Photo Scanner
-
Got my photos developed today and was looking forward to getting them onto my PC, but now I realise the scanner I have is just not up to the job. Simply not rich enough, washes out some colours (especialy in high contrasts shots) and on high settings introduces artifacts. It is old though so one should not complain. So has anyone tried one of those dedicated photo scanners? Any good? How do you scan in your film prints? I have not asked, but do photo labs do professional scanning of film print? thanks :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
Got my photos developed today and was looking forward to getting them onto my PC, but now I realise the scanner I have is just not up to the job. Simply not rich enough, washes out some colours (especialy in high contrasts shots) and on high settings introduces artifacts. It is old though so one should not complain. So has anyone tried one of those dedicated photo scanners? Any good? How do you scan in your film prints? I have not asked, but do photo labs do professional scanning of film print? thanks :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Paul Watson wrote: I have not asked, but do photo labs do professional scanning of film print? They should be able to put the pictures onto CD for you (pretty much everywhere in the UK offers this service, anyway), which will give you really high res scans (done from the negatives) - these come out really well -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
Paul Watson wrote: I have not asked, but do photo labs do professional scanning of film print? They should be able to put the pictures onto CD for you (pretty much everywhere in the UK offers this service, anyway), which will give you really high res scans (done from the negatives) - these come out really well -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
benjymous wrote: done from the negatives Ahh that sounds perfect. Thanks benjy, I will ask around :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
Got my photos developed today and was looking forward to getting them onto my PC, but now I realise the scanner I have is just not up to the job. Simply not rich enough, washes out some colours (especialy in high contrasts shots) and on high settings introduces artifacts. It is old though so one should not complain. So has anyone tried one of those dedicated photo scanners? Any good? How do you scan in your film prints? I have not asked, but do photo labs do professional scanning of film print? thanks :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Paul Watson wrote: Got my photos developed today and was looking forward to getting them onto my PC wot - no digital? shock :omg:
Technically speaking the dictionary would define Visual Basic users as programmers.
But here again, a very generalized, liberal definition is being employed and it's wrong
- just plain wrong - Tom Archer 5/12/02 -
Paul Watson wrote: Got my photos developed today and was looking forward to getting them onto my PC wot - no digital? shock :omg:
Technically speaking the dictionary would define Visual Basic users as programmers.
But here again, a very generalized, liberal definition is being employed and it's wrong
- just plain wrong - Tom Archer 5/12/02Shaun Wilde wrote: wot - no digital? shock *sigh* I think I am going to write a boiler plate letter explaining why I chose an SLR film over a digital. Everyone who sees my new camera goes "oooh, is it digital?" and then when I say "no, film" they go "oh... why not digital?" :rolleyes: If you do have R60000 ($6000) to spare me, then I will happily go and buy a SLR digital. Otherwise anything lesser in the digital market simply would not have the quality I am after. Hence the SLR film for $520.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
Shaun Wilde wrote: wot - no digital? shock *sigh* I think I am going to write a boiler plate letter explaining why I chose an SLR film over a digital. Everyone who sees my new camera goes "oooh, is it digital?" and then when I say "no, film" they go "oh... why not digital?" :rolleyes: If you do have R60000 ($6000) to spare me, then I will happily go and buy a SLR digital. Otherwise anything lesser in the digital market simply would not have the quality I am after. Hence the SLR film for $520.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
I remember seeing a gadget on TV that was the size and shape of a normal roll of film that would fit into any standard camera, but had a ccd plate instead of film - in other words you could make any camera into a digital camera (and I think they showed versions that were a complete replacement back plate for a camera which included an lcd screen) This was years ago, and I get the impression that this technology has been bought up and supressed, since I can't imagine that'd be particularly expensive to manufacture (when it's the optics that make up a good chunk of the cost of a camera) However, I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to hack apart a cheap digital camera, and build your own -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
Shaun Wilde wrote: wot - no digital? shock *sigh* I think I am going to write a boiler plate letter explaining why I chose an SLR film over a digital. Everyone who sees my new camera goes "oooh, is it digital?" and then when I say "no, film" they go "oh... why not digital?" :rolleyes: If you do have R60000 ($6000) to spare me, then I will happily go and buy a SLR digital. Otherwise anything lesser in the digital market simply would not have the quality I am after. Hence the SLR film for $520.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Paul Watson wrote: I think I am going to write a boiler plate letter explaining why I chose an SLR film over a digital. No need to, Paul. Anyone who has experienced both types already knows that the current crop of digitals can't come close to the quality of a good SLR. While a digital camera is great for family pics and websites, nothing can top the resolution, color richness, and flexibility of a film camera. They're certainly much more expensive to feed, and they don't offer the instant gratification of a digital, but for professional work they can't be beat. And btw - every shop here that takes in film for developing offers pictures on disk. It costs a hefty $5/roll, but it's a convenient way to gain quality digital images for PC use without giving up the much better quality inherent in the original prints. A good choice! "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
