|
Wondering about scanning photos for a cd to reprint? Or maybe you need information on digital darkrooms. Ask your questions here.
|
Page
1
:
1
-10
of
47
questions
|
|
|
skip to page
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
...5
|
Next
10
>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linda Buchanan
lindabuchananphotography.com
member since: 4/26/2005
|
|
1
.
Clone Stamp in CS2
I have Photoshop CS2, and in editing some photos, I have discovered that my clone stamp is not working. It is as though it is somehow "turned off". Does anyone have an idea why and how I can fix this? Thanks.
6/8/2008 5:58:45 PM
|
Oliver Anderson
member since: 11/16/2004
|
|
I'll bet you've got the settings at the top of the page set to something funky (technical jargon). I'd check the Mode (normal), check the Opacity and the Flow ... you've changed one of those most likely. I've even changed the shape of my brush when I was a beginner 8 years ago and it took me 1 week to figure out how to change it back.
6/8/2008 9:57:26 PM
|
|
|
|
It STILL takes me a week to figure out how to change it back. LOL
6/9/2008 4:11:36 AM
|
Raymond H. Kemp
member since: 4/2/2004
|
|
On your layers palette, make sure you have selected the background. If you have been working on other layers such as curves, etc., the clone stamp will not work until you select your background layer (your primary image). I catch myself doing this all the time.
Ray
6/9/2008 5:44:34 AM
|
Oliver Anderson
member since: 11/16/2004
|
|
I've done what Ray was talking about before also ... but I'll bet it was 1 of the 1st 3 I pointed out since Rays is a more intermediate/advanced error than my 3 beginner errors.
6/9/2008 7:00:24 AM
|
William Schuette
member since: 9/8/2006
|
|
Also, if you are working on a new edit layer and not directly on the background (as you should always do), you will need to check the box at the top of the work space that says "sample all layers."
6/9/2008 9:55:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, none of the above was the problem. Any other ideas? All the other tools seem to be working correctly
6/9/2008 2:01:46 PM
|
Oliver Anderson
member since: 11/16/2004
|
|
You can contact Adobe but I think they'll make you pay. You can join the Forum and there are total experts to help you for free. Ask to send a screen shot.
6/9/2008 2:24:51 PM
|
A C
member since: 12/6/2004
|
|
not working period? Or the cursor doesn't look the same?? Because if it's the latter, you have your caps lock on and need to turn it off.
6/9/2008 3:11:04 PM
|
Oliver Anderson
member since: 11/16/2004
|
|
She mentioned everything but that was working so I didn't think it was the curser.
6/9/2008 3:19:52 PM
|
|
|
|
No, it's not working period. It's not the caps lock, the cursor looks the same. And, the program thinks it is working. If I attempt to use the clone stamp nothing happens, but when I look under "edit" it gives me the option to undo the clone stamp. Also when I close the photo and the clone stamp is the only thing I used I am asked if I want to save my changes. I have no idea what is going on!
6/9/2008 3:29:32 PM
|
Raymond H. Kemp
member since: 4/2/2004
|
|
What is displayed on your layers?
6/9/2008 3:33:37 PM
|
Oliver Anderson
member since: 11/16/2004
|
|
I'd go to Adobe's site, reload the software or have a beer...my friends say the Beer doesn't help but I refuse to believe their words.
6/9/2008 3:36:43 PM
|
|
|
|
The background with the "eye" on one side and a lock on the other side
6/9/2008 3:36:53 PM
|
|
|
|
I think I have it figured out. It is a problem with my mouse. I have a new bamboo tablet with a mouse. When I use the mouse built in to my laptop or my old wireless mouse it works. I wonder why?
6/9/2008 3:51:16 PM
|
Oliver Anderson
member since: 11/16/2004
|
|
you need to go to the mouse website and download the updated drivers for the mouse.
6/9/2008 4:27:14 PM
|
|
|
|
I'll do that. Thank you all for your help.
6/9/2008 4:28:34 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
David Hultsman
member since: 5/14/2008
|
|
2
.
35mm Slide Conversion
I have thirty years of slides in my closet and would love to convert them to digital files on my computer for viewing and for making photo copies. I have seen a device at Brookstone that claims to provide this option and have seen the Nikon Coolscan. I think both do the job but there is a $400 price difference and am asking if anyone has the experience to know if the low end is sufficient or that I should continue to save up funds to buy the high end device Iahtexon
5/14/2008 3:03:23 PM
|
|
|
|
First of all, choose the ones you really want to scan. You will drive yourself and maybe others around you nuts trying to do each and every one of them. Trust me on this, I'm 61, and many, many of mine were junk and not worth the effort.
The Nikon Coolscan is a great choice. The next best thing, for about the same money, is the Epson 700, a flatbed that lets you do a dozen at a time. The Nikon does a bit better job (not noticeable unless you want to print at 16 x 20) but is slow, as you do them singly. The Epson is a lot quicker and a lot easier to learn. Check out my comments on scanning and the Epson on my web site. I can't criticize the Brookstone, but it sounds like something in the in-flight catalogue, an unknown.
5/14/2008 4:43:31 PM
|
|
|
|
David,
I used the Cool Scan for a couple of years. Now that I have gone digital, I don't use it much. I found that the quality of the scan was great, but it is slow.
5/14/2008 5:41:04 PM
|
|
|
|
You can do a search here at BP on "Scanning Slides" and get a lot of great information. I agree with Doug that your editing process should be brutal. If you are like most of us, you likely have several versions of the same scene. Scan only the best. Those that are exposed properly and are tack-sharp will scan well.
Don't forget to clean your slides before scanning them. Brushing each side lightly with a dry Q-Tip, then giving each side a blast of compressed air will remove dust specs and other surface contaminants.
5/15/2008 2:24:53 AM
|
|
Dale M. Garvey
member since: 3/13/2006
|
|
I have the Epson 4990 Pro and am very happy with it. It is also great with negatives of all sizes. I have 35 mm negs of Mount Rushmore being carved and Signature Kodak negatives from the turn of the century which produce photos today that are as good as when they were taken. The firework shot in my gallery was scanned and edited from a slide.
5/20/2008 6:56:09 AM
|
|
|
|
About 4 years ago I scanned over 600 slides on an Epson scanner (dont remember the model #)that had a slide holder that fit 12 slides. I scanned them at 800 dpi which made for slow going but once I moved them into photoshop, I had a nice size image to work with. These were old slides (some even used at Jimi Hendrix concerts) and they were spotty & faded. I was able to clean up and restore a lot of color with Photoshop and the end result was very nice.
It is a bit time consuming but it was worth the time & effort.
5/20/2008 9:45:17 AM
|
|
|
|
I suggest you not do it at all, at least not yourself. You can outsource this work VERY CHEAPLY, and with HIGH QUALITY results. Take a serious look on the Scan Cafe website. They use Nikon Coolscan scanners, do all the tedious touch up work, and you only have to pay for the scans you want. It is done overseas, but again, look at the site to see their guarantee. I have used them in the past, and was very pleased. There is about a 2 to 3 month turn around time involved, but after you have waited 30 years, so what? Check it out and give it serious thought. http://www.scancafe.com steve
5/20/2008 10:31:05 AM
|
|
|
|
I use the Epson Perfection 3170 Photo scanner and love it. You can scan a few at a time. It does a good job and it wasn't that expensive. It also works with your printer as a copier, which I use a LOT!
5/20/2008 5:42:24 PM
|
|
|
|
If a lot of your slides are Kodachromes, no automated dust cleanup feature works. This is because of Kodachrome's dye layers. Touch up of dust spots is tedious- hours spent with the clone or healing brush tool in Photoshop or the Elements equivalent. This may be good reason to farm the task out, as Steve suggests, and/or cleaning them first, as Bob C suggests.
5/21/2008 7:31:05 AM
|
|
|
|
David, I agree with Dale G. and the EPSON Perfection 4990 Photo scanner. See below. I agree with the scanning comments regarding the tedium. I have over three thousand slides. When I was engaged in a digital business I used the Nikon Coolscan ????. It could only scan one at a time and boy was that tedious! I haven't looked lately but at that time circa 2004 Nikon had an even pricier model that would accept a 50 slide batch feeder. For additional money of course. I now use a Epson Perfection 4990 Photo scanner that will scan 8 at once. This scanner does have the Epson proprietary "Digital ICE" scanning capability. I rarely use that setting as it lengthens the scan time considerably. Good luck! There are good answers in this thread. Ray
5/24/2008 3:12:19 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Eric Miller
eric-millerphotography.com
member since: 12/1/2004
|
|
3
.
Scanning Photos
Many of my older pictures are taken on film. Recently I've purchased a digital camera and uploaded some of those pictures to my Web site as well. When I compare the quality of the film prints with the scans on the site, the film scans look a little fuzzy and less crisp than the original prints. Is this an issue with my monitor, my scanner or something else?
12/2/2007 5:45:56 PM
|
|
|
|
All scans are not created equal. You may be able to get a scan for a few dollars made on an inexpensive flatbed, or a high-end drum scan, and likely other options. The sharpness of the scan result might depend partially on what it was scanned on, and even the talents of the operator (depending on what they are operating).
All that aside, without knowing if you have a calibrated scanner, a calibrated monitor, considered color management options, how you are chosing to embed profiles or not, the question becomes more difficult to answer.
You may want to check out my From Monitor to Print course if several of these may be an issue. The course discusses all aspects of color management as well as resolution and more.
I hope that helps!
12/2/2007 7:28:18 PM
|
Andy
member since: 5/28/2002
|
|
As Richard pointed out, the quality of scanned images varies depend on the type of scanner you use. Also, did you do any post-processing after you scanned the pictures? I also use a film scanner. I have to do some basic post-processing for every single scanned image - contrast, resize, sharpening. I have looked at your windmill picture. Maybe a little sharpening is necessary. Hope this helps.
12/3/2007 7:32:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Dedicated 35mm film scanners tend to deliver a sharper scan. Flatbeds these days, especially from Epson, can do a decent job, if you don't demand extreme sharpness beyond about an 8 x 10. All scanners, however, require knowledgable, judicious use of Unsharp Mask in Photoshop or Elements.
12/3/2007 9:03:26 AM
|
|
Ken Henry
member since: 9/16/2003
|
|
It's like what Richard says, "it's a difficult or a rather lengthy answers of detail". Well, here's to the point, before you should get a scanner or have your film scanned. Learn: 1. Reprogrming your camera settings to what you like. 2. "From Monitor to Print" by Richard. 3. Photoshop, Elements or other. Who am I to tell you all this. My work is architectural, very, very detail. I can make six foot photos from my scans from 35mm Reala Film. My scans are only at 24MPXL, 125MB. A pro lab charges $1.00 per MB. That's why I have my own Super CoolScan 5000 Nikon. I've had more than one. I am assuming your scans came from a consumer outlet such as Walmart, one-hour photo, corner drugstore, etc. Or a flat bed scanner. You didn't say. No comment here, not worth the rant. There's not enough PS to make these scans look good. All scanners have a default even from your scanner source. Flat Colors and not Sharp. I set up few default programs in my scanner. One each program for Interiors, Exterior Sunny Day, Sunrise, Sunsets, etc. I can pretty much go directly to print very sharp photos without going to PS. And this is after two years and four scanners of learning. So, how technicaly good are you? I think the Nikon Coolscan is less than $500.00. The others scanners for about $300.00 produce very amazing photos. Well, this is the intro page one of one hundred pages 'how to scan'.
12/4/2007 10:28:16 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Dana Gambill
member since: 12/5/2004
|
|
4
.
Film & Slide Scanners
I have tons of 35mm & 2-1/4 negatives and transparencies that I'd like to scan. The minimal purpose would be for my Web site and e-mailing, and to burn onto a CD for magazine photo editors. Ideally, I'd love to get some of this work published, so if it appeared as a full-page in a magazine, I'd need to be able to scan at an acceptable quality. I'm also interested in submitting my work to stock agencies. Any suggestions on scanners that would fit my needs? Thanks, Dana
10/2/2007 4:04:16 PM
|
|
|
|
Dana,
Nikon, Canon and others make great film scanners. You should check out the specs and compare features of those within your price range that will scan at 4000 dpi.
I've enjoyed continued success with a Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED for several years, but this scanner won't accept those 2 1/4" transparencies and negatives. You will need one that will scan up to medium format.
For your submissions, unless they are asking for digital files, I recommend that you send high-quality dupes of the original slides rather than home-scanned versions. The publication's submission guidelines will clearly outline what is acceptable or preferred.
10/2/2007 11:47:24 PM
|
|
Dana Gambill
member since: 12/5/2004
|
|
Bob,
Thanks so much for your input.
10/2/2007 11:56:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Dana,
I use the Nikon Coolscan V. I find that it works well. Although, it only scans 35mm. There are other Coolscan versions that can handle 2.25. I think you would be pleased with the quality.
10/3/2007 6:43:39 AM
|
|
|
|
I agree with Bob on the scanning resolution and the choice of scanner for 35mm. As serious as you are about this project, you might want to buy also a flatbed scanner that will do medium format. I like my Epson V700. I scan medium format at 3200 ppi. You would also gain an excellent flatbed for prints.
Ride the learning curve on slide scanning. Slides are denser and contrastier than negatives. You will have to learn tonal and color manipulation in Photoshop, or minimally, Elements.
SAVE full resolution version of your scans on CD for archiving and printing. Convert them to jpg and downsize for emailing and Web posting, then SAVE AS in a file for small file size versions.
Enjoy the ride. It's probably a labor of love for you. These are YOUR images.
10/3/2007 8:23:33 AM
|
|
Dana Gambill
member since: 12/5/2004
|
|
Thanks for all the feedback everybody. It really helps.
10/3/2007 12:00:23 PM
|
|
|
|
Dana - if you intend to submit for publication, avoid the flatbeds, even for the MF film. Suitable scanners would be (new) Nikon 9000, used nikon 8000, microtek 120tf and the higher res minoltas. These all ocver 35mm and MF. Canon stopped making decent film scanners a long time ago, as did minolta & microtek.
10/9/2007 4:19:30 AM
|
|
|
|
I have recently purchased the Nikon Coolscan V and am thrilled with the results. There are two issues I am trying to sort out. After I have edited an image, is there a problem with converting to jpeg from TIFF to reduce the file size, providing I keep the 4.000 ppi resolution. Second, can anyone recommend some Unsharp Mask settings. This resolution and file size is foreign territory for me. Thank you.
10/11/2007 8:48:44 PM
|
Andy
member since: 5/28/2002
|
|
Steve, I am using a CoolScan IV and I have an option to scan in 8 or 12 bit. The 12 bit scan can only be saved in tiff format while the 8 bit scan can be saved in both jpeg or tiff format. But they are all scan in 2900ppi (V has 4000ppi). Tiff format just retain all the information withoug compression. See if your scanning software gives you this option. It should be under "Scanner Extra" in "Tool Palette" window. Hope this helps.
10/12/2007 5:10:24 AM
|
|
|
|
I see no value in retaining a 4000 ppi resolution while converting to jpg. CD's and detachable USB hard drives are cheap and hold a lot. You want to save a full resolution .tif, maybe the origal raw or maybe a .psd with all your adjustment layers saved as an archival copy. When you consider that only one or two shots out of 50 are worth saving, you can afford to give your best stuff this kid-glove treatment. Go to jpg to send "proofs", post on the web and to send as attachments. See scantips.com for some tips on Unsharp Mask. See any Photoshop book for some finer points on this important tool.
10/12/2007 8:32:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Thanks for responding, Andy and Doug. I'm scanning all my slides at 4,000 ppi and using TIFF. I checked out scantips.com and it has useful but vague guidelines for USM settings. I appreciate that there are no simple answers, but I am looking for some guidelines. On 5MP images from my camera, I usually start at 70%, 2.0 pixels, 0 threshold. This setting hardly makes a dent in my 4,000ppi images. Should I repeat that setting to gain further sharpness, or modify my initial setting. I want to find a reasonable ballpark setting for a typical image of that size.
10/12/2007 2:36:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Steve, The bottom line is that each image needs individual treatment - there's no silver bullet. However the trick is to get something to look slightly oversharp on screen at print size. Try sharpening percentages in the 2/3/400% range, although your coolscan should give scans that don't need a lot of sharpening. Try to avoid the oversharpened digicam look, where everything lokos like the proverbial Monty Pythonesque "Cardboard cut out". Some excellent sharpening articles at www.ronbigelow.com, although some of it's rather advanced. You may also want to consider the PK sharpener plug in.
10/13/2007 2:03:53 PM
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much for your information, Kevin. I've checked out a couple of articles on www.ronbigelow.com and they are exactly what I was looking for. It is a mine of info and provides great guidelines for using USM.
Steve
10/13/2007 4:31:48 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Steve Fels
member since: 4/19/2005
|
|
5
.
Film Scanning Issue
Hi! Today I got a roll of Velvia 100 slide film developed and scanned. On the light table, the transparency looked great. The colours were so vivid. But when I got the CD home, the digital images were very ordinary. They were scanned at 6.4mb JPEGs. Should I be asking for something different? Thanks!
9/19/2007 2:38:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Steve,
Next time, ask for them to save TIFF files out of the scanner. Then use your software program to make adjustments in contrast, saturation and sharpness to get closer to the quality of the original slide. If scanning slides is something you plan to do often, you may wish to invest in a good scanner and do them yourself.
Bob
9/19/2007 3:22:09 AM
|
|
Steve Fels
member since: 4/19/2005
|
|
Thanks Bob, I thought of that but these guys are proffessionals so I figured I'm happy to pay to get proffessional results but after today's effort I'm not so sure. I'll see if I can upload an image to show you the result.
Thanks again,
Steve
9/19/2007 3:43:00 AM
|
|
Steve Fels
member since: 4/19/2005
|
|
.
9/19/2007 3:58:02 AM
|
|
Steve Fels
member since: 4/19/2005
|
|
I'm not sure what that is but its not what I tried to download.....
9/19/2007 4:16:10 AM
|
|
Steve Fels
member since: 4/19/2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dodgy scanning
|
|
|
|
.
9/19/2007 4:35:06 AM
|
|
|
|
Slides in general are harder to scan. Velvia is known to be a challenge for the scanner operator. Sometimes the blacks or whites are clipped so that some tonal information is lost. Set the scanner to return as close to a Raw image as possible. Apply no contrast or brightness in the scan. Scan as a high bit TIFF (the files will be huge), and do tonal/contrast and color balance in Photoshop or Elements.
9/19/2007 11:40:04 AM
|
|
Steve Fels
member since: 4/19/2005
|
|
Thanks Doug, my appologies for the delayed response. Is there a "better" film that will scan better and give nice skin tones ? Steve
12/27/2007 2:20:36 AM
|
|
W.
member since: 9/25/2006
|
|
Hi Steve, as Doug pointed out the Velvia is NOT the problem, but the scanner operator IS. There's nothing wrong with Velvia. So a) get yourself a better scanner operator, and b) have them scan your slides as TIFFs. If "the blacks or whites are clipped so that some tonal information is lost", get TWO scans of those: one exposed for the higlights, and one exposed for the shadows. Then merge them as HDRI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDRI) to get an image file with the complete tonal range.
12/27/2007 7:05:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Just an opinion on my part, but I prefer Provia 100 for slides. It returns natural tones, especially skin and greenery. If you decide you want boosted colors, you can play with Saturation in Photoshop. Read Mike Reichman's article at www.luminous-landscape.com on Velvia vs. Provia.
12/27/2007 8:19:06 AM
|
|
Steve Fels
member since: 4/19/2005
|
|
Thank you both for your advice... Steve Fels
12/27/2007 1:11:48 PM
|
|
|
|
I too prefer Provia 100 to Velvia.
It's the closest thing to reality since KR64.
12/28/2007 1:24:41 AM
|
|
Steve Fels
member since: 4/19/2005
|
|
Just another question I have often thought about but didn't want to appear stupid. Is there an "ideal" shutter speed. Given that all other things are equal and depth of feild wasn't an issue, would slowing the shutter speed down.eg. 1/1000 @ f4 to 1/250 @ f8, change anything in the way the film reacts. I know the exposure would be the same but does the longer "reaction" time affect anything? colour saturation etc. Steve
12/28/2007 3:42:11 PM
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't expect any difference in freezing action or windblown wildflowers in the scenario you suggested, but there could be several other issues coming into play. I prefer to think more in terms of ideal apertures. Most of my 35 lenses are sharpest at f5.6; my 24, 35, 50, 90, and 100. I have to factor in whether or not sharpness is a prime consideration, or whether my wife will object to every skin pore in her portrait being in sharp focus. Of course, if I know from a test that, say, 1/30 sec is slow on my particular 30 year old camera body, then I use another speed or make an allowance for that.
12/29/2007 10:14:35 AM
|
|
|
|
I think Encyclopedia Alan has said before that films can have slight reciprocal failure at very fast shutter speeds. Like 2000th made need to be shot at 1500th. But all depending on the film.
12/29/2007 11:04:53 AM
|
|
Steve Fels
member since: 4/19/2005
|
|
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:6W1tAautibYJ:www.bw-photography.net/pdfs/Reciprocity%2520Failure.pdf+reciprocal+failure&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=au&client=firefox-a
Geez just when I thought I knew everything there was to possibly know and was about to pronounce myself an "expert" someone throws in something new...lol... Thanks Doug I will do some playing to compare the sharpness at different apertures, something I had never considered, and thanks Gregory I did some research and now understand a little about reciprocal failure at very fast and very slow shutter speeds.....NOW do I know it all ??? Am I an expert yet ? Thanks guys
Steve
12/29/2007 5:23:39 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Clayton T. Williams
Contact Clayton
Clayton's Gallery
claytontwilliamsphotography.com
member since: 9/16/2006
|
|
6
.
On Screen Resolution - Scanned Images
I am an amateur photographer and use a Minolta Maxxum 5 35mm film SLR camera. When I develop my film and have it put on a CD, the resolution on the CD isn't very good. The pictures appear very "pixely". Where is the best place to have pictures put on CDs at the best resolution for computer viewing and/or what can I do to make my pictures look better on-screen?
6/3/2007 1:59:46 AM
|
|
|
|
If the photos don't look good on screen, they weren't scanned at a high enough resolution. Actually, I think it must have been really low because you don't need that high of a resolution, or a file that big, to view on screen. Screen views at 72ppi and an uploaded file just needs to be 300-400k.
Now if you're trying to zoom in on the image after you get it on your screen, then, yes, even a slight increase in image size will start to show pixels. But scanned negatives can be scanned at different resolutions. So if you used a one-hour lab that provides a CD with your pictures, the resolution is probably low in order to make it a quick.
Find a better lab or a print shop that does scans, if you know of no other people who own a scanner.
6/3/2007 2:50:37 AM
|
Christopher Gardner
member since: 5/24/2006
|
|
Hi Clayton. Gregory gets to the point towards the end of the answer... you need to find a lab that will scan your negatives to CD properly. If you're using the lower cost, standard retail outlets for film developing, this might explain some of the poor quality on CD. Your question "Where is the best place" is difficult to answer because it is subjective based on your own concerns such as location, budget, urgency/convenience, etc. There are some good online labs (such as Snapfish and Photoworks) and some good local labs, but you'd have to research that in your area. Best of luck to you!
6/5/2007 5:50:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Thank You both. I think I am going to try a couple of different labs. I may send a roll to snapfish, photoworks, mpix, and a local lab just to see which I like best. thanks again.
6/5/2007 6:30:43 PM
|
Roy Blinston
member since: 1/4/2005
|
|
Everything above is correct. However one technical point... it is not the quality of the CD but the quality of the pics "on the CD".
Many labs offer varying quality scans - some give you a range of resolutions (ie: low for viewing or web only, and high for print quality etc).
If you intend to do extreme enlargements of your pics then you will need to get extremely high quality/resolution scans of your images.
By far the best quality scans you can get are done on a "Drum Scanner". Unfortunately many Labs do not possess a drum scanner and instead use desktop methods. Drum Scanners can cost anything between $40,000 up to $250,000.
If you want the very best quality scans, look through your local phone book for anybody offering drum scans. Be prepared to pay a good price too. Quality comes at a cost. Depending on your requested "finished size", around $20 - $70 per scan is not uncommon on a high end drum scanner.... but absolutely nothing can beat it for quality.
6/5/2007 6:34:09 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Laura K. Moore
member since: 5/13/2007
|
|
7
.
How Do I Convert Slides to a CD?
I have about 3000 color slides that I want to convert from slides to a CD. How do I do this? I am trying to make a memory disc for my parents 50th wedding anniversary.
5/13/2007 1:42:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Laura,
I'm not a film shooter, but I think I can offer an answer to your question. Hopefully, others will give you more accurate info.
You are right about scanning. However, you cannot just lay the slides on a flatbed scanner and get the results you desire. There is a process to follow that requires special equipment to scan slides.
I recommend that you go through the 3000 slides and select the "best" batch (maybe a hundred or so). Then, I would find someone in the local area that can do the scanning job for you. Perhaps a photography service can give you a better job and do it quicker and cheaper than if you tried to buy the gear to do iy yourself.
I commend you for thinking of this wonderful gift for your parents 50th!
John
5/13/2007 5:51:12 PM
|
|
Bob Fately
member since: 4/11/2001
|
|
Laura,
As John says, you do need a scanner made for handling transparencies. There are some scanners specifically made for this (like the Nikon CS5000 or similar models from Canon and Minolta). There are also certain flatbed scanners that have an illumination source in the lid and are designed to handle slides. I have an Epson 2450, but that's a few years old, so there's a newer model, and considering your needs, I'd suggest something like that rather than a film-only type scanner.
As for what to do exactly, there are two things to consider - resolution and file type output. You say you are making a CD, but the real question is with what output in mind? If the plan is only to display the photos on a TV or computer screen (or projector), then you don't need very high resolution output. Thus, you could probably scan the slides at a resolution of 300 or 600 ppi and end up with quite acceptable results for viewing. At 300ppi scanning, for example, a 35mm frame will come in at about 300x450 pixels. FOr screen display, 75 dpi is generally sufficient, so this would give a 4x6 image on a screen (more or less, depending on other parameters). Of course, if you project on a wall, the size is considerably larger. At 600ppi, you could get an 8x12 onscreen.
However, if you plan to print the images, then you should scan the slides at a much higher resolution, to allow for an output rez of 300dpi. This means that, if you print a slide at 4x6, you'll need to scan the film at 1200ppi. For safety (to allow for cropping or further editing), you would probably be better off at an even higher resoution - 2400ppi or greater. For reference, when I scan slides in my film scanner, I do so at 4000 ppi and can obtain poster-size output if necessary.
As for file type, the choices are generally JPEG or TIFF. The former is a compressed format, so the file sizes will be smaller and more will fit on a CD. TIFF is more appropriate if you plan on editing after the fact, but they take more space.
For 3000 images, even with JPEG formatting, you will probably need more than a single CD, but until you know how large each saved file will be, you can't estimate this yet. Hope that helps.
5/13/2007 8:54:48 PM
|
|
dennis w. mcclain
member since: 8/2/2004
|
|
one thing bob left out. make sure that the scanner you get is rated at optical resolution, not interpolated. interpolation=pixilation. happy scanning
Denny
5/15/2007 5:13:32 AM
|
Joe Ciccone
member since: 3/7/2005
|
|
there's actually an attachment for some Digital SLR's that allow you to 'hold a slide in place' and shoot it, producing a copy on your camera's memory card...after that it can be processed (edited) in the usual ways.
5/15/2007 5:58:15 AM
|
|
Sandra A. Collis
member since: 2/22/2006
|
|
Laura I just did this for my parents and I used www.digmypics.com It is worth checking out since a good scanner is a huge expense and labor intensive. I made JPEG CD's for my parents and siblings and a JPEG/TIFF for myself if I want to do any additional touch ups. They do a very professional job
5/15/2007 6:15:40 AM
|
|
|
|
Since I did not want to invest in expensive scanning equipment, due to an eventual switch to digital, I hired a local commercial print lab, which had invested in equipment more expensive than I could possibly purchase and they copied the slides onto a CD. In my case, the lab is Colorfast Photo Center & Gifts, which is located in Lafayette, Louisiana. But, perhaps a local lab in your community can help. Good luck.
5/15/2007 9:16:24 AM
|
Kathy C. Tugwell
member since: 6/16/2005
|
|
Laura,
I might be to late to put my 2 cents in on this but I am doing the samething you are doing right now. It was going to cost me as much if not more to have them scanned and made into pictures or put on a CD than it would cost to get a new scanner that will do slides. My problem was also that my dad took 2x3 slides really big. So my sugestion is to buy a scanner, I have an Epson 4490, and do it yourself, it is worth it and you get to learn on how to do it and be creative.
Good luck.
Kathy Tugwell
5/15/2007 9:21:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Laura, My local lab charged me $1.00 per slide to copy it onto a CD. I don't recall how many slides fit onto the CD. However, this method only became expensive for me because I had photoghed 40 rolls of mostly 36 exposure film, (most of which were slides) on our trip to China and went digital shortly thereafter. Still, having the lab do the processing, I had saved even more money by avoiding the purchase of an expensive scanner, which they had, and I could not afford to purchase. Just an additional suggestion, which I hope will help. ~Bunny
5/15/2007 9:32:30 AM
|
|
Manuel L. Pacheco Gomez
member since: 5/9/2003
|
|
Laura, If you have a digital SLR camera already you only have to buy this fancy device called "SLIDE DUPLICATOR" for 35mm cameras, It goes instead of the lens and it allows you to introduce the slide on the device, then you just have to focus an take the shot. Its very easy and isnt that hard, I did it with my slides too. Yes I know you'll have to do this 3000 times but who said life is supposed to be easy?... Keep in touch.
5/15/2007 3:59:39 PM
|
|
dennis w. mcclain
member since: 8/2/2004
|
|
just found this at adorama
http://www.adorama.com/IPI1800.html?emailprice=t
79.95, not a BAD PRICE
5/18/2007 1:56:56 PM
|
|
dennis w. mcclain
member since: 8/2/2004
|
|
and here is an artical from aric on the subject. thought you might wanna take a look
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=academy_new&article=101005
5/18/2007 2:00:06 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Maria Zammit
Contact Maria
Maria's Gallery
member since: 4/24/2007
|
|
8
.
Converting Color Slides to Digital Files
Is it possible to convert color slides to digital photos?
4/27/2007 1:30:56 PM
|
|
|
|
I had a scanner a year or two back that had an attachment that allowed color slides to be scanned relatively easy. It was inexpensive so the scanned quality wasn't the greatest.
4/27/2007 1:33:18 PM
|
|
|
|
Sure. There are film scanners, with the best bang for the buck being the $500 Nikon V model. Short of paying 10K and up for a drum scanner, its a good choice. There is a learning curve, and you should be proficient with Elements or Photoshop.
Epson makes scanners that can do 12 slides at a time. The scans are reasonably good, if you don't enlarge beyond about 11 x 14, and the software is pretty easy to use.
An alternative is to have your very best ones scanned professionally. This process is too expensive to have all your slides scanned.
Once you have the slide as a digital file, you can print it on your own inkjet paper (on photo quality paper), or have a shop print it.
4/27/2007 2:32:03 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Gloria Pidwerbecki
member since: 3/21/2004
|
|
9
.
Film/Slide/Photo Scanners
I have about 25 years of film, slides and photos that I am thinking of digitizing. First, I have a simple question: When one scans a strip of negs with the scanner (with the proper adapter), does the scanner create an image for each frame or the whole strip? How does that work? Second, I need some advice on what type of scanner is best. I'm looking at dishing out no more than about $300 CDN. I have quite a lot of film and slides to do, so I was looking at the Canon that could scan 4 strips of negs and 4 slides at one time. Can you guys help me out? Thanks in advance - all input is welcome!
4/15/2006 2:39:37 PM
|
|
|
|
A film scanner will scan a strip of negatives individually, but don't ask me how. The scanner software separates them for you and you can save them individually. I've read in photo forums that the Epson 4990 flatbed scanner is excellent for scanning film; however, I do not have first-hand knowledge and I think it's a little more expensive than you're wanting to spend. HTH
4/15/2006 5:06:39 PM
|
|
Michael H. Cothran
member since: 10/21/2004
|
|
First, if your scanner, be it flatbed or dedicated film, comes with special film carriers, it should produce an individual file for each image, when scanning strips. How much scanner you need to buy really depends on what you plan to do with the scans. And if you plan to do your own inkjet printing, just how big do you plan to make the enlargements? $300 won't buy that much of a scanner, but it may be enough for your needs, once defined.
Economically, flatbeds are usually less expensive. But for better-quality film scans, I would do some serious research into dedicated film scanners, such as the Nikon Coolscans, or the Konica Minolta line. Granted, they are a little pricier, and may be out of your range. But I also hate to see you buy a cheap flatbed, and then be dissatisfied with the results. Bottom line is - It all depends on what you intend to do with the scans, and on your personal definition of 'quality.'
Good luck!
4/15/2006 8:05:24 PM
|
|
David Cross
member since: 4/10/2006
|
|
befor you buy a scanner,take a look at the ohnar zoom slide duplicator,see firstcall photographic stock the device.it fits on to an slr body,just like a lens,and its a lot faster to.
4/18/2006 4:34:29 AM
|
|
Carl Schulz
member since: 3/22/2004
|
|
I use a Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV. It works great and will do positive and negative film (color or B&W) and with an adaptor it will do APS film. I just found it for $230 online.
4/18/2006 5:06:45 AM
|
|
John W. DeHority
member since: 11/27/2005
|
|
I used to work in the "Color Scanning Systems Lab" at Kodak. Strips of film (called "chops") are separated into individual pictures by the scanning software. A process called "frame line detection" is used to find the narrow blank strip between images. If the film was printed when developed this technique was applied to find the images for printing. The automated printing equipment may also notch the edge of the film to identify frame intervals. The notches guide the printer and the packaging equipment that "chops" the film up for packaging.
If you are going to do any quantity of scanning I recommend a scanner that has "Digital ICE" technology built in. This uses a 4th IR light channel to find dust and scratches and supress them in the processed image.
4/18/2006 5:30:28 AM
|
|
|
|
I've been several years doing just this. I have had to cull my negs and slides, because I just cannot do them all. Bad exposures, out-of-focus shots, "why-did-I-take-that" stuff can go. For 35mm, I recommend a dedicated film scanner. For a new one, the only act in town now is the Nikon V, about $500. That's more than you want to spend, but balance that with paying to have them done. Doing it yourself becomes the more economic alternative. This scanner will clean up the dust spots for you, saving a LOT of time. The Minoltas and Canon 4000 are now phased out, but one MAY be available even new on auction sites. Slides are more difficult because of dense shadow areas, but Ed Hamrick sells a scanning software for about $75 that addresses that problem. My Canon scanner can scan a whole strip of four, or I can pick out selected frames from the strip. Epson has been the leader in flatbeds that can scan film. They have a new model, the 750, that may do a decent job on 35mm. Their current 4990 is highly regarded by some users. A big plus for the Epson is that it comes with Silverfast scanning software. Also, you might score a 4990 at a close-out price these days. UMAX and Microtec have similar scanners, and I would doubt that they are sitting around letting Epson take over this market. There are a lot us us old film shooters out here.
4/18/2006 5:46:16 AM
|
|
Cynthia Stephens
member since: 10/10/2005
|
|
I, like you, had 30 years of film to scan and last year I purchased the Epson 4990 Pro. I have absolutely loved this scanner. It is amazing! The quality is superb. You are able to scan any size negative, as well as pictures and documents. I wouldn't even consider a different scanner. I found that I did not need the additional software that comes with the Pro. Go for the standard 4990.
4/18/2006 7:20:58 AM
|
|
Roger Johnson
member since: 1/15/2006
|
|
I second the Epson 4990 as the scanner to go with. It is so far superior to my previous scanner that I have gone back and re-scanned over 400 of my favorite slides,negatives and prints (though I don't think I have the stamina to re-scan the other 2,000!). One nice feature that it has is color correction for those transparencies that have shifted color over the years (50 years in my case), and it does a remarkable job of restoring the original color, making the rest of the job in Photoshop much easier. I've made 8x10s from scanned images that were cropped rather severely that are excellent.
4/18/2006 8:28:43 AM
|
|
Kevin N. Keltner
member since: 12/11/2005
|
|
Hp makes good scanners. I got a hp and I like the quality that comes out of them. You want the one that will do the highest dpi.
4/18/2006 9:57:11 AM
|
|
Alexis
member since: 10/19/2004
|
|
I used to have a Nikon dedicated film scanner, plus a flatbed with a scanner adapter...Epson. I have to say you get what you pay for and if you really want to produce quality scans from your film then go with a dedicated film scanner. I bought mine on ebay and sold it a couple of years later for $50.00 less than I bought it, so they hold their money. I sold it as I am a graphic artist and I bought it to do commerical digitizing for clients, but it never took off and I needed a good quality inkjet Epson R1800 so I sold it to buy the printer. I do regret it as it was a really sweet scanner but as a one person studio my buying budget is very limited. If you can afford to buy a dedicated film scanner go for the Nikon's you will not regret it. The other scanner that I looked at last year was the Microtek I900 (I think) and I contacted a couple of people who had purchased them and they were very pleased. I did also look into the Epson 4990 but I read some bad reviews and decided not to go for that one. The other scanner I looked at was Canon CanoScan 9950F Flatbed Scanner, it's pretty much a work horse (which is what I need) and does batch scanning of 30 35mm negatives. You can find it on Amazon.com and it's around $349.00.
Good luck
Alexis
4/18/2006 3:20:03 PM
|
|
Alexis
member since: 10/19/2004
|
|
Hey Gloria,
If you check out Amazon.com for the Canon CanoScan 9950F there are some people on their that have written reviews for scanning negatives and slides. You can always contact them (and I did that about the Microtek I900 scanner) and see what they have to say. It seems that you maybe travelling in the same direction as them!!
Hope this helps.
Alexis
4/18/2006 3:24:30 PM
|
|
Stephen Cameron
member since: 11/27/2004
|
|
Hello Gloria,
Good to see another Canadian on board. I use an HP Scanjet 5470c which by most standards is now outdated however, it does come with the adapter for film strips and slides. The software does not separate the pictures for you automatically however, this is easily achieved via the software with a little input from you. It works well and it was purchased at Staples for under $170.00 Cdn. If you are looking at processing thousands of slides and strips then I would suggest going with a dedicated scanner but.. more $$$ and after your project is done, then what ??Take care...
...Stephen
4/18/2006 4:36:36 PM
|
Gloria Pidwerbecki
member since: 3/21/2004
|
|
Firstly, I must say that I am overwhelmed with all your input and I wish to say thanks to all of you for your lessons! Since I am a newbie to the whole "digital" realm, I completely thank you (Sharon & John) for explaining the process in layman's terms. I just couldn't figure it out. I guess I have a lot to absorb. I see what you all are talking about regarding getting a dedicated film scanner, but I'm not sure if I'm willing to invest that kind of money. Like Stephen says, when the project is done, then what - a $800 CDN dust collector? Thanks, David for the other option for the ohnar zoom slide duplicator, however my Sony F717 does not have a detachable lens (non-DSLR). Cynthia & Roger, are you still using your 4990? How may neg strips/slides can you scan at once and how long does it take? Have you had many problems with the scans? I want to digitize my negs/slides, but also want the option to enlarge to may 11x14 or 16x20. Any hints? Alexis, thanks for your advice about the Epson & the Canon. I like the idea that you can scan multiple 35mm negs at one time considering the vast about I have in storage boxes. I did check out the feedback like you suggested on Amazon.com. You're right, there are quite a few that were in the same situation as me. Do you have one now? If so, which one? Stephen, or if there are any other Canadians reading, do you know anywhere in the Toronto, Ontario area that I may be able to rent a good quality scanner for this purpose? Again, thanks to you all, Sharon, Michael, David, Carl, John, Doug, Cynthia, Roger, Kevin, Alexis & Stephen for your words of wisdom. If you think of anything else, please don't hesitate to educate me some more. What to do... what to do...
Thanks again everyone!
Gloria
4/18/2006 5:13:06 PM
|
|
Chuck Staley
member since: 12/16/2005
|
|
I bought the Canon CanoScan 8400F a year ago for $100 US after a $30 rebate. It scanned all my slides and negatives and did a fine job. No, it did not remove all the dust spots and correct all the off-color positives, but all in all, it did a great job. Check it out -- you could get a used one by now, I would guess. Cheers,
Chuck Staley
4/19/2006 9:45:42 AM
|
|
Charlotte LaBarbera
member since: 4/21/2004
|
|
You've already heard this from several people, but you do get what you pay for. If you have tons of negatives that need scanning then you need a high quality negative scanner. I have a flatbed scanner with the option of scanning negatives but if I had to use it for large quantities of negatives I would be old and gray before the project was halfway started. It's just too slow. Charlotte
4/21/2006 6:19:58 AM
|
|
Cynthia Stephens
member since: 10/10/2005
|
|
Gloria, yes I am still using my Epson 4990 and I have never had any problem with any scan. I have scanned 35mm negs., color slides, infrared b&w neg., med format negs and old negatives my parents took with the old brownie cameras. They have all turned out beautiful. You can do 4 strips of 35 at one time and I think 10 slides at once. The amount of time varies depending if you use digital ice which you will on most scans because it takes out dust and scratches, and the dpi you chose. I always use the professional mode to manually select my scanning options. Printing a picture that is 11x14 or 16x20 is no problem at the correct resolution and dpi setting. With a dpi option of 4800 the sky is the limit. Happy scanning.
Cindy
One additional footnote: if you will be scanning infrared film, it scans perfectly, but you can't use the digital ice on this film. The digital ice can't distinguish between dust and scratches and properties in the film.
4/21/2006 8:14:37 AM
|
|
|
|
I am currently in the same boat. I am looking at negative scanners from Microtek. They seem to have a really nice line of scanners and somewhat affordable. They just came out with the i900, but, I'm looking at the i800. I dont' know the differences yet in the two, but, will do some research. Any input on Microtek negative/slide scanners?
5/1/2006 6:33:35 AM
|
|
Roger Johnson
member since: 1/15/2006
|
|
Hi Gloria.
Firet off, I erred when I said I had an Epson 4990; I have a 4490. However, nearly all the comments that Cynthia stated above would apply to the 4490, except that I can only scan two film strips at a time or four 35mm slides. I don't know what the 4990 costs, but my 4490 cost $200 after a $50 mail-in rebate. I am very, very satisfied with it in every respect and have made a number of 8x10s with my Epson R800 printer from rather severly cropped images that I have scanned.
When going through your 25 year collection of photos, the most important item in your process should be your waste basket... I've been a photo enthusiast since 1948, and, of the well over 10,000 photographs that I went through, only 2,000 made it into my computer, and that was more than should have made it. How I wish I had had the 4490 when I started the process because now I'm going back through them again and re-scanning them, but only the best of the best this time, and what a huge diffeence the 4490 has made. Have fun!
Roger
5/1/2006 9:08:27 AM
|
|
|
|
roger, it's funny you mentioned the waste basket! LOL I have a really hard time throwing away an obviously BAD picture, but, I do make myself do it!
5/1/2006 9:28:46 AM
|
|
Roger Johnson
member since: 1/15/2006
|
|
I didn't limit my waste basket deposits to only BAD pictures. I had to be downright merciless because of the sheer numbers of photos. If I had several shots of the same subject, and none of them were bad shots, I'd pick the best one and say bye bye to the others. Maybe, since you only have 25 years to deal with (I say "only" from the perspective of one who had nearly 60 years of photos to deal with), you can treat your collection a bit more kindly. It's been a lot of fun going over all these old photos, and it isn't over yet: Last week I uncovered another large box full of still more photos.
By the way, one of the nice features of both the Epson 4490 and 4990 is a box you can check for color restoration. It works surprisingly well for those images that have shifted color over the years, leaving you with fewer corrections to make in Photoshop.
As I said, have fun.
5/1/2006 10:56:03 AM
|
|
|
|
LOL! I've been taking pictures since I was 3 (and I'm soon to be 55), but, unfortunately, I don't have most of my really early shots. Which is probably a good thing! LOL I do have a lot from the mid 60's on, and, I mean a LOT!!!!!!
I think I have my negative scanner decided upon. I think I will get the Microtek i800. They just came out with the i900, so, the i800's have a $50 rebate with them. I can't seem to find a better one for the same amount of money (around $310 after the rebate). Any suggestions?
5/1/2006 2:21:04 PM
|
|
Roger Johnson
member since: 1/15/2006
|
|
I'm not familiar with Microtek, but considering how much research you've obviously done, I expect you've made a great choice. Good luck with it.
Now, I'm about to demonstrate some ignorance on my part... What does LOL stand for? Here in the San Francisco area it means Little Old Lady, and you don't appear to fit into that category.
5/1/2006 5:16:38 PM
|
|
|
|
LOL = laugh out loud = internet terminology ...
5/1/2006 5:54:06 PM
|
|
|
|
I just wanted to update everyonewith my experience with the microtek i800. I returned it. It had super software, awesome capabilities, but, had 2 issues: 1) even at 9600dpi, the resolution was NOT there for a negative scan. I pulled images into ps and played with this for 4 days before deciding to return it.
2) the negative film strip holder .. awesome concept; however, the strips would STICK to the holder and I would have to tug and/or pull to get them out! yikes! talk about worrying about ripping my strips and/or breaking the holder.
LOVED the digital ice and all the software that came with it! totally awesome!
In my humble O, I told them that the negative strip needs to be closer to the glass. I do believe the i900 (their latest model) has a built in slide drawer that is supposed to help with this (to give you better resolution) but you still have to use that sticky film holder! YIKES!
So, now, I'm going to start looking again. It's been recommended to look at the new epson 700 line .. there's a new one out but is not on the shelves yet .. or it wasn't last time I looked!
5/28/2006 8:21:36 AM
|
|
tabby richman
member since: 2/28/2006
|
|
THE CANON 8400 scanner is GREAT!
6/16/2006 1:28:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Tabby, thanks for the info. I haven't checked into that one, but, will. I'm hoping it is within my price range.
Q? Do you scan in 35mm negative strips? And, if so, is the scan crisp and sharp? Of course, that's given you start with a good image to begin with?
6/16/2006 3:52:54 AM
|
|
tabby richman
member since: 2/28/2006
|
|
Yes, Laura the CANON 8400 scanner will scan 35mm negative strips,35mm slides, 35mm cute negatives,120 format also..as far as I can see they are sharp...great scanner.It can be found brand new,for about $130.00 or on sale for $100.00 USA DOLLARS..Best of luck to you.Go on a CANON site to read about it.
6/18/2006 1:44:05 AM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
|
|
Joanne S. Landers
member since: 11/11/2005
|
|
10
.
Viewing Old Negatives
I would like to go through old negatives to determine which ones I want to print. I do have a scanner and tried scanning a sleeve of negatives on my computer but not sure what the next step is. I guess if I could make a CD to view the negatives I would be able to determine which ones I would like to print. The negatives are from 20-30 years ago, and I can't determine what is on them by holding them up to the light. I would appreciate any help you could give me. Thank you.
11/11/2005 12:20:16 PM
|
D.J. Kick
member since: 1/4/2005
|
|
Joanne,
I use a 10x negative/stamp viewer (loupe) and place the negatives on a small battery-powered light table or a sliding glass door. The loupe costs $7.00 and the light table cost $25 at a flea market. Hope this helps.
11/11/2005 10:04:32 PM
|
|
|
|
If you have a (dedicated film) scanner, you should be able to see on your monitor what the print would look like. The "next step" would be to use a software program like Photoshop to clean up the image - to overcome any deficiencies incurred during the scanning process and to correct the fading, imbedded dust, scratches, and/or other factors most commonly associated with older negatives.
11/12/2005 4:38:18 PM
|
|
|
|
An illuminated viewing box made for slides works well. Available at camera stores.
11/15/2005 3:26:24 PM
|
Christian Harberts
member since: 1/30/2004
|
|
Joanne, A neat trick I have used successfully is to use a camcorder or digital camera to "see" the negatives as postives. You will need to have a custom setting called "Negative" which normally is intended to make everything look like a b&w or color negative. Assuming you have a light table, place the negative strip on the light table, then view the frames with the device. Presto - instant true colors (or b&w). This has two *immense* advantages. 1) you can quickly identify your negatives, and 2) you can scan only those you want - you save lots of time either way! Another possibility might be to lay out the whole set of negatives on the light table, and capture everything at once - a camera with even medium resolution (4Mo) will give you ample detail. Bingo - instant contact sheet. See my example image, taken with my Sony TRV900 camcorder several years ago. Hope this helps! Christian
11/16/2005 1:14:59 PM
|
Respond |
Ask Your Own Question
|
