Scanner advice (first film)

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 23:55:14 -0700, Father Kodak
<dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:38:31 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Smarter software. Vuescan for instance seems to be
>>surprisingly effective in "ignoring" the problems associated
>>with Kodachrome yet still providing very effective dust
>>removal. It tends to slow down the scanning quite a lot, but
>>that's got to be better than spotting by hand.
>
>Does VueScan or other software have a setting for black and white film
>(or even multiple settings for different kinds of b&w?)

It does indeen. You can adjust anything by eye, but profiles
are built-in for a number of common (mainly Kodak) films.

I've been using Vuescan since 1999 and I've yet to find
anything better. Unlike most of the competition it doesn't
look pretty but it does the job.

--
Regards

John Bean

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:46:55 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com>
wrote:


>>
>>Does VueScan or other software have a setting for black and white film
>>(or even multiple settings for different kinds of b&w?)
>
>It does indeen. You can adjust anything by eye, but profiles
>are built-in for a number of common (mainly Kodak) films.
>

Specifically for black and white films? Great!

>I've been using Vuescan since 1999 and I've yet to find
>anything better. Unlike most of the competition it doesn't
>look pretty but it does the job.

Which competitors have you looked at? Nikon? Minolta? SilverFast?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:46:55 +0100, John Bean
<waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote:
>It does indeen.

"Indeen"? Where did that come from?

"Indeed" is the word I though I'd typed...

--
Regards

John Bean

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Father Kodak <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:28:59 -0400, "Kinon O'cann" wrote:

>> Before you get a scanner price, be sure to look at the
>> alternatives, like a Kodak Photo CD. Weed out the slides you really
>> want, and get a count.

> I just got a roll of C-41 processed and i got the Photo CD as an
> experiment. Cost me all of $4 more.
>
> Scan produces a 1536 x 1024 pixel image. Enough for a 4" x 6" at good
> quality, but I'm sure an 8"x10" would not make you happy.

What you have is a Kodak *Picture CD*. This is a consumer oriented
product where what you get for your money is some poorly scanned low
res. JPEGs.

A Kodak *Photo CD* is a different animal, targeted towards the
professional marked. A Kodak Photo CD will give you scans up to
6144 x 4096 px (25 Mpx) in a weird proprietary non-lossy format
called ImagePacs. It will cost you a lot more then $ 4.00 (if it
is available at all any more - Kodak seems to be phasing out
everything of quality that this once great company has come up with).
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http/folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:16:22 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr
<gisle+news@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

>Father Kodak <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> writes:
>> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:28:59 -0400, "Kinon O'cann" wrote:
>
>>> Before you get a scanner price, be sure to look at the
>>> alternatives, like a Kodak Photo CD. Weed out the slides you really
>>> want, and get a count.
>
>> I just got a roll of C-41 processed and i got the Photo CD as an
>> experiment. Cost me all of $4 more.
>>
>> Scan produces a 1536 x 1024 pixel image. Enough for a 4" x 6" at good
>> quality, but I'm sure an 8"x10" would not make you happy.
>
>What you have is a Kodak *Picture CD*. This is a consumer oriented
>product where what you get for your money is some poorly scanned low
>res. JPEGs.

I stand corrected.

Father Kodak (no relation to that sad and declining company
headquartered in Rochester, New York, USA.)

PS: Should I change my name to "Father Sony Image Sensor" or "Father
Foveon?"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 02:33:00 -0700, Father Kodak
<dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:46:55 +0100, John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Does VueScan or other software have a setting for black and white film
>>>(or even multiple settings for different kinds of b&w?)
>>
>>It does indeen. You can adjust anything by eye, but profiles
>>are built-in for a number of common (mainly Kodak) films.
>>
>
>Specifically for black and white films? Great!

It even has profiles for some film/developer combinations.
Saves a lot of time sometimes even with an unsupported
combinations because you can often get close to what you
want, minimising the fine-tuning.

>>I've been using Vuescan since 1999 and I've yet to find
>>anything better. Unlike most of the competition it doesn't
>>look pretty but it does the job.
>
>Which competitors have you looked at? Nikon? Minolta? SilverFast?

I've used it with Nikon (LS-30), Minolta (Scan Dual III) and
now with an Epson 4990. In all cases Vuescan produces
significantly better scans than the software supplied with
the scanner, though the scanner OEM software is often
simpler to use for non-critical scanning tasks. I've also
tried Silverfast which produces nice results once I fought
my way through the odd user interface but since it's not as
flexible as Vuescan - and more expensive - I didn't pursue
it.

Vuescan's user interface puts some people off - it's *very*
plain and functional, no frills at all. I like that

--
Regards

John Bean

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 02:31:32 -0700, Father Kodak wrote:

> PS: Should I change my name to "Father Sony Image Sensor" or
> "Father Foveon?"

Use the latter and you'll paint yourself into a corner, Digi-Daddy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:46:06 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 02:31:32 -0700, Father Kodak wrote:
>
>> PS: Should I change my name to "Father Sony Image Sensor" or
>> "Father Foveon?"
>
> Use the latter and you'll paint yourself into a corner, Digi-Daddy.

.... Just asking, hypothetically, you know....

Father Kodak

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 22:13:36 -0700, Father Kodak wrote:

> > Use the latter and you'll paint yourself into a corner, Digi-Daddy.
>
> ... Just asking, hypothetically, you know....
>
> Father Kodak

s'OK. As long as you don't call me Asok (no relation).