|
coldclimb
Nov 24, 2003, 5:04 PM
Post #1 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
What is the best way to get the really colorfull and detailed digital pics? Is it a really nice digital camera? A film scanner? Scanning slides? How do those of you with the nice looking pics get them on the computer?
|
|
|
|
|
dinglestyle
Nov 24, 2003, 11:27 PM
Post #2 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 27, 2003
Posts: 74
|
Slide to drum scanner would produce the best results, But drum scanners are very coatly to run. When it comes to highend scanning, drum scanners are the best. Film scanners are getting better and so are flat bed scanners. I use at home a umax 1100 its a flat bed with a backlight and i can scan slids and negtives pretty good. I will either losse highlight or shadow detail depending how i want to scan it, but you have to choose one or the other. Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
jabarnes
Nov 25, 2003, 12:15 AM
Post #3 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2002
Posts: 17
|
First of all it is taking a good photo in the first place. The actual exposure of the shot is the first and most important step in obtaining a great colorful and detailed picture. Once you have a good exposure it is much easier to work with in many different formats. The best way (this is all subjective of course) is to take the shot with slide film because the resolution is much better on slide film. From there using a half way decent slide/negative scanner will give great results. It doesn't hurt to have photoshop to help balance the shot in case of a scanning alterations. Shoot on.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Nov 25, 2003, 3:44 AM
Post #4 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
I had to do some scanner evaluations for school. I can't remember the names and stats of most of the newer scanners, but I do recall the difference between the Nikon Coolscan IV and the Polaroid Sprintscan (or something like that... I think it's a little outdated). The Sprintscan had higer stats at 4000dpi and a dynamic range of 4.2 (vs. the Nikon's 2900dpi and dynamic range of 3.6), but it just didn't perform well. No matter what I tried, the Nikon produced a broader range of tones with better histograms (the Polaroid had a lot of combing), and generally sharper images, but I think that's just an issue of certain technologies in the Nikon scanner not existing when the Sprintscan was designed.
I have no idea what my point was. In terms of 35mm slide scanners, they can perform surprisingly well in terms of bit depth and dynamic range, but in terms of resolution... I believe that high end film scanners can reach resolutions of around 4000dpi (optical) whereas drum scanners range from something like 5000- 20 000 (also optical). I might be off on those numbers, but I do know that there is a vast difference there.
Do you need 5000- 20 000dpi? My guess is no. Perhaps 1200- 1900 depending on the end usage. I'd mostly look at bit depth and dynamic range. If you're not much a photoshop junkie, then probably just dynamic range. A dynamic range of 3.6 is pretty decent. I'm a little out of touch because my applications are a little more demanding than most people's. If you use photoshop then a bit depth of 16 is now a very good idea, especially with the advent of Photoshop CS which will work fully with 16bit images.
On the end of digital captures, I've actually never shot on a digital camera lower than 6.2 megapixels. If I wanted the best results I'd shoot in RAW format. I have minimal application for this unless I'm in the studio though; however, once again, with Photoshop CS there are decided advantages to shooting in this somewhat impractical (for me) format. Shooting as tiff or even high quality jpeg files usually gets the trick done. Slide quality is still much higher thus far compared to ccd and cmos captures in my opinion. I haven't had the chance to play with super ccd yet, so I can't comment there.
I still don't know what my point is, or if I'm making any sense at all.
|
|
|
|
|
dirko
Nov 25, 2003, 4:36 AM
Post #5 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 374
|
I think that was some insightful commentary. I own a Minolta Dimage III scanner, which can produce nice results from color slides and often color negative if coaxed into doing so. I have used an older Sprintscan and a Coolscan 4000 at school, and I must say that the expensive Nikon unit produces results that are at times approaching glorious, although it costs more than twice as much. Go figure.
Now I know that Velvia will produce better results than most digital cameras, but I cannot afford to process the stuff. (Depends how much you shoot and if you have to spring for a scanner.) I am very happy with the results I have gotten with various Canon DSLR's. Not quite low-grain slide film, but still great, and very user-friendly. Shoot at ISO 100 with decent glass and you can do no wrong.
Whether you already have any camera lenses or not can make a big difference as well in your cost analysis. I guess cost no object, you could get better pix from scanned film. Hell, from drum scanned medium format. But for a person with a real budget and and limited time, I think a DSLR is the ticket. A few pointers. If you monitor is not the bomb, it can make you think your camera is not working. The contrast and colors may be whack. Also, I am not familiar with cameras such as the Canon G5, so I am hesitant to recommend them despite their high quality sensors.
