to photography. | A few pictures are available at | http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony | | | | | | |

Response:

I’m a unix nerd by trade, but my primary home PC has always been Windows NT. I loved it. It had stability and yet most of the brainless ease of use I preferred when I wasn’t at work. Then I got Windows 2000. And I’ve been in love with it as a desk top ever since. Any of the "consumer" windowses pretty much blows. That’s 95 through ME. XP contacts the mothership too much for my liking.

Response:

I have gone from win 95 to win me, and am now at win xp, and must say that in my experience xp beats them all barnone.

Doesn’t look like the newsreader that (presumably) ships with it is any cop though – it apparently just posted 8 copies of that article. — /*  _  */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA" /* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m7?k=1<<m+ /* |   */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j–;printf("  _/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]); /* _,hris Brown — All opinions expressed are probably wrong. */return 0;}

Response:

Nonsense (at least as it relates to Me).  It’s a stable, fine OS. I would avoid XP though… Mark

My experience with ME was constant crashes and driver issues.. Win2k pro is a good choice.. Colyn Goodson Ft. Worth, Texas Leica Camera/Lens Information http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Veranda/9472

Response:

I did a clean load of Me on my P3/700 IBM Thinkpad, and connected up my Epson 1280 printer, my HP 8220 CR Burner, my compact Flash card adapter, my Canon G2 digital camera, my Umax 4450 scanner, my HP  wireless Lan card, and my Linksys cable modem router – all without a single glitch. I’ve used Win 2000 Pro before but found it too complex for a home network. An MCSE I’m not… <s Mark

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Nonsense (at least as it relates to Me).  It’s a stable, fine OS. I would avoid XP though… Mark My experience with ME was constant crashes and driver issues.. Win2k pro is a good choice.. Colyn Goodson Ft. Worth, Texas Leica Camera/Lens Information http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Veranda/9472

Response:

Hi Tony – I’ll probably regret typing this, but here goes:    I’ve been running W98 First Edition on a cheap eMachine since Jan., ‘99, and it’s been absolutely fine.  I have not done a single update.  The W98 installation is still in its OEM state, and I’m puzzled every time I read of the grief some people have with it, regardless of updates, or lack thereof. I’ve done practically everything people warn about doing – download apps, install, try, uninstall, etc.  I’m running two printers (one parallel, one USB), an Epson USB scanner, Wacom Tablet, Logitech Wireless USB keyboard and mouse, PS 2 mouse, Intel Webcam, Iomega parallel 100 MB Zip Disk, and a self-installed HP CDRW drive, Adobe Photoshop 6, and my desktop currently has over 100 icons for folders and apps, etc.  I’ve got the RAM at a M/B limited 256 MB.    You’ve got nothing to lose with trying W98 – if it won’t perform, then look into XP, as others have suggested. Joe Arnold

:    It is 35mm related. I’ve got a new scanner and need to upgrade my OS to : Windows 98 SE (second edition) and then load in updates to that (Which came : with the scanner) in order to install a firewire card. I’m using a Pentium : II, 450megahertz – it was blazingly fast in 1999 — way back in the last : millenium. :    I’ve used 98 SE – my wife’s computer has it for an OS – and I can’t tell : any difference between it and the first edition my computer uses. It strikes : me that I’m not getting much for the 95 bucks I would pay for the upgrade. :    There is also Windows ME – for 99 bucks. I know nothing about it, but : assume that being newer it has firewire support built in. Asking on the : computer related forums I got snide answers like — "Throw out that old dog : and get XP on a PIV" and "That’s why you should have got a Mac." So I : figured I’d ask here where people have computers, know something about them, : but don’t think of a Pentium II as ancient history. :   I’m pretty sure XP would not run well on my machine. What little I’ve read : indicates it needs a PIII running at 500 to chug along at a comfy speed. : : — : http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ : The Camera-ist’s Manifesto : a Radical approach to photography. : A few pictures are available at : http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony : : : — Joe Arnold’s outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Visit my Website: http://www.panhandlephotoworks.com Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). — Joe Arnold’s outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Visit my Website: http://www.panhandlephotoworks.com Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

I did a clean load of Me on my P3/700 IBM Thinkpad, and connected up my Epson 1280 printer, my HP 8220 CR Burner, my compact Flash card adapter, my Canon G2 digital camera, my Umax 4450 scanner, my HP  wireless Lan card, and my Linksys cable modem router – all without a single glitch.

Whenever I up-grade, I do a clean install (never upgrade disk) When 98SE started to give me problems, I tried ME. It was better but I still continued to have crashes. I then went to win2k and have had no problems I’ve used Win 2000 Pro before but found it too complex for a home network. An MCSE I’m not… <s

The only difference between 98, ME, and 2k networking that I have found is 2k has 2 icons in the sys tray. One for your DSL, Cable, etc modem and another if you are running PPPOE.. However, 2k does give you more options for networking..   Colyn Goodson Ft. Worth, Texas Leica Camera/Lens Information http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Veranda/9472

Response:

Question:

I am an amateur with intermediate experience level. I like both 35mm and digital, and I have applications for both. My wife needs a new camera.  If digital was not a possibility, she would be getting an Olympus IS-30 DLX.  It has the capabilities and features that fit her needs.  We might still get that one.  The size is acceptable but is at the upper limit.  And she doesn’t want a regular SLR.  Been there done that, there is a camera for every person and a person for every camera, and the IS-30 is where she is.  But here is the question. She wants ONE camera.  She has a definite need for archival quality prints, because she enjoys creating photo albums and scrapbooks.   On the other hand, she simply **will not** take enough photos of a given subject to raise the likelihood of getting a good photo.  This is a case where digital would be excellent for her.  She could either just snap a few more since they are free, or she could review her photo and see if it was okay before putting the camera away. Based on that, it seems we should be buying a digital camera, and uploading photos to a printing service. But, for MY photos, I am also interested in comments about the reverse process.  Specifically, taking film photos, then having them developed and put onto the web or CDROM.  I have a scanner, so I know that route.  But I have never tried the other way. I would appreciate suggestions as to an appropriate digital camera for my wife, and a printing service that you would recommend. I would also appreciate suggestions for me, as to a good place to get film prints plus digital files. [posted, not cross-posted, to 35mm, digital, and processing groups] Thanks!

