Giveaway of the Day Forums

1. 

   mikiem2
   Moderator

   https://www.dxo.com/intl/photography/dxo-filmpack/creative-photo-software

   They're giving away an older version of Filmpack Essentials, which is worth having if you're into artistic photos -- in a nutshell it adds film grain & characteristics which can be a nice touch sometimes. In the past they've also given away an older version of Optics Pro, so might want to keep an eye out for that one in the future.

   Optics Pro comes across initially as a sort of Lightroom wannabe, but it does some stuff that Adobe software can't, & it does some stuff better, and you can save your work in a RAW image format that you can open in Lightroom [or P/Shop etc.] for more work if wanted/needed. It also has data on & lens correction for an awful lot of hardware. It will work with jpg, but it's better, more worth it with RAW.

   The big advantage with RAW is that it's all the data your camera captured. Some of that data's tossed out if/when it's processed to turn it into something like a jpg. Sometimes that's good -- often times not. It's faster, it's easier, & it depends on the camera [& how much trouble the engineers went to], but it's always a compromise. You can usually do better yourself, because the decisions you'll make can't be automated. But you've also got other stuff to do, usually quite a lot of other stuff, so no one blames you if you don't shoot RAW.

   Earlier in the year I talked about converting 35mm negatives to digital images. I can't afford a good negative scanner -- the good ones can be a bit rare anyways, & the $300+ or so I paid years ago for a Minolta slide scanner didn't get me anywhere near the lowest pro standards. A more expensive flatbed with an adapter wouldn't either. A camera can, but there's little info, much of it I found less than accurate. You can also buy a camera refurbished or used [if so check on the camera's equivalent of total mileage, the number of shutter clicks it's had]. Often you'll be able to use an old 35mm lens. And using a camera is the acknowledged preferred way to copy prints too.

   One of the things I read quite often was that it's difficult if possible to get a good negative reversal in software, i.e. have a 35mm negative, usually with a strong tint, & turn it into something that looks like the prints we'd get from the developer. I've got the Minolta scanner, know it works in software, so took a big chance that that was BS. I was right, though using Adobe's software for the reversal can make it Very hard to get there. Other image editors will do an OK job, but either not on RAW files or won't save the results as anything but a processed image like tif or jpg.

   Optics Pro will, & it does a great job of it, so I became a fan. The DXO software [& Lightroom] work a bit like the Zoner software that's popular on GOTD, in that it's made for cataloging & sorting & managing your collections of images. Optics Pro lets me do the reversal, set the white balance accurately, & does a little bit of enhancing & correction, & it works in batch mode too. Open the saved .dng RAW files in Lightroom & I can work with the colors, crop the image, & do some of the dust/scratch removal. I use Photoshop to finish the images, mainly because the way Lightroom & Photoshop work together it can be almost all non-destructive -- I can get back to the dng I imported from Optics Pro at any time. The color work I can do easier faster in Lightroom -- neither Lightroom nor P/Shop does well with the reversal or the white balance with an image of a negative.

   [(I think an) Interesting note: if you were making prints from a negative the non-digital, old way, you'd stack colored filters between the enlarger's light source & the negative. It didn't work the way you might think - one color of filter brought out another color in the print paper. None of that matters when you're taking pictures of negatives, in my testing & experimentation anyways.

   I'd read all sorts of stuff about tinting the source light to compensate for the color cast of the negatives, and actually went quite far researching different ways I could do that, hunting down & buying supplies, & it was all balderdash. The negative film leader usually has a blank frame or two [what would be white except for the negative strip's tint], & I get the best results setting camera white balance to that, no gels or anything, though I do use a daylight color temp light.]

   Posted 10 years ago #
2. 

   mikiem2
   Moderator

   A new e-mail from Zoner linked to this article:
   Should I Shoot to RAW?
   http://www.zoner.com/en/tutorials/should-i-shoot-to-raw?utm_source=ZPS16&utm_medium=mail&utm_content=all-non-paid&utm_campaign=tutorial-should-i-shoot-to-raw

   It's another, probably better way of explaining what RAW image files are than I managed.

   Posted 10 years ago #
3. 

   Idunnobutiwastold
   Gaming Acolyte

   Thanks Mikiem2,

   The offer for DxO FilmPack 3 Essential Edition is valid till August 15, 2014 and the download is 277 Mb.
   A search on Google shows that the link to the giveaway page is posted on a number of blogs.
   https://www.dxo.com/intl/sony

   Apparently Sony had previously ran this promotion in 2013.
   A post on Dottech, from last year, links to the same giveaway page that is valid today.
   http://dottech.org/forums/freebies/dxo-filmpack-3-essential-edition-giveaway/

   ----- -----

   I can't afford a good negative scanner -- the good ones can be a bit rare anyways.

   When Kodak Labs still provided a scanning service, I had a few B&W negative strips digitized by one of their outlets. I remember the store was being managed by helpful and attentive employees, making the professional scanning process quick and accurate. The cost was reasonable too. To obtain the blemish-free digital copies I was after, I passed the scanned files — in this particular case — through Photoshop's "dust & scratches" filter. The filter easily removed the dust spots scattered across some of the frames.

   Earlier in the year I talked about converting 35mm negatives to digital images. [A slide scanner] didn't get me anywhere near the lowest pro standards [but] a camera can.

   Once in the 90s, I photographed some printed images for use in a slideshow. A Canon SLR, a Vivitar lens with pseudo "macro mode", a solid tripod, sunlight, and lots of patience did the trick. To my surprise, upon seeing the diapositives, a friend commented that no visible artifacts marred the end result. So, yes, I can imagine how a quality camera can be put to good use for converting 35mm negatives to a digital format.

   Posted 10 years ago #
4. 

   Whiterabbit-uk
   Games Guru

   I#d been after a good scanner for some time after my old Epson printer which had a really good negative scanner packed up.

   I ended up buying three different ones before finally settling on a cannon scanner, which gives me 9600 dpi scans.

   Thanks for the link to DxO :)

   Posted 10 years ago #
5. 

   mikiem2
   Moderator

   Thanks for posting the better url Idunnobutiwastold -- I had several pages open & somehow wound up copying/pasting the wrong one. Again, thanks.

   ---

   I can be a creature of habit, so having used scanners for years & years that's what I was used to, and the thought that there was a better way never really occurred to me. Sometimes a scanner's more convenient -- it's already connected to your PC, it probably has software that will let you capture only the parts you want, it's often part of a printer, so for copies you just press one or two buttons, it's got a fixed close focus, you don't have to worry about light etc. But scanners also never really advanced the way cameras have over the years.

   When I installed the equivalent to scanning software on my tablet I saw that the main purpose of these apps was to correct for perspective when you didn't hold the tablet or cell phone exactly parallel to the paper you were "scanning". I stuck to the flatbed on top of my AIO printer. Looking at it the same way as someone who never had my focus on scanning [& often printing] -- someone who looked at the task & didn't know from experience how it could or would be done -- I can see a camera, particularly one that's already part of their tablet or cell, making sense. And indeed, while AIO printers are extremely common on store shelves, I can't remember the last time I saw a scanner sitting next to them.

   That said, from a practical standpoint I don't see all that many people going to the trouble of worrying about having enough light or holding the camera [or device with a camera] just so, let alone setting something up to hold the camera steady -- I don't think the scanners on top of All-In-Ones are going anywhere soon. Still, using a camera instead of a scanner is Very doable.

