Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 ED Scanner - First Impressions - Page 3

ste © wrote:

>> But if you compare these two images very closely (flipping between them with appropriate
>> software, preferably enlarged) you'll see that there are actually hundreds of very tiny marks in
>> the first image that have been removed in the second.

>> And for those interested in noise, here's a scan of a small section of dark shadow.
>> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/shadownoise.jpg

> On my monitor, this just looks like a plain black image - so either you've posted the wrong image,
> or it proves that there's no noise in the shadows!
>> o)

Nope, that's the correct image. Good isn't it? Actually there is some blotchy noise, but it's only
visible with extreme brightening, which you wouldn't normally do. I just scanned a sunset shot where
the ground is black, or at least I thought it was. I tried brightening it to see how much detail
there was in the blackness and I was amazed to see the shapes of foreground hills appear. I could
even make out the scree and cliffs on one hill, which looked pure black to me on the slide. Of
course the quality of the detail is terrible, but I was amazed it was there at all. It certainly
allows for a lot more brightening of dark shadows than I previously thought was possible from film.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bpmdj8$be8$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
| ste © wrote:
|
| >> But if you compare these two images very closely (flipping between them with appropriate
| >> software, preferably enlarged) you'll see that there are actually hundreds of very tiny marks
| >> in the first image that have been removed in the second.
|
| >> And for those interested in noise, here's a scan of a small section of dark shadow.
| >> http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/misc/shadownoise.jpg
|
| > On my monitor, this just looks like a plain black image - so either you've posted the wrong
| > image, or it proves that there's no noise in the shadows!
| >> o)
|
| Nope, that's the correct image. Good isn't it? Actually there is some blotchy noise, but it's only
| visible with extreme brightening, which you wouldn't normally do. I just scanned a sunset shot
| where the ground is black, or at least I thought it was. I tried brightening it to see how much
| detail there was in the blackness and I was amazed to see the shapes of foreground hills appear. I
| could even make out the scree and cliffs on one hill, which looked pure black to me on the slide.
| Of course the quality of the detail is terrible, but I was amazed it was there at all. It
| certainly allows for a lot more brightening of dark shadows than I previously thought was possible
| from film.
|
| Paul

Yes, very good. I was expecting you to come back and tell me that my monitor wasn't adjusted
correctly! I guess this scanner is is developing all sorts of new possibilities! Who needs
digital eh? ;o)

Ste

ste © wrote:

>> I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever rain again, but living in Wales I suppose I shouldn't
>> feel too pessimistic about that... ;-)
>
> Yes, I'm sure you will be fine! )

Yes, reassuringly it's started to rain a bit recently.

> I'd be interested to see one of your good digital shots before and after your photoshop work, to
> see how much difference you can make to a shot?

Perhaps I'll post you something, or maybe put up a webpage. Remind me if I forget.

> Yes, as soon as the 12 megapixel plus cameras are affordable, a lot of people will surely be
> defecting.

If digital is as good as some are claiming, then 12MP will be overkill for most people, but
great for pros.

>> I usually use a spotmeter when photographing waterfalls, and in very dry conditions I've observed
>> a contrast range of as little as 3 stops. Normal falls are usually around 5 stops, but in very
>> wet conditions like these it can reach 7 stops or more. I think some of the falls that day were
>> as much as 9 stops. In the Sgwd Einion Gam picture I think the contrast was around 6 to 7 stops.
>> Slide film usually has a dynamic range of about 5 stops, my G3 has around 10 stops.
>
> This dynamic range is something that I would never even think about,

But that's how I calculate exposure. A lot of people think of the "right exposure" as a single value
(a shutter speed/f-stop combination) but I think of it as a range of brightness levels from white to
black, not disimilar to Ansel Adam's zone system in fact. With a spotmeter I find that grass is
usually -1 stop, trees are -2 stops, shadows -3 stops, deep blue sky is 0 stops (good to take the
exposure off that in fact), light blue sky +1 stop, normal clouds +1 stop and bright clouds +2
stops. Sunlit snow is usually +2 stops too.

> but I respect that film photographers really have to know their stuff as there's no LCD screen to
> see the shots, so you've got to get it right 'blindly.'

If you use the histogram after taking a photo then you *are* thinking about dynamic range, because
that's what the histogram shows - the distribution of light values from white to black.

> Using a 'crap film' must have been even more annoying to you than using jpeg mode instead of raw
> mode with your earliest digital shots! But saying that, if you don't experiment, you won't know...

My early years were fraught with experimentation with different films, until I eventually settled on
Fujichrome 50 as my film of choice, later to evolve into Velvia. With the scanner and software I
have now though it should be possible to correct many of the imperfections of earlier films. Neat
Image is great for getting rid of grain and of course colour casts can easily be corrected now.
Konica slide film gave me horrible colours during the few months that I used it.

> I understand what you mean about the spray, but again, I've never really been to a *big*
> waterfall, so this is also something that I wouldn't have thought about with your photo.

I've just been looking at my latest slides and some of those are of Henrhyd, and quite a few of
those are ruined by spray too, even after taking great care to avoid that on my second visit. It was
the biggest fall I visited last month - 90ft - and even though there wasn't that much water in the
river it was still throwing off a lot of spray over quite a distance.

> When I went to Chatsworth House at the weekend, there was a big fountain that shot water about 30
> metres into the air, and the spray and haze from this went whevever the wind blew it! I think some
> people must have been getting soaked when the wind changed! But shooting into the light, it did
> create some nice photos, almost like mist.

Water is great isn't it? It creates so many photo opportunites.

> After being rained off for ten minutes in my walk today (with no photos), I'm interested in this
> 'brolly pod' you talk about. Do you have a website link that shows more information about this?

It's just something I knocked up, an umbrellat tied to a tripod. I'll post a picture on my website.

> It will be, and don't forget the plastic bag! Or even better, get one of these:
> http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/5can_g3big.html

Nice, but overkill I think.

> But it still won't stop the spray and haze,

Nope.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749

"Paul Saunders" <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bpmd8u$9ov$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
| ste © wrote:
|
| >> I'm beginning to wonder if it will ever rain again, but living in Wales I suppose I shouldn't
| >> feel too pessimistic about that... ;-)
| >
| > Yes, I'm sure you will be fine! )
|
| Yes, reassuringly it's started to rain a bit recently.

As shown in your Day 31 photo! ;o)

| > I'd be interested to see one of your good digital shots before and after your photoshop work, to
| > see how much difference you can make to a shot?
|
| Perhaps I'll post you something, or maybe put up a webpage. Remind me if I forget.

I got your email with the before and after, thanks for sending it. Very impressive work! I know you
sent me an extreme example that wasn't typical of your shots, but I'd never have believed you could
achieve that final result without seeing it! I'll be working through your email and trying to learn
about this contast masking you talk about! I think my photos could use something to give them a
sparkle! ;o)

| > Yes, as soon as the 12 megapixel plus cameras are affordable, a lot of people will surely be
| > defecting.
|
| If digital is as good as some are claiming, then 12MP will be overkill for most people, but great
| for pros.

Yes, most people (ie, the whole population, not photographers) don't print any larger than 7 x 5's,
I wouldn't have thought. But at a price (ie, a lot lower than £5k) I'd love more megapixels and
quality. Even reading that Alamy website that you were talking about, for digital images, they ask
for 48mb. My G5 gives 30mb tif files (extracted from RAW files), sot that's a lot of Genuine
Fractals work! To much I reckon, but I'd be interested to see what they'd accept or decline. Are you
doing to send any G3 images, or just film scans?

| >> I usually use a spotmeter when photographing waterfalls, and in very dry conditions I've
| >> observed a contrast range of as little as 3 stops. Normal falls are usually around 5 stops, but
| >> in very wet conditions like these it can reach 7 stops or more. I think some of the falls that
| >> day were as much as 9 stops. In the Sgwd Einion Gam picture I think the contrast was around 6
| >> to 7 stops. Slide film usually has a dynamic range of about 5 stops, my G3 has around 10 stops.
| >
| > This dynamic range is something that I would never even think about,
|
| But that's how I calculate exposure. A lot of people think of the "right exposure" as a single
| value (a shutter speed/f-stop combination) but I think of it as a range of brightness levels from
| white to black, not disimilar to Ansel Adam's zone system in fact. With a spotmeter I find that
| grass is usually -1 stop, trees are -2 stops, shadows -3 stops, deep blue sky is 0 stops (good to
| take the exposure off that in fact), light blue sky +1 stop, normal clouds +1 stop and bright
| clouds +2 stops. Sunlit snow is usually +2 stops too.

Yes, I think of exposure as a single value (shutter speed/f-stop/+-EV combination), I'm guilty as
charged! But I'm learning... ;o)

| > but I respect that film photographers really have to know their stuff as there's no LCD screen
| > to see the shots, so you've got to get it right 'blindly.'
|
| If you use the histogram after taking a photo then you *are* thinking about dynamic range, because
| that's what the histogram shows - the distribution of light values from white to black.

I'm using the histogram to make sure my shots aren't clipped on the left or right, but I haven't
been paying much attention to the distribution of them. One step at a time though, and I'll re-read
your post about histograms some time too! ;o)

| > Using a 'crap film' must have been even more annoying to you than using jpeg mode instead of raw
| > mode with your earliest digital shots! But saying that, if you don't experiment, you won't
| > know...
|
| My early years were fraught with experimentation with different films, until I eventually settled
| on Fujichrome 50 as my film of choice, later to evolve into Velvia. With the scanner and software
| I have now though it should be possible to correct many of the imperfections of earlier films.
| Neat Image is great for getting rid of grain and of course colour casts can easily be corrected
| now. Konica slide film gave me horrible colours during the few months that I used it.

Good to see that the film scanner can rescue some of the photos that could have been hidden away in
the experimentation folder otherwise. I've downloaded both Neat Image and Focus Magic, and Genuine
Fractals too. I'm busy with these trials at the moment!

| > I understand what you mean about the spray, but again, I've never really been to a *big*
| > waterfall, so this is also something that I wouldn't have thought about with your photo.
|
| I've just been looking at my latest slides and some of those are of Henrhyd, and quite a few of
| those are ruined by spray too, even after taking great care to avoid that on my second visit. It
| was the biggest fall I visited last month - 90ft - and even though there wasn't that much water in
| the river it was still throwing off a lot of spray over quite a distance.

I guess that's where the skills involved in finding a good location to shoot from really come
into play!

| > When I went to Chatsworth House at the weekend, there was a big fountain that shot water about
| > 30 metres into the air, and the spray and haze from this went whevever the wind blew it! I think
| > some people must have been getting soaked when the wind changed! But shooting into the light, it
| > did create some nice photos, almost like mist.
|
| Water is great isn't it? It creates so many photo opportunites.

Certainly does!

| > After being rained off for ten minutes in my walk today (with no photos), I'm interested in this
| > 'brolly pod' you talk about. Do you have a website link that shows more information about this?
|
| It's just something I knocked up, an umbrellat tied to a tripod. I'll post a picture on my
| website.

Thanks for emailing the photo of it. No wonder I couldn't find any info on the internet about it,
as it was your own creation! Patent pending of course! ;o) (sorry to use the same joke in the
email too!) ;o)

| > It will be, and don't forget the plastic bag! Or even better, get one of these:
| > http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/5can_g3big.html
|
| Nice, but overkill I think.

Yes, it just reminds me of those old diving suits, like what that guy wore to walk the London
Marathon in!

| > But it still won't stop the spray and haze,
|
| Nope.
|
| Paul

Ste

In article <NzdIb.1685$HX5.14310489@news-text.cableinet.net>, ste © <ste@sm9.co.uk> writes
>Now this is something that I can do, and I did try it, albeit half-heartedly, in the summer. After
>unsuccessfully sneaking up to some common garden birds (they all flew away before I could get
>within range in the garden!), I decided to buy one of those nets with nuts in, and hung it on the
>fence outside my patio window.

Hi Stephen, the first and most important thing you must have is patience. Given that you are
prepared to wait for you shots, then it is possible to be between 5 and 8 feet of the feeder and
get photos. You must be very still or behind some sort of screen. The blue tits, great tits, coal
tits etc will soon get used to your being there and will feed. Pre-focus on the peanut feeder and
click away every time a bird comes there. I used to be happy with two or three decent shots out of
a 24 shot roll of film. It is not only the question of being in focus, but the attitude of the bird
in the shot.
>
>Would you recommend any particular bait to try? My nuts never even got eaten,

.....Hmmm!

Nowt wrong with peanuts, though the peanut feeder doesn't look particularly natural. Some of the
small birds will frequently perch on a nearby branch or twig before going to the feeder. If you can
locate the feeder near a bush and use this feature of their behaviour to your advantage then you
might get some really good natural looking shots. try not to include the feeder in the shot.

BTW when April comes around, stop offering peanuts as when the blue tits etc have chicks, the young
birds can't digest peanuts which the adults will still try to feed them with.
--
Bill Grey http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <pVgIb.1837$1D7.15665256@news-text.cableinet.net>, ste © <ste@sm9.co.uk> writes
> I might even buy a bird table or something. I'll let you know how I get on.

Go to your local "Pound" shop and buy a cheap tray and fix it to the top of a post. Cheaper than
buying a proper bird table.
--
Bill Grey http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <ant301608965Pk=+@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>, Mike Clark <mrc7@cam.ac.uk> writes
>The birds in my garden are now so tame that you almost get mobbed whilst putting the food out.
>Certainly many of them only fly away to the fence or bushes and wait for you to move away again,
>before returning to feed. In the breeding season we feed with waxworms and mealworms and the robin
>will then even come and take them from your hand.

Good point - Robins are insectivorous - thin fine beaks, not the solid bolt cutter jaws of
the finches.
--
Bill Grey http://www.billboy.co.uk

Mike Clark <mrc7@cam.ac.uk> wrote
>
>The birds in my garden are now so tame that you almost get mobbed whilst putting the food out.
>Certainly many of them only fly away to the fence or bushes and wait for you to move away again,
>before returning to feed. In the breeding season we feed with waxworms and mealworms and the robin
>will then even come and take them from your hand.

We were in a country park on Tuesday where we feed the birds and watch them, when a robin landed on
a fallen tree a few yards away. We stopped, and I threw some bread towards it from a crouching
position, but as I did so another robin flew out of a bush and landed about two feet from me! I also
had some crushed nuts (ouch - painful!) with me and again the robin almost took it from my hand as I
sprinkled some in front of the bush.
>
>I've found that if I put out too many peanuts that they go mouldy before the birds eat them all. In
>contrast I can't put out sunflower seeds fast enough. We have about 10 regular Greenfinches that
>can empty a full feeder in a day. What gets dropped on the ground gets demolished by Chaffinchs. In
>the last eighteen months I've attracted Goldfinches with nijar seed but that did take some
>patience. Now we get about 10 of those a day, and my record was 27 at one time.

I find that the Goldfinches and Greenfinches stay longest on the nut feeders, and the blue tits and
great tits are very volatile.

Underneath the feeders the blackbirds, dunnocks, and robin tidy up after the rest. :-)

>
>Blackbirds will like fruit, such as a chopped up apple put on the ground.
>
Haven't tried fruit, but where do you get the mealy worms? Angler's shops or pet shops?
--
Gordon

Mike Clark <mrc7@cam.ac.uk> wrote
>

> the robin
>> | >will then even come and take them from your hand.
>> |
>> | them, when a robin landed on a fallen tree a few yards away.
>>
>another robin flew out of a bush and landed about two
>> | feet from me!

>the robin almost took it from my hand as I sprinkled some
>> | in front of the bush.
>>
>
>We had a robin come and visit us inside our tent in Langdale over Christmas. It came hoping under
>the flysheet into the bell end where we were cooking and preceded to beg some of our breakfast!
>

I love Robin stories.

I once stopped for a Robin directly in the path of my car, but I had no sooner stopped when out of
the bushes ran Batman.
--
Gordon

Mike Clark <mrc7@cam.ac.uk> wrote
>
>I order the mealworms and waxworms online from CJ WildBird foods
>
><URL:http://www.birdfood.co.uk/>
>
>I don't think they are quite the same as the bait you commonly get from angling shops. Certainly
>the mealworms are fed on bran and don't smell like meat eating maggots would after a few days in
>the warm!
>
Yes - I can see the advantage of that, thanks!
--
Gordon

In article <bstepq$m96$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Saunders <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> Yes, I'm going to try losing weight, getting a six-pack, and going on the sun-beds to see if it
>> cures the problem... ;-)

Roasted nuts perhaps!
--
Bill Grey http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <t4qIb.2394$xW3.20844714@news-text.cableinet.net>, ste © <ste@sm9.co.uk> writes
> I walked a bit closer to try and make it a decent size within my frame, but it flew off,
> unfortunately. I did get a photo of it, but it's from a distance. I'll upload it tomorrow and let
> you know. I should carry bait around with me in future, some of those sunflower seeds should do
> the trick! ;-)

A shotgun might help :-) :-)
--
Bill Grey http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <ofmis5ADtv8$Ewx+@g3snx.demon.co.uk>, Gordon <Gordon@g3snx.demon.co.uk> writes
>I once stopped for a Robin directly in the path of my car, but I had no sooner stopped when out of
>the bushes ran Batman.

Honest ? you lucky b****r
--
Bill Grey http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <bsvsoc$tb6$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, Paul Saunders <pvs1@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> Roasted nuts perhaps!
>
>Eh? I didn't write that!

There are so many quotes and double quotes that sometimes I get confused who wrote what :-)
--
Bill Grey http://www.billboy.co.uk

W. D. Grey wrote:

> Just had a look at Luminous Landscape web-site and checked out the page on understanding
> histograms. I like the basic principle of bunching your exposure to the "right" without blowing
> the highlights.

Yes, but if you read my digital test you'll know that I determined that the most sensitive part of
the histogram is actually 2/3rds of the way to the right, not fully to the right, so the advice in
Luminous Landscape is wrong according to my tests. His theoretical logic about each stop having only
half the brightness values of the previous stop is not borne out by my tests, so bunching to the
right is *not* the best option IMO, it's best to bunch the exposure values 2/3rds to the right, at
least according to my G3. Maybe other digital cameras differ, I don't know.

I really should write to Michael Reichmann about this and show him my test results.

> A visit to the site is well worth it.

Oh yes, an excellent site to be sure. You got my email about that lens?

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749