Response:

  Going with film to digital is fraught with complications. If your scanning service is no good you get garbage. If you do it yourself you spend a lot of time at the computer. I do it, and am quite happy to do it, at least until digital reaches the resolution/price point I want. It is pretty time consuming though.    There really is no best answer, of course, and I wish you good luck in your decision — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Old site with some pictures still up at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am an amateur with intermediate experience level. I like both 35mm and digital, and I have applications for both. My wife needs a new camera.  If digital was not a possibility, she would be getting an Olympus IS-30 DLX.  It has the capabilities and features that fit her needs.  We might still get that one.  The size is acceptable but is at the upper limit.  And she doesn’t want a regular SLR.  Been there done that, there is a camera for every person and a person for every camera, and the IS-30 is where she is.  But here is the question. She wants ONE camera.  She has a definite need for archival quality prints, because she enjoys creating photo albums and scrapbooks.   On the other hand, she simply **will not** take enough photos of a given subject to raise the likelihood of getting a good photo.  This is a case where digital would be excellent for her.  She could either just snap a few more since they are free, or she could review her photo and see if it was okay before putting the camera away. Based on that, it seems we should be buying a digital camera, and uploading photos to a printing service. But, for MY photos, I am also interested in comments about the reverse process.  Specifically, taking film photos, then having them developed and put onto the web or CDROM.  I have a scanner, so I know that route.  But I have never tried the other way. I would appreciate suggestions as to an appropriate digital camera for my wife, and a printing service that you would recommend. I would also appreciate suggestions for me, as to a good place to get film prints plus digital files. [posted, not cross-posted, to 35mm, digital, and processing groups] Thanks!

Response:

I enjoyed reading your manifesto.  Thanks for the feedback. -Bullwinkle

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –   Going with film to digital is fraught with complications. If your scanning service is no good you get garbage. If you do it yourself you spend a lot of time at the computer. I do it, and am quite happy to do it, at least until digital reaches the resolution/price point I want. It is pretty time consuming though.    There really is no best answer, of course, and I wish you good luck in your decision — http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography. Old site with some pictures still up at http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony The Homestead site has been closed due to a vast overbilling, and so funny goings on from Homestead. I am an amateur with intermediate experience level. I like both 35mm and digital, and I have applications for both. My wife needs a new camera.  If digital was not a possibility, she would be getting an Olympus IS-30 DLX.  It has the capabilities and features that fit her needs.  We might still get that one.  The size is acceptable but is at the upper limit.  And she doesn’t want a regular SLR.  Been there done that, there is a camera for every person and a person for every camera, and the IS-30 is where she is.  But here is the question. She wants ONE camera.  She has a definite need for archival quality prints, because she enjoys creating photo albums and scrapbooks.   On the other hand, she simply **will not** take enough photos of a given subject to raise the likelihood of getting a good photo.  This is a case where digital would be excellent for her.  She could either just snap a few more since they are free, or she could review her photo and see if it was okay before putting the camera away. Based on that, it seems we should be buying a digital camera, and uploading photos to a printing service. But, for MY photos, I am also interested in comments about the reverse process.  Specifically, taking film photos, then having them developed and put onto the web or CDROM.  I have a scanner, so I know that route.  But I have never tried the other way. I would appreciate suggestions as to an appropriate digital camera for my wife, and a printing service that you would recommend. I would also appreciate suggestions for me, as to a good place to get film prints plus digital files. [posted, not cross-posted, to 35mm, digital, and processing groups] Thanks!

Response:

[...] She wants ONE camera.  She has a definite need for archival quality prints, because she enjoys creating photo albums and scrapbooks.   On the other hand, she simply **will not** take enough photos of a given subject to raise the likelihood of getting a good photo.  This is a case where digital would be excellent for her.  She could either just snap a few more since they are free, or she could review her photo and see if it was okay before putting the camera away. Based on that, it seems we should be buying a digital camera, and uploading photos to a printing service.

One very frustrating thing about most digital point and shoots, they have long and *variable* shutter delay.  That makes them more or less useless for action, and hard to use for candids.  They are still good for posed shots or scenery.  I like them a lot better then film P&S for that. As far as printing services go I like ofoto.com, but other people don’t.  Maybe they have diffrent tastes in colors, or maybe their camera does not play as well (ofoto lookes at the camera ID in the EXIF and makes coloring choices baised on it).  Shutterfly and clubphoto are also good ones to try.  Most offer some number of free small prints when you sign up, so it is cheap to decide for yourself. However I will note that ink jet prints look pretty good too, I have a cheap ($100) Epson 777 inkjet (I have seen them for $38 as referbs at MicroCenter).  When I use the Epson heavy weight matte paper prints from GraphicConverter look great.  Like a photo from any reasonable viewing distance. But, for MY photos, I am also interested in comments about the reverse process.  Specifically, taking film photos, then having them developed and put onto the web or CDROM.  I have a scanner, so I know that route.  But I have never tried the other way.

I never really found anything I liked a lot.  I also stopped trying when I got an EOS-D30 (which has it’s own shortcomings, but I love anyway). I would appreciate suggestions as to an appropriate digital camera for my wife, and a printing service that you would recommend.

Look at www.dpreview.com, they do a *much* better job evaluating digital cameras then I can.  Ignore the prices there because they all seem to be the price on first release, so the Nikon 990 is listed at about $1000 while you can find them for more like $500 now. If you have no idea what reviews to start with, try the Nikon 990, if the size isn’t too big, or the Canon G2 (or G1 if the G2 is too costly). I would also appreciate suggestions for me, as to a good place to get film prints plus digital files.

Sorry, no suggestions there. — Not speaking for much of anyone. Yes my mail address really does have all that crap in it.

