Black & White: A lost art form?
Sep 10, 2020, 7:40 pm
#62
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SFOSJCOAK
Programs: AA-EXP & 1MM+, AS, MR-LTT, HH Gold
Posts: 7,581
Sep 10, 2020, 7:58 pm
#63
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SFOSJCOAK
Programs: AA-EXP & 1MM+, AS, MR-LTT, HH Gold
Posts: 7,581
Thanks. All three of the apps I mentioned can handle various layers and Paintshop Pro has (nearly) as many features as the full Photoshop product (many more than PS Elements.) However I have such a vast number of slides and prints in the scan queue that my workflow is mainly to scan the images and worry about processing later.
I don't know of any "budget" scanners that can output to TIF or PNG formats. I wonder what the value of that would be with film media anyway, but I'm certainly no expert.
Edited to add - Sometimes the slides are still so acceptable that minimal processing is needed. Grain aside, I think the colors on this one, taken on the Gaspe Peninsula of Quebec in 1970, are pretty decent. (They're drying cod.)
I don't know of any "budget" scanners that can output to TIF or PNG formats. I wonder what the value of that would be with film media anyway, but I'm certainly no expert.
Edited to add - Sometimes the slides are still so acceptable that minimal processing is needed. Grain aside, I think the colors on this one, taken on the Gaspe Peninsula of Quebec in 1970, are pretty decent. (They're drying cod.)
The above scanned image looks quite good. Do notice a slight "blow out" of the highlights on the roof. The dupe layer and blend multiply technique might help restore some details.
With your scanner, how long (time wise) does it take to complete 1 image? Thanks.
Sep 11, 2020, 8:05 am
#64
Moderator, OneWorld
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SEA
Programs: RAA RIP; AA ExEXP
Posts: 11,802
There's not a lot more detail on the slide - remember this is 50 years old. Generally trying to darken the highlights in these images does little more than emphasize the grain edges with a less than ideal outcome. This is what a small section of the roof looks like straight from the scanner. (The crop is 332 x 249 px; the original scan is 5472 x 3648, with a file size of 4.6 mp.) Note the sky color; with a white balance adjustment even less detail remains. But like I say, I'm not jumping through hoops trying to restore all the images I'm scanning; I've got plenty of time for that later.
The actual scan takes around 4 seconds. Loading the slides into the carriers is way more time consuming. Post processing takes as long as one wants, as you well know.
The actual scan takes around 4 seconds. Loading the slides into the carriers is way more time consuming. Post processing takes as long as one wants, as you well know.
Oct 30, 2020, 9:43 pm
#67
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Freeload Univ. Where are you sitting?
Posts: 14,818
These pics (all very awesome, I might add) might encourage me to get out some of my "classic" shots from the good old days.
Anybody remember Panatomic-X (ISO 32, IIRC)? Developed in D-76. You'd have to blow it up to project onto a wall and look closely in order to ju-u-uu-st see some grain.
Seriously - slower than he!!, but man, did it capture detail.
And when you're starting with a 4x5 negative ...
Anybody remember Panatomic-X (ISO 32, IIRC)? Developed in D-76. You'd have to blow it up to project onto a wall and look closely in order to ju-u-uu-st see some grain.
Seriously - slower than he!!, but man, did it capture detail.And when you're starting with a 4x5 negative ...
Oct 30, 2020, 11:03 pm
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Earth. Residency:HKG formerly:YYZ
Programs: CX, DL, Nexus/GE, APEC
Posts: 10,688
These pics (all very awesome, I might add) might encourage me to get out some of my "classic" shots from the good old days.
Anybody remember Panatomic-X (ISO 32, IIRC)? Developed in D-76. You'd have to blow it up to project onto a wall and look closely in order to ju-u-uu-st see some grain. Seriously - slower than he!!, but man, did it capture detail.
And when you're starting with a 4x5 negative ...
Anybody remember Panatomic-X (ISO 32, IIRC)? Developed in D-76. You'd have to blow it up to project onto a wall and look closely in order to ju-u-uu-st see some grain.
Seriously - slower than he!!, but man, did it capture detail.And when you're starting with a 4x5 negative ...
Tech-Pan souped in Technidol. ASA 25 comes in 4 by 5 and 8 by 10.
Nov 14, 2020, 10:21 pm
#69
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SFOSJCOAK
Programs: AA-EXP & 1MM+, AS, MR-LTT, HH Gold
Posts: 7,581
These pics (all very awesome, I might add) might encourage me to get out some of my "classic" shots from the good old days.
Anybody remember Panatomic-X (ISO 32, IIRC)? Developed in D-76. You'd have to blow it up to project onto a wall and look closely in order to ju-u-uu-st see some grain. Seriously - slower than he!!, but man, did it capture detail.
And when you're starting with a 4x5 negative ...
Anybody remember Panatomic-X (ISO 32, IIRC)? Developed in D-76. You'd have to blow it up to project onto a wall and look closely in order to ju-u-uu-st see some grain.
Seriously - slower than he!!, but man, did it capture detail.And when you're starting with a 4x5 negative ...
Nov 15, 2020, 8:18 am
#71
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Earth. Residency:HKG formerly:YYZ
Programs: CX, DL, Nexus/GE, APEC
Posts: 10,688
I was amazed that Diafine is still available. You could push Tri-X to as high as ASA 2400, great for shooting indoor sports.
Many of the classic soup's recipes are searchable online somewhere. Just get the ingredients.
Jan 2, 2021, 12:04 am
#75
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: CGK
Programs: FlyingBlue | Krisflyer | SPG | HHonors
Posts: 1,563
