You have to login first in order to be able to post messages.
Click here to login or register if you are a new user.


Page:
1
Showing posts 1 - 14 of 14

Just Bought a Scanner

Author Message
Shootalot
632 posts
72
Message posted at 02/18/2005, 12:08:48 PM by Shootalot
I just bought a minolta dimage 5400 scanner in order to start scanning my 30 year old collection of slides and negatives. I have also shot some slide film recently as well as the resolution with the fuji sensia and velvia is very good. Some of the files I am generating are 7-10 megabytes as well as one monster one of 167 megabytes. I had to fix the horizon with that one. When I got my scanner adobe photoshop elements came with it. Right now I am in Mexico but I might start uploading some of these files in about 3 weeks. Should I downsize some of these files if possible? How many of you are still shooting film?
Canon G10 camera. Konica Autoreflex TC 35MM camera and vari...

Uploaded files:3239 | Total Sales: 10986
Mckown
320 posts
Message posted at 02/18/2005, 12:55:13 PM by Mckown
I wouldnt downsize anything. 10 MB takes time to upload but will be fine. Dont know what to say about 167 MB! that is BIG. How doer the scanned pics look at 100% view? I have a bunch of slides I would love to scan and upload. Hope the 5400 does you a great job!! Cant wait to see your uploads!!!
Nikon D300 , MB D10 Grip ,Nikon 18-55 VR Sigma 180 macro Ni...

Uploaded files:699 | Total Sales: 3298
Shootalot
632 posts
72
Message posted at 02/19/2005, 10:43:17 AM by Shootalot
The 5400 is minoltas best scanner. It fits easily on my desk and can do high resolution scans. It does best with slide film though I am finding out that scans from 200 speed print or negative film are grainy. I have some great shots of the grand canyon with nice detail. When I get back from Mexico I will upload. Film has grain but better detail than digital unless you compare to a top of the line digital camera. 35mm 50-100 speed slide film is the equivalent to 16mp digital. I would recommend the 5400 though the Nikon Coolscan is faster. The Minolta 5400 can take awhile to do a high resolution scan up to 15 minutes per slide or negative. Only regret is that it cannot scan 120mm film though Nikon has a scanner that can do 120mm for $1699. I spent $769 on the Minolta.
Canon G10 camera. Konica Autoreflex TC 35MM camera and vari...

Uploaded files:3239 | Total Sales: 10986
Misspheebie
39 posts
Message posted at 03/03/2005, 18:28:57 PM by Misspheebie
I was considering the Minolta Dual Scan IV when I received a Microtek S400 as a Christmas gift. I will also look forward to seeing some of your uploads from your Minolta.



My Microtek also came with Photoshop Elements 2.0 which I find a lot less confounding than the full Photoshop. It's certainly a lot easier for someone in the beginning phases of photo editing.
Olympus E-volt 500, Fujifilm Finepix S5100, Sigma SA-9 (film...

Uploaded files:10 | Total Sales: 75
Gtipton
17 posts
Message posted at 08/06/2005, 04:56:04 AM by Gtipton
I have the Minolta 5400 II and really enjoying it as well. I find that scanning a TIF file as max resolution (5400) always produces over 100MB files, so I always have to downsize to get files small enough to upload in a reasonable amount of time (on a dial up connection). Downsizing does help reduce grain, though, if I shot on 100 or 200 speed film. I just like to get all the information possible out of the scan so I have as much image information as possible to work with.
Canon 350D; Canon Rebel 2000; 28-80mm , 80-300mm and 50mm le...

Uploaded files:103 | Total Sales: 532
Laurentius
8 posts
Message posted at 08/29/2005, 08:53:47 AM by Laurentius
I still shoot a roll of slide film every now and then and always carry my film camera as a backup in my "other photographic life" (non-micro-payment nature photography).

I find that a scan on my ScanDual IV of a Velvia 50 slide yelds just about the same or slightly more detail than with my digital camera but "sadly" the digital is easier to work with so I find that I use slides less and less these days.



You are going to have a lot of work scanning all those old images but hey - as long as it is something you enjoy it doesn't feel as a heavy task! :-)

I bet it feels good to have a chance to see all the old images again.

Canon & Nikon

Uploaded files:0 | Total Sales: 381
Bobwyo
518 posts
71
Message posted at 09/11/2005, 18:47:00 PM by Bobwyo
I'm just starting with my Minolta 5400 II. I've got some files in for evaluation, none accepted yet, but, then, I don't think that uploading on Saturday or Sunday will bring a terribly quick result.



I'm scanning and saving direct as jpeg and other than having to retouch a little in the skies, it seems OK.



Does anyone know of a document that will tell me all about scanning? It seems too easy, although time-consuming. If things are going this well, I must be doing something wrong. I guess admin will tell me if they reject my fotos. ;-)
Canon EOS 5D

Uploaded files:83 | Total Sales: 218
Eromaze
31 posts
Message posted at 11/28/2005, 12:16:42 PM by Eromaze

Originally posted by Bobwyo:
Quoted Message: I'm just starting with my Minolta 5400 II. I've got some files in for evaluation, none accepted yet, but, then, I don't think that uploading on Saturday or Sunday will bring a terribly quick result.



I'm scanning and saving direct as jpeg and other than having to retouch a little in the skies, it seems OK.



Does anyone know of a document that will tell me all about scanning? It seems too easy, although time-consuming. If things are going this well, I must be doing something wrong. I guess admin will tell me if they reject my fotos. ;-)






I have just begun at DT, but have bee a pro otherwise for more than 15 years now. My personal impression is (I hope I'm proved wrong) that high rez scans face a far better chance of outright rejection than do digital submissions. It seems that somehow the image inspectors have come to expect 'digital image' attributes from film scans at 100% view in PhotoShop. It IS indeed IMPOSSIBLE. No scannner in the world (drum scanners included) can produce as sharp images at 100% view as the relatively lowly digicams can. Inspectors hardly seem to realize that high rez scans are viewed at 100 or 200% only for the purpose of spotting and cleaning etc. and not as generally for image quality evaluation as is usually done for digital imagery. It is quite frankly unfair (and ignorance) to compare scans and digital images side by side at 100% view in PhotoShop. However, top-end scans measure more than 20 MP, quite outsmarting even the best of digicams ... but the scans can be appreciated by the clients only if they (scans) are permitted to see the light of the day - and not summarily dismissed (but for a very small percentage) from the image submission assembly line. I find it impossible to explain that film grain is NOT EQUAL to digital noise ... and greater the resolution of the scan ... greater will be the size of the grain ... grain, unlike noise, is NOT an artifact and scans need not be banished for apprehension of noise ! When scans look perfect at print view size (25%), and are free of any blemish at 100% view, they are, for all practical purposes, quite OK for the photo-market. What then is the need for seeking sharpness and hunting for noise at 100% view ??



So, before you all embark on the journey of digitising your loads and loads of chromes, please do some sampling, submit the scans, evaluate your scan acceptance ratio, and only then carry on further volume scanning for submission. Also, please use the mildest mode of 'digital ice cube' etc. for eliminating scratches and dust etc. The more you use it, the greater the scan softness, and greater the chances of image rejection (200%).
Nikon D300, D70, Canon G9, Sony R1, NIKON-SIGMA Lenses 500 m...

Uploaded files:0 | Total Sales: 694
Gtipton
17 posts
Message posted at 12/17/2005, 13:40:11 PM by Gtipton
Iconex is right. DT doesn't yet seem to recognize the difference between digital and film scans, even though high res film scans still result in much larger images than do current digitals. I say "yet" because other leading stock agencies have begun to accept the difference and allow photographers to note film scans when uploading. Hopefully DT will develop...
Canon 350D; Canon Rebel 2000; 28-80mm , 80-300mm and 50mm le...

Uploaded files:103 | Total Sales: 532
Alaskalarry1
14 posts
Message posted at 08/29/2012, 16:42:16 PM by Alaskalarry1
I have a nikon VED. I have had some digital images accepted, and I would like to start submitting some scanned images. Most of my finest work is there of course, since I just started using digital. If I cant use my slides scanned, Im sort of starting from the bottom', since I hav only shoyt a few digital images. I am heading to Asia, Nepal, etc. for 6 months to travel and photograph. I spent many winters doing this with film, but this is the first time I will be going with only a Nikon D2x.
But like I said, I am hoping after I get a better understanding of microstock, I will be able to start scanning my images 6 months from now and submitting them.
Nikon D2x as well as nikon Film equipment

Uploaded files:45 | Total Sales: 16
Afagundes
3241 posts
<10
Message posted at 08/29/2012, 20:03:20 PM by Afagundes
What I am going to say is not my opinion, but its the ugly truth, the aesthetics of today embraces digital images better than film, as I said, its not my opinion, its the ugly truth.
What does it mean?
It means that the public expects perfection instead of the reality, so, fake dark blue skies, overdone HDRs, flawless skin, and yes, no grain, no wrinkles, no vignette, not a hair at the wrong place.
I dont think this will last forever though, people will have to connect with reality once again, and the "old" real world aesthetics will come back, maybe they will call it vintage, I dont know...
But, for now, no grain, even you have to downsample it a bit.
Thats what sell, at least for now (that part is my opinion), so you will have to adjust, after all this is stock photography.
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 17-40mm USM f/4L Canon EF 24...

Uploaded files:8878 | Total Sales: 14301
Afagundes
3241 posts
<10
Message posted at 08/29/2012, 20:09:33 PM by Afagundes
BTW, I love some grain, B&W, some wrinkles, a little belly, funny faces, fat food, vignettes, old people laugh, dirty muddy children playing, decay architecture, you know, unperfect funny things!
I know people will get in touch with those things again.
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EF 17-40mm USM f/4L Canon EF 24...

Uploaded files:8878 | Total Sales: 14301
Adeliepenguin
1096 posts
72
Message edited at 09/02/2012, 17:17:14 PM by Adeliepenguin
I have several scanned images in my portfolio, from my pre-digital days. They do have some grain, and they have sold, some extremely well. When you submit the photos for review, make sure and let the reviewer know that your images are scanned from transparencies, and that there is visible grain. I found it difficult to get good scans--I use a Nikon Coolscan 4000. Since Nikon no longer supports that scanner, I use Vuescan software.
Currently my primary cameras are a Nikon D800 and a Fuji X10...

Uploaded files:1104 | Total Sales: 4604
Lehmanphotos
139 posts
<10
Message posted at 09/10/2012, 13:51:27 PM by Lehmanphotos
I would agree with the sentiments expressed by Eromaze and Afagundes, though my experience is much more limited.

I started scanning some myself, though ultimately ran the numbers and figured out the time associated with scanning them ALL - I outsourced the work. They did make a couple mistakes, or more realistically their attention to detail wasn't what I would have liked, so I redid those myself.

Break it into short sessions and have fun!
Canon 50D and assorted lenses.

Uploaded files:284 | Total Sales: 394
Page:
1
Showing posts 1 - 14 of 14
Current Server Time: 04/20/2014, 09:24:02 AM