Light box for object photography

wrote:


Your opinion is noted. What do you use?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/23/2013 3:34 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

A combination of things...
ACDSee (an ancient version 3.1), Page Image and the newer version called Image Folio for drawing/Paint work, and a little bit of PhotoShop (6.0).
I've never been satisfied with a single tool that does everything.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is that the Apologetic Italian version of SCSI?
<G> Look... no common desktop scanner will give you anything even close to the resolution that's on the film. 3600 or 4800dpi will look pretty good, but a 35mm negative is small... that doesn't end up being a lot of X by Y.
There are excellent lens-adapter attachments that will fit or be adapted to most SLR-type digital cameras that will allow the negative or slide to fill the frame, and give you better resolution than a flatbed scanner can.
Also, most photo shops (the few there are) usually have high-resolution slide scanners for doing exactly what you want.
If from prints... it depends upon what you have. You can do a pretty good job on a cheap desktop scanner on formats as large or larger than 5x7.
I wish I could haul a scanner and my computer/software back to 1969. I made nice money (for a kid) back then hand-retouching damaged or carelessly printed original prints. It would've been a 'miracle shop' if I'd had the digital tools of today!
LLoyd
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/22/2013 8:08 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:

Someday, high on my wish list, is a flat bed scanner built into a laptop or tablet. Why not?
I think the idea first came from "the book" in the book "Roadmarks" by Roger Zelazny.
"Just slip that note into the book - any page will do..." (Amazon.com product link shortened)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:08:16 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"

Rednecks version of a interface <G>

Ayup! I did a few b&w family photo repair jobs ..but retouching was such tedious work that I didnt do much of it.
I think I still have a retouching kit in storage somewhere....
Gunner
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    [ ... ]

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=m570.l1313&_nkw=film+scanner&_sacat=0&_from=R40

    Depends on what you want from your scanner. Note that while this claims a resolution of 7200 dpi, it also states that it is an "interpolated" resolution, so I have no way to know what the actual physical resolution is.
    I've been using one of the Nikon Super CoolScan 5000ED units, which gives a raw physical resolution of 4000 DPI.
    It is good enough so zooming into images, I find the grain on Plus-X and Ektrachrome-X 64 to become objectionable before the pixel size does.
    Note that I scan to TIFF format, not JPEG, which is a lossy format, and when the image is uncompressed, there is a loss of fine detail. Once I have what I want from the negative or slide, I re-save it as high quality setting JPEG for convenience of others, but I save the TIFF image for future needs.
    It is still quite expensive, based on the ones on eBay at the present. Pretty close to what I paid new for mine.
    It normally comes with two holders -- one for a single slide at a time, and one for strips of six negatives. There were other options for serious extra bucks -- a stack loader for slides (Which I skipped, because a lot of my early slides are in glass mounts which don't go through the stack loader smoothly -- if at all. Another I would have gotten earlier which handles 40 exposure strips of film without cutting, but all of mine were already cut to six-exposure strips and stored in glassine envelopes.
    One extra which I did get was a six-exposure holder which was useful with seriously curled film, or film with torn ends so I could recover what I wanted from the negatives still left. That was a fairly inexpensive thing.
    Warning -- Nikon no longer supports this. You can download the scanning software for either Windows or the Mac, however, you cannot run the software on anything newer than OS-X 10.4 -- which Apple no longer supports, and newer programs won't load onto that -- including current income tax software.
    I don't know what versions of Windows run the latest software, but is is rather old, so maybe the latest ones will not work there either.
    However, there are other programs for a lot of different OS's for not too much money -- including for Linux. I'm still using the Mac software at present.
    I've so far scanned something like 170 rolls of B&W negatives, a few of color negatives, and 82 rolls of color slides --- most 36-exposure rolls.
    The camera store where I got it offered to lease one to me, for something like $100.00/day -- but I thought of all which I needed to scan and decided that I would be ahead in the long run to buy it. Boy was I ever right. Figure at best three rolls per day. (And some going back to early rolls after I learned some things about it. :-)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Veho-Uk-Vfs-004-Deluxe-Film-Slide-Scanner-vfs004-/390565130137

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Olympus-ES-10S-Film-Scanner-For-PC-MAC-Rarely-Used-Works-Great-/151032359424?pt=US_Scanners&hash=item232a3aea00
    Hmm ... if I did not have the Nikon, I would be interested, since I still have lots of computers with SCSI interfaces.

    Amen!

    [ ... ]

    With the software with the Nikon, I was able to make usable images from terribly exposed negatives -- once I learned how to use all the features.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Apr 2013 02:13:31 GMT
<snip>

You may want to checkout JP2 format (aka JPEG2000). Could save you some space. It can be setup to save as loss-less. There are libraries/apps available for Unix/Linux now. It sucks hard on the processor though...
If you dig into the raw files (storing the un-retouched scans) at:
http://www.archive.org/
for their old books for instance you will find they are using JP2 for many of them. I haven't tried to figure out what setting they are using though (ie how much loss, if any).
--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    TIFF can be saved with compression too -- and I would use many of those -- but not the JPEG compression.

    O.K.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, April 22, 2013 5:20:00 AM UTC-7, Richard wrote:

If you have a scanner that does >10Mpixels/sq. in and has backlight, sure. Mine's an Epson Perfection Photo model 2480...
The pros have glassless filmholder variants (so no dust-on-the-glass worries)
and the negative/positive conversion is easy to do in software.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:50:53 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"

This film guy said "large aperture" to avoid just that ambiguity.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:50:53 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"

Anybody want a pair of Omega Ds? I have 2 collecting dust.
(4x5 enlargers)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Color head? full 4x5 condensor, or just the diffuser model? Got any polycontrast filter sets for it?
(see... I wasn't kidding).
LLoyd
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:24:54 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"

Nope..b&w only..full condenser. Bases are rough..but the accordians are still in decent shape.
PC filters are readily available on ebay.
I may still have some lenses. Ive had these in storage for at least 15 yrs. Swap or trade..you pay the shipping or come and get them.
I used the shit out of them..I was always a medium format guy. Got a goodly collection of Mamyias, Hassies etc etc. and of course...4x5 cameras.
Gunner
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The original issue was depth of field, which Richard correctly adressed. You bring in shutter speed, which is different issue than depth of field. Shutter speed is not directly related to depth of field. . Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . . "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message

I think you completely mis-read what he said. You just _repeated_ it (correctly), except for disallowing that small apertures require longer exposure, which he had wrong and you correct.
But you were wrong about one thing: For a given 'speed' (film, CCD, anything), shutter speed IS directly involved. The smaller the aperture, the longer the exposure for a given level of illumination.
LLoyd
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Chris, you don't read attributions very well, do you?
As for being the son of a photog, that doesn't qualify you. Did you do it for years as a serious all-engrossing hobby or for pay -- or both? I'm the son of an Army Lt. Colonel tank commander. I've never driven an Abrahms, and probably never will.
"Low F-Stop" has ALWAYS meant a 'low f-number', meaning a LARGE aperture. Depth of field has always decreased with F-number (or changed inversely to aperture size). Pinhole cameras have the deepest depth-of-field.
Richard had all the relationships correct... he just mistook what the term "low F-stop" meant.
I know, and Richard knows, what's right concerning apertures and depth- of-field.
I never brought up exposure, except to disagree with the comment that "exposure isn't related to aperture". Would you also agree that it's not?
You, on the other hand, didn't read very carefully. You attributed to me something I never said.
LLoyd
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dad taught photography for several years. As his only son, he practiced his lessons on me. Before he took his lessons to work. That was memorable.
I've been shooting black and white since about first grade. With the usual learning curve, and pictures that didn't come out, and all that.
I usually read attributions OK. So, you used to be a tank commander, and your Dad has never driven a tank? And your Dad was also a photographer? I'm glad to hear that. . Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . . "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
Chris, you don't read attributions very well, do you?
As for being the son of a photog, that doesn't qualify you. Did you do it for years as a serious all-engrossing hobby or for pay -- or both? I'm the son of an Army Lt. Colonel tank commander. I've never driven an Abrahms, and probably never will.
"Low F-Stop" has ALWAYS meant a 'low f-number', meaning a LARGE aperture. Depth of field has always decreased with F-number (or changed inversely to aperture size). Pinhole cameras have the deepest depth-of-field.
Richard had all the relationships correct... he just mistook what the term "low F-stop" meant.
I know, and Richard knows, what's right concerning apertures and depth- of-field.
I never brought up exposure, except to disagree with the comment that "exposure isn't related to aperture". Would you also agree that it's not?
You, on the other hand, didn't read very carefully. You attributed to me something I never said.
LLoyd
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:35:16 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"

Numbers Lloyd..not physical diameter. f 1.2 is a lower NUMBER than f32. Bigger hole....smaller number.

Correct.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

gunner, gunner, gunner... I know what the numbers mean. I not only did the full-monte photography thing from the time I was 15 until 22, but I also have built and use telescopes. Focal-length/aperture ratio (f-stop) is one of those, um... 'entry level' things.
Lloyd
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:23:40 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"

Not to 99% of the public...chuckle
I did photography from the age of about 11 till my mid 40s..both as a amature, as a professional and as an instructor at the local JC
When I started being gone from home 5-14 days at a time doing machine repair...I largely fell away from the technical aspects and became a snap shot shooter.. Then I bought my first digital...
The stroke I had 4 yrs ago..put some small holes in the old memory thingy..but it didnt wipe it all out...thanks be to Crom!!
I see Im going to have to start scanning the Best of...the 10,000 slides and negatives (or more) that Ive got tucked away in boxes. I cant scan most of my prints...I dont have a big enough scanner. Shrug
I do miss a lot of it..but its been 16 or more years since I started the machine repair business...and there wasnt a lot of time to do serious photography during that period. And I closed down the darkroom and packed it all up..gave a lot of it away. Still have some film tanks and whatnot...enlarging easels...etc etc. I loaned out a full darkroom to a local lady..who 5 yrs later...left town and didnt bother to talk to me about the stuff Id loaned her..including the color enlargers
Shrug
Gunner
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dear Lloyd,
Dear Lloyd,
Sometimes, mistakes cancell themselves out.
Sometimes, mistakes cancell themselves out.
. Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org . . Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
I think you completely mis-read what he said. You just _repeated_ it (correctly), except for disallowing that small apertures require longer exposure, which he had wrong and you correct.
But you were wrong about one thing: For a given 'speed' (film, CCD, anything), shutter speed IS directly involved. The smaller the aperture, the longer the exposure for a given level of illumination.
LLoyd
LLoyd
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.