Response:

Question:

        in the tradition of annika and since i’ve lurked and really bought my camera because of the discussions on this list and have found you guys infinitely useful.. i finally got my act together and scanned the first set of pictures i took w/ the camera.. this is from germany earlier this summer.. the scanner is a horrible desaturating $30 scanner (after rebate) which scanned the prints.. so the colors/intensities are much different on the print/negative.. i’m saving up pennies for the 35mm scanner but so here they are : http://www.cs.cornell.edu/People/avijit some specs.. they were all taken w/ a 7e/28-135IS travel lens.. the ones w/ me in it were taken by anita (gf) and the set in the car w/ both of us were taken by a friend who came w/ us.. but so many of the brilliant shots were done by other brilliant people         -avi

Response:

http://www.cs.cornell.edu/People/avijit some specs.. they were all taken w/ a 7e/28-135IS travel lens.. the ones w/ me in it were taken by anita (gf) and the set in the car w/ both of us were taken by a friend who came w/ us.. but so many of the brilliant shots were done by other brilliant people

Excellent pics (except for the lousy scans of course)!  Get a decent film scanner so you can better show off the incredible 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS.

Response:

       in the tradition of annika and since i’ve lurked and really bought my camera because of the discussions on this list and have found you guys infinitely useful.. i finally got my act together and scanned the first set of pictures i took w/ the camera.. this is from germany earlier this summer.. the scanner is a horrible desaturating $30 scanner (after rebate) which scanned the prints.. so the colors/intensities are much different on the print/negative.. i’m saving up pennies for the 35mm scanner but so here they are :

 We aren’t here to critique your photos, only your equipment.  There are other forums for that like photocritique.net. Best not to be in the tradition of Annika – you certainly don’t want to get any of him on you.  From what I can tell, you are already far and above Mr. Douglas (aka Annika) in creativity and eye.  Don’t spoil your good start. Steve

Response:

 We aren’t here to critique your photos, only your equipment.  There are other forums for that like photocritique.net.

        No you are right.. I thought that since occasionally you guys get the "this is what i’ve done w/ the equipment you guys recommended, now that i’ve graduated from my sureshot" (elan7e/28-135IS) it would be forgivable.. but yes apologies for the more obvious inappropriate newsgroup post.. Best not to be in the tradition of Annika – you certainly don’t want to get any of him on you.  From what I can tell, you are already far and above Mr. Douglas (aka Annika) in creativity and eye.  Don’t spoil your good start.

         thanks         -avi         http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/avijit

Response:

 We aren’t here to critique your photos, only your equipment.  There are other forums for that like photocritique.net.        No you are right.. I thought that since occasionally you guys get the "this is what i’ve done w/ the equipment you guys recommended, now that i’ve graduated from my sureshot" (elan7e/28-135IS) it would be forgivable.. but yes apologies for the more obvious inappropriate newsgroup post..

Its not a huge infraction – lots of folks do it and it can be refreshing.  I hope its clear what my opinion is of your work so far. Best not to be in the tradition of Annika – you certainly don’t want to get any of him on you.  From what I can tell, you are already far and above Mr. Douglas (aka Annika) in creativity and eye.  Don’t spoil your good start.         thanks

Steve

Response:

Question:

Thanks for all the responses.  It’s been a burning question for me since this NG abounds with references to Photoshop, but how the image gets to print was never really clear, other than via a computer-driven "printer".  I was wondering if a "negative" could be made, and apparently it is so.  Kewl. Thanks!   Dok

Response:

The question of printers deserves more attention.  Not very many years ago, a well-qualified technician where I work (a U.S. Government laboratory) spent hours adjusting a very expensive color printer, that printed on special, expensive paper.  He would adjust the thing PERFECTLY according to specs, and the results were ALWAYS disappointing.  The color was not so great, and the print never looked as good as the picture on the screen.  The thing had to go back to the factory every so often, also, for more extensive adjustments. Now you can get a color inkjet printer in the $100-$200 range (maybe less) that does a better job than a printer that cost 10 times as much could do 10 years ago.  And on ordinary paper.  For not a great deal more you can get a "professional" quality printer, and you can get "photo" paper that is not terribly expensive and yields better results than plain bond paper.  The results are as long-lasting as prints produced by photographic means.  (I have some slides from years back, not just prints, which have faded more than what comes out of a contemporary inkjet printer is likely to do in a similar amount of time.)

Response:

Some digital printers are chemically based, and thus those images last as long as any other print. dan

Response:

Got a question. I see a lot of references to Photoshop to manipulate photos.  I have to assume these are digital photos de novo or scanned from 35mm or other film format.  If this is the case for film, once the manupulation is complete, what is the process by which I deliver the image to the lab for printing on real photographic paper?  Or do I get back the image printed on computer photo paper by a very expensive digital photo printer?  If the latter is the case, do the inks hold up to the test of time?

    The jury’s still out on inkjet longevity, but the gist is, they can last quite a while if protected from UV and/or air circulation, as in photo album or a *good* frame job with quality UV protective glass. But these kind of prints can be easy to find, inexpensive, and done at home if you spring for the printer.     The Fuji Frontier process, and a Konica one that I don’t know the name of, can output digital files onto proper photo paper exposed by LEDs, so you have the exact same properties as a typical print. Availability and price vary, but seeking out a good pro lab is the better bet here. The operators are more likely to be able to handle the machines, different file formats, et cetera. The best thing with these is, once you find a lab you like, take one of their *uncorrected* prints home, one that came straight from your own digital file, and calibrate your monitor to match it. Then you’ll always know what you’re getting. It’s definitely worth the effort.      I haven’t tried out any of the mail order print labs, though I’ve heard a lot of positive feedback. Output can vary from laser photos through dye-sub printers (a step up, way up, from inkjets). The downside is the wait, and possible calibration problems. Face to face, you can always tell the lab tech what you want.     By the way, when I went this direction, the film scanner and the CD-RW was a necessity. Your finished file should exceed 150 dpi, 24-bit color, and for an 8×10 this will produce files far in excess of floppies, sometimes up to 30 megabytes. I’ve never run into a problem with PC or Mac, seems everyone is compatible with both nowadays.     Hope this helps. Good Luck!         – Al. — Remove an ‘E’ from Speed for direct reply. Online photo gallery at www.ipass.net/~denelsbeck.

