|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
November 3rd 04, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Scanning slides vs Prints
I have not been satisfied with the scanned images I have been getting
with my Elite Chrome slides. I compared a scanned print with the scanned slide of the same old building taken minutes apart in different cameras and the print was much sharper than the slide. The slides look sharp when viewed with a magnifying lens, I use an 8 mm movie projector lens back-to-front. I loaded both into PS Elemnents and viewed them at the same size side by side. Could the difference be that the negs are scanned at the minilab with a much better scanner than the Epson RX510 I use at 2400 DPI & 48 bit for the slides and 300 dpi & 48 bit for the prints. I get 12.7 M files for the prints & 34-37 M files for the slides. Could I expect to match the sharpness of the prints with a good quality film scanner? It seems to be harder to get good scans from the Elite Chrome slides than it was for the Kodachrome slides I used previously. I used Kodak HD 200 in a Pentax Espio 95WR and a Pentax *ist with a Tamron 24-135 lens for the Elite Chrome 100. Thanks Mike 
|
|
#3
November 3rd 04, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
I have not been satisfied with the scanned images I have been getting with my Elite Chrome slides. I compared a scanned print with the scanned slide of the same old building taken minutes apart in different cameras and the print was much sharper than the slide. The slides look sharp when viewed with a magnifying lens, I use an 8 mm movie projector lens back-to-front. I loaded both into PS Elemnents and viewed them at the same size side by side. Could the difference be that the negs are scanned at the minilab with a much better scanner than the Epson RX510 I use at 2400 It's not clear to me how you scanned the slides, but in any case, if it was the RX510, then it is not a dedicated film scanner and film scans using it will not be particularly good v. a dedicated film scanner. Minilab scans are rarely as good as what you can do at home with a good film scanner. A 4x6 print won't show very many problems with a scan ... print the same at 8x12 or higher and see how the miniab negative based print looks... DPI & 48 bit for the slides and 300 dpi & 48 bit for the prints. I get 12.7 M files for the prints & 34-37 M files for the slides. Could I expect to match the sharpness of the prints with a good quality film scanner? It seems to be harder to get good scans from the Elite Chrome slides than it was for the Kodachrome slides I used previously. Elite Chrome, in my experience, scans quite well, though grain structure is apparent at very high resolutions. I used Kodak HD 200 in a Pentax Espio 95WR and a Pentax *ist with a Tamron 24-135 lens for the Elite Chrome 100. It is best, when making comparisons, to use the same taking lens. see news:comp.periphs.scanners and www.scantips.com as well Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- [SI rulz] http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
|
|
#4
November 3rd 04, 11:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I scanned both slides and 4x6 prints with the RX510. In PS elements I viewed the slide at 200% then increased the scan of the print until it was the same size as the slide. At the full screen view there was not much difference, it was when viewing both at increased magnification that the difference is more noticeable. I didn't take the photos with the 2 cameras to compare them, I used Kodachrome until it was withdrawn from the Australian market and I was trying the EC 100 to see how I liked it. I wasn't sure how the slides were going to come out, it was the first time I tried the EC on a dull day and took a few shots with print film to make sure I had some photos of the building. Thanks Mike On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:40:28 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: wrote: I have not been satisfied with the scanned images I have been getting with my Elite Chrome slides. I compared a scanned print with the scanned slide of the same old building taken minutes apart in different cameras and the print was much sharper than the slide. The slides look sharp when viewed with a magnifying lens, I use an 8 mm movie projector lens back-to-front. I loaded both into PS Elemnents and viewed them at the same size side by side. Could the difference be that the negs are scanned at the minilab with a much better scanner than the Epson RX510 I use at 2400 It's not clear to me how you scanned the slides, but in any case, if it was the RX510, then it is not a dedicated film scanner and film scans using it will not be particularly good v. a dedicated