-
Paul Watson wrote: I think I am going to write a boiler plate letter explaining why I chose an SLR film over a digital. No need to, Paul. Anyone who has experienced both types already knows that the current crop of digitals can't come close to the quality of a good SLR. While a digital camera is great for family pics and websites, nothing can top the resolution, color richness, and flexibility of a film camera. They're certainly much more expensive to feed, and they don't offer the instant gratification of a digital, but for professional work they can't be beat. And btw - every shop here that takes in film for developing offers pictures on disk. It costs a hefty $5/roll, but it's a convenient way to gain quality digital images for PC use without giving up the much better quality inherent in the original prints. A good choice! "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
Roger Wright wrote: While a digital camera is great for family pics and websites, nothing can top the resolution, color richness, and flexibility of a film camera Getting better all the time though. New Sigma SD9[^] using the X3 chip. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
Paul Watson wrote: I think I am going to write a boiler plate letter explaining why I chose an SLR film over a digital. No need to, Paul. Anyone who has experienced both types already knows that the current crop of digitals can't come close to the quality of a good SLR. While a digital camera is great for family pics and websites, nothing can top the resolution, color richness, and flexibility of a film camera. They're certainly much more expensive to feed, and they don't offer the instant gratification of a digital, but for professional work they can't be beat. And btw - every shop here that takes in film for developing offers pictures on disk. It costs a hefty $5/roll, but it's a convenient way to gain quality digital images for PC use without giving up the much better quality inherent in the original prints. A good choice! "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?" - Megan Forbes, on Management (12/5/2002)
Roger Wright wrote: It costs a hefty $5/roll That is not bad at all. $5 is R50. Developing to normal prints costs R40 per roll. I would prefer getting it on disk and then just printing the ones I want a hard copy of. Roger Wright wrote: and flexibility of a film camera It is mind blowing all the extra control you have with a good SLR. Like going from VB to C++ or C# even. You miss so much with a point and shoot. Yet the nice thing about the Canon I bought is that if you are taking just holiday/christmas/family/night-out pics then it has a full-auto mode so you don't have to set everything up every time you just want a quick happy snap. As you say, flexible. :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
Roger Wright wrote: While a digital camera is great for family pics and websites, nothing can top the resolution, color richness, and flexibility of a film camera Getting better all the time though. New Sigma SD9[^] using the X3 chip. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
brianwelsch wrote: Getting better all the time though. New Sigma SD9[^] using the X3 chip. Indeed you can get SLR digital cameras today which are the equivalent in flexibility and quite close in quality of a SLR film. The problem though is that they cost an arm and a leg. CNet Digital SLR list Note that most are the body only. Meaning you still have to buy a $500 lens at least.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
brianwelsch wrote: Getting better all the time though. New Sigma SD9[^] using the X3 chip. Indeed you can get SLR digital cameras today which are the equivalent in flexibility and quite close in quality of a SLR film. The problem though is that they cost an arm and a leg. CNet Digital SLR list Note that most are the body only. Meaning you still have to buy a $500 lens at least.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
By the time you've gained the experience and are creating "Losinger Shots" ;) hopefully these prices will be a bit more reasonable. BW "If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work another day in your life." - Confucius
-
Got my photos developed today and was looking forward to getting them onto my PC, but now I realise the scanner I have is just not up to the job. Simply not rich enough, washes out some colours (especialy in high contrasts shots) and on high settings introduces artifacts. It is old though so one should not complain. So has anyone tried one of those dedicated photo scanners? Any good? How do you scan in your film prints? I have not asked, but do photo labs do professional scanning of film print? thanks :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
i have an Acer ScanWit 2720S. it gets 2700dpi and ran me around $300 on eBay. it's at the cheap end of the range but it gives really nice results as long as the negatives/slides are reasonably exposed (has trouble distinguishing extrememly subtle dark shading, but a bit of Photoshopping can usually bring out enough detail to make the image work). i shoot primarily slides (Fuji Sensia 100, FYI, since it's really cheap) so a dedicated film scanner is a must. it also works for negatives, so i use it for any B&W stuff i shoot. i don't even get prints made any more - just scan and print the ones i need with my basic HP932C. -c
-
Paul Watson wrote: I have not asked, but do photo labs do professional scanning of film print? They should be able to put the pictures onto CD for you (pretty much everywhere in the UK offers this service, anyway), which will give you really high res scans (done from the negatives) - these come out really well -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
benjymous wrote: pretty much everywhere in the UK offers this service In Sweden too! :) Rickard Andersson@Suza Computing C# and C++ programmer from SWEDEN! UIN: 50302279 E-Mail: nikado@pc.nu Speciality: I love C#, ASP.NET and C++!