   Ideally you need some way to hold the camera still that's also moveable, so you can move the camera back & forth to fill the frame while capturing all of whatever it is you're copying. And you may need to move the camera to better focus the lens [if it lets you adjust focus]. That could be something you make or buy, and could be as simple as a tabletop tripod for just a few dollars. I could find inexpensive copy stands you attach your camera to out of China through Ebay. Visit the site for a photography store & you find typically way overpriced contraptions. For lighting you can buy daylight bulbs [CFL or LED] on-line or at the local Home Depot or Lowes building supply stores. To hold the bulb you can use a desk lamp or a clamp-on fixture or make your own.

   Copying transparencies like 35mm negatives gets more complicated -- OTOH there's also more incentive because there are fewer if any good alternatives. You still need a daylight light source, but this time behind rather than reflecting off of whatever your shooting, and preferably through something like a sheet of translucent white plastic that diffuses the light -- otherwise your picture will show different light levels the further you get from the center of brightness. It can also help to shield the lens from any other lighting in the room. I spent a Lot of time looking for parts to make my rig because I don't have a workshop or things like a drill press, so I had to find stuff that I could adapt -- I went with a design sort of mimicking the carriage in a flat bed scanner, where I can easily slide the camera back & forth, then lock it in position. Rather than going with a light table I bought & adapted a slide copier device I bought on Amazon.

   It's a fairly simple device designed to attach to a closeup lens adapter [included -- I *think* 10 X] via a threaded metal tube. There's a carrier you insert your slides into, & the otherwise open back is covered with a square of white translucent plastic. I added a mount to attach it to my rig -- I wanted a more production rather than occasional use setup. I used a piece of PVC pipe I cut for the tube, because the original was far too long for my Micro 4/3 camera, gluing on a black velvet gift bag [with the bottom cut off] for a shroud to block incidental room light. I also bought a 35mm negative carrier that was made for a slide scanner -- to make it fit I cut off the hinge that allowed the carrier to open like a book, replacing the mechanical hinge with black duct tape [like a book's binding]. Then I just mounted a light socket to the end of my rig pointing at the rear of this slide copying device -- I use a 65 w equivalent CFL in the shape of a spot light bulb. That lets me use a smaller lens opening for more depth of field in case my focus is slightly off.

   One guy who does this [copying negatives] simply sets his DSLR on the table -- it's big enough that it will just sit there & he can slide it wherever he wants in relation to the light table he uses. My smaller [Micro 4/3] camera would fall over. You do not necessarily need a camera with interchangeable lens. I bought the camera I'm using partly because I wanted the ability to save images in the RAW format, which is what makes reversing negative images harder -- if I skip RAW & go with jpg there's loads & loads of software that will do the reversal, & more than likely a few programs would do the job as nicely as Optics Pro.

   Because there's so little info I frankly had no idea what lens I would need when I started. I knew a real macro lens would work, but I also knew there's no way I would spent $500 or more on a macro lens. I figured that it would increase the odds in my favor if I could use the old 35mm film lenses I had, especially the zoom lens with macro, which is another reason I bought the camera I did. Olympus' Pen series cameras have the image stabilization in the body rather than the lens, so assuming I'd take pictures of things other than negatives, that would be nice.

   There is info on using 35mm film camera lenses with today's cameras -- there are a lot of 35mm lenses in the world, many are in great shape, & they're usually [much] cheaper than buying modern day versions. Automatic features won't work, but people including myself did just fine in the days before things like auto focus were invented. Because the auto stuff won't work anyway, there's no need for designers to do much more than work out the math on how far the lens needs to be from the camera's sensor, and stick the appropriate mount on each end of the tube making up their lens adapter. That means you probably won't have to spend a fortune on the adapter you need.

   So, if you don't use a macro lens, what then? A cheap lens with fixed infinity focus may work. Otherwise you can use an extension tube [if you have a removable lens] or an add-on lens [which seem to be made for just about everything]. Extension tubes move the lens away from the camera, changing the way that light through the lens hits the sensor. An add-on lens fits on the end of your existing lens -- different add-on lenses are designed for close-ups, telephoto, wide angle, fisheye etc. Extension tubes can effect sharpness, but you're not effecting the lens itself. With an add-on lens you are changing the optics & that can have undesirable effects, plus you're dependent on the quality of the add-on lens itself.

   As it turned out I can use a 10x lens adapter with a couple of the 35mm lens I already had, a 28mm close focus & the standard 50mm lens -- the zoom lens I had such high hopes for is useless for negatives. I also bought a reman [demo] kit lens, the zoom lens that's bundled with the Pen series cameras when you don't buy just the body, & with the 10X adapter it works fine too. If I'm going to shoot a bunch of negatives I want good depth of field as a fail safe, but if I'm going to take macro shots of something like a flower that's often the opposite of what I'm after, & that's where the 35mm lenses with their wider aperture come in.

   At the end of the day it has been, & I'm sure will continue to be a learning experience. When I became disabled I couldn't go out & shoot rolls & rolls of film, so that end of things got shoved to the back of the closet. And since I couldn't go out shooting photos, I could hardly justify buying a nicer digital camera, so a lot of the stuff I'm encountering this year is brand new to me. I guess it's ironic that preserving the past meant embracing the new. :)

   Posted 10 years ago #
6. 

   mikiem2
   Moderator

   I ended up buying three different ones before finally settling on a cannon scanner, which gives me 9600 dpi scans.

   There's nothing wrong with that, or any good scanner IMHO.

   The difference between a scanner & a camera is that the scanner takes panoramas -- the camera takes a picture of everything it can "see".

   Because a scanner takes panoramas, part of the actual or optical resolution depends solely on the fine degree of motor control that unit has -- that's why you sometimes see separate resolution figures for horizontal & vertical. Because a scanner has a very close-up fixed focus, objects that don't fit directly on the glass of a flatbed [e.g. a negative in a holder] may not be in perfect focus, &/or the factory calibration may not be 100% accurate. You can find discussions on just that topic.

   Negative scanners may make up for at least some of that stuff [I know my Minolta has a separate focus step], and they can have a very high resolution... I don't know why my Minolta doesn't give better results, nor have I ever read an explanation of why so many negative scanners do a relatively poor job. Many negative *copiers* seem to be just a cheaper camera in a box with a preview screen that accepts their negative holder, so I assume their poor marks come because they use a cheap camera &/or optics.

   A camera uses optics to gather or focus the light on the sensor, & a combo of optics + distance to fit a larger original image onto the sensor all at once.

   Talking about consumer grade devices, the pros in the camera column *I think* should *probably* include a better sensor array, but going purely by the numbers, a scanner wins. You wind up really far out in the weeds if you start talking about the tricks manufacturers use for their ratings, and talking about effective vs. theoretical on paper, so I'll just say try both & judge for yourself if you're interested. And if you really want to get into that stuff normankoren.com might be a good place to start.

   In a nutshell there are target graphics you can use to determine how small a detail can be captured by whatever camera & lens or scanner & recorded to their respective written image files. And that's what really matters when it comes to sharpness.

   To muddy the waters a bit further, when you take a picture of a print you get the same pixel count as when you take a picture of a negative. You get the same pixel count photographing a 5 x 7 photo as a 8 x 10. A 600 dpi scan of that 5 x 7 should give you a 12.6 megapixel image, roughly the same as a 12 megapixel camera. A 600 dpi scan of a 35mm negative will net you around 1/2 a megapixel, while the camera gives you the same 12 megapixel count.

   Want to make things even muddier? :)
   What's the resolution of whatever you want to scan or photograph? Plenty of 35mm camera lenses where somewhat soft. Plenty of 35mm film was pretty grainy. Plenty of mass developed film was likely a bit off. Most prints from 35mm negatives were overly soft [vs. sharp] as well. At what point does more pixels simply mean larger files?
   Thinking about all that stuff can begin to seem practically evil. ;)

   Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.