Count me in, Dave - it's only 200 miles. Do you have nice, soft carpet? ;-)
Gary Edwards
Dave Bulger wrote:
> George,
>
> Heck, it's just that you and I spent so much time talking about Antelope
> Canyon & reciprocity failure with Velvia last March I wanted to show you
> that your efforts weren't in vain! But the shots on the web site aren't
> even close to what the trannies (and Ilfochromes) hold.
>
> There's a local lab that's doing a lot of digital scanning and doing it
> well. I intend to talk to them re getting me some scans of the 5 or so
> trannies that survived the Great Bulger Culling effort...
>
> If not, well, you'll just have to fly down here in March when the
> bluebonnets hit. Hell, perhaps I'll host a bluebonnet/wildflower weekend
> here -- can you imagine 50 Zuiks crashed out on the floor? Hehe --
> everybody would have to label their lenses prior to coming or I'd end up
> with a few new ones! <g>
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George A [SMTP:george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 11:11 AM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] Olympus ES-10S Scanner
>
> Ron & Dave;
>
> I wish I had some help for you, but I'm really just learning about
> producing the best quality scans myself. I do know that shadow detail
> is the biggest problem with scanning, especially for lower 'DMax'
> scanners. 4.0 dmax is the practical best and is what the 5-figure drum
> scanners achieve. My Polaroid is 3.4 or 3.6 depending on whom you
> believe. I haven't really challenged it yet. The ES-10 I've heard is
> 3.2 (which is quite good for it's price range), but Olympus would not
> verify any spec for this when I asked them via their tech supp e-mail.
> Don't forget that dmax is logarithmic, so 4.0 is not 'just a bit better'
> than 3.2 but is actually about 7 or 8 times better than 3.2
>
> George
>
> Dave Bulger wrote:
> >
> > Ron,
> >
> > I'm a new ES-10 owner too. I've got some slides that scan effortlessly &
> > well, and some that scan poorly. See my web page mentioned in previous
> > posts for excellent examples of this. ::(
> >
> > I'm still at the point of thinking it's my technique rather than the
> > hardware. I've seen numerous references to the fact that the film
> > configuration files shipped with the scanner leave a lot to be desired.
> > There's some guy on the web that works with this scanner a lot and has
> > come up with his own film "drivers". I'll see if I can locate them & let
> > you know.
> >
> > Though I can't help you, I'll be watching this thread with interest.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Spolarich [SMTP:caesar2@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 1999 9:07 PM
> > To: Olympus List
> > Subject: [OM] Olympus ES-10S Scanner
> >
> > I'm in need of the lists advice - again. Many of you responded to my
> > initial inquiry regarding what scanners list members were using. I can't
> > recall anyone mentioning using the Olympus ES-10. Several mentioned the
> > Nikon LS-30 as well as the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual. Well, staying true
> to
> > Oly, I decided to purchase the ES-10. After several days of use with
> Adobe
> > Photoshop 5.5 I'm thinking of returning it and purchasing the Nikon. But
> > before I make that decision, I'd like to be sure it's the right one given
> > the cost will jump another $500.
> >
> > After becoming fairly familiar with Photoshop, the adage "garbage in
> > garbage out" has credence when it pertains to the number of pixels
> scanned.
> > If one can gamma correct before scanning one has a better image to work
> > with. I also recognize that it isn't necessary nor prudent to scan at
> high
> > res; 200 to 300 is very acceptable. My issue with the ES-10 is that the
> > gamma correction tool is a curve tool. A curve tool is a very
> > sophisticated tool, at least within Adobe Photoshop. I'm not so sure
> with
> > the ES-10. I labor with slides that are very dark yet contain great
> detail
> > when viewed through a light table. If I scan such a slide at 200> dpi,
> > it's almost impossible to lighten the image enough to anywhere near the
> > light table image. If I scan at 72 dpi I have greater results yet this
> > results in fewer pixels. Negatives and slides that have a broad
> histogram
> > look very good. Flash pictures are difficult because they are high key.
> > Is this more a matter of lack of understanding the gamma correction
> tool,
> > dpi scan choice, etc., or is the ES-10 making my life more difficult?
> >
> > What gamma correction tool(s) does the Nikon offer?
> >
> > If my only objective is to scan images for web use, is there any
> advantage
> > to purchasing the Nikon? Is 30 bit color scanning better than 24 bit
> when
> > I'm only posting to the web?
> >
> > Thanks in advance, Ron
> >
> > caesar2@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Ron & Mary Spolarich
> > www.mscollectibles.com
> >
> > << File: ATT00002.htm >>
> >
> > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|