-
Paul Watson wrote: Got my photos developed today and was looking forward to getting them onto my PC wot - no digital? shock :omg:
Technically speaking the dictionary would define Visual Basic users as programmers.
But here again, a very generalized, liberal definition is being employed and it's wrong
- just plain wrong - Tom Archer 5/12/02You'll never get closer to the quality of an analog camera with a digital. That's why really professionals (hm... the good one, not those who gets paid and being called professional because that :)) choose non-digital cameras. Rickard Andersson@Suza Computing C# and C++ programmer from SWEDEN! UIN: 50302279 E-Mail: nikado@pc.nu Speciality: I love C#, ASP.NET and C++!
-
You'll never get closer to the quality of an analog camera with a digital. That's why really professionals (hm... the good one, not those who gets paid and being called professional because that :)) choose non-digital cameras. Rickard Andersson@Suza Computing C# and C++ programmer from SWEDEN! UIN: 50302279 E-Mail: nikado@pc.nu Speciality: I love C#, ASP.NET and C++!
A couple of questions on those points... What makes you think that digital quality will never get closer to analogue? What makes you think that good professionals do not already use digital for some of their work? Just wondering :confused:
-
A couple of questions on those points... What makes you think that digital quality will never get closer to analogue? What makes you think that good professionals do not already use digital for some of their work? Just wondering :confused:
Dan Bennett wrote: What makes you think that digital quality will never get closer to analogue? I certainly do not think that is true. Digital will equal and then surpass analoge eventually. There is just so much more you can do with an active CCD/CMOS than with chemical film at the time of the shot. Currently price and pixels per inch are the problems with digital, but heck that will be overcome as always. I was thinking earlier today how digital could really banish contrast problems from photography. Sure you can get density filters to take those sunshot pics, but unless you craft your own density filters for each and every shot, it will be a tradeoff situation everytime. But with a digital I can just imagine how the CCD itself outlines and then adapts the sensitivey of clusters of pixels according to the light coming in. That would be fantastic, a lot more like the human eye than film is. Dan Bennett wrote: What makes you think that good professionals do not already use digital for some of their work? I am sure some do for certain shots. But for the ultimate shots digital simply is not close. Remember you are probably thinking only of 35mm film vs. digital. Pro-pro-photographers use film which is quite huge, way bigger than 35mm. It is cumbersome and you can't just use a 35mm SLR of course. But with that film you get so much "information" in that you can blow up your prints hugely without seeing the grain of the photo. Try and blow up a 35mm shot beyond a certain size and you will see graininess. So when your work needs to hang in a gallery with prints measured in feet and not centimetres and with people being able to peer in really close, you need large film. I don't know of any digital cameras that go that large.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
i have an Acer ScanWit 2720S. it gets 2700dpi and ran me around $300 on eBay. it's at the cheap end of the range but it gives really nice results as long as the negatives/slides are reasonably exposed (has trouble distinguishing extrememly subtle dark shading, but a bit of Photoshopping can usually bring out enough detail to make the image work). i shoot primarily slides (Fuji Sensia 100, FYI, since it's really cheap) so a dedicated film scanner is a must. it also works for negatives, so i use it for any B&W stuff i shoot. i don't even get prints made any more - just scan and print the ones i need with my basic HP932C. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: have an Acer ScanWit 2720S I completely forgot about film scanners :-O Here I am flat-bed scanning in prints, ugh! :-D Thanks for the heads up. That Acer has some good reviews, I will look out for it. Plus it would save me plenty of money and time in the long run. Awesome, almost the capabilities of a digital camera in that respect then. This news makes me a lot happier, thanks Chris :) Chris Losinger wrote: i shoot primarily slides (Fuji Sensia 100, FYI, since it's really cheap I am still new to all of this and just getting my head around negative film (the one in the canister just so that I am sure I am getting my terms right :) ) so forgive me if this question is a bit daft; What camera do you use to take slide film?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
Got my photos developed today and was looking forward to getting them onto my PC, but now I realise the scanner I have is just not up to the job. Simply not rich enough, washes out some colours (especialy in high contrasts shots) and on high settings introduces artifacts. It is old though so one should not complain. So has anyone tried one of those dedicated photo scanners? Any good? How do you scan in your film prints? I have not asked, but do photo labs do professional scanning of film print? thanks :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
