Thanks Moose.
Next year I think Ill buy a flatbed scanner and just scan the prints - or
have a local photo shop put the photos put onto photo-cds.
I did notice that my camedia has a tendency to err on the side of
over-exposure at times. But, despite being only a 2MP camera, it is capable
of taking some great photos at times. Being a point and shoot, there's not a
lot one can adjust on it.
Jeez 6am already. Bedtime methinks. Night world.
Allan
PS No trees were harmed in the sending of this message and a very large
number of electrons were asked their permission to be terribly
inconvenienced. (And threw a party for them afterwards for being really cool
about it).
Disrupting the unnatural balance that you, as a conscious human being and a
confused mass of energy, have created.
-Disturb the mind -
>From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [OM] Re: PTLens image adjusting software
>Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:45:27 -0800
>
>Allan Mee wrote:
> > You guys are wizards with PS et al.
> > The differences you make are outstanding. I think I'll have to really
>get to
> > grips with PS. When I was a full time programmer - we (programmers)
>spent a
> > lot of time hand-editing images (usually computer generated rather than
> > photographs) but it's not something I've really done (editing images I
>mean)
> > for a long time. I think the software tools nowadays are amazing and I
>know
> > it takes a lot of skill and talent to get the best out of such tools.
> >
>Some are really easy to use. Perspective correction like Chuck and I
>just played with is quick and easy in PS, and I assume in other editors.
>
>There are other functions in PS that are in effect shortcuts for
>multi-step uses of a series of other functions
> > So it's kinda weird for me - I've been working with digital imagery of
>some
> > kind or other since 1981 - but I'm new to digital photography and
>editing
> > digital photographs............ But I admit, I'm a million light-years
> > away yet from what some of you can do with PS et al.
>There are some things in PS that I doubt you ever did, but that are
>really easy to use. The Shadow/Highlight control, for example, lets you
>expand the tonal range of the end(s) of the histogram while smoothly
>integrating it into a slightly tonally compressed middle range, With
>controls for amount of effect, tonal range over which it operates and
>how it operates at the detail level, a little time with sliders can work
>magic that would take forever without it.
>
>PS also has a macro facility, which they call Actions, so that things
>that you do often can be quickly reproduced. Have a bunch of images with
>similar characteristics and that you think will take quite a bit of
>work? Turn on Record and do your work, save the action and repeat it on
>the other images.
> > But it is weird because
> > I've written software that manipulate bitmaps - rotate them, invert
>them,
> > emboss them, convert to grey-scale (and metallic), convert between
>formats,
> > enhance a little (sharpen or blur, etc.), enlarge, reduce, etc. etc. But
>at
> > the moment I wouldn't have a clue how to do in/with PS, PTLENS, etc.
>what
> > you guys do.
> >
>You'll easily understand the primary functions of PTLens. The thing it
>exists for is lens distortion correction. The developer simply wrote it
>to take simple parameters to correct barrel and pincushion distortion.
>Then he had users send in images shot with various lenses and focal
>lengths of zooms of linear grids, like buildings and such. From them, he
>measured the distortion parameters. A limited, but very important and
>well implemented function.
>
>PS is much more complex, but the parts of it needed for most normal
>photo editing is not nearly as large.
> > ...............
> > I was going to scan 1000s of images from negatives - but the scanner
>doesn't
> > give anything like the results I want.
>Your images show real problem(s) with scanner and/or software and/or
>(don't be offended, please) operator.
>
>At the price of the PrimeFilm 1800, one does have to wonder how good it
>can be. Others have been know to lie about their real DMax, but the
>specs I found didn't even mention it; that's not good. Did you mention
>trying VueScan? With a little learning curve, it should enable you to
>get the best possible out of the scanner.
>
>It is certainly possible to get great scans without spending a fortune,
>but I wonder if the PrimeFilm 1800 is the way to do it. 1800 dpi isn't
>bad, but you will get more real, usable detail closer to 3000 dpi. Also,
>if you have the 1800u, rather than the AFL, the process of loading and
>setting up each frame will get old very fast. I know. :-)
>
>To me, a project like that should only have to be done once, so I would
>be sure I was getting results good enough that I would almost never want
>to go back to do a better job on an image. To that end, I suspect you
>need a better scanner. Assuming all those negs are in strips, you at
>least want one that will scan each strip automatically.
>
>Another thing to think about is dust. Individually cleaning off dust
>spots gets old really fast. With 1,000s of images, you could lose a
>significant part of your remaining life expectancy just cleaning dust.
>Better scanners have the capability to do a second scan using IR and use
>the difference do find the dust and some other flaws and correct them.
>And it really works.
>
>If I had that project, I would likely get a Canon 9950F flatbed scanner
><http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Scanners/Canon_9950F/page_1.htm>.
>It will scan 5 strips of up to six frames apiece at once, has IR dust
>removal capability and will do much better scans than what you have now
>will do. $350 here in the US. There are alternatives, but that's my
>current quality/capability/cost choice for an archiving project. In
>fact, it's on my wish list for my similar project, but hasn't risen to
>the top yet against other bits of photo equipment. In my case, though,
>it's easier, as I have an excellent 4000 dpi film scanner already, so
>doing current work or an old roll that catches my fancy isn't a problem.
>
>If, like me, you happen to have some MF and/of LF film to scan, a
>flatbed like the 9950F can also do a great job with those.
>
>Moose
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live? Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|