Slide copier for Pentax

Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigiorgi at gmail.com
Tue Jul 27 13:16:42 EDT 2010


I didn't think it was an argument, Boris. Just information.

- Scanners which have IR-based dust and scratch reduction/removal
features can automate dust removal much more easily than DSLR capture
can, although the spotting tools in LR and the contextual-aware
cloning tools in PS CS5 go a long way to make it easier. It's a bit of
a toss up. Of course, the IR-based features don't work with non-C41
B&W films or Kodachrome 25 so well, if at all.

- I have not found capturing high quality images files from film with
a DSLR to be a significantly less time consuming process than
capturing with a high quality scanner. There's less time in the
capture process itself, of course, but more time spent preparing the
setup and focusing, and more time spent editing. The scanning capture
is tedious, for sure, and it seems that the DSLR gets through that
somewhat faster, but overall the total time required to get critical
quality work is pretty darn similar.

Paul :: it isn't clear whether you're referring to VueScan raw files
or VueScan's outputted DNG files. They're different. VueScan raw files
have extension .TIFF, where VueScan can create "raw" DNG files that
have extension .DNG.

The .DNG files it outputs are an encapsulation of TIFF RGB files and
are very editable in Camera Raw; they're not actually raw files at
all, simply a TIFF using the ability of DNG to encapsulate them and
provide more functionality. The raw .TIFF files are only editable in
Camera Raw if you have one of the latest versions of the Camera Raw
plugin and have the option to enable editing of TIFF files in Camera
Raw's preferences turned on. Of course, being TIFFs, they are editable
in Lightroom or Photoshop without Camera Raw anyway.

I've done a lot of scanning since 1995 ... several thousand exposures
... with all kinds of workflows. I just recently finished doing proof
scans of my entire Minox film library, collating and annotating them
... over 1900 exposures. It's a chore. Nowadays, particularly for more
normal work in 35mm that needs scanning, I'm much happier if I have
more than a dozen frames to just send them to scancafe.com : they do
as good or better job as anyone and it saves me a lot of time and
effort. I concentrate my scanning efforts on unusual formats and
restoration work where I need total control of the process.

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Boris Liberman <boris71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/27/2010 4:51 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>
>> However, with today's 10-14 Mpixel DSLRs and a suitable setup, you can
>> achieve approximately the same image resolution as a 4000 ppi scanner
>> with better dmax from 35mm film.
>
> To add to Godfrey's good argument here, I am thinking that there are more
> advantages to DSLR method:
>
> 1. Easier to deal with dust (I think).
> 2. The process of scanning itself is very quick. So that it seems (again, I
> am not sure, but still) that if one is moving from flatbed scanner scanning
> to DLSR scanning, they might as well speed up the process...
>
> Boris
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML at pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>



-- 
Godfrey
  godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com




More information about the PDML mailing list