Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Novice scanner



At 09:42 AM 11/21/2001 -0600, you wrote:
>First question - how large do you like to print?  If larger than 8 1/2 x 
>11" then you probably should get a 4000spi scanner instead of the 
>Acer.  If not then the Acer should be fine.

I like prints larger than 8 1/2 x 11 if the resolution is there.  I found a 
math formula somewhere that produced the number 11 for the width of prints 
with a 2720 scanner.  I supposed that would mean an 11" square print, or 
maybe an 11 x 17.  You don't think the ScanWit will be satisfactory at 11 x 17?

>The grain that prints out - do you see it onscreen as well or only in the 
>print?

It's hard to say.  When I enlarge the color image that has all the red 
dots, almost to the stage of seeing the pixels, there is definitely color 
spotting in the shadowed part of the church wall, but it's not the same red 
dots that I get in a print.  When I enlarge the B&W image on the screen, 
more and more grain becomes visible.

>If only in the print then it sounds like a printer problem - try cleaning 
>the nozzles with Epson's software.

There's definitely some kind of "grain" on the screen, though not exactly 
what I'm getting in prints, at least in color, anyway.  I have used Epson's 
three utilities (clean nozzle, etc.) three or four times.

>  If onscreen then it may be what is called "dust and scratches".  You 
> have probably read references to Digital ICE and to Vuescan's Dust and 
> Scratches filter similar to ICE - they both help but they need an IR 
> (infrared) channel to work.  Another possible reason to switch scanners 
> as the ScanWit 2720S does not have the IR channel though their 2740 does.

I didn't know that Vuescan had an ICE-type feature; as you say, it would 
not help with the 2720, anyway.

>There is also an article on what is called Grain Aliasing at
>http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm - you might want to read that.

Thanks; I'll read it right after I finish here.

>Despite the discussions I would not be leery of the Nikon - I have the 
>Nikon LS-30 and am very satisfied with it.  I also would not worry about 
>Polaroid's problems - the price is excellent with the $200 rebate, and 
>David Hemingway of Polaroid participates in this group and has assured us 
>the product is still being manufactured and rebates processed.  I tend to 
>trust his word on that.

That's good to know about David.  At the moment, if I were to get a new 
scanner, it would be between the Polaroid and the Canoscan 4000.  The Nikon 
might be a terrific scanner, but the price is a bit high for me.

>The banding problem is more particularized - when you print an image, what 
>format is the image in (PSD, TIFF, JPEG, or what?)?  And what is the 
>resolution that you are sending to the printer?

First, I have prints with no visible banding.  They were made using the 
same settings as the prints that do show banding.  I have been printing @ 
6.666 x 10, as I like the 2:3 format of 35mm.  I've set the resolution at 
300 dpi, and all prints are from TIFF files.  What seems even more puzzling 
is that the slide that shows the most banding also shows bands in the scan 
on the monitor.

>Good luck to you!  I started late myself.
>
>Maris Lidaka Sr

Thanks for your willingness to help Maris.  I hope that my answers to your 
questions will give you some new ideas.

Regards,
John


>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Pendley" <jpendley@alltel.net>
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:44 AM
>Subject: filmscanners: Novice scanner
>
>
>| Hello everybody,
>|
>| I'd like to introduce myself and ask for some help.  I've been lurking for
>| about a week and haven't seen anything aimed low enough that I could profit
>| from it--at least not now.
>|
>| I'm a retired teacher (English); I have been an avid amateur photographer
>| for even longer than I taught.  For years, I did my own B&W work in a wet
>| darkroom.  I mention these things only to give you some indication of my
>| helplessness and frustration with newfangled technology.
>|
>| I have an Acer ScanWit 2720S and Epson 1270 printer, and I'm using
>| Photoshop 5.  The scanner sat here for months while all sorts of friends
>| and technical support people tried to keep Windows 98 from installing its
>| SCSI card right where it created an IRQ conflict.  Windows XP saved the
>| day, and I've taken my first tiny steps.  Here are some of the problems
>| I've encountered.  I'm sure all of them are elementary to you--in fact, I
>| hope they are.
>|
>| ...All of the prints I've made so far, color and B&W, exhibit excessive
>| "grain."  I'm told that it isn't really grain, and I agree that it probably
>| isn't since it is quite prominent in B&W images shot with Ilford Pan F, a
>| film that has no grain problems.
>| ...In color prints, this grain has color.  A shot of a white church has no
>| apparent evidence of it in lighter areas, but in mid-range areas, it is
>| distracting.  The white walls of the church look like they have measles:
>| there are tightly spaced red dots everywhere.  The same is true of the
>| shingled roof, though some of these dots are green and maybe other colors
>| as well.  BTW, everything I've done so far has been on Epson Premium Glossy
>| paper.
>| ...Some of the prints are banded, but not all.  In one case, there even
>| appears to be banding in the scan!  But in scans that have no apparent
>| banding, I still get banded prints at times.
>| ...I'm very frustrated that I can't dodge and burn in B&W images.  I've
>| read an article about simulating these functions by using multiple layers,
>| but I haven't learned about layers, yet, and the whole thing was over my 
>head.
>|
>| I feared that this technology would not satisfy me after so many years in a
>| darkroom, but I thought it would at least give me acceptable results in
>| color.   So far, it's worse than I expected.  I'm sure that much of the
>| problem is due to my lack of knowledge and experience with the software.  I
>| also suspect that some of it may be the fault of the scanner.
>|
>| I've thought about upgrading the scanner.  Recent threads have concentrated
>| so much on the Nikon models and their problems with DOF, so I'm leery of
>| buying a Nikon.  A friend who has the Coolscan 4000 ED talks like he wishes
>| he had his Polaroid SprintScan 4000 back.  But Polaroid's business problems
>| are not encouraging.  Not much has been said in the past week about the
>| Canonscan 4000.  I've read glowing reviews of it on the web, and its price
>| is certainly attractive.  It seems slow but excellent in all other
>| respects, and I'm probably never going to be one who must scan large
>| numbers of images in a short time.  I know nothing about Minolta scanners
>| except what I've read here.
>|
>| The problems I mentioned about the results I am now getting are the most
>| discouraging.  If they are easily solved, the ScanWit may be all I need,
>| although I do like large prints.  If you think a change in scanners would
>| help, I'd be interested in your recommendations.
>|
>| Regards,
>| John Pendley
>|
>|
>|
>|






 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.