Good luck in your hunt for digital quality. And remember, instead of spending another $1000 on a camera, you could spend $1000 on photo classes or film. Or beer.
|
|
|
|
|
beta-boy
Deleted
Nov 25, 2003, 6:14 AM
Post #6 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
There's a lot of good information in this thread, but I think the most important response was the most basic. Great photos start with the essential ingredients: exposure and composition.
Transferring great digital images onto the web is a fairly simple technical matter. Getting those great images in the first place is not.
First, it should be mentioned that resolution for viewing over the internet is particularly mininal. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thing most computer monitors are generally displaying around 75dpi. So, I wouldn't be too worried about exactly what film scanner or digital camera is being used ... as long as the original image is of high quality. In other words, don't worry too much about just resolution ... computer screens don't convey nearly the resolution that most photos hold ... however ... you do want to be concerned with the quality of the image in terms of exposure ... you want the greatest saturation of the negative/image without going over or under exposed.
To go on record, my preference is to shoot slide film ... either good old Kodachrome or Fujichrome ... and then scan it. I use a Nikon Coolscan 2900dpi. However, a digital camera shooting at least 3-4 megapixels can also give you excellent results.
But back to capturing the initial image. Inexpensive cameras can take great pictures ... if you know the basics and have a feel for composition and exposure. Expensive cameras can give you even greater capabilities, as long as you know what you are trying to capture.
Composition aside, the main tools you have at your disposal for capturing a high-quality image is your lense and ability to get the right exposure. The lense will determine the clarity and resolution and amount of light you have to work with (zoom lenses are great in one respect, but generally require more light to make an exposure and may be less crisp in resolution than fixed focal length lenses). After that, it's really understanding the basic concept of getting an optimally saturated image with the amount of light you are working with ... blah, blah, blah ... getting a good exposure. Automatic exposure features on cameras are great, but they don't guarantee a the right exposure. Having a camera that allows you to manually set the exposure is important ... even if you don't always use the manual mode. The exposure meter systems in modern cameras do a great job, but sometimes you have to make a determination that requires making some compensations... and manually setting the exposure. With some understanding on what you need to get an optimally saturated image and some decent equipment, you can get great looking stuff without spending a ton of money.
Okay, all that "basic" photo stuff aside ... the gear for getting excellent shots is typically shooting with a decent quality SLR 35mm camera with a fast high-quality lense on slide film and scanning the slides on a medium to high quality film scanner. Shooting negative film and scanning it can give you excellent results as well ... but generally slide film provides the best best color saturation. If you are going to spend bucks ... best to invest them first in good camera with a high-quality lense. Any camera worth it's salt will allow for manual exposure control.
And oh yeah ...
Have fun! :D
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Nov 25, 2003, 5:31 PM
Post #7 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Thanks a lot for all the replies. My biggest problem is that I have all these nice pics on film and paper, but my scanner really sucks and kills the pics when I scan them in. My digital camera is just 1.3MP, so it doesn't get the best resolution, and usually isn't all that colorful either. I really like photography, but a lot of the time it's hard to get my stuff on the computer where I can work with it.
|
|
|
|
|
drkayak
Nov 25, 2003, 5:54 PM
Post #8 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: ... but my scanner really sucks and kills the pics when I scan them in. .
I would recommend a new Epson scanner. My Epson 2450 is way better than the 3 year old Umax I had. If you are just interested in getting good images for posting on the WEB. The Epson 1660 is only $69.
Photoshop skills are a must for getting great images. A "raw" scan even from an expensive scanner, IMO, never looks that great.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Nov 25, 2003, 9:10 PM
Post #9 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
In reply to: In reply to: ... but my scanner really sucks and kills the pics when I scan them in. . I would recommend a new Epson scanner. My Epson 2450 is way better than the 3 year old Umax I had. If you are just interested in getting good images for posting on the WEB. The Epson 1660 is only $69. Photoshop skills are a must for getting great images. A "raw" scan even from an expensive scanner, IMO, never looks that great.
The photoshop skills I've got. The scanner I don't. I'll have to talk to my parents about that. ;) :D
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Nov 25, 2003, 10:53 PM
Post #10 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
i'm disappointed with my transfer from pics (SLR 35mm Minolta) to the computer. The scanner HP OfficeJet might be partly responsible for it, even if I now scan with 150 or even 300dpi and manage to get 96kb pics for rc.com. All the pics I submitted were processed with Adobe 1.0!!! I just got Photoshop 7.0 last week and can tell the difference : not huge but yet perceptible.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
Nov 25, 2003, 11:07 PM
Post #11 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
All the above replies are correct, but practically speaking....
If you can't afford a decent scanner, you can't afford to take enough good pictures to get great results with slide film. It'll cost you a forture to buy and process.
One secret to great shots is this:
Have your camera with you and take lots of pictures. Some manage to be great.
A heavy camera with a great lens often gets left behind. If you're cheap like me, you'll snap one shot of somebody on a pitch with film and their head will happen to be down and you won't know it since you have to wait for the shot be developed.
You can get a refurbed 4mp camera for under $300. It will fit in your pocket or pack and not reduce your climbing grade by more than a half letter. You can take tons of shots that you could even sell except for fine art, and making them digital will be simplicity itself since they already are. I'm scanning all my Himalayan slides this week and it's a pain in the butt.
Just a thought.
Peace
karl
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Nov 25, 2003, 11:52 PM
Post #12 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Yeah I would prefer a nice digital camera. Just need to get the money for it. :lol: I was mostly wondering about this subject in regards to the good pics I already have on paper and film that I can't get onto the computer without destroying them. And if I use a film camera in the future I'd like to be able to plan in advance how to get them digital.
|
|
|
|
|
beta-boy
Deleted
Nov 29, 2003, 6:22 AM
Post #13 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Then I really think it comes down to scraping up the dough to get a decent film scanner. If this is something you see yourself doing for a long time and enjoying, you are going to have to make the investment.
I only have experience with the Nikon Coolscan 2900dpi scanner. It's awesome. And rarely do I have to use Photoshop to make the image look better. In fact, if I have to use Photoshop on something, it's either to eliminate scratches or something or I made a small mistake on the settings when I originally scanned the image. The Coolscan is expensive, but the one I got is a step down from the full Coolscan IV ... at the pro-consumer level.
I haven't checked out all the other scanners, but I wouldn't doubt you could get something similiar for less from another brand.
But basically, you have to ask yourself if this is something you see yourself doing and enjoying for a long time. If it is, you have to think of this as an investment and try to pony up the bucks somehow.
And keep in mind how much you want to spend on getting old photos scanned. Maybe you'd rather invest the money in that nice new 4mp camera. Maybe you could find a place to scan your old photos with a pro scanner ... and not buy an expensive one for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
popol
Nov 29, 2003, 8:56 AM
Post #14 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Posts: 390
|
In reply to: even if I now scan with 150 or even 300dpi
Recently (only a few days) I started scanning at 1200 dpi (flatbed), with good results. My scanner has a max resolution of 1200 x 2400 dpi. The resizing is done in photoshop. Pretty good results. Only disadvantage: you need disc space and processor capacity (that's why I'm doing it only since then, I bought a new PC :wink: ).
|
|
|
|
|
dinglestyle
Dec 3, 2003, 11:50 PM
Post #15 of 15
(2529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 27, 2003
Posts: 74
|
In reply to: "What is the best way to get the really colorfull and detailed digital pics?"
For example If you just posting pics online 72pixels pre inch will do. If your printing to a inkjet printer 150ppi maybe more. If you printing to a lightjet photographic system alteast 200ppi. Then printing depends on the line screen that is outputted. The genral rule is 2ppi for every line screen. So if your printing at 175 linescreen which is good not great quility you will want a 350ppi photo. Good posters are normally printed at 200 to 300 line screen.
If your just putting pics up online. it would overkill to shot with slide film and drum scan. But if you want to enlarge you photos 16/20 inch or larger on a professional output system. I would say no ? a drum scanner is what you want. 8000 ppi are needed to make a good enlargement. It not that practical to do but its how you get the best results. I worked in prepress company for 2 years and we did highend scanning and proofing. Drum scans always bet out film scanners and flatbed scanners on large format. Its no fun running a drum scanner oil mounting slides.
Here is a article from the late Galen Rowell. He was an awesome Photographer/Climber.
http://mountainlight.com/articles/op1999.06f.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