Response:

I see a lot of references to Photoshop to manipulate photos.  I have to assume these are digital photos de novo or scanned from 35mm or other film format.  If this is the case for film, once the manupulation is complete, what is the process by which I deliver the image to the lab for printing on real photographic paper?  Or do I get back the image printed on computer photo paper by a very expensive digital photo printer?  If the latter is the case, do the inks hold up to the test of time?

Dok, Depending on your budget, you can get the modified file outputted to a real negative (with lasers), and then get it printed normally; you can have the file printed onto photo paper with lasers, or you can have a high-res inkjet output print. You’ll probably need to pay to have it scanned unless you have a nice expensive scanner, the light output machines I’ve seen all require about 4,000 dpi for a good print/negative. Amy

Response:

Got a question. I see a lot of references to Photoshop to manipulate photos.  I have to assume these are digital photos de novo or scanned from 35mm or other film format.  If this is the case for film, once the manupulation is complete, what is the process by which I deliver the image to the lab for printing on real photographic paper?  Or do I get back the image printed on computer photo paper by a very expensive digital photo printer?  If the latter is the case, do the inks hold up to the test of time? Still learning, Dok

Response:

Question:

I’m almost sorry I started this thread – I surely didn’t want to start a range war on scanning vs direct digital.  I do a lot of scanning, but alas, a majority of my work is in 6×4.5 format, and my PowerLook III doesn’t come with a 645 mask – so I’m changing over to 6×7 and sticking with 35mm slides – I do have masks for those formats (allows batching of scanning). As for digital – I went ahead and ordered an EOS D30 – this should provide me with a lot of time, and the initiative, to "go digital", and when the EOS-1D hits the US markets I may just see how serious I am.   Oh – and by the way – I use Photoshop 6.01 & Silverfast AI and I don’t "spend the rest of my life scanning" – I spend time "artisticly composing". Walt

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am wanting to get into some serious digital work and wonder if I should wait for the EOS-1D or stick with the D30 ?? Any opinions ?? Serious digital work can be done too, with a (good) film scanner Yeah, if you wanna spend the rest of your life scanning.  Go take 100 pics or so (3 rolls) and see how long it takes ya to scan them.  By the time you get them all scanned in, you could’ve had them transferred, edited, and printed from the digital body. This might not be a correct interpretation of how film-to-digital conversion work for most people. Photographers that goes this route seem to decide on a few images, and only digitize those. I personally use slides (a viewable high quality original) and digitize only the ones I would like to print or otherwise process further. That is not very time consuming – but I consider meself lucky to get 3 keepers off one 36 image roll. For a noted compositional and technical expert, where every image ever taken is a precious, perfect image things would be very different, ofcourse. — Anders Svensson

Response:

it will be $6000 USD recommended retail price..

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does anyone know or seen an estimated street price for the Canon EOS-1D?? I am wanting to get into some serious digital work and wonder if I should wait for the EOS-1D or stick with the D30 ?? Any opinions ??

Response:

Thanks Daniel….  I currently use a UMAX PowerLook III with SilverFast. I think that qualifies…  I want to start doing digital work at the camera level..

The 1D is perhaps the best start for this kind of digital photography ! When you’ll have it, please write some comments here ! — <

Question:

Steve, Your notion of quality might not hold. Digital lightjet prints can surpass conventional RA4 or cibas. It is printed on conventional media and processed by the artist. Even professional inkjets on permanent media will give conventional print competition and even surpassing it. The larger you make the print (magnification) the better it will look on digital output. When I make a print from my 8×10 negs, at 24×30 I can not see to much difference, but at 40×50 or larger the digital print is sharper, much!

I have not studied such large prints, so I cannot comment. I am however surprised. The file size must be stupendous – how many Gb do they come? It is actually much cheaper for me to make a conventional print than a digital print. But I still choose digital. It is still in my control. Plus professional digital output is more permanent under cared conditions than conventional print, even Ciba, which was one of the reigning king.

Ann, what are you printing with/on, The most extreme claims I have seen come out about 1/5th the predicted life of Ilfochromes (Wilhelm’s view is that in dark storage it is effectively infinite, though keeping in the dark is not very interesting). The life of dye transfers (if you can get the materials) is pretty well geological. The other thing is, of course, I don’t *need* a prediction for Ilfochrome; prints I made 25 years ago show no detectable change. You can obviously only get predictions on injet prints, though I am (mostly) prepared to accept the scientific logic behind them. — David Littlewood

Response:

For several years I used a Kodak LED laser printer (poster printer) for images up to 20" across (and nearly unlimited in the other).  It was a chemical process and could be produced on either glossy or a silk finish paper. For scanning in my 35mm slides (and my Hassy stuff) they used a Scitex flatbed scanner and saved the images at 250 bpi (the max resolution of the LED printer) out to the image size they were printing to,–say 16×20 inches. Obviously, the Hasselblad stuff was incredible, but the 35mm was pretty outstanding, too.   Dan Lindsay Santa Barbara

Response:

I am thinking of selling some of my pictures (as prints) online, and was wondering what might be a good way of producing quality prints. I have seen many commercial photographery sites which offer limited edition prints. Some mention that they are made of ‘Fuji Crystal Archive’ paper or some such thing. Are these digital? Is it better to do a high resolution scan of the slide and then get prints out of them to sell? In that case, should I approach a pro lab and make an arrangement with them to scan and print? If I choose to scan and print at home, what kind of scanner and printer should I have? I already have a slide scanner that can scan at 2400 dpi and an Epson 880 printer, but I am guessing that maybe the quality of output from these are not enough for prints that can be sold. I am thinking of 8" x 12" or 11" x 17", sized prints. I’d really appreciate any thoughts on this. Best Regards

Response:

Most of my images are digital to begin with (Canon D30), although I have some older slide images scanned using the Nikon LS-2000. I’m printing either with Epson 870 or a friend’s Epson 1270.  For the size you’re wanting, I’d go with the Epson 1270 or 1280, and probably use the Epson Heavyweight Matte paper.  I’ve sold a few so far (online and through a local framing store), and the customers have been very pleased. Good luck. — Don Photo Website at: http://www.dlcphotography.net

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am thinking of selling some of my pictures (as prints) online, and was wondering what might be a good way of producing quality prints. I have seen many commercial photographery sites which offer limited edition prints. Some mention that they are made of ‘Fuji Crystal Archive’ paper or some such thing. Are these digital? Is it better to do a high resolution scan of the slide and then get prints out of them to sell? In that case, should I approach a pro lab and make an arrangement with them to scan and print? If I choose to scan and print at home, what kind of scanner and printer should I have? I already have a slide scanner that can scan at 2400 dpi and an Epson 880 printer, but I am guessing that maybe the quality of output from these are not enough for prints that can be sold. I am thinking of 8" x 12" or 11" x 17", sized prints. I’d really appreciate any thoughts on this. Best Regards

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am thinking of selling some of my pictures (as prints) online, and was wondering what might be a good way of producing quality prints. I have seen many commercial photographery sites which offer limited edition prints. Some mention that they are made of ‘Fuji Crystal Archive’ paper or some such thing. Are these digital? Is it better to do a high resolution scan of the slide and then get prints out of them to sell? In that case, should I approach a pro lab and make an arrangement with them to scan and print? If I choose to scan and print at home, what kind of scanner and printer should I have? I already have a slide scanner that can scan at 2400 dpi and an Epson 880 printer, but I am guessing that maybe the quality of output from these are not enough for prints that can be sold. I am thinking of 8" x 12" or 11" x 17", sized prints. I’d really appreciate any thoughts on this. Best Regards

I use a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II and an Epson 2000P printer.  I wouldn’t hesitate to sell the prints I get from this combo…The 1270/1280 will have ever so slightly brighter colors.  This is what I have read, but the 2000P looks great to my eyes, I almost can’t imagine more vivid color. The 2000P will have more longevity in the print.  I slight trade-off.  You decide.   JR

Response:

Hi, Fuji Crystal Archive is a type of paper for printing negatives, usually color. You can expose the paper either with digital lightjets or conventional. So you don’t know what the source is. In general, digital prints from light jets are sharper and have larger tonal range than conventional prints. As for inkjets, if you have some kind of reassurance that your images are archival, then you should sell them. Otherwise, I would not. I made many prints with the epson 7500 and it is of outstanding quality. I have not used consumer printers, so I don’t know how well they behave. According to independent tests most images with the pigmented inks from the epson 2000P, 7500 or 9000 etc are archival depending on the material they are printed on and the display conditions. I believe heavy weight matt is 100+ years. Good Luck, Ann

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am thinking of selling some of my pictures (as prints) online, and was wondering what might be a good way of producing quality prints. I have seen many commercial photographery sites which offer limited edition prints. Some mention that they are made of ‘Fuji Crystal Archive’ paper or some such thing. Are these digital? Is it better to do a high resolution scan of the slide and then get prints out of them to sell? In that case, should I approach a pro lab and make an arrangement with them to scan and print? If I choose to scan and print at home, what kind of scanner and printer should I have? I already have a slide scanner that can scan at 2400 dpi and an Epson 880 printer, but I am guessing that maybe the quality of output from these are not enough for prints that can be sold. I am thinking of 8" x 12" or 11" x 17", sized prints. I’d really appreciate any thoughts on this. Best Regards

Response:

If someone is going to purchase on of my prints for display as an artwork, longevity and the highest quality printing is something I owe them.  If you’re not going to do darkroom work yourself, I’d find a good professional lab that’ll work closely with me (i.e., can you talk over your print needs – framing and cropping, colour balance, etc – with the person who’s actually going to do the printing) and have them do it.  Digital printing, as good as it is now, is still not up to full "museum grade" work, IMO.  When I see an offering of "limited edition prints" in the fine arts market, I usually think of hand-printed numbered editions signed by the artist, printed on conventional materials either by the artist himself or under his direction at a top quality pro lab – B&W gelatin/silver prints preferrably on fibre based paper, colour prints on something like Cibachrome or perhaps even dye transfer prints.  I think I’d be a little steamed if I paid a couple hundred bucks for an print to display on the wall that was printed with a consumer grade inkjet based on a scan from a consumer grade scanner.  Don’t get me wrong, the image itself is the important thing and I’ve even got a couple of prints from Ikea’s $10-$15 poster collection on my wall that I really like, I just don’t think of them as being in the same league as something being sold as a "limited edition print."

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am thinking of selling some of my pictures (as prints) online, and was wondering what might be a good way of producing quality prints. I have seen many commercial photographery sites which offer limited edition prints. Some mention that they are made of ‘Fuji Crystal Archive’ paper or some such thing. Are these digital? Is it better to do a high resolution scan of the slide and then get prints out of them to sell? In that case, should I approach a pro lab and make an arrangement with them to scan and print? If I choose to scan and print at home, what kind of scanner and printer should I have? I already have a slide scanner that can scan at 2400 dpi and an Epson 880 printer, but I am guessing that maybe the quality of output from these are not enough for prints that can be sold. I am thinking of 8" x 12" or 11" x 17", sized prints. I’d really appreciate any thoughts on this. Best Regards

Response:

The best and cheapest way to print is at Kinko (I assume that you live in the U.S.).  They have huge flatbed laser printer and special paper for printing.  I have not investigated fully yet but I saw some samples at the store that looks like real photo developed from film.  For a good size poster, expect to pay about $10 to $15.  You should edit the pictures with Photoshop at home first and then test print on your inkjet printer and then put the digital files into a diskette and take it to the store.  Kinko charges you for print even if it is bad if it’s not their fault.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am thinking of selling some of my pictures (as prints) online, and was wondering what might be a good way of producing quality prints.