film scanner. Minilab scans are rarely as good as what you can do at home with a good film scanner. A 4x6 print won't show very many problems with a scan ... print the same at 8x12 or higher and see how the miniab negative based print looks... DPI & 48 bit for the slides and 300 dpi & 48 bit for the prints. I get 12.7 M files for the prints & 34-37 M files for the slides. Could I expect to match the sharpness of the prints with a good quality film scanner? It seems to be harder to get good scans from the Elite Chrome slides than it was for the Kodachrome slides I used previously. Elite Chrome, in my experience, scans quite well, though grain structure is apparent at very high resolutions. I used Kodak HD 200 in a Pentax Espio 95WR and a Pentax *ist with a Tamron 24-135 lens for the Elite Chrome 100. It is best, when making comparisons, to use the same taking lens. see news:comp.periphs.scanners and www.scantips.com as well Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- [SI rulz] http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
|
|
#5
November 4th 04, 10:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... I scanned both slides and 4x6 prints with the RX510. In PS elements I viewed the slide at 200% then increased the scan of the print until it was the same size as the slide. At the full screen view there was not much difference, it was when viewing both at increased magnification that the difference is more noticeable. I have found EC pretty good, although I personally prefer the colours from Fuji Sensia. I scan mine through the Fuji Frontier at work and get an image that is 3300x2200, which will be roughly the same size as a 2400dpi scan. IME scans from Frontiers are much better than the scans from flatbed scanners - even those that supposedly have higher resolution. Presumably dedicated film scanners are in the same league as the Frontier, but you'd have to be doing a lot of it to justify the expense vs the cost of getting a frontier lab to scan them to CD for you. For some untouched scans from Kodak EliteChrome on a Fuji Frontier, check out... http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000010.JPG http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000013.JPG http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000014.JPG A word of warning though - these are pretty big, nudging 2MB each. Back to Fuji Sensia vs Kodak EliteChrome - I think the Fuji gives more natural colours, but seems to have a bit larger grain size than the Kodak. The colours from the Kodak seem to be a little warmer although not badly so. Certainly looking at the Kodak slide, it looks good, but when I look at a Kodak and a Fuji side by side, the Fuji's colours look a bit more natural. I didn't take the photos with the 2 cameras to compare them, I used Kodachrome until it was withdrawn from the Australian market and I was trying the EC 100 to see how I liked it. I wasn't sure how the slides were going to come out, it was the first time I tried the EC on a dull day and took a few shots with print film to make sure I had some photos of the building. Thanks Mike On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:40:28 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: wrote: I have not been satisfied with the scanned images I have been getting with my Elite Chrome slides. I compared a scanned print with the scanned slide of the same old building taken minutes apart in different cameras and the print was much sharper than the slide. The slides look sharp when viewed with a magnifying lens, I use an 8 mm movie projector lens back-to-front. I loaded both into PS Elemnents and viewed them at the same size side by side. Could the difference be that the negs are scanned at the minilab with a much better scanner than the Epson RX510 I use at 2400 It's not clear to me how you scanned the slides, but in any case, if it was the RX510, then it is not a dedicated film scanner and film scans using it will not be particularly good v. a dedicated film scanner. Minilab scans are rarely as good as what you can do at home with a good film scanner. A 4x6 print won't show very many problems with a scan ... print the same at 8x12 or higher and see how the miniab negative based print looks... DPI & 48 bit for the slides and 300 dpi & 48 bit for the prints. I get 12.7 M files for the prints & 34-37 M files for the slides. Could I expect to match the sharpness of the prints with a good quality film scanner? It seems to be harder to get good scans from the Elite Chrome slides than it was for the Kodachrome slides I used previously. Elite Chrome, in my experience, scans quite well, though grain structure is apparent at very high resolutions. I used Kodak HD 200 in a Pentax Espio 95WR and a Pentax *ist with a Tamron 24-135 lens for the Elite Chrome 100. It is best, when making comparisons, to use the same taking lens. see news:comp.periphs.scanners and www.scantips.com as well Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- [SI rulz] http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
|
|
#6
November 4th 04, 10:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... I scanned both slides and 4x6 prints with the RX510. In PS elements I viewed the slide at 200% then increased the scan of the print until it was the same size as the slide. At the full screen view there was not much difference, it was when viewing both at increased magnification that the difference is more noticeable. I have found EC pretty good, although I personally prefer the colours from Fuji Sensia. I scan mine through the Fuji Frontier at work and get an image that is 3300x2200, which will be roughly the same size as a 2400dpi scan. IME scans from Frontiers are much better than the scans from flatbed scanners - even those that supposedly have higher resolution. Presumably dedicated film scanners are in the same league as the Frontier, but you'd have to be doing a lot of it to justify the expense vs the cost of getting a frontier lab to scan them to CD for you. For some untouched scans from Kodak EliteChrome on a Fuji Frontier, check out... http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000010.JPG http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000013.JPG http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000014.JPG A word of warning though - these are pretty big, nudging 2MB each. Back to Fuji Sensia vs Kodak EliteChrome - I think the Fuji gives more natural colours, but seems to have a bit larger grain size than the Kodak. The colours from the Kodak seem to be a little warmer although not badly so. Certainly looking at the Kodak slide, it looks good, but when I look at a Kodak and a Fuji side by side, the Fuji's colours look a bit more natural. I didn't take the photos with the 2 cameras to compare them, I used Kodachrome until it was withdrawn from the Australian market and I was trying the EC 100 to see how I liked it. I wasn't sure how the slides were going to come out, it was the first time I tried the EC on a dull day and took a few shots with print film to make sure I had some photos of the building. Thanks Mike On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:40:28 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: wrote: I have not been satisfied with the scanned images I have been getting with my Elite Chrome slides. I compared a scanned print with the scanned slide of the same old building taken minutes apart in different cameras and the print was much sharper than the slide. The slides look sharp when viewed with a magnifying lens, I use an 8 mm movie projector lens back-to-front. I loaded both into PS Elemnents and viewed them at the same size side by side. Could the difference be that the negs are scanned at the minilab with a much better scanner than the Epson RX510 I use at 2400 It's not clear to me how you scanned the slides, but in any case, if it was the RX510, then it is not a dedicated film scanner and film scans using it will not be particularly good v. a dedicated film scanner. Minilab scans are rarely as good as what you can do at home with a good film scanner. A 4x6 print won't show very many problems with a scan ... print the same at 8x12 or higher and see how the miniab negative based print looks... DPI & 48 bit for the slides and 300 dpi & 48 bit for the prints. I get 12.7 M files for the prints & 34-37 M files for the slides. Could I expect to match the sharpness of the prints with a good quality film scanner? It seems to be harder to get good scans from the Elite Chrome slides than it was for the Kodachrome slides I used previously. Elite Chrome, in my experience, scans quite well, though grain structure is apparent at very high resolutions. I used Kodak HD 200 in a Pentax Espio 95WR and a Pentax *ist with a Tamron 24-135 lens for the Elite Chrome 100. It is best, when making comparisons, to use the same taking lens. see news:comp.periphs.scanners and www.scantips.com as well Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- [SI rulz] http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
|
|
#7
November 5th 04, 12:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe I'll try the Sensia, I have used only a few EC films and I've