I use this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005MEMQ/qid=1040065352/sr=1-14/ref=sr_1_14/002-4574651-3940054?v=glance&s=electronics[^] One cable for Power and USB. Very thin. It's a beautiful thing. :) Jon Sagara When I want something, I just go out and buy it. That makes me a go-getter. -- My sister
-
Dan Bennett wrote: What makes you think that digital quality will never get closer to analogue? I certainly do not think that is true. Digital will equal and then surpass analoge eventually. There is just so much more you can do with an active CCD/CMOS than with chemical film at the time of the shot. Currently price and pixels per inch are the problems with digital, but heck that will be overcome as always. I was thinking earlier today how digital could really banish contrast problems from photography. Sure you can get density filters to take those sunshot pics, but unless you craft your own density filters for each and every shot, it will be a tradeoff situation everytime. But with a digital I can just imagine how the CCD itself outlines and then adapts the sensitivey of clusters of pixels according to the light coming in. That would be fantastic, a lot more like the human eye than film is. Dan Bennett wrote: What makes you think that good professionals do not already use digital for some of their work? I am sure some do for certain shots. But for the ultimate shots digital simply is not close. Remember you are probably thinking only of 35mm film vs. digital. Pro-pro-photographers use film which is quite huge, way bigger than 35mm. It is cumbersome and you can't just use a 35mm SLR of course. But with that film you get so much "information" in that you can blow up your prints hugely without seeing the grain of the photo. Try and blow up a 35mm shot beyond a certain size and you will see graininess. So when your work needs to hang in a gallery with prints measured in feet and not centimetres and with people being able to peer in really close, you need large film. I don't know of any digital cameras that go that large.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Agreed on both points. For 35mm I think digital is definately not too far off. For larger formats there is still no competition. The professionals I was thinking of were more the news photographers. I think most people think fashion photographers using larger formats when they think of a professional. On the subject of built in filters, the Canon G3 has a built in neutral density filter so I guess someone at Canon is thinking along the same lines as you!:)
-
Chris Losinger wrote: have an Acer ScanWit 2720S I completely forgot about film scanners :-O Here I am flat-bed scanning in prints, ugh! :-D Thanks for the heads up. That Acer has some good reviews, I will look out for it. Plus it would save me plenty of money and time in the long run. Awesome, almost the capabilities of a digital camera in that respect then. This news makes me a lot happier, thanks Chris :) Chris Losinger wrote: i shoot primarily slides (Fuji Sensia 100, FYI, since it's really cheap I am still new to all of this and just getting my head around negative film (the one in the canister just so that I am sure I am getting my terms right :) ) so forgive me if this question is a bit daft; What camera do you use to take slide film?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Paul Watson wrote: That Acer has some good reviews, I will look out for it FYI, i think they changed their name from Acer to something else. Paul Watson wrote: What camera do you use to take slide film? my N80. but, if a camera can shoot negative film, it can shoot slide ("positive", "reversal", "transparency") film. the difference is in the processing, not the exposure. only oddball things like infrared film need non-typical cameras; infrared needs special cameras because it needs a camera body that doesn't use an infrared frame counter internally, like most mid-range SLRs use. nearly everything else can be exposed on 99% of the cameras around. depending on how serious you get, you may one day find yourself looking at a print from the photo lab and saying "hmm. i don't remember the sky being quite that color...". that's when you realize that the person/machine who made that print made a decision about the color balance, brightness and/or contrast of your image. and if that bothers you (as it does me), you may decide to try slide film. because with slide film, the image on the film is the one you took and nobody else had anything else to do with it. the only differences between the image you saw and the image on the slide are: 1. your own technical abilities and 2. the film's capabilities. - there's no post processing - the slide is the film. i like slide film :) the only negative film i use anymore is black and white film, because they don't really make black and white slide film. and when i do this, i just have the labs develop the film and print a contact sheet (no prints). then i scan the shots i like. it's a lot cheaper that way. but.. i apologize, as this is probably too much info for you right now :) -c