how you guys scan 120 format?

Before April 2005 how did you get your film to digital format?

"¡¹¡¸Lonely Boy¡¸¡¹" wrote in message
...
Yes, all of my photos after April 2005 are scanned by EPSON 4990. I don't
use photoshop and normally I correct the colour balance in the scanner
interface and use Digital Ice for color film. I also use the USM (low or
medium setting) in the scanner driver.

--

---
Lonely Boy
http://www.hmlai.com/
---
"I"
. ..
L.Boy....were all the images on your site scanned with the EPSON 4990?
You have some fine fine images BTW.
I haven't used my RB67 in years but today I purchased a used 50mm lens
that I've been scouting for awhile now. I'm hoping the lens is good and
I get some great autumn shots.
Do you use neutral graduated filters at all?

"??Lonely Boy??" wrote in message
...
I am using an EPSON 4990 flatbed scanner, for both my 135 & 120 film.
You can come to my web to see those photos.

--

---
Lonely Boy
http://www.hmlai.com/
---
"Steven Woody"
egroups.com...
CoolScan 8000ED or 9000ED is so expensive, and flatbed is not my
prefer though some flatbeds might be considered as good on 120 but are
more than likely not so good on 35mm which is the format i also need.

i dont't know where to go .....

after carefully checking, i feel lonely boy's 35mm color pics are not
so sharp, do you also noticed? i am not sure, however, it is a
scanning problem.

and, for flatbed, i also heard epson v750 ( or v700 i am not sure ).
how do you guys compare it with 4990?

thanks in advance.

-
woody

and, for flatbed, i also heard epson v750 ( or v700 i am not sure ).
how do you guys compare it with 4990?

You might want to go view the reviews of these three scanners at
photo-i.co.uk . There are some comparison scans. Keep in mind he believes
in showing real world results, so that means he shows what is possible after
post processing.

Doug
--
www.BetterScanning.com

Steven Woody wrote:
CoolScan 8000ED or 9000ED is so expensive, and flatbed is not my
prefer though some flatbeds might be considered as good on 120 but are
more than likely not so good on 35mm which is the format i also need.

I use an Epson 4870. I think that the new Epson V700 is the best
"cheap" way to scan 120 films (and 4x5").

--
Daniel Rocha | Photographie
http://www.monochromatique.com

"Steven Woody" wrote in message
oups.com...
CoolScan 8000ED or 9000ED is so expensive, and flatbed is not my
prefer though some flatbeds might be considered as good on 120 but are
more than likely not so good on 35mm which is the format i also need.

i dont't know where to go .....

I use the Nikon 9000. If you are doing it in your own lab there is no better
way to go.

I'm curious how most people work with the large files that result from
scanning medium format at high resolutions. First I'm going to assume that
to get the best quality enlargements nowadays it's cheaper to do your own
post processing digitally rather than ask a lab to perform custom printing
in a wet lab.
Second, if you're goal is a large print you're going to scan at the highest
resolution possible, and you'll be using a dedicated film scanner such as
the Nikon 9000. I know from working with large files from my 35mm negs on
the Nikon V that they require lots of memory and Photoshop runs slowly.
Is it common to save a large file at a smaller size...record the settings
you use on that small file and then apply them to the original file?

"Jim Waggener" wrote in message
...

"Steven Woody" wrote in message
oups.com...
CoolScan 8000ED or 9000ED is so expensive, and flatbed is not my
prefer though some flatbeds might be considered as good on 120 but are
more than likely not so good on 35mm which is the format i also need.

i dont't know where to go .....

I use the Nikon 9000. If you are doing it in your own lab there is no
better way to go.

"I" wrote:
I'm curious how most people work with the large files that result from
scanning medium format at high resolutions. First I'm going to assume
that to get the best quality enlargements nowadays it's cheaper to do your
own post processing digitally rather than ask a lab to perform custom
printing in a wet lab.
Second, if you're goal is a large print you're going to scan at the
highest resolution possible, and you'll be using a dedicated film scanner
such as the Nikon 9000. I know from working with large files from my 35mm
negs on the Nikon V that they require lots of memory and Photoshop runs
slowly.
Is it common to save a large file at a smaller size...record the settings
you use on that small file and then apply them to the original file?

The math works as follows: to deal with a large file and perform simple
operations on it (levels, curves, sharpening, noise reduction) you need RAM
that comes to enough in excess of twice the number of bytes in the image to
run everything else (photoshop + the OS). So for 6x7 at 4000 ppi, that's
(2.2 x 4000) x (2.7 x 4000) = 95 million pixels = roughly 600 MB at 6 bytes
per pixel. So a 1.5 GB PC should be OK, but 2 GB is recommended. Even 6x9
ought to be OK.

The problem, though, is that that means that scanning 6x7 and 6x9 at the
native 4800 ppi of the Epson scanners is seriously problematic. You'd have
to scan at 8 bits per pixel. Sigh.

Then you _MUST_ tell Photoshop to only save one history state. If you don't,
you will die.

(Grr. I'm using Photoshop 7, and every once in a while it closes badly and
resets ALL the defaults. If I open a large file in that state, it instantly
grinds to a halt.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"I" wrote in message
...

I'm curious how most people work with the large files that result from
scanning medium format at high resolutions. First I'm going to assume
that to get the best quality enlargements nowadays it's cheaper to do your
own post processing digitally rather than ask a lab to perform custom
printing in a wet lab.
Second, if you're goal is a large print you're going to scan at the
highest resolution possible, and you'll be using a dedicated film scanner
such as the Nikon 9000. I know from working with large files from my 35mm
negs on the Nikon V that they require lots of memory and Photoshop runs
slowly.
Is it common to save a large file at a smaller size...record the settings
you use on that small file and then apply them to the original file?


When I scan 6x7 at 4000 dpi (on a Nikon LS-8000) I get around
90 million pixels; that's 270 MBytes @8bits, 540 MBytes @16bits
per color. Scanning 645, I get about 55 million pixels (165/330
MBytes.)

Any computer used for this kind of work should have its RAM
memory maxed out -- at least 2 gigs. DDR memory is cheap
these days. (Check newegg.com for decent prices.)

There are also certain Photoshop settings that are important for
fast operation but I can't recite those offhand. (Eg., reduce the
# of cache levels.)

I generally scan and save at 16 bits/color, but I'll shift down to
8 bits/color as soon as I've got the major color moves done.
(Remember, I've saved the original scan at 16 bits/color, so
even if I've screwed up, I don't have to rescan.)

Clearly at these file sizes you can't pile on a lot of layers or
channels or history.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

David J. Littleboy wrote:

"I" wrote:

I'm curious how most people work with the large files that result from
scanning medium format at high resolutions. First I'm going to assume
that to get the best quality enlargements nowadays it's cheaper to do your
own post processing digitally rather than ask a lab to perform custom
printing in a wet lab.
Second, if you're goal is a large print you're going to scan at the
highest resolution possible, and you'll be using a dedicated film scanner
such as the Nikon 9000. I know from working with large files from my 35mm
negs on the Nikon V that they require lots of memory and Photoshop runs
slowly.
Is it common to save a large file at a smaller size...record the settings
you use on that small file and then apply them to the original file?


The math works as follows: to deal with a large file and perform simple
operations on it (levels, curves, sharpening, noise reduction) you need RAM
that comes to enough in excess of twice the number of bytes in the image to
run everything else (photoshop + the OS). So for 6x7 at 4000 ppi, that's
(2.2 x 4000) x (2.7 x 4000) = 95 million pixels = roughly 600 MB at 6 bytes
per pixel. So a 1.5 GB PC should be OK, but 2 GB is recommended. Even 6x9
ought to be OK.

The problem, though, is that that means that scanning 6x7 and 6x9 at the
native 4800 ppi of the Epson scanners is seriously problematic. You'd have
to scan at 8 bits per pixel. Sigh.

Well, FWIW, the Pentium 4 will address 4GB of RAM, and I think Apple's
new Intel-MAC design is supposed to take advantage of it. Supposedly
Windoze will handle it too.

The G-5 Macs would also handle 4GB of RAM IIRC.

I've opened a 600MB file (from a 4x5 transparancy scanned at 4800dpi) in
CS2 on a G4 Mac with 512 MB RAM. Didn't fly, but it adequately handled
as many layers as I wanted to add (background copy, levels layer, curves
layer)

Steven Woody wrote:
CoolScan 8000ED or 9000ED is so expensive, and flatbed is not my
prefer though some flatbeds might be considered as good on 120 but are
more than likely not so good on 35mm which is the format i also need.

i dont't know where to go .....

I purchased one of the first Epson V700 scanners. I absolutely love
it. I had to purchase a better film holder for my 120 film but now
that it's done my scans are superlative. I have also scanned several
hundred 35mm slides and they seem to be OK but...that's not my main
interest so I might be mistaken.

I was concerned about the flatbed scanner but the quality is there and
6x9 scans at quality settings are easily 600mb or more.... I can't
argue with the detail I get.