|
Wild EEPROM posted:dedicated film scanner (plustek, coolscan, etc)
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
There any advantages to using a dedicated film scanner over a flatbed? The latter seems more flexible, but I dunno if the former is more streamlined or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 06:14
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:There any advantages to using a dedicated film scanner over a flatbed? The latter seems more flexible, but I dunno if the former is more streamlined or something. Flatbeds are not great for 35mm and smaller formats. Medium and large format stuff in a flatbed is fine. A dedicated film scanner will give much better results but mostly they don't handle different formats at all. Also, most dedicated film scanners have an automatic film feed, so you just load the whole roll in at once. Flatbeds need you to load in a few frames at a time depending on the format - typically 12 35mm frames (in 2 strips of 6) or 3 6x6 MF frames and so on. A flatbed will handle 35mm and it will be fine for web use, but you probably won't want to print from those scans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
Dedicated tend to be faster with better quality, but they only do 35mm. Flatbeds can handle 120 film (and 4x5 if you get the 800), are cheaper, and the quality is good enough, but they are slow as poo poo. There are also camera attachments for using your dslr to scan; this is the fastest and cheapest method if you ignore the cost of the dslr and a good macro lens, takes a lot of fiddling but the results are good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
I DSLR scan. Yeah, it was a bit of a pain to sort out, but I was able to do it on the cheap (like less than ten bucks as I already had the major components on hand) and now that I’ve got my setup figured out the process isn’t bad at all. I’ve read that DSLR capture yields better results than flatbed scanning, but I’ve never seen or done an actual comparison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
President Beep posted:I DSLR scan. Yeah, it was a bit of a pain to sort out, but I was able to do it on the cheap (like less than ten bucks as I already had the major components on hand) and now that I’ve got my setup figured out the process isn’t bad at all. I'd like to learn more about this. Did you build your own rig? What were the bits that needed to be sorted out?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I'd like to learn more about this. Did you build your own rig? What were the bits that needed to be sorted out? I’ll post some pics later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the best thread to ask in, but is there a way to take the date/time info stored in the photo and put the date/timestamp onto the photo? I take inspection photos on my phone for work, and they get uploaded to Google photos, and I pull them down from there. We want to start using date/time stamps but as far as I can see I can't turn that on on my phone camera. Tl:dr is there a program (windows) that I can use to apply date/time info to photos?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
The Slack Lagoon posted:Not sure if this is the best thread to ask in, but is there a way to take the date/time info stored in the photo and put the date/timestamp onto the photo? There are dozens of apps that do that. (geotags too) I searched "put time date stamp on pictures". I don't have any recommendations, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
The lighting thread is sadly archived, so thought I'd post a few things in here rather than filling the gear thread up with stuff. First up - I'm seeing a local selling a Nikon SB80 which I remember was always a solid go-to flash. Looks in used but decent condition for $60. Sound like a reasonable pickup? It won't TTL with my camera but I don't care about that. I have a Yongnuo 460 I'd pair it with, is there much of an issue of color balancing between two brands when it comes to HSF? Also curious as to what people think are currently the go to strobes for people moving off HSF now. I remember when it was all Alienbees but it looks like with PCB expanding their range to the Digibees and the Einsteins, plus a whole bunch of other brands like Godox making a stab at the reasonable quality but low budget market, I'd be intrigued what people liked. It's not something I'm likely to invest in yet/maybe ever, but it's always good to know what's out there and what the consensus is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
President Beep posted:I DSLR scan. Yeah, it was a bit of a pain to sort out, but I was able to do it on the cheap (like less than ten bucks as I already had the major components on hand) and now that I’ve got my setup figured out the process isn’t bad at all. Been considering doing this, but the only digital camera I've got is an em10ii, not sure if that'd be worth it over a scanner. When I've looked online for others using a m43 camera, it seems most people use the high-res shot mode of other olympus cameras, but mine hasn't got that so I'm a bit SOL on that front, and not sure if the quality would be worthwhile otherwise. Feels a little silly to shoot on medium format if i'm just going to then convert it over to m43, heh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
The Slack Lagoon posted:Tl:dr is there a program (windows) that I can use to apply date/time info to photos? IrfanView can do this. It's in File>Batch_Conversion. Under conversion settings click Advanced>Add_Overlay_Text>Settings>Append_Exif_Date/Time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
xzzy posted:If I'm shipping off tifs for printing, is there any value to setting the DPI in photoshop and scaling the image to the desired print size, or just send the full size export? You might reach out to the lab to ask what their preferred format is. The resizing algorithm used can affect the look of the photo, for sure, so it might be worth it to find out what DPI their printers work at so you can do the resizing yourself. Usually I consider anything above 300 to be over the limit of what we can perceive, but I have literally 0 evidence to base that off of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
Magazines are generally printed at 300 DPI, if it's good enough for Vanity Fair it's probably good enough for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
As a rule, 300DPI is standard for printing and 72DPI is standard for web. If you don't set it properly your image will look pixellated when printed.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
President Beep posted:I’ll post some pics later. Behold! My jankety (yet workabke) DSLR film scanning setup!  Canon 7D with a 50mm f/1.8 mated to a 21mm macro extension tube. Settings are f/8, ISO 100, and a two second shutter delay. For medium format the setup is similar, but with my 18-55 kit lens and no macro rings—seems easier to set up.  Small flat piece if glass for holding negatives down. A film carrier that you might use for other scanning techniques can work too.  This is really the important bit. Two pieces of 6x4 glass from the hardware store, glued together, with four little feet made from doubled up film canister caps. I set this on top of my ipad, which I use as a lightbox by displaying a white image. I need the elevated glass surface to move the field of focus away from the tablet’s surface, otherwise you’ll see the screen’s pixels in your “scan”. I’ve foind that this gets me the minimum amount of distance necessary. With only one level of canister caps, I could still make out the ipad pixels. I assume this is something you don’t need to worry about with a for real lightbox.  Here’s what it looks like on screen. Once I’m al set up, I zoom in on the negative and manually focus, then shoot. As I mentioned, I’ve never compared this technique to using an actual scanner, but the results seem okay with me, even using a ten year old crop sensor camera with relatively low (18mp) resolution.  Here’s one of my recent results. HP5+, 35mm. This may sound like a pain in the rear end, but the only stuff I didn’t have on hand already was the glass, and for those three pieces I paid less than five bucks at the local hardware store. After I figured out what I was doing, more or less, it turned out to be a decent experience. It’s cheap, it’s fast, and it doesn’t take up much room at all.  fake edit: When doing the actual capture, especially when using the top glass as opposed to a film carrier, I make sure the room is pretty dark. Reflections abound otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
That's pretty much how I used to do it before I got a Nikon ES-2 negative holder doohicky and a flash as the light source. Stopped using a tripod because my apartment building vibrates for some reason and it was really noticeable. Epson flatbed scanner for 120 film which works pretty well. Cut out a film gate from a cereal box or black construction paper or something and layer it over the frame before shooting. Eliminates any light spill and subsequent flaring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Sauer posted:Cut out a film gate from a cereal box or black construction paper or something and layer it over the frame before shooting. Eliminates any light spill and subsequent flaring. Ah, yeah. Good suggestion. I do have issues with my glass platform sliding around on the tablet. I bet I could make a gate that not only helps prevent flare, but also keeps the platform in place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
My interpretation to this is you need to buy a 3d printer to make such a rig.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 02:14
|
|
|
Could also get an old 35mm negative carrier if you want something with some noticeable gravity to it and a perfectly sized hole that will keep the frame you're shooting flat. I told my 3D printer to create something that would make my photographs good but it just keeps extruding piss. Sauer fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Feb 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:IrfanView can do this. It's in File>Batch_Conversion. Under conversion settings click Advanced>Add_Overlay_Text>Settings>Append_Exif_Date/Time. This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I'd like to learn more about this. Did you build your own rig? What were the bits that needed to be sorted out? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aThAi4jan8
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 10:20
|
|
|
Babysitter Super Sleuth posted:72DPI is standard for web. On top of this, there's the dots per inch vs pixels per inch issue terminology issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:DPI for the web doesn't make sense. It's this common misunderstanding that persists. Files (jpg/tiff/etc) have a DPI value stored but it's just a integer included in the metadata. DPI only becomes something when it's printed (in which case DPI = is image resolution divided by print size) or displayed (when it's DPI = image resolution divided by physical screen size). I had a graphic designer my work was contracted with who could not understand this issue. She was resizing images in a way that'd leave the text unreadable when it got small, and I kept asking her to fix it. She kept asking what DPI she should be using, and I kept explaining that since she was sending me digital graphics made for the website that DPI had no bearing on the image whatsoever. She kept insisting it was DPI related. I even sent her the Myth of DPI article. I had her send me her artwork in vector format and then resized it myself so that the text was clear. She asked what DPI I used. I tried to explain it wasn't an issue of DPI, but she finally asked me to send her my resized file so she could "find out what DPI I used." I sent her my artwork in PNG format. She said when she opened it up in Corel to check it, it was 300DPI, so that's what she'd use and the issue would be fixed. The PNG format literally has no way to store DPI information. Her program just defaults to it, so that's what popped up when she "checked the DPI" of the file. Her art continued to have unreadable text. I continued to be exhausted because using her services wasn't my decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
People still use Corel???
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
She sure did. Toward the end I started wondering if she even had any options for the resizing algorithm on export or if she needed to do it with a different program to a larger PDF export or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
I would like to buy a colour-accurate monitor for post-processing my photos. My budget is about €500 (no more than €600ish). Are there any recommendations for a good 27-incher (ideally 4K) with decent brightness? A bonus would be something that has USB C and supports HDR. This is not for pro work, so I guess a lack of AdobeRGB support won’t be a deal-breaker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
I'm pretty happy with my refurb BenQ PD3200, so I assume the 27" version would be nice as well. Don't think it supports HDR and USB-C, but has 100% sRGB.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 01:42
|
|
|
The LG 27UK650 claims "99% srgb". It does HDR10 but has no usb ports. I bought it recently and it's such a massive upgrade over my old screen I had to reprocess pretty much every photo. It also got me to actually start printing photos because (along with a calibration) it made me have a little more trust in what I was seeing on screen. I think BenQ has a better reputation for pure color work though. I went with the LG because it also needs to be used for games, it seemed like the best option that satisfied both.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 01:50
|
|
|
The 27UK850 is the exact same monitor but with usb-c ports as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
The Rat posted:I'm pretty happy with my refurb BenQ PD3200, so I assume the 27" version would be nice as well. Don't think it supports HDR and USB-C, but has 100% sRGB. I have the PD2700 and I really like it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
Ok, I'm definitely going to reveal my ignorance here, but what's the practical difference between the PD2700 and the BenQ SW271? I'm looking to get more seriously into printing this spring. A paper rep I talked to was really pushing the sw271 but I can't remember what made it so much better than the less expensive models.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Ok, I'm definitely going to reveal my ignorance here Please stop muscling in on my posting style!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Ok, I'm definitely going to reveal my ignorance here, but what's the practical difference between the PD2700 and the BenQ SW271? I'm looking to get more seriously into printing this spring. A paper rep I talked to was really pushing the sw271 but I can't remember what made it so much better than the less expensive models. Looks like more aRGB coverage, 99% on the SW vs 73% on the PD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Thanks for the recommendations. I was hoping there would be one that comes universally recommended, but in my research I’ve seen that getting everything I wanted (and foregoing other compromises) means basically wishfully doubling my budget to get something like the BenQ SW271...BetterLekNextTime posted:Ok, I'm definitely going to reveal my ignorance here, but what's the practical difference between the PD2700 and the BenQ SW271? I'm looking to get more seriously into printing this spring. A paper rep I talked to was really pushing the sw271 but I can't remember what made it so much better than the less expensive models. ... which I can now advise on: The SW271 has a true 10-bit panel with a 14-bit 3D look-up table for accurate colour-matching, versus an 8-bit+FRC (frame rate control, a dithering technology) panel in the PD2700U (for UHD; there’s also a PD2700Q, which is a QHD panel - 2650x1440). This endows the 271 with 100% sRGB coverage and also 99% AdobeRGB support. The SW271 is aimed at professionals in studios who need to do colour-matching with print. It also provides the best value in its class (in the prices I’ve seen) since the next step up is something like the Dell UP2718Q for like another $300. If you’re in budget land, like me, the PD2700U might be a good bet (if you can stand not having The Best Specs). If you need very good AdobeRGB support on a budget, the BenQ SW2700 gets you there. However, it is QHD only and lacks some newer technologies like HDR.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Try and get a refurb from the BenQ outlet site if you can. My PD3200U was $547 shipped, so that saved $150ish over the regular price. I have noticed no deficiencies either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies and the tip on the refurb monitors! I haven't done enough color work and printing to know what I'm gaining/losing from a workflow with the higher end vs. lower end monitors, but that at least lays out the salient differences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
I just discovered a tiny scratch on the front element of one of my lenses. It’s hardly visible and I can’t feel it, so I guess it’s a tiny one* (would it be worse if I could feel the scratch with my nail, in other words if the scratch was “deeper”?) Should I be worried about anything other than possibly the resell value? * it seems like only the coating is scratched, not the glass itself, possibly by a filter Xabi fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Feb 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 02:48 |
|
|
Xabi posted:I just discovered a tiny scratch on the front element of one of my lenses. It’s hardly visible and I can’t feel it, so I guess it’s a tiny one* (would it be worse if I could feel the scratch with my nail, in other words if the scratch was “deeper”?) Should I be worried about anything other than possibly the resell value? It’s probably fine. Likely the only time it’ll ever effect photos is during heavy glare, and even then you’re probably good. I remember someone linking a blog post about how even lenses that look like they’re practically shattered can still take decent photos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 20:03
|
|