scanning slides in Australia

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by kerravon, May 13, 2009.

  1. kerravon

    Mr.T Guest

    Could well be true in hindsight, BUT the OP did specify $1,000 to $2,000
    range and got replies telling him to buy a $100 - $300 scanner when he was
    clearly unhappy with his current cheap scanner. So on the basis that I
    initially assume the post is legit at least, I still don't see the point in
    offering advice that does not match the stated requirements?

    Mr.T, May 18, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. kerravon

    Pete D Guest

    How does the OP know they need a $1000-2000 scanner, they would not, they
    really need to give more info about what they must have as a finished
    product and theres the problem, they have provided answers that they know
    nothing about in their Project Definition Statement, really they failed in a
    big way. What they should have asked is "I have some slides and want to
    digitise them so that I can use the result to do XXXXXX/print 8x10, use for
    web, make posters, etc, whatever", whithout this we can only guess what they
    really need.

    Anyway See You Next Time.

    Pete D, May 18, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. kerravon

    k Guest

    | | > got to say, T is very argumentative, and falls to denigrating people at
    | > almost every turn.
    | Maybe you should research the difference between "denigrating someone" "ad
    | hominem attacks" etc. and simply disagreeing with their line of argument.
    | You will search long and hard for an instance where I have made a personal
    | attack, except in response to one.
    | However I see nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone's point of view,
    | if you do then perhaps Usenet is not the best place for you?


    you're a snide little fcker, arent you?

    did you get beaten up in school?


    like that.
    k, May 18, 2009
  4. kerravon

    Mr.T Guest

    We do not know what they don't know. You are simply making assumptions.
    Since *He* stated that price range, I can't see your reason for assuming he
    only wanted to spend $100, and that you know far better than he does what he
    should spend. Frankly when someone is unhappy with a device, I would never
    tell them to spend a similar amount on another one, what they need more
    often than not is a far better class of device entirely. People who
    continually buy a Hyundai hoping to get a Ferrari are bound to be
    disappointed IMO.
    *IF* a $100-$300 scanner was anywhere near as good as a $1000 film scanner,
    then maybe you would be right to point out his folly. Since they are NOT,
    and since he clearly stated he was unhappy with his current cheap scanner,
    then you're simply wasting everyones time as I see it.
    Yes he should have followed up with more information, and since he hasn't,
    us continuing to speculate seems rather pointless. Having used a range of
    flatbeds and proper film scanners, I stand by my previous statements
    Yep I agree, time to let this one rest.

    Mr.T, May 18, 2009
  5. kerravon

    Mr.T Guest

    You appear to be the only one making snide personal remarks. If you don't
    have anything to add ON topic, why bother with inane comments?

    Mr.T, May 18, 2009
  6. kerravon

    Pete D Guest

    LOL, so you can assume that he "knew" he should buy a $1000-$2000 scanner
    but you are allowed to do that, good for you.

    Lets not say anything else until the OP bites back in and says what he wants
    the output to be used for, that way someone can really with some clarity
    give him some real advice without pretending they know what he really needs
    to to the job.


    Pete D, May 18, 2009
  7. kerravon

    tony Guest

    Probably the real reason the OP has'nt been back is all the crap going on between the
    different posters.

    I don't think that's what they asked the question on....
    tony, May 18, 2009
  8. kerravon

    Pete D Guest

    Actually I think the main problem is that the OP has not provided some
    fairly important information and has failed to then offer that info.
    Pete D, May 18, 2009
  9. kerravon

    k Guest

    | | > you're a snide little fcker, arent you?
    | >
    | > did you get beaten up in school?
    | >
    | > see?
    | >
    | > like that.
    | You appear to be the only one making snide personal remarks. If you don't
    | have anything to add ON topic, why bother with inane comments?

    before you blow any money on hardware, try downloading Vuescan and giving it a go. It'll give you access to the
    hardware layer of the scanner rather than being forced to access it through
    the software (which can do dumb things like crop, clip curves and other
    nasty things) - Vuescan also lets you do multipass scans. yay :)

    My first attempts at driving the incredibly sharp Canon FS4000US were
    nothing short of dissapointing using Canons software, and it made all the
    Nikons of the day look really good. Once I loaded Vuescan and tried all the
    scanners again on the same images, the Canon outshone everything. Canon
    made such a dogs breakfast of the scanner software that the scanner was all
    but useless out of the box.

    If Vuescan solves the problem, but the standard version and you'll never
    look back. Being able to use the same software to drive almost any scanner
    streamlines workflow enormously - and you *may* find you have access to more
    of the film area than the Canon software gives you.

    After that, try Polaroids free 'Dust and Scratch Removal Tool' and see how
    it goes 'repairing' images. That can save a lot of time and does a very
    good job for a free product. You can still go nuts clone stamping every
    last scratch manually if you want, but after the first few weeks, you might
    find the tool will stave off insanity.

    Neatimage will clean up the rest . The free tool
    only does one image at a time, batching capabilities available with the
    commercial version - and get the standalone version not the PS plugin. No
    point having Adobe hogging your resources when you all you want to do is
    clean images, all it'll do is slow you down. Build a profile for your
    images and you can automate noise removal and sharpening. If you're lazy,
    have a look for the free to download profiles already created by users.
    Some of them are pretty good
    k, May 19, 2009
  10. kerravon

    Mr.T Guest

    I made no assumption at all, I just read what he wrote and replied

    Mr.T, May 19, 2009
  11. kerravon

    Mr.T Guest

    I first started using it about a decade ago. But thanks for the tip :)
    Vuescan will compliment a good scanner, rather than turn pebbles into pearls

    Mr.T, May 19, 2009
  12. kerravon

    Noons Guest

    k wrote,on my timestamp of 19/05/2009 2:17 PM:

    I'll second the hint for Neat Image: no way I'd consider
    scanning any film image without it included in the
    post-processing. And the batch feature works a treat to
    kick the grain out of an entire 35mm film in only a few
    minutes. Usually takes me longer to get tea done than
    to clean up 36 or so scans.

    Another I wouldn't live without is Focus Magic.
    Look it up. The best sharpening tool bar none.
    No way USM gets anywhere as good as this. Not
    in the same timeframe, anyway.
    Noons, May 20, 2009
  13. kerravon

    starbuck Guest

    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.