Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:06:27 -0500 (EST)
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Pascal MIELE wrote:
> the 3,4D is good for color neg (CCD is good for slides but negs don't
> have same pigments so the sensibility is an important way to improve
> performance) the 3,4D is good for bad BW negs (very soft or very
> hard)
Ah, a clue beyond the assumption that bigger is better, more is better
yet... which as you note is often assumed in these parts (and body parts,
too). That's very enlightening. It's also interesting to note how many of
the sneaky people on this list have these little instruments & have been
mum about them. As Liam so keenly observed re film development in just a
few days... And as noted re the development issues, it's all part of the
food chain in alt.
But now, since you are clearly knowledgeable -- what is CCD? All I can
attach to the initials are charge-coupled device, which I don't fit into
the picture.
As for
> With good slides and good BW negs 3d is good.
Unlike the experts on this list, I have MANY "bad" slides and "bad" B & W
negs. Great pictures of course, but "wrongfully" developed to work with a
method of printing that required it, as well of course as due to ignorance
and ineptitude. It's been my fond hope to "correct" them for enlarged
negatives in Photoshop, and experience suggests I can -- if I can get them
in there.
I note incidentally that when I had a bunch of slides put on a CD a couple
of the originals were so pale, ie., overexposed, that you could hardly see
a photo, but the file on the CD was quite respectable. I suppose the
operator *burned* them in like gangbusters... whatever, the result was
definitely usable. The color was distorted, which could also be corrected
in Photoshop, if one were to so desire, though I liked it the way it was.
> PhotoDeluxe is very "chiant" (a nice french word) it's not a tool,
> it's a toy ! I have Photoshop (the old v 3.05) and PhotodeLuxe (a
> bundle with Epson printer) PhotodeLuxe is ...
> > I suppose somebody sells the scanner solo, but, well, I have the catalog
> > in hand... There's a more expensive Coolscan ($1900) but from what I can
> > make out its added features are, again, of little meaning for personal
> > use.
>
> Have you seen the Epson FILMSCAN 200 (2400x1200 30bits)
> or the MINOLTA Dimage DualScan (35mm,APS 2438dpi 30bits)
> very fast
>
No I haven't seen them .... thanks for mentioning. I'll look them up...
Though some of these are, I find, NOT made for the Mac (it's a plot, Bill
Gates's last gasp, you understand).
> I'ts french names may be you have a local name like FILMSCAN 2000
> (Everything is greater in USA !)
Not only is everything GREATER, everything is 2000 for the millennium,
although we're working on a way to skip that & go right to 2001. Our
computer mavens are on the job right now...
cheers & THANKS,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:44