noticed that some of the slides are a bit too saturated, I prefer the more natural colours I got with Kodachrome. I have been getting my print film processed at a Fuji minilab and until recently they used to put all the scans onto a CD as well as the prints, until the last time when they used 1 CD and charged the price of a CD for each film. The scans are 1 M or less JPG files, 1840 x 1232. I asked if I could get some of my films scanned at higher res but they said they scan at 300 dpi. Obviously the Frontier scanner isn't the limiting factor. Thanks Mike On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:24:14 GMT, "Graham Fountain" wrote: wrote in message ... I scanned both slides and 4x6 prints with the RX510. In PS elements I viewed the slide at 200% then increased the scan of the print until it was the same size as the slide. At the full screen view there was not much difference, it was when viewing both at increased magnification that the difference is more noticeable. I have found EC pretty good, although I personally prefer the colours from Fuji Sensia. I scan mine through the Fuji Frontier at work and get an image that is 3300x2200, which will be roughly the same size as a 2400dpi scan. IME scans from Frontiers are much better than the scans from flatbed scanners - even those that supposedly have higher resolution. Presumably dedicated film scanners are in the same league as the Frontier, but you'd have to be doing a lot of it to justify the expense vs the cost of getting a frontier lab to scan them to CD for you. For some untouched scans from Kodak EliteChrome on a Fuji Frontier, check out... http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000010.JPG http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000013.JPG http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000014.JPG A word of warning though - these are pretty big, nudging 2MB each. Back to Fuji Sensia vs Kodak EliteChrome - I think the Fuji gives more natural colours, but seems to have a bit larger grain size than the Kodak. The colours from the Kodak seem to be a little warmer although not badly so. Certainly looking at the Kodak slide, it looks good, but when I look at a Kodak and a Fuji side by side, the Fuji's colours look a bit more natural. I didn't take the photos with the 2 cameras to compare them, I used Kodachrome until it was withdrawn from the Australian market and I was trying the EC 100 to see how I liked it. I wasn't sure how the slides were going to come out, it was the first time I tried the EC on a dull day and took a few shots with print film to make sure I had some photos of the building. Thanks Mike On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:40:28 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: wrote: I have not been satisfied with the scanned images I have been getting with my Elite Chrome slides. I compared a scanned print with the scanned slide of the same old building taken minutes apart in different cameras and the print was much sharper than the slide. The slides look sharp when viewed with a magnifying lens, I use an 8 mm movie projector lens back-to-front. I loaded both into PS Elemnents and viewed them at the same size side by side. Could the difference be that the negs are scanned at the minilab with a much better scanner than the Epson RX510 I use at 2400 It's not clear to me how you scanned the slides, but in any case, if it was the RX510, then it is not a dedicated film scanner and film scans using it will not be particularly good v. a dedicated film scanner. Minilab scans are rarely as good as what you can do at home with a good film scanner. A 4x6 print won't show very many problems with a scan ... print the same at 8x12 or higher and see how the miniab negative based print looks... DPI & 48 bit for the slides and 300 dpi & 48 bit for the prints. I get 12.7 M files for the prints & 34-37 M files for the slides. Could I expect to match the sharpness of the prints with a good quality film scanner? It seems to be harder to get good scans from the Elite Chrome slides than it was for the Kodachrome slides I used previously. Elite Chrome, in my experience, scans quite well, though grain structure is apparent at very high resolutions. I used Kodak HD 200 in a Pentax Espio 95WR and a Pentax *ist with a Tamron 24-135 lens for the Elite Chrome 100. It is best, when making comparisons, to use the same taking lens. see news:comp.periphs.scanners and www.scantips.com as well Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- [SI rulz] http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
|
|
#8
November 5th 04, 12:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Maybe I'll try the Sensia, I have used only a few EC films and I've
noticed that some of the slides are a bit too saturated, I prefer the more natural colours I got with Kodachrome. I have been getting my print film processed at a Fuji minilab and until recently they used to put all the scans onto a CD as well as the prints, until the last time when they used 1 CD and charged the price of a CD for each film. The scans are 1 M or less JPG files, 1840 x 1232. I asked if I could get some of my films scanned at higher res but they said they scan at 300 dpi. Obviously the Frontier scanner isn't the limiting factor. Thanks Mike On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:24:14 GMT, "Graham Fountain" wrote: wrote in message ... I scanned both slides and 4x6 prints with the RX510. In PS elements I viewed the slide at 200% then increased the scan of the print until it was the same size as the slide. At the full screen view there was not much difference, it was when viewing both at increased magnification that the difference is more noticeable. I have found EC pretty good, although I personally prefer the colours from Fuji Sensia. I scan mine through the Fuji Frontier at work and get an image that is 3300x2200, which will be roughly the same size as a 2400dpi scan. IME scans from Frontiers are much better than the scans from flatbed scanners - even those that supposedly have higher resolution. Presumably dedicated film scanners are in the same league as the Frontier, but you'd have to be doing a lot of it to justify the expense vs the cost of getting a frontier lab to scan them to CD for you. For some untouched scans from Kodak EliteChrome on a Fuji Frontier, check out... http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000010.JPG http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000013.JPG http://www.users.myall.net/grahamf72/misc/F1000014.JPG A word of warning though - these are pretty big, nudging 2MB each. Back to Fuji Sensia vs Kodak EliteChrome - I think the Fuji gives more natural colours, but seems to have a bit larger grain size than the Kodak. The colours from the Kodak seem to be a little warmer although not badly so. Certainly looking at the Kodak slide, it looks good, but when I look at a Kodak and a Fuji side by side, the Fuji's colours look a bit more natural. I didn't take the photos with the 2 cameras to compare them, I used Kodachrome until it was withdrawn from the Australian market and I was trying the EC 100 to see how I liked it. I wasn't sure how the slides were going to come out, it was the first time I tried the EC on a dull day and took a few shots with print film to make sure I had some photos of the building. Thanks Mike On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:40:28 -0500, Alan Browne wrote: wrote: I have not been satisfied with the scanned images I have been getting with my Elite Chrome slides. I compared a scanned print with the scanned slide of the same old building taken minutes apart in different cameras and the print was much sharper than the slide. The slides look sharp when viewed with a magnifying lens, I use an 8 mm movie projector lens back-to-front. I loaded both into PS Elemnents and viewed them at the same size side by side. Could the difference be that the negs are scanned at the minilab with a much better scanner than the Epson RX510 I use at 2400 It's not clear to me how you scanned the slides, but in any case, if it was the RX510, then it is not a dedicated film scanner and film scans using it will not be particularly good v. a dedicated film scanner. Minilab scans are rarely as good as what you can do at home with a good film scanner. A 4x6 print won't show very many problems with a scan ... print the same at 8x12 or higher and see how the miniab negative based print looks... DPI & 48 bit for the slides and 300 dpi & 48 bit for the prints. I get 12.7 M files for the prints & 34-37 M files for the slides. Could I expect to match the sharpness of the prints with a good quality film scanner? It seems to be harder to get good scans from the Elite Chrome slides than it was for the Kodachrome slides I used previously. Elite Chrome, in my experience, scans quite well, though grain structure is apparent at very high resolutions. I used Kodak HD 200 in a Pentax Espio 95WR and a Pentax *ist with a Tamron 24-135 lens for the Elite Chrome 100. It is best, when making comparisons, to use the same taking lens. see news:comp.periphs.scanners and www.scantips.com as well Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- [SI rulz] http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
|
|
#9
