BetterPhoto.com - Become a better photographer today!
EMAIL:
PASSWORD:
remember me:     
     


Photography QnA: Digital Image Management Software

Browse by Category | All New Questions | All New Responses | Q&A Home

Category: Best Photographic Equipment to Buy : Digital Cameras and Accessories : Digital Image Management Software

Here you will find information regarding digital image management software. Everything you need to know to be organized and efficient with your photos is in this Q&A.

Page 1 : 1 -10 of 12 questions

  Next 2  >>
     
 
Photography Question 
Kathryn Massey
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 6/22/2005
  1 .  Best Color Monitor Calibrator System?
I am in need of a color monitor calibration system and could use some feedback as to which brand offers the best results with minimum installation problems or bugs. Any, and, all advice is welcome!

8/19/2008 10:13:09 AM

  Hi Kathryn,
I just calibrated my Imac last night (every 30 days), and I use Colorvision Spyder2. I bought it when I used a Windows PC a couple of years ago and the same software works with my newer MAC. It is very easy to use. It will guide you through and you will set up a profile (which I name mine Spyder2) and your monitor will be set to that profile and you can select the same profile for your printer so that your monitor & prints match in color.
Spyder3 is now out, but I have seen no need to upgrade as I am happy with Spyder2. You will need to have your room lit the same for running your calibration as it is when you are editing photos. I keep my room fairly dark and mostly edit during the evening hours as I can see better this way.
Good Luck - Carlton

8/19/2008 10:22:56 AM

Kathryn Massey
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 6/22/2005
  Thanks for much for your feedback, Carlton! I was looking at the Colorvision Spyder 2. Is yours the pro version?
Kathryn

8/19/2008 10:27:25 AM

  Hi Kathryn,
Yes, it is the Pro version. I think I paid $150 for it 2 years ago but prices may be lower since the release of Spyder3.
Carlton

8/19/2008 10:56:27 AM

Giordano 
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/13/2006
  Kathryn,
I haven't tried Spyder, but I had a bad experience with Pantone Huey.

8/19/2008 10:57:51 AM

  Interesting thread Giordano, I have read other complaints about Huey and Spyder seems to get better reviews which is why I bought it in the 1st place. Monitor calibration is an essential investment for photographers IMO.
Carlton

8/19/2008 11:16:02 AM

Oliver Anderson
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/16/2004
  I LOVE my Spyder3Pro and bought it for $150...I calibrate every 2 weeks at least. It has lots more sensors than the Huey and works great with Canon, Epson and Miller's Lab prints.

8/19/2008 2:41:54 PM

  Some type of hardware calibration is better than none. If price is an issue, the Spyder Express will do. It works to calibrate flat screens as well as CRTs, and I've even tricked it into calibrating dual monitors.
Some of these will take a little practice and really reading the manual - sometimes even a call to support.
Other issues can be your settings in Photoshop and Elements ... if these are wrong (or, rather, incorrect), you will get poor results.
Calibration and getting results is a process. That's why I teach a course, and don't just issue an article. It starts with your camera, and follows through to your image printing or submission to services. Calibration is just one piece.
Hope that helps!

8/19/2008 3:48:18 PM

Kathryn Massey
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 6/22/2005
  Thank you everyone for your input. I'm leaning towards the Spyder 3 Elite. I've read some reviews and it seems to be the one that is to my liking. Richard, I'm very interested in your workflow course- perhaps you will see me in one of your future classes! Again, many thanks to all!

8/19/2008 5:39:07 PM

Daniel O

member since: 5/30/2006
  The guys at my local photography store recommended the Huey, (they're pro photographers), and I've been using it for 2 years now and have no complaints. I've never tried anything else, so I can't compare it, but I use it on my laptop and my CRT monitor and it's easy to use and does what it's supposed to. It has a sensor which constantly samples the room light and adjusts the screen color if the light changes.

I'd be curious know why people prefer the Spyder. Perhaps someone who has experience with both could do a comparison for us?

8/26/2008 5:34:10 AM

Marianne Fortin
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/23/2006
  I also use the Huey and have no complaints, so far. Maybe it works better with some monitors than others?

Another one to look at is the ColorMunki which is a bit pricey but calibrates your printer as well as your monitor. It is reviewed in September's Shutterbug and there is a comparison review in September's Digital Camera (UK mag, but available in Barnes & Noble, etc.). The review compares the X-Rite ColorMunki (90%), the Pantone Huey Pro (87%), the Spyder3 Elite (86%) and the Studio XR2 (81%).

8/26/2008 5:56:33 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Sharon Rizzo

member since: 3/29/2005
  2 .  Photoshop Question - Exposure
I recently took some pictures that were underexposed. Is there a way to lighten the subjects (portrait of children) in Photoshop without making it look unnatural? Thanks.

9/8/2005 1:16:17 PM

Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/13/2004
  Hopefully they aren't so underexposed that they lost all the detail, but put in Photoshop as a layer. Now copy that layer so there is one on top of that. Change the blending mode to screen and keep creating layers with the screen blending mode until you get it close to what you want. Here's the part where you get most control. Now that you've got it about to where you want it, do it once more so that it's too bright. Now play with your opacity and fill levels until you get what you want. Good luck.

9/8/2005 3:12:33 PM

Sharon Rizzo

member since: 3/29/2005
  Thank you Justin for the instructions. I will definitely give it a try.

Sharon

9/8/2005 5:08:29 PM

Mike Klostermeyer

member since: 3/22/2005
  How would this method be better/worse than the shadow/highlight tool? I use that a lot, but primarily because my PS skills stink, and it seems to do a fairly good job.

Mike

9/14/2005 5:58:16 AM

Dale Ann Cubbage
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/4/2004
  Sharon, I haven't tried Justin's idea but it seems like a lot of work to me. And the shadow/highlight or "dodge/burn" tool isn't reliable. It actually removes details as it highlights or shadows your image.

What I do is work with the levels. When you look at the levels graph in PS in a underexposed image it will show you most of the color in the image is on the left of the graph. Meaning there are no highlight colors. So what you want to do is move some of that color over. Here's how you do it.