Response:

Steve, Your notion of quality might not hold. Digital lightjet prints can surpass conventional RA4 or cibas. It is printed on conventional media and processed by the artist. Even professional inkjets on permanent media will give conventional print competition and even surpassing it. The larger you make the print (magnification) the better it will look on digital output. When I make a print from my 8×10 negs, at 24×30 I can not see to much difference, but at 40×50 or larger the digital print is sharper, much! It is actually much cheaper for me to make a conventional print than a digital print. But I still choose digital. It is still in my control. Plus professional digital output is more permanent under cared conditions than conventional print, even Ciba, which was one of the reigning king. Ann

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If someone is going to purchase on of my prints for display as an artwork, longevity and the highest quality printing is something I owe them.  If you’re not going to do darkroom work yourself, I’d find a good professional lab that’ll work closely with me (i.e., can you talk over your print needs – framing and cropping, colour balance, etc – with the person who’s actually going to do the printing) and have them do it.  Digital printing, as good as it is now, is still not up to full "museum grade" work, IMO.  When I see an offering of "limited edition prints" in the fine arts market, I usually think of hand-printed numbered editions signed by the artist, printed on conventional materials either by the artist himself or under his direction at a top quality pro lab – B&W gelatin/silver prints preferrably on fibre based paper, colour prints on something like Cibachrome or perhaps even dye transfer prints.  I think I’d be a little steamed if I paid a couple hundred bucks for an print to display on the wall that was printed with a consumer grade inkjet based on a scan from a consumer grade scanner.  Don’t get me wrong, the image itself is the important thing and I’ve even got a couple of prints from Ikea’s $10-$15 poster collection on my wall that I really like, I just don’t think of them as being in the same league as something being sold as a "limited edition print." I am thinking of selling some of my pictures (as prints) online, and was wondering what might be a good way of producing quality prints. I have seen many commercial photographery sites which offer limited edition prints. Some mention that they are made of ‘Fuji Crystal Archive’ paper or some such thing. Are these digital? Is it better to do a high resolution scan of the slide and then get prints out of them to sell? In that case, should I approach a pro lab and make an arrangement with them to scan and print? If I choose to scan and print at home, what kind of scanner and printer should I have? I already have a slide scanner that can scan at 2400 dpi and an Epson 880 printer, but I am guessing that maybe the quality of output from these are not enough for prints that can be sold. I am thinking of 8" x 12" or 11" x 17", sized prints. I’d really appreciate any thoughts on this. Best Regards

Response:

Question:

Something I just recalled seeing… a car (a Renault I think) with the registration E051 FAN. I don’t know if it was chance or if it was personalised….. or if it was the Fan himself, driving around Birmingham in a small red car…. — "Mmmmmm. Shai-Hulud" – Homer al-Simpson

Response:

I have been very busy lately and have not had time to visit the NG and read about what all the groupies have to say.

We have been grateful about that promising turn of events, up until now. —

Response:

       Burian? I don’t think he ever left. Bob Hickey

Response:

       Burian? I don’t think he ever left. Bob Hickey

Snorranikafan just put this in his/her/their post to try to start a rumor that Burian is eos1vaniksnor. Ciao! Joe

Response:

I have been very busy lately and have not had time to visit the NG and read about what all the groupies have to say. AS I told the group prior, I have been very busy scanning all of my film with the drum scanner, and I had to purchase a new piece of scanning software, which is absolutely superb. Just today I was in my digital darkroom producing some exellent prints from scans of 35mm positive and negatives. Without hesitation let me say that I should have made the switch to digital output long ago, I don’t even miss the aroma of the Kreonite perking at 94.5. Let me give my point of view about something in the sports world. In the past couple of days the Braves traded John Rocker to the Indians, I really don’t have any idea of what the Braves were thinking, but to dump John Rocker is not a good decision. I had the opportunity to photograph "Rock" a couple years back, and I must tell you that he was certainly delightful. It is not very often that a great lefty that can dominate at 100mph comes along. So much for the sports world. What the hell ever happened to Peter Burian???? At one point he was in this group almost daily. Before I forget, let me tell Snorre that the plane leaves in two weeks, and I will be north of the arctic circle. I will certainly have the EOS-1V and the 400 f2.8 with me. eos1vfan

Response:

Question:

Is it my imagination, but I seem to recall that my old Kodak CD’s were scanned in at 3000dpi. I got a batch back just before I bought my film scanner, and none are higher than 550dpi. Unfortunately, my old ones are in packing boxes awaiting shipment so I can’t check for myself. Does anyone know what the max resolution for them is? Thanks. Steve Kramer Osaka, Japan — It’s not how many miles you ride, but what roads you take. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

My reference, The Photoshop 3 Wow! Book, Dayton & Davis, 1996, states for Photo CD:       Base  -  512 x   768 pixels   4*Base  -1024 x 1536 pixels 16*Base  -2048 x 3072 pixels and for Pro Photo CD only 64*Base  -4096 x 6144 pixels There are also two smaller res. scans for thumbnails etc. All of the above for standard 35mm images 24 x 36mm. (Printing at 150 lpi is assumed.) Hope this helps M Stewart            Milton Keynes, UK

Is it my imagination, but I seem to recall that my old Kodak CD’s were scanned in at 3000dpi. I got a batch back just before I bought my film scanner, and none are higher than 550dpi. Unfortunately, my old ones are in packing boxes awaiting shipment so I can’t check for myself. Does anyone know what the max resolution for them is? Thanks. Steve Kramer Osaka, Japan

snip

Response:

The largest image on the Kodak PhotoCD is 2048 x 3072. Since a 35mm image is 1 x 1.5 inches, it would seem to me that the scan would have to be 2048dpi, or somewhere close to that. The image editing program you are using to look at them may be resetting the dpi figure!  Anything I load into ‘The Gimp’ in Linux, for example gets the dpi reset to 72, and I can make this anything I want with the options. That number is only meaningfull when you are ready to print the photo to determine image size on the paper! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Is it my imagination, but I seem to recall that my old Kodak CD’s were scanned in at 3000dpi. I got a batch back just before I bought my film scanner, and none are higher than 550dpi. Unfortunately, my old ones are in packing boxes awaiting shipment so I can’t check for myself. Does anyone know what the max resolution for them is? Thanks. Steve Kramer Osaka, Japan

Response:

Question:

I wanted to know if anyone out there knew of any good negative/positive filing software. Ideally I want to scan contact sheets on my flatbed. The quality is still quite appalling without a transparency adapter- but on the other hand it is good enough for most purposes. Then i’d like something that splits them up and inserts them into a database where I could cross reference everything. I’d also like the ability to store multiple scans of each image – so if something was half decent then i’d rescan that frame in my film scanner and use that instead. Then I could just reference the binder number, page number and frame number and I could find anything very quickly. Does anything like this exist already? Would anyone else on here consider contributing if I were to start developing an open source application to fill the niche? Graham

Response:

If you can come up with a good one – I’ll buy it!    I’ve tried about 10 image databases in the past 2 week. So far the only one I’ve kept is Extensis Portfolio. It seems to work well. The next test is going to be the capper though. I’ll be feeding in about 50 films worth of small scans – 500 dpi jpegs with thumbnails. They will be in folders with teh number of the roll, but the actual jpegs are all titled "Untitled01" through "Untitled36". If it can keep them straight using the path names I think I’ll buy it. So far my "fairly simple" searches have worked well, and the program has not been hard to figure out – although the manual (a miserable piece of PDF crap) has been little help — the usual software writing junk – here’s twelve ways to drag and drop, as if you weren’t familiar with it, and every page basically says "see some other page".   In general Extensis software does what they say it will do – and this is no exception. Cumulus looked better but couldn’t open many of my files. It seemed to want to work only with flat files. Most of the rest were bad — really bad. I didn’t try any that didn’t have a downloadable demo. Database software is too complicated to buy based on advertising claims. — The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro Dark Alley Photography http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I wanted to know if anyone out there knew of any good negative/positive filing software. Ideally I want to scan contact sheets on my flatbed. The quality is still quite appalling without a transparency adapter- but on the other hand it is good enough for most purposes. Then i’d like something that splits them up and inserts them into a database where I could cross reference everything. I’d also like the ability to store multiple scans of each image – so if something was half decent then i’d rescan that frame in my film scanner and use that instead. Then I could just reference the binder number, page number and frame number and I could find anything very quickly. Does anything like this exist already? Would anyone else on here consider contributing if I were to start developing an open source application to fill the niche? Graham

Response:

Well the main feature I want is one that will make sense of scanned contact sheets and break them up to create thumbnails. I’ve realised you can get the frame number from the little barcody things at the bottom of the negative frames and potentially this could be a very nice way to quickly enter a lot of negatives/positives. Then i’d like to index things, cross reference them and allow lots of scans of a single image. G

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If you can come up with a good one – I’ll buy it!    I’ve tried about 10 image databases in the past 2 week. So far the only one I’ve kept is Extensis Portfolio. It seems to work well. The next test is going to be the capper though. I’ll be feeding in about 50 films worth of small scans – 500 dpi jpegs with thumbnails. They will be in folders with teh number of the roll, but the actual jpegs are all titled "Untitled01" through "Untitled36". If it can keep them straight using the path names I think I’ll buy it. So far my "fairly simple" searches have worked well, and the program has not been hard to figure out – although the manual (a miserable piece of PDF crap) has been little help — the usual software writing junk – here’s twelve ways to drag and drop, as if you weren’t familiar with it, and every page basically says "see some other page".   In general Extensis software does what they say it will do – and this is no exception. Cumulus looked better but couldn’t open many of my files. It seemed to want to work only with flat files. Most of the rest were bad — really bad. I didn’t try any that didn’t have a downloadable demo. Database software is too complicated to buy based on advertising claims. — The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro Dark Alley Photography http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony I wanted to know if anyone out there knew of any good negative/positive filing software. Ideally I want to scan contact sheets on my flatbed. The quality is still quite appalling without a transparency adapter- but on the other hand it is good enough for most purposes. Then i’d like something that splits them up and inserts them into a database where I could cross reference everything. I’d also like the ability to store multiple scans of each image – so if something was half decent then i’d rescan that frame in my film scanner and use that instead. Then I could just reference the binder number, page number and frame number and I could find anything very quickly. Does anything like this exist already? Would anyone else on here consider contributing if I were to start developing an open source application to fill the niche? Graham

Response:

With any of the programs I tried you would have to do the "breaking up" by hand – and in a different program, like Photoshop Paint Shop Pro, etc. — The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro Dark Alley Photography http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well the main feature I want is one that will make sense of scanned contact sheets and break them up to create thumbnails. I’ve realised you can get the frame number from the little barcody things at the bottom of the negative frames and potentially this could be a very nice way to quickly enter a lot of negatives/positives. Then i’d like to index things, cross reference them and allow lots of scans of a single image. G If you can come up with a good one – I’ll buy it!    I’ve tried about 10 image databases in the past 2 week. So far the only one I’ve kept is Extensis Portfolio. It seems to work well. The next test is going to be the capper though. I’ll be feeding in about 50 films worth of small scans – 500 dpi jpegs with thumbnails. They will be in folders with teh number of the roll, but the actual jpegs are all titled "Untitled01" through "Untitled36". If it can keep them straight using the path names I think I’ll buy it. So far my "fairly simple" searches have worked well, and the program has not been hard to figure out – although the manual (a miserable piece of PDF crap) has been little help — the usual software writing junk – here’s twelve ways to drag and drop, as if you weren’t familiar with it, and every page basically says "see some other page".   In general Extensis software does what they say it will do – and this is no exception. Cumulus looked better but couldn’t open many of my files. It seemed to want to work only with flat files. Most of the rest were bad — really bad. I didn’t try any that didn’t have a downloadable demo. Database software is too complicated to buy based on advertising claims. — The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro Dark Alley Photography http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony I wanted to know if anyone out there knew of any good negative/positive filing software. Ideally I want to scan contact sheets on my flatbed. The quality is still quite appalling without a transparency adapter- but on the other hand it is good enough for most purposes. Then i’d like something that splits them up and inserts them into a database where I could cross reference everything. I’d also like the ability to store multiple scans of each image – so if something was half decent then i’d rescan that frame in my film scanner and use that instead. Then I could just reference the binder number, page number and frame number and I could find anything very quickly. Does anything like this exist already? Would anyone else on here consider contributing if I were to start developing an open source application to fill the niche? Graham