November 5th 04, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... Maybe I'll try the Sensia, I have used only a few EC films and I've noticed that some of the slides are a bit too saturated, I prefer the more natural colours I got with Kodachrome. I have been getting my print film processed at a Fuji minilab and until recently they used to put all the scans onto a CD as well as the prints, until the last time when they used 1 CD and charged the price of a CD for each film. The scans are 1 M or less JPG files, 1840 x 1232. I asked if I could get some of my films scanned at higher res but they said they scan at 300 dpi. Obviously the Frontier scanner isn't the limiting factor. The frontier has a few different scanning resolutions. It is designed to scan so that the resulting print is at 300dpi, so it has enough resolution to go up to 300dpi from an 8x12, which is the resolution that i get my slides scanned in. There are a couple of ways of doing scan-to-cd from a frontier. The one most commonly used by labs, is to scan and print at the same time, then it will scan at whatever resolution will give 300dpi at the selected output size, so if you are printing the standard 6x4 then the output will be approx 1800x1200. If on the other hand you asked for 8x12 the output will be about 3600x2400. The frontier also will do scan-only. In this mode you can select from a few different ways of doing the scan. Most labs will select "4 Base JPG", which again is approx 1800x1200. The machine also has "16 Base JPG" and "CD-PRO" as options. 16 Base JPG will give approx 3300x2200. With CD-Pro you also select a print size (even though you aren't printing anything), and it will scan in the appropriate format and resolution. CD-Pro also puts lo-res and mid-res copies onto the CD, in addition to the hi-res version. The reason labs tend to only do the 1800x1200 scans is because of the time taken to do them. a 4-Base scan zooms through, taking about a minute for a roll of 24 exposures (a bit longer for slides though because they have to be done individually). A 16-Base scan however takes between 30 sec and 1 minute per frame, and while the frontier is doing this it can't be used for any other jobs. Obviously most labs won't want their machine tied up for half an hour unable to do any other printing. Where I work, we will do the high res scans, but the price is much higher than normal low-res scans. Thanks Mike
|
|
#10
November 5th 04, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... Maybe I'll try the Sensia, I have used only a few EC films and I've noticed that some of the slides are a bit too saturated, I prefer the more natural colours I got with Kodachrome. I have been getting my print film processed at a Fuji minilab and until recently they used to put all the scans onto a CD as well as the prints, until the last time when they used 1 CD and charged the price of a CD for each film. The scans are 1 M or less JPG files, 1840 x 1232. I asked if I could get some of my films scanned at higher res but they said they scan at 300 dpi. Obviously the Frontier scanner isn't the limiting factor. The frontier has a few different scanning resolutions. It is designed to scan so that the resulting print is at 300dpi, so it has enough resolution to go up to 300dpi from an 8x12, which is the resolution that i get my slides scanned in. There are a couple of ways of doing scan-to-cd from a frontier. The one most commonly used by labs, is to scan and print at the same time, then it will scan at whatever resolution will give 300dpi at the selected output size, so if you are printing the standard 6x4 then the output will be approx 1800x1200. If on the other hand you asked for 8x12 the output will be about 3600x2400. The frontier also will do scan-only. In this mode you can select from a few different ways of doing the scan. Most labs will select "4 Base JPG", which again is approx 1800x1200. The machine also has "16 Base JPG" and "CD-PRO" as options. 16 Base JPG will give approx 3300x2200. With CD-Pro you also select a print size (even though you aren't printing anything), and it will scan in the appropriate format and resolution. CD-Pro also puts lo-res and mid-res copies onto the CD, in addition to the hi-res version. The reason labs tend to only do the 1800x1200 scans is because of the time taken to do them. a 4-Base scan zooms through, taking about a minute for a roll of 24 exposures (a bit longer for slides though because they have to be done individually). A 16-Base scan however takes between 30 sec and 1 minute per frame, and while the frontier is doing this it can't be used for any other jobs. Obviously most labs won't want their machine tied up for half an hour unable to do any other printing. Where I work, we will do the high res scans, but the price is much higher than normal low-res scans. Thanks Mike
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Scanning Slides | Ed Mullikin | Digital Photography | 8 | October 13th 04 11:27 AM |
| Soft prints after scanning | PaulC | Digital Photography | 11 | September 17th 04 06:59 PM |
| Scanning 35mm Slides | MATT WILLIAMS | Film & Labs | 16 | July 2nd 04 08:41 AM |
| Scanning prints to touch up and print | Bob Williams | Digital Photography | 0 | June 24th 04 08:22 AM |
Linear Mode