1) open image tab
2) open Levels tab: when you pull it up you'll see that RGB level is highlighted. Click on it and pick red first.
3) move the slider on the right in the "red" level to the left until it touches the base of the "mountain" on your graph. Move it to just where it starts to go up.
3) click on red and choose blue and do the same thing.
4) click on green and do the same thing.
Now what you've done is add some highlights and bring the colors levels to almost a perfect level.
If your image is still not bright enough, then click on green and change it back to RGB.
5) In the RGB selection, move the MIDDLE slider slightly to the left, it will begin to bring the "light" level of all three colors up. But too much is too much, just move it a tiny bit until you are happy with your image.

I've had a lot of success using this method, and hope that it helps. If you find after doing this that there is a lot of grain in your image, then you may need to use somelike neatimage to clean it up. You can find a demo of neatimage at neatimage.com.

da

9/14/2005 6:20:29 AM

Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/13/2004
  Changing the levels of all channels is a pain in the butt. To simple lighten a photo, duplicate the layer and change to screen. How in the world does that seem like a lot of work? It's a quick easy way to bring up exposure like you would using the zone system. Changing each channels levels and curves is for completely fine tuning a photo. It's pointless work. Sharon my way is easier. Duplicate the layer, change to screen. Not to hard. Have fun playing with levels/curves channels if you wish.

9/14/2005 8:08:34 AM

Dale Ann Cubbage
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/4/2004
  Justin, I didn't in any way mean to offend you or suggest your idea wouldn't work. I just wanted to share my method. It's not difficult or time consuming, it only takes a few clicks. I just wanted to offer Sharon some options, as we all know in Photoshop there is more than one way to do everything. I think sharing ideas and techniques is what this site is about. In fact, I have every intention of trying out your method. I'm always looking for new ways to do things. Just sharing, not trying to say my way is the best way or anything. Sorry if I offended you.

Sharon, good luck. And I hope you are able to save your images and get the look you want!!

Have a nice day!
da

9/14/2005 8:17:58 AM

Sharon Rizzo

member since: 3/29/2005
  Thank you both for the helpful information, but please do not get into a disagreement over this.

I think both ideas are great and will definitely try them out.

Sharon

9/14/2005 8:23:59 AM

Dale Ann Cubbage
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/4/2004
  Sharon, no disagreement here! I just wanted to apologize to Justin in case my comment sounded like I was discounting his method. Which I was not, in fact I'm working on an image right now using it!! I can't wait to see how it turns out!

da

9/14/2005 8:26:57 AM

Kerry L. Walker

member since: 12/21/2004
  Don't worry Dale. It's a disagreement, not a fight. There is a difference.

9/14/2005 8:28:14 AM

Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/13/2004
  Dale Ann,
My apologies for sounding rude. You're idea is a great one, I've used it before, absolutely nothing wrong with it. Sharon, try both and find out which one is best for you.

Again I'm sorry for being a pain, kinda grumpy today and I guess I didn't control myself. You're comment wasn't anyway rude, just caught me on a bad day.

Justin

9/14/2005 8:33:39 AM

Dale Ann Cubbage
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/4/2004
  Justin, we're cool! I'm sorry I you're having a bad day!! We've all been there. The process of trying and learning new things is what makes BetterPhoto such a great site!! I really like your method, I've been working with it just now.

Have a better day!! ;)

da

9/14/2005 8:56:30 AM

Louis Kurland

member since: 3/25/2005
  Yes, there are many ways to achieve a result with PS. I just tried the levels, curves and layers methods with an image, and the differences I see are minor and a matter of judgement.

Is the image degraded less in any of the methods? Is the pixel loss any less in one method than another?

Thanks
Skip

9/14/2005 7:10:05 PM

Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/13/2004
  The layers method is non image degrading. Levels and curves is also, unless you create a backup layer and hide it by turning the eye off. Levels and curves though does change the image, where the layers method just makes lighter copies, leaving the original alone.

9/14/2005 7:28:40 PM

Dale Ann Cubbage
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/4/2004
  Good question, Skip. I'm glad you asked and glad that Justin answered. I didn't know. I do know that I never work on my original image anyway, I create a copy to work with and my working file is always a tiff. My understanding is that a tiff file shouldn't lose any data or pixels. If I'm incorrect in my undertanding, someone please feel free in setting me straight!

da

9/14/2005 8:21:38 PM

Pete H
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/9/2005
  Sharon..Just wanted to add another technique you may wish to add to your arsenal of PS editing.

Under filters, go to "Adjustments/Threshold."
This produces a B&W image, no grey.
Move the slider to the far right edge..the image will be very black. Slowly move the slider left until you begin to see some white patches show up.
This is a value that is available (useable date) that can be printed. Note the numeric value.
Now slide to the other end..the photo goes almost pure white. Slide to the right until you begin to see some black. Again; note the threshold number.
Now close out of that and go to "Levels" You'll see three boxes for input levels. The center one is gray scale..The left is the darkest numerical value that is usable..generally close to Zero. Enter the lower number you took note of earlier. Enter the higher number in the right box.
What you have done is optimize the image to display the blackest black in the photo and the whitest white..any other values above or below this are useless.
Other than curves, this is one of the best methods to adjust under & over exposed pics.

Pete

9/14/2005 9:51:44 PM

Sharon Rizzo

member since: 3/29/2005
  Thank you Pete for your suggestion. I haven't had much time to try everything out, but I look forward to working it all the tips received.

Thank you all,
Sharon

9/15/2005 6:30:38 PM

Mellanie 

member since: 7/16/2004
  if you know how to use actions in PS, I would strongly recommend buying this:
http://actions.home.att.net/dSLR_Tools.html
I bought the set of actions ($15) almost a year ago and constantly use it! Especially on underexposed photos and for when I forget to use fill flash. A great investment in my opinion....

9/15/2005 6:40:02 PM

Erickjohn B. Kunst
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/6/2005
  Howdy all,

Justin's solution is certainly the best in my eye's. I had the opportunity to try it once and got it from a book titled, The Photoshop CS Book for Digital Photographers by Scott Kelby.

You will want to make sure you flatten the image after you get the exposure you want.

Thanks and have an Excellent Day,

Erickjohn B. Kunst

10/17/2005 4:19:17 AM

anonymous 
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/7/2005
  I use Justin's way all the time (well when I need it). It is very easy and you get it lighted without loosing contrast.

If it don't get exactly what you want, then use your eraser tool on low and erase in some shadows etc again.

10/17/2005 4:57:16 PM

Brian A. Wolter
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/15/2005
  You could also add a contrast mask as well.

10/18/2005 4:19:33 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Michelle B. Prince
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/16/2004
  3 .  Shooting Raw - Vs. JPEG
I just took my first few photos in studio raw. They look weird. They were really overexposed, although the JPEG of the same shot was exposed OK. any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. The person's skin also looked really muddy.

5/15/2005 8:38:34 AM

Ryan Jones
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/14/2005
  Hi Michelle,
What I've read about RAW is that it is an un-processed exposure of the camera's digital sensor. When you take a picture using any quality JPEG, there is some amount of image processing and enhancement. The camera may be optimizing your settings in JPEG while everything is up in the air with RAW.

5/16/2005 12:38:07 AM

Michael H. Cothran

member since: 10/21/2004
  RAW files and JPEGs will always look different, and the JPEGs will usually look better - IN THE CAMERA, and before editing. The reason being is that your camera "edits" the JPEGs to whatever settings you have chosen on your camera (or to default if you have not chosen any settings), whereas the camera does NOTHING to RAW files. RAW files are exactly what the name implies. They need full editing in something like PS, but after editing, will produce the largest and finest quality file - providing you edited well!! If your RAW files look over-exposed, check your histogram to confirm. If it is skewed to the right then they are, indeed, over-exposed.
Dial in a -1/2 or -1 exposure compensation when shooting. It is much easier to work with a slightly under-exposed image than an over-exposed image in digital photography.
In a nutshell, RAW files need full editing after shooting, while JPEGs do not. If you are going directly from your camera to the printer or to a CD, then choose JPEG. If you intend to do your own post-editing, then choose RAW. If you have a camera that will create both files simultaneously, then expect them to look quite different from each other.
Michael H. Cothran
www.mhcphoto.net

5/16/2005 11:17:10 AM

Michelle B. Prince
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/16/2004
  Thank you both. I want to be able to shoot raw so I guess I better learn a little more about image editing.

5/16/2005 11:43:16 AM

Andrew Laverghetta
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/13/2004
  When I got Adobe Photoshop 7.0 a while back I knew absolutely nothing about how to use it. I had just fiddled. I have learned a lot through fiddling :) I'm proud of it. Anyway, after I had photoshop, I was browsing in the local Borders and I found a huge section dedicated to graphics software. The book that I found was Adobe's book on PS 7.0. It starts you with the basics. The only problem was since it was at Borders and it was by Adobe, it cost around $40. I think you can find similar books by other authors/publishers that don't cost as much. Try to find one that might be geared more towards photography since it's also used for advertising, webdesign, all that fun stuff, which may take up more than that it may help in those sections. Although, it's always nice to know that extra stuff. Hope this helps a little bit.

5/16/2005 10:24:34 PM

GARY FESPERMAN

member since: 9/27/2003
  HI MICHELLE*****
My name is Gary. I have been doing photography for Aprox. 30 years, and working with Digital since 1993.
I was a Combat Photographer in the Marines. I now work as a contract photographer for the Army, and I teach
Digital Photography at the local college.
Shooting Raw. will look different than shooting JPEG, or TIFF. Raw is an unprocessed image or photograph. Their
has been no in camera adjustments - such as - Color, Hue & Saturation - contrast, and Brightness, Sharpness,
and maybe a few other adjustments.
Both JPEG & TIFF have been processed in the camera with the above mentioned adjustments, and a few others.
When shooting RAW the Photographer makes all the adjustments - after shooting. This is usually more time consuming. But in many cases gives you a better image. If you have or develop skills in processing your images.
You can save your files as 8 bit or 16 bit TIFF. Saving 16 bit TIFF will increase your color depth and File size.
Example in 8 bit you might have a 14MB file. In 16 bit it would become a 28 MB file. This is why a lot of Pros shoot in TIFF or JPEG, and do not bother shooting TIFF images. It is also why Digital SLR cameras may give you the choice of shooting RAW or JPEG. Some give you all 3 choices.
One method that is faster is to shoot JPEG files, and convert them to TIFF before doing anything with them. Set up a folder on your computer in My Documents or wherever you chose. If you are using a Card Reader down load your photos from - which I strongly suggest -
then go to my computer click on the folder you made open it. Then go to the
drive that contains your images. Select all, right click and drag to the folder.
A menue pops up - chose COPY - as opposed to Move. Never move the originals until you are sure you have them all. Burn a CD right away, as a backup. Then convert all images to TIFF, before any editing or printing.
This will give you an 8 bit TIFF file to work from.
AS for shooting RAW here is some starting adjustments you might try, and make your own as each photo shoot is different.
Color balance - Your eye only here -
but try starting at 5000K and adust from there. Tint set to 0 to start with.
Shadows start with 10 an adust from there. I usually stay between 10 and 5
with a few exceptions.
Brightness I find somewhwere between 60 and 50 looks good for most photos with a few exceptions. Contrast 50 - 40, again with a few exceptions. Sat. about about 15 plus or minus 5 depending on the photo.
I also use the unsharp mask in Photoshop, as well as Curves, and Hue & Sat, for fine tuning my Images after using the Raw processor.
Hope this helps some.
Have a Great Photo Adventure:)
Gary

5/22/2005 10:06:02 AM

Fool Stop

member since: 4/21/2005
  Hi Michelle,

If you are the kind of adventurous people, and willing to start from basic, I highly recommend you to read the book written by Bruce Fraser named Real World Camera Raw with Adobe, it is not expensive at all.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-8735628-0788805

After I read this book, I have a much better understanding of what is going under the hood of RAW. By knowing this, you will get the direction of how to take the advantage of shoot RAW. Not only the advantage in post processing but also take it into consideration when you shoot.

Bruce Fraser also tell you when should you modify the parameters, i.e. before or after you have converted the RAW to photoshop/pic formats, really useful.

By the way, people in the Canon site suggest to increase the satuation by 10-20% as a routine during the RAW convertion, if you are shooting with one of the Canon SLR, that may one of the reason why you think the photos looks muddy.

As I have suggested in this forum before, go and check out the Whitbal from the rawworkflow.com, this little gadget help me a lot in working on the white balance.

Hope this help.

foolstop

5/26/2005 7:29:14 PM

Michelle B. Prince
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/16/2004
  thank you all so much.

5/26/2005 7:41:03 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  Raw requires converting to a tiff, and you could say the regular sharpening that's needed for the noire for digital, but it dosen't require anything else. If the same attention to exposure etc. is done when shooting, their shouldn't be a need for anything afterwards. Trying to view an unprocessed RAW file with photoshop looks funny, but a Raw that's shot right once converted to tiff dosen't necessarily have to have anything done to it.

5/26/2005 9:45:03 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Denelli Ellison
BetterPhoto Member
ImagesbyDenelli.com

member since: 9/1/2002
  4 .  Digital Stand-Alone Storage
I am taking a trip to Europe and do not want to bring my laptop. Has anyone used a stand-alone storage device or portable CD burner - and, if so, can you give me some advice and options? I've recently looked at the Jobo any thoughts??

5/7/2005 9:22:00 AM

Matthew Slyfield
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/5/2005
  I have a Micro Solutions RoadStor portable CD burner. While I have not actually taken it on a trip yet, I have been doing some testing with it. It is reliable with backups that will fit on a single CD, but I have had mixed results with backups that would require multiple CDs. An additional plus for the RoadStor is that it is also a portable DVD player. If you buy a stand-alone hard drive, make sure you buy one with enough capacity for your trip. Also, whatever device you do decide to buy, make sure you test it before your trip and while it is still under warranty.

5/7/2005 10:07:24 AM

John Rhodes
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/24/2005
  I don't know exactly what facilities are readily available in Europe, but I expect you should have no problem finding a place (like Wal-Mart or Walgreens here in the USA) to burn the contents of your memory card to a CD. That solution would likely be the least expensive and also require the least bulk in packing. Have fun and share your photos when you get home.

5/7/2005 10:22:28 AM

Steven Butterworth

member since: 8/24/2004
  I have an Apacer Disc Steno 200, it is absolutely brilliant. Takes all the media, and spits it out onto CD-ROM in little time using battery power. I used it a lot on holiday last year and also at a car show, without any problems.

Easy to use, lightweight and works anywhere.

http://www.apacer.com/apacer_english/product_html/disc_steno_cp200.asp is the link to the exact machine.

5/10/2005 10:18:58 AM

Gabriel Pedre

member since: 2/25/2005
  I would recommend something along the lines of a Wolverine. Size starts at 20GB and price at about US$200. It reads from all memory cards and is equiped with a rechargeble battery. WIth this all you would need is a converter/adaptor for the country you are in. Good luck!

Take a look:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=wolverine&image.x=7&image.y=9

5/10/2005 10:33:51 AM

Mary Campbell

member since: 11/17/2004
  I use a FlashTrax portable device. I have found it invaluable since you can check to make sure the images have been downloaded (it has a viewing screen). Although the viewer is not very good quality, you can at least run through your shots and delete those that are obviously not worth keeping. I used it in Europe with a common adapter and it works fine. One drawback is the price ...

5/10/2005 10:49:46 AM

Duskin D. Hill

member since: 2/1/2005
  X's Drive Pro is what I use at 40Gb. It's no-frills but has plenty of space for all those photos! While you cannot view the images, there is an LCD screen that you can check to make sure you have downloaded the photo successfully. It accepts most all type of media cards and utilizes a USB 2.0 connection. Make sure to take along the power supply cord because the internal rechargeable batteries can wear down somewhat quickly if you have huge cards. The copy function is very easy and intuitive. Here's the Web site: www.xs-drive.com/xsdrivepro The price varies depending on the size of the hard drive. Mine was around low $200's.

5/10/2005 11:47:50 AM

Duskin D. Hill

member since: 2/1/2005
  Let's try that link again:

www.xs-drive.com/xsdrivepro

5/10/2005 11:50:20 AM

  For me, when I travel (which is always)I try to use the "KISS" method. K-eep I-t S-imple S-tupid. It makes life on the digital road as simple as possible. That is why, for me, the best bang for my buck is extra media cards for my camera. They are cheaper and easier to carry around. There is no muss, no fuss. Why drag around yet another breakable, expensive peice of equipment, which you may hardly ever use again after your trip? Having extra cards, however, is always a plus (at home and away). Additionally, there are no worries about different voltages and adapters for them, either.

As for viewing your images, there are several options there too. You can always review your shots in your camera or at an internet cafe, which are everywhere! I carry a portable USB 2.0 card reader for that reason. Not to mention, while you are there, you can upload your best shots to your Better Photo Gallery or contest!

Some cameras, like mine, even let you view your pictures right on a TV through a supplied RCA wire. (Keep in mind if you shoot video, we use NTSC video in the USA and Europe uses PAL, which is not compatable. Therefore, you will not be able to view video unless you set it to that mode.)

As John says, you can even have your images burned to CD there if you run out of storage. Another thing to be careful of, however, is burning to DVD. DVD players are set to different standards throughout the world. If, for instance, you rent a DVD in England and you have a portable device on your laptop from the USA (if you brought it), you will have to set your DVD player to that zone. Many-if not all- DVD players only let you change that setting a limited amount of times. When you set it for that last time, that is where it will be FOREVER! Go figure??

I hope this information helps! Have a great trip!!!

5/10/2005 12:07:46 PM

Randy W. Bart

member since: 9/15/2004
  Last year I traveled to Europe with the same problem. The solution I came up with was to buy a $70 adapter for my iPod which allows me to download my photos to my iPod without a computer. Since I was going to bring along my iPod for music on the plane anyway I felt this was a great solution and a cheap one too since I already owned the iPod. I have a 30GB iPod only half of it was full of music and I easily fit my 3000+ 6.3Megapixel JPEGS on the other half. Today's photo iPods will let you view your pictures too! That helps with peace of mind that they actually made it to the iPod. But with all of my paranoia I only lost one pic on the entire trip due to batteries dying during download.

Hope that helps! Have a FANTASTIC trip!!!

5/10/2005 2:27:11 PM

Derek Holyhead

member since: 12/26/2003
  I think you will find that the DVD standard also only applies to video, not data. I am from the UK and I live in Florida now, I have data DVD's that I brought over with me and they still work without changing the region, but the movies ask about changing the region.
Hope this helps.
Del

5/10/2005 7:06:09 PM

Howie Nordström
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/11/2005
  I'm currently researching the very same issue, Denelli. Michael makes excellent points about just using CF cards, however, the cost for purchasing the equivalent space in CFs versus a portable HD is rather large. If there weren’t such a difference I’d go with the CFs ‘cause they’re lighter, smaller, and don’t need recharging—all of which are pluses when I’m out on long trips in the mountains. There’s one other model that hasn’t been mentioned here, the Epson P-2000.

Note: I have no personal experience with any of these devices (save for the CFs :) ). Just thought I’d add my $.02.

Here are three other threads at BP where such questions were discussed:
< a href="http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/qnaDetail.asp?threadID=12832"> Buying Portable Digital Storage
< a href="http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/qnaDetail.asp?threadID=10553"> Portable Image Storage
< a href="http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/qnaDetail.asp?threadID=15361">Portable Storage of Digital Photos

5/11/2005 8:10:13 AM

Howie Nordström
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/11/2005
  Blast. The spaces in the anchor tags messed up the links. Well, now you have the URLs at any rate. :P
Buying Portable Digital Storage
Portable Image Storage
Portable Storage of Digital Photos

5/11/2005 8:14:00 AM

Lynette (NZ) Jarvis

member since: 10/9/2004
  I am from NZ and I travelled around Europe for 2 months using only the Xdrive Pro (40gb). You need to be able to recharge it regularly with appropriate adapter, and when you load your memory card onto it keep it flat and still. I downloaded images each night and that made it easy to keep track of my travels when I arrived home. I stored over 5000 images without any problems at all, and now use it as a backup all the time. It is small and portable and I carried it with me all the time - only worry is if it is stolen!

5/25/2005 1:37:58 PM

Fool Stop

member since: 4/21/2005
  Last yr, when I was travelling in India, I brought along one of this

DC partner is its name, kind of portable hard disk

http://www.magic-pro.com/product/other/DCPartner.htm

It is dirty cheap and you can install your own 2.5" notebook hard disk up to whatever size you want. Mine is a 40G HD.

It is cheap but very robust, cos the only thing it does is on/off and copy, just like a toster, you can not delete the photos that have been copied to the harddisk from the CF, but who will :)

I suggest not to use the iPOD, cos the transfer rate is too slow as it is running on USB 1.1. It will take an hour to transfer one Gig of file from your CF to iPOD. The device that I use takes less than 8 min for one Gig transfer.

The other concern is power, you may not able to have AC power supply on the road, so you will rely on the internal battery. The major difference among varies kind of digital wallet in fact is how long can it work before it needs another charging, mine at least take up to eight G, but it also depends on the power consumption of the harddisk. For the same token I will not recommend a CD burner. Not to mention you need to bring along large pack of CDs :P

foolstop

5/26/2005 7:53:23 PM

Howie Nordström
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/11/2005
  I just got the X's drive super 80GB version. Like Fool, I didn't need all the bells and whistles. One of the deciding points for me was battery time. So far I've loaded 19GB with one full battery. It takes just under 8 minutes to transfer 1.9GB from my 2GB CF. The cool thing is that they sell a 4*AA battery pack as well. This is gold since many of my trips include being a long way from outlets for up to 2 weeks. I just carry a bunch of rechargeable batteries.

Their tech support gave the following info:
The internal batteries of the VP6210 last for 3 hours and the 4 AA Battery pack gives another hour of use. A full 2GB card takes 10 minutes to download. The batteries of the VP6210 take 4 hours to recharge.

I haven't tested the battery pack longevity yet.

5/27/2005 3:35:03 AM

Fool Stop

member since: 4/21/2005
  I JUST bought another digital wallet for my friend.
There are lots of "choices" but they all probably are built from the same electronic core :)
They all run on a single pack for Lithium battery. All can be charged with USB port. That mean one can run the device or charge up the internal battery with any 5V or higher DC power source with a compatible USB socket, with a small current (USB has a 5V DC). Therefore, I also bought a car 12/24 Volt charger as well, it just has a port connect to a USB cable, pretty neat. Another guy also introduce a hand crank DC generator to me, would be interesting as well :)

So one can DIY a battery pack for this kind of USB chargeable device.

Good news for the road warriors.

foolstop

5/27/2005 8:15:35 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Jesse C. Plummer
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/2/2007
  5 .  Photoshop CS or Elements?
I use a film camera and take a lot of nature shots and street shots. I want to make minor adjustments and convert to B&W and remove flaws and things like that. Would Elements suffice or should I consider banging out the money for CS? I hear CS2 is close to being released too ...

5/6/2005 1:15:33 PM

  Jesse: CS2 has been released but is very expensive. I believe that 90 percent of photo enthusiasts would be happy with Elements 3.0. You can do everything you want to with this affordable program.

The question is how to do it. It's not a simplistic program. That's why you find a lot of books about using Elements 3.0.

5/7/2005 6:37:22 AM

  Thank you for the question--I was wondering the same thing.
I have been using Microsoft Digital Image Suite 10-------does anyone know how this program compares to Adobe.
I also use different plug-ins which are awesome with my host program.
Should I purchase Adobe"

5/10/2005 7:12:50 PM

Karolyn Munson
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 6/30/2004
  The question is how much control you want to have. The higher end programs require more knowledge of how to use them, but you can do exactly what you want with them. Elements would probably be more user friendly if you just want to dabble with it. For example, in Elements there are several 'auto' adjustments you can make, but in other versions such as 7.0 or above, you can control exactly what adjusts are made and to what extent. Once you learn the more in depth programs, you'll never want to go back, but it's up to you where to start. I'm coming from a background in computers and graphic design, so that's why I prefer the more in depth programs. I feel like I have more freedom with them to "tweak" things just the way I want.

5/10/2005 7:29:11 PM

Christopher A. Vedros
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/14/2005
  Donna,
I use MS Digital Image Pro 10, and so far I haven't found anything that I needed to do but couldn't do. But that's me. I use it to enhance photos and occasionally do some manipulations or special projects. I'm not about to argue that it's better than PhotoShop, just that it's the better program for me. I've tried out several versions and variations of PS over the years, and never had the time or patience to get past what I saw as a steep learning curve.

I've been using Microsoft products since day 1, and I guess I'm just more comfortable with what I know.

If you're satisfied with Digital Image, stick with it.

5/10/2005 8:44:36 PM

anonymous 
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/7/2005
  I have Adobe 7.0 at home and Elements at work. I get frustrated at work when I want to do something in Elements and realise I can't. I definitely prefer Adobe 7.0, but I like to tinker a lot.

Oh, and the commands are different too!

5/10/2005 9:14:51 PM

linda ozag
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2005
  I am using Elements and after a year I still don't use all of the tools. It's a good editing program and the price is right. Try it first, then buy the upgrade if you still want more. The more I use the program, the less I do to enhance the photo. Guess it's like getting a new color printer, at first you want to play around and fool with all the colors. Now, I want the photo to look as natural as possible and do as little as necessary to fix up the photo.

9/20/2005 6:34:49 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Peter K. Burian
BetterPhoto Member
PeterKBurian.com
Peter's Photo Courses:
2-Week Short Course: Boot Camp for New Digital SLR Owners
4-Week Short Course: Mastering the Canon EOS Digital Rebels
Mastering the Digital Camera and Photography
  6 .  Update for Photoshop CS2 & Elements 3.0
Good news for those who own Photoshop CS2 or Elements 3.0 and shoot with a digital camera's RAW format.

"Camera Raw 3.1 posted on Adobe FTP server RAW file support for the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT/350D and Nikon D2X" (and other improvements).http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/index.asp

NOTE: Be sure to do the installation properly. You must remove the old Camera Raw.bi plug-in first. From Common Files AND from Program Files ... CS2 only ... Plug-ins ... File Formats. (AND same for Elements 3.0) Save the old plug-in in another folder, in case you ever need it again.

Then, install the new plug-in in both folders (in CS2 and/or Elements 3.0).

And yes, it works well with Elements 3.0 as well, although Adobe does not say so ... i.e., I can use it to open and convert CR2 files from the Rebel XT. Naturally, ACR in Elements 3.0 has fewer features than in CS2, but the new plug-in supports those features perfectly.

5/5/2005 6:30:17 AM

Cyndee Wanyonyi
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/7/2005
  Hi Peter,
Thanks for this information. I have downloaded what was on that Web site, but I have no idea how to get it from my camera to my computer. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT and I have been unsuccessful at getting my RAW pictures off of the camera and onto the computer. Could you step me through this? Thanks.

5/5/2005 10:02:20 AM

  Cynthia: You could install the Canon software that came with your camera on a CD. That is quite easy and will allow you to open, adjust and convert RAW files (from the CR2 format to TIFF.)
The Adobe RAW update works only with Photoshop CS2 and Elements Elements 3.0
It's important to do the installation properly, with CS2 or Elements 3.0, as described in http://www.adobe.com/special/photoshop/pdfs/CR_31_readme.pdf

Cheers! Peter Burian

5/7/2005 6:35:00 AM

Fred Smalley

member since: 4/25/2005
  Cynthia: The simplest way is to get a CompactFlash card reader and simply drag-and-drop all the files from your memory card to the hard drive. I normally leave them in the folders that the camera created (CANON100, etc). If you install the Canon software, you should be able to connect the camera to the computer like an external hard drive, but I find the card reader a much simpler solution.
Fred Smalley

5/10/2005 11:52:42 AM

Cyndee Wanyonyi
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/7/2005
  Thanks so much, Gentlemen. I figured it out :). I feel so technologically empowered! I don't know that I would be able to do it again, but at least I can upload to my own computer! Fred, I am going to try that next upload. Thanks for the tip.

5/10/2005 5:19:16 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Michelle Lea  Guinn
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/3/2004
  7 .  Photoshop Elements 3.0: Is It Good Enough?
I'm interested in buying Photoshop Elements 3.0. Does anyone here use it? Is it a good buy, or should I look into something else?

4/29/2005 8:11:17 AM

Michael H. Cothran

member since: 10/21/2004
  PS is as good an editing software as you can get. It is the industry standard. IF you do not need all the bells and whistles of the full version, Elements 3.0 is ideal.
FYI - I believe it still comes bundled with many printers and cameras. If you plan to buy any equipment soon, you could have 3.0 for free.
Michael H. Cothran
www.mhcphoto.net

4/29/2005 10:30:08 AM

Michelle Lea  Guinn
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/3/2004
  Thank you, Michael, for your help!! I already bought a new camera, so no free stuff here, but it's not that expensive! thanks again! mlg

4/29/2005 11:37:48 AM

  I use it. I don't do a lot of post-processing other than some lighting/color adjustments. But, so far, I've been able to do most of the things you can do with PS with my PSE3. Some of the commands are just in different places. I did "Middle Earth" in my gallery with PSE3 from PS directions ... I'm happy with it.
Bob

4/29/2005 7:02:04 PM

Patricia A. Cale
BetterPhoto Member
photosbyphotobug.com

member since: 3/25/2002
  I use Elements 3, too, and love it. I shoot my images in RAW and I download my images from the card, convert it and do some minor contrast editing..all in Elements 3. If you need information, check out www.photoshopelementsuser.com. You'll find a lot of info on the program and what it does. For me, it's all I need and easy to work with and I get excellent results.

5/3/2005 11:55:11 AM

Laura Roth

member since: 3/16/2005
  If you want to just do basic color correcting, resizing, and basic editing, PSE 3 should be fine. In fact, some of the functionality is better than photoshop.

If you want to do more complicated things like using layer masks, using a healing tool, edit people in and out of pictures and alter reality in any extreme way, you're better off with Photoshop full version, eventhough it is almost cost-prohibitive.

5/3/2005 12:27:13 PM

  Well, I can do multiple layers (I believe), have a healing tool (bandaid), and I've moved people out of one pic and into another w/pse3. Of course, never having used the full version, I might not know what I'm missing....:-) But I'm not into ...no, I won't get into phony magazine/newspaper pics.
Bob

5/3/2005 2:41:00 PM

Laura Roth

member since: 3/16/2005
  Perhaps I haven't used PSE enough... I'm a slave to layer masks though. I can't help it, since some of my work has been in advertising. : )

With PSE, I don't think I would have been able to do this...

http://www.sourceperrier.com/cgi-local/enlarge.cgi?mode=fc&category=furniture&item=allegra_tent

There used to be a full 6 person dining set in the middle of it & there were scalloped edges on the canopy.

But don't get me wrong, PSE is great too!

5/4/2005 7:39:18 AM

Michelle Lea  Guinn
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/3/2004
  thanks for your responses everyone!! I am trying it out before buying and so far I like it so I just might buy it!! thanks again!! mlg

5/4/2005 7:59:00 AM

Amanda Botterweck
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/20/2003
  Go for it Michelle....especially if you are beginning...this is a good start for you. It has not let me down yet and all of the photos that I have taken and sold were worked in PSE3...have fun!!!!

Amanda B.

5/6/2005 5:56:43 PM

Michelle Lea  Guinn
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/3/2004
  Thank you Amanda for your response!! I will be buying it when my free trial is up!! and you have a wonderful gallery of photos!!! mlg

5/9/2005 10:18:04 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Lisa Carpenter
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2004
  8 .  What Photoshop to Buy?
I have recently purchased, and awaiting, the Canon 20D and am slowly getting a business going in mostly portraiture. Can anyone suggest what photo editing software I should buy? I want the Photoshop CS but I think it is around $600 and I don't want to spend that much right off the bat ... thanks!

10/16/2004 8:49:35 AM

Jean-Sébastien Duchesne

member since: 10/16/2004
  You could try Photoshop Elements 3. It seems about the same as Photoshop CS but aimed at amateur photographers instead of professionals. It seems more user-friendly. Actually, you should probably be getting a copy with your 20D. If you don’t get it, it is only $86.99 USD at Softchoice.com ($44.21 USD if you’re a student).
Good luck with your new business.

10/16/2004 2:50:16 PM

Diane Dupuis-Kallos
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/27/2003
  Photoshop Elements should be more than enough right now. It is usually under $100. And if one day you want to spend 7 times more and get the full Photoshop, you'll know the environment already.

10/16/2004 7:02:26 PM

Lisa Carpenter
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2004
  Thanks guys. I appreciate it. Does the Photoshop Elements allow you to do many of the things that 7 does?

10/17/2004 6:11:47 AM

Diane Dupuis-Kallos
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/27/2003
  I think it does about 75 or 80 percent of what the full version does. Check it out at the Adobe site.

10/17/2004 6:14:57 AM

Lori Carpenter
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/31/2004
  Lisa,
I have Elements 2 (received it with my Digital Rebel) and I use it at work quite a bit. I have CS at home. Elements does quite a bit but doesn't have the Healing Brush (this blends pixels), which is great for restoration and blemish corrections. I also can't figure out how, if at all, that Elements can take Actions. I use a lot of Actions with CS. Those are the two differences that I notice more than anything else. Photoshop is an incredible program. Diane has a good point, if you start with Elements then the transition to CS would be very smooth if you choose to do that.

10/17/2004 7:22:30 AM

Lisa Carpenter
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2004
  Lori, does the new Elements 3.0 have anything close to the healing brush? Say I want to clear up a little facial imperctions ... is there anyway to do that with Elements?
Thanks!

10/17/2004 8:24:12 AM

Lori Carpenter
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/31/2004
  I have Elements 2, so I don't know what 3 has. I'm pretty sure you can still clean up blemishes with the paint brush and some blending modes. If I have something like that to do, I just bring it home and work on it in CS. Maybe some of the pros can answer this one to give you some good ideas of what you can do for those type of imperfections with Elements.

10/17/2004 8:33:15 AM

Mary Bell

member since: 1/20/2004
  I bought a Canon 10D last year. It came with PS Elements 2.0 I found out that bacause of the purchase I was entitled, from Adobe, to a one time upgrade to PS CS for HALF the amount. I think I went to the Adobe website where I ordered CS for a total of $328 and change. If it's not on the site, just contact Adobe through email and inquire about this opportunity. Good luck!

10/19/2004 3:08:01 AM

Lisa Carpenter
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2004
  Hey, thanks a bunch guys!!! great help.
Oh, I researched the new Elements 3.0 coming out and it will have the healing brush! woo hooo!!!

10/19/2004 4:06:08 AM

diana barrett

member since: 8/30/2004
  I"ve been thinking about this alot and Elements also lacks Channels, which is pretty key if you're interested in B and W printing. there are some excellent books for elements though and it is 90% the same; I just keep finding small but key things that it lacks..but the price...I would agree; start with Elements...

10/19/2004 5:13:41 AM

Patricia A. Cale
BetterPhoto Member
photosbyphotobug.com

member since: 3/25/2002
  You can learn all about Photoshop Elements 3 at www.photoshopelementsuser.com. This is a site for a new newsletter devoted to PS Elements 3 and Scott Kelbey is the editor. It has a lot of information and some audio streams to listen to. I pre-ordered Elements 3 on Amazon and it is supposed to ship this week.

10/19/2004 6:41:49 AM

Jim Taylor

member since: 4/23/2004
  Another relative inexpensive alternative is JASC Paint Shop Pro. It seems to have most of the same features as CS but sells for less than $100.

10/19/2004 7:35:28 AM

Janis Herd
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/11/2004
  The website mentioned above by Pat B., www.photoshopelementsuser.com.
says Elements 3 does have Healing Brush! I am about to upgrade to E.3 right NOW!
Janis Herd

10/19/2004 12:01:37 PM

Lisa Carpenter
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2004
  I get GREAT info. on this site. Thanks to everyone.

10/19/2004 1:15:14 PM

Jerry Harkins

member since: 10/8/2004
  I have Elements and Jasc 9. I think JASC 9 offers more than Elements for the money. It isn't a lot more expensive than Elements.

10/19/2004 2:09:15 PM

Michael Kaplan

member since: 5/27/2003
  There is a special available for Canon DSLR users to upgrade from the Elements 2 that comes with the 20D to PS CS for $299.00 USD. If you really want PS CS which is a great progam, that is the best way to buy it.SMichael Kaplan
Canon EOS-20D
http://www.pbase.com/mkaplan

10/19/2004 4:31:33 PM

Greg McCroskery
BetterPhoto Member
imagismphotos.com

member since: 2/27/2003
  Lisa,
I operate a small studio doing portraits, wedding, and event photography mostly. I use PS Elements 2 right now, though I may upgrade to 3 if it offers enough added features. Elements 2 will do anything I need in terms of post processing portrait, etc. images. As far as facial touch up I use the cloning stamp with a soft edge brush style, and find it works perfectly. I also use the cloning tool for eyeglass glare touch up, stray hairs, etc. -- it's very simple once you've practiced some. Like you, I'm not ready to pay the cost of full blown CS when I'm getting the results I need with Elements.

God Bless,
Greg

10/19/2004 6:20:04 PM

Janis Herd
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/11/2004
  After reading about it, I ordered Elements 3 today. Amazon.com is having a special through the end of the month where your final price is only 49.00, but that's after you wait for two rebates totaling 45.00 to come back to you. Shipping is free at the moment.

10/19/2004 6:44:51 PM

Patricia A. Cale
BetterPhoto Member
photosbyphotobug.com

member since: 3/25/2002
  I pre-ordered it under the same rebates and they said I should expect delivery this week. I'm looking forward to getting it! It sounds like a small version of CS.

On Amazon, shipping is always free if your order is over $25.00.

10/19/2004 6:52:05 PM

Ken R. Edwards

member since: 8/31/2004
  I suggest you go for Photoshop CS the full version. There are sooooo many books on how to use it. Any lots of DVD training materials. Here is a legal way to get it for about $300.
On Ebay there are lots of people selling a never before used version 7 along with a never used Upgarde to CS.
I did this and it worked out great!

10/20/2004 6:21:19 PM

Janis Herd
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/11/2004
  I'm sticking with Elements for now at 49.95! I just bought a new lens and can't afford any more big expenses at the moment. If I ever master Elements then I will move up!

10/20/2004 7:15:19 PM

Janet Kinney
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/15/2003
  I attended a class in S.F. yesterday by a very well known author and teacher and he highly praised the new Elements 3. It is a lot less expensive. I asked the same question you did. Hope this helps.

10/24/2004 6:19:11 AM

Andrew Laverghetta
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/13/2004
  hi all, I was wondering, it's probably not a good idea to download a version of PS like 7.0 or CS and use it for a business is it? I was just thinking about that and thought I'd ask. The law...uhhhhg!

11/12/2004 8:11:30 PM

  I have Elements 3.0 and it is great. It does have the healing brush.

11/19/2004 4:57:38 AM

  Buy A New Version Of Ps 7 You Can Find It Cheap Upgrade To Cs (Its A Full Version Of Cs And Runs As A Seperate Program) But You Need A Lisensed Version Of Ps 7 To Use It 120.00 For ps7 200.00 Upgrade To Cs 320.00 Total For Cs:-)

12/13/2004 7:18:08 PM

Monte Darland

member since: 12/20/2004
  I'm an Adobe Certified Instructor and I teach Photoshop CS as side job. I know PS Elements and it's a good all around beginner program. However, if you want to start learning to tweak color and tonal values accurately, Photoshop is the only program to do this effectively. You cannot see separate channels in Elements and it's good to know how to edit images through there individual channels to get better tonal values. Also, Photoshop does not upgrade from Elements. Good luck!

Monte Darland, ACI

12/21/2004 7:49:03 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
David 

member since: 12/25/2003
  9 .  Scanned 35mm slides
I've scanned 1200+ slides using the Minolta Dual Scan III. I scanned them at 1024 x 768 and saved in low compression jpeg format. They average 300 to 600 KB.
I want to "clean" them up and burn to a CD for playback via DVD player.

Did I do the right thing so far? Where do I go from here? Thanks for any advice you offer up.

12/25/2003 8:26:35 AM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  If I go to the trouble to scan slides, I scan at the highest possible resolution and archive them to CD. I might want to print or sell them later.
By scanning at such a low resolution, you closed off that option, but you DID scan them right for your intended use.
Do all your corrections (edits), ie., crop, fix contrast/brightness, touch out dust specs, straighten horizon lines, etc., in one session per image and save only once. For a CD or DVD slide show, it is not necessary to compress very much. I use Flip Album CD for slide shows, and I compress only to about a 10 in Photoshop.

12/26/2003 2:51:10 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Jim Sutton

member since: 4/13/2002
  10 .  Choosing a film scanner
Hi,

I'm a serious amateur (expensive equipment-limited training and experience) who has no experience with digital imaging. I am still interested in shooting film, however, I'm beginning to appreciate the value and potential of digital editing. I would like to be able to edit my 35mm slides and output the images to photo quality printer. I have been told that flatbed scanners do not produce very good images from film. If that's true, I need to find a good film scanner at a reasonable price. I have looked at the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED, Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite II, and Canon's CanoScan FS4000US, but I have gotten bogged down in the highly technical descriptions and features of these three scanners. I also note that Pacific Image Electronics a very inexpensive film scanner called the Prime Film 3600 Pro (?)which seems to be capable of producing images comparable to the scanners mentioned above. However, this scanner does not have ICE technology. I need some heavy guidance before making this leap. Please give me your thoughts and experience. I don't want to screw this up.

Thank you,
Jim S.

8/27/2002 3:08:04 AM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  I think you're looking in exactly the right places. At the time I bought I chose Nikon, because of Digital ICE and because I expected good customer care. I have not been disappointed in either regard. The Canon, however, got a good review in Popular.
See sphoto.com for Steve's comments on the Nikons. Since you will be scanning slides, you'll need a fairly high end scanner, over a grand. The higher than 8 color bit depth is useful, as is the multiple passes in the scan, essential for dense slides.
I can't comment on the Pacific Imaging scanner, as I know nothing about it.

8/27/2002 8:23:18 AM

Jim Sutton

member since: 4/13/2002
  Thanks for the advice, Doug, and I will check sphoto.com for Steve's comments as you suggested.
Jim S.
jsutton5@hotmail.com

8/28/2002 3:55:32 AM

Jeff S. Kennedy

member since: 3/4/2002
  I chose the Canon FS4000US. I chose it primarily because it is the best value in 4000dpi scanners and most of the reviews I read were positive. Now that I've got it I'm very happy with it. The FARE (Canon's version of ICE) works very well. The 42 bit color depth works very well with dense slides.

8/29/2002 12:20:23 AM

Jim Sutton

member since: 4/13/2002
  Hi Jeff,
I appreciate the recommendation and the benefit of your experience. I'll check out the specs on the Canon. It looks like I'm gonna wind up paying as much for a scanner as I did for my F100. Jim S.

8/30/2002 12:23:37 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
  Next 2  >>

Copyright © 1996-2014 BetterPhoto.com, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.