Response:

What is contact sheet? Is that a index sheet?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well the main feature I want is one that will make sense of scanned contact sheets and break them up to create thumbnails. I’ve realised you can get the frame number from the little barcody things at the bottom of the negative frames and potentially this could be a very nice way to quickly enter a lot of negatives/positives. Then i’d like to index things, cross reference them and allow lots of scans of a single image. G If you can come up with a good one – I’ll buy it!    I’ve tried about 10 image databases in the past 2 week. So far the only one I’ve kept is Extensis Portfolio. It seems to work well. The next test is going to be the capper though. I’ll be feeding in about 50 films worth of small scans – 500 dpi jpegs with thumbnails. They will be in folders with teh number of the roll, but the actual jpegs are all titled "Untitled01" through "Untitled36". If it can keep them straight using the path names I think I’ll buy it. So far my "fairly simple" searches have worked well, and the program has not been hard to figure out – although the manual (a miserable piece of PDF crap) has been little help — the usual software writing junk – here’s twelve ways to drag and drop, as if you weren’t familiar with it, and every page basically says "see some other page".   In general Extensis software does what they say it will do – and this is no exception. Cumulus looked better but couldn’t open many of my files. It seemed to want to work only with flat files. Most of the rest were bad — really bad. I didn’t try any that didn’t have a downloadable demo. Database software is too complicated to buy based on advertising claims. — The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro Dark Alley Photography http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony I wanted to know if anyone out there knew of any good negative/positive filing software. Ideally I want to scan contact sheets on my flatbed. The quality is still quite appalling without a transparency adapter- but on the other hand it is good enough for most purposes. Then i’d like something that splits them up and inserts them into a database where I could cross reference everything. I’d also like the ability to store multiple scans of each image – so if something was half decent then i’d rescan that frame in my film scanner and use that instead. Then I could just reference the binder number, page number and frame number and I could find anything very quickly. Does anything like this exist already? Would anyone else on here consider contributing if I were to start developing an open source application to fill the niche? Graham

Response:

More or less. Usually a contact sheet is made by placing an entire roll of film on a sheet of enlarging paper with a sheet of glass on top to hold them in good "contact". An exposure is made – with an enlarger frequently but any appropriately dim light source will do – and the paper is developed into a single sheet with 1:1 size prints of all the negatives. In 35mm a full roll of 36 will fit on an 8×10 sheet. A 120 roll will also fit on one 8×10 sheet – most if not all formats of 120 negatives. Of course an 8×10 negative will fit on an 8×10 sheet too. In many cases with large format, contacts are the final product not the "proof".    Index sheets are usually smaller than the original negative – ensmallments? – and are made optically by the machine that also makes the prints.    My variant on contact prints is small scans which are placed on a single sheet using Photoshop. I also have the same files stored in jpeg format on CDs – and am in the process of putting them into an image database. To make matters more confusing my "contacts" are usually about 1.5 times the size of the original negative. — The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro Dark Alley Photography http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is contact sheet? Is that a index sheet? Well the main feature I want is one that will make sense of scanned contact sheets and break them up to create thumbnails. I’ve realised you can get the frame number from the little barcody things at the bottom of the negative frames and potentially this could be a very nice way to quickly enter a lot of negatives/positives. Then i’d like to index things, cross reference them and allow lots of scans of a single image. G If you can come up with a good one – I’ll buy it!    I’ve tried about 10 image databases in the past 2 week. So far the only one I’ve kept is Extensis Portfolio. It seems to work well. The next test is going to be the capper though. I’ll be feeding in about 50 films worth of small scans – 500 dpi jpegs with thumbnails. They will be in folders with teh number of the roll, but the actual jpegs are all titled "Untitled01" through "Untitled36". If it can keep them straight using the path names I think I’ll buy it. So far my "fairly simple" searches have worked well, and the program has not been hard to figure out – although the manual (a miserable piece of PDF crap) has been little help — the usual software writing junk – here’s twelve ways to drag and drop, as if you weren’t familiar with it, and every page basically says "see some other page".   In general Extensis software does what they say it will do – and this is no exception. Cumulus looked better but couldn’t open many of my files. It seemed to want to work only with flat files. Most of the rest were bad — really bad. I didn’t try any that didn’t have a downloadable demo. Database software is too complicated to buy based on advertising claims. — The Camera-ist’s Manifesto a Radical approach to photography http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/ Chapel Hill artist Tony Spadaro Dark Alley Photography http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony I wanted to know if anyone out there knew of any good negative/positive filing software. Ideally I want to scan contact sheets on my flatbed. The quality is still quite appalling without a transparency adapter- but on the other hand it is good enough for most purposes. Then i’d like something that splits them up and inserts them into a database where I could cross reference everything. I’d also like the ability to store multiple scans of each image – so if something was half decent then i’d rescan that frame in my film scanner and use that instead. Then I could just reference the binder number, page number and frame number and I could find anything very quickly. Does anything like this exist already? Would anyone else on here consider contributing if I were to start developing an open source application to fill the niche? Graham

Response:

check out PhotoLibrary at http://homestead.juno.com/photolibrarysoftware and the Open Directory which has a list of Image Management Software http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Graphics/Software/Image_Cataloguing/ — Posted from [12.18.141.171] via Mailgate.ORG Server – http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Response: