[rollei_list] Re: [!! SPAM] OT Re: Scanning 120 film

Walker -

Make no apologies for the 4180; these discussions always migrate
toward the technical and as Rev. Ken pointed out in an earlier post,
many flatbed scanners will more than due justice to a good negative
with a little patience and care. All of the finest equipment and
software is useless in the hands of a poor artist/craftsman, and it
looks to me from your scan that there are some wonderful images in
your portfolio... hope you will share more and contribute to the
Rollei Gallery at flickr...

http://www.flickr.com/groups/rolleiusersgroup/

Eric Goldstein

--

On 12/25/07, Walker Smith <doubs43@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  Hi Eric,
>
>  Thanks for the reply. I agree that each of us have our own preferred method
> of working. What one considers important may not be to another. When I first
> read about your friend I thought that perhaps he knew something I didn't
> that could be helpful.
>
>  The scanners being discussed are largely beyond my budget and I use a lowly
> Epson 4180 for my 6x6 negatives. I use Vuescan and like it when compared to
> the maker's software. I'm in the process of scanning tens of thousands of my
> late father's negatives. At the moment I'm doing Rolleicord and Rolleiflex
> negatives that were taken in the 1940's and early 1950's. Here's a link to
> one taken with the 'Cord in 1950 by window light as my grandfather worked in
> his mill. Eventually I'll have this made into a couple of 8x10 prints for
> family members.
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2108/2116012520_86b6eee4f8_o.jpg
>
>  It's not, I'm sure up to the quality that some of the discussed scanners
> are capable of but I think I could take it to 11x14 without too much trouble
> and it would still look OK.
>
>  Walker Smith
>
>  Eric Goldstein wrote:
>  Hi Walker -
>
> It is not of over-riding importance to me, but it is to him and some
> others. This limitation of VueScan is often discussed. Each has their
> work-flow preferences; he hates having to take the extra step of
> importing RAW indirectly. He finds ViewScan (and the
> Polaroid/Mictrotek) slow; others feel VueScan gives a lot of image
> control and don't mind the wait...
>
> Eric Goldstein
>
> --
>
> On 12/24/07, Walker Smith <doubs43@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>  Why is scanning directly into Photoshop of overriding importance? I
> prefer to scan to a folder and then open the file in whatever program I
> choose to work with. What am I missing as far as scanning directly into
> Photoshop goes?
>
> Walker
>
> Eric Goldstein wrote:
>
>
>
>  It is slow, and he is no fan of ViewScan, as this does
> not allow you to scan directly into Photoshop,
>
>  ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
>
>
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: