I hope you don't scare the hell out the baby
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard F. Man
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 6:20 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Frustrations of the Web for image display
You know, this is what I want to do too :-) I scan slides in myself,
which
is not a big chore because I use the slide film adapter. It takes time,
about 1 1/2 hrs per 36 expo. roll, but it is put in the roll, click some
buttons and go away. Actually, I sometimes even work when it is
scanning.
The colors and exposure are usually pretty good, and the Nikon scanner
has
the ICE for dust removal so hardly any additional work is needed. Still
though, I open the nicer pics in PShop, and do some minor adjustment
(usually just minor tweaks on the levels) and run an action to size them
down and Sharpen/USM. All in all, each pic takes may be about couple
minutes including file open / save time.
Here are the last set.
http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/klingon_family/
http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/2003BayCon/
The 3 rolls took about 3 hours of work after scanning. I multitasked and
do
other stuff during file open and save so that slows things down a bit.
Overall, a little bit slower than pure Digital workflow but not too bad.
Unfortunately, they are not taken with the OM though. Sorry.
At 07:17 PM 6/7/2003 -0700, Moose wrote:
>Thanks! I suspect you may be right about the sharpening. When I do a
TOPE
>entry, I spend a fair amount of time in PS trying to best emulate the
>large image in smaller form. In this case, this is part of an
experiment I
>might call 'digital album'. Remember when you could just take the 4x6
>prints you liked from a roll and add them to the ol' photo album. Sure,
>there might be a shot or two, or even a few, worth working on and
>enlarging, but there is a certain enjoyment in just flipping through
the
>album sometimes that is different that admiring that beautiful matted
and
>framed 8x10, 11x14, whatever print of the best shot.
>
>That's what I'm trying out here, a photo album where I can just give
the
>URL to friends and family and they can flip through it. As part of that
>effort, the images here are right off the CD from process/scanning. I
pay
>about $19 for developing and scanning of my film with output of
2000x3000
>(~2,000 dpi), 17mb .bmp files, 533x800, ~200kb .jpeg files and
thumbnails
>on CD with index print. So, like the old way, I just put the jpegs of
the
>images I liked in a subdirectory and had PS make them into a digital
>album. My aim is to be able to do this in a few minutes, rather than a
few
>hours, which rules out any individual tuning up in PS, let alone
scanning
>them all individually myself. I am thinking about setting up an
automated
>process in PS to lightly sharpen all of them before the album step, but
I
>need to do some experimentation first.
>...
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|