Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2015 · Arches NP

  
 
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Arches NP


This one is special at least for me. I will explain later. For now, are there any obvious flaws or opportunities for improvement?







Jan 08, 2015 at 11:56 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Arches NP


Maybe you could mine a little more from the darkest shadows. Maybe some very slight noise reduction in the sky. But both would be nits.


Jan 09, 2015 at 12:14 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Arches NP


Yes shadow recovery came to mind, I did not notice the noise. The colors seem a bit subdued for Arches. Speaking of the red rock, everything else seems fine.


Jan 09, 2015 at 08:29 AM
FarmerJohn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Arches NP


Other nits - little bit of halo at the top left of the pillar?
Something seems off about the tree sharpening... but that is likely just the web sizing...



Jan 09, 2015 at 08:34 AM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Arches NP


I'm curious as to your connection with the shot - as an outsider it seems like a nice snapshot.

Like others said, but push the shadows some but otherwise I don't have much to add in terms of improvements.

I do dig the lighting on the rock face.

Cheers,

Jeff



Jan 09, 2015 at 09:34 AM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Arches NP


The first image had virtually no processing. The image was basically SOOS -- that is, straight out of scanner. I took this photo 31 years ago with a Minolta STR101 and Kodachrome 35mm slide film.

I just bought a Epson V600 scanner and am digitizing my slide collection. I quickly found that there is only so much resolution in the old slides. I am scanning at 800 dpi and producing files of approximately 3000 x 4800 pixels. The level of resolution does not justify scanning at higher resolution. As noted, even at 800 dpi, the grain is evident.

Post processing enhancements really do not work well with these small jpeg files. I suppose I would have a bit more latitude if I saved as Tiff but in addition to the limited resolution, my photos are basically vacation snapshots exhibiting minimal skills as a photographer.

I am posting an attempt at post processing. I was able to pull a little more detail out of the shadows and I blurred some of the graininess in the sky.







Jan 09, 2015 at 10:31 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Arches NP


Thats a very interesting story Jim and I would have never known. Your slides hold up much better than mine do. I don't have a single slide worth scanning other than family stuff.


Jan 09, 2015 at 10:46 AM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Arches NP


Jim,

I'd pull back on bringing up the shadows on the rock face - I think the SOOS shot had more drama with how the shadows were.

The foreground is definitely improved, though.

Cheers,

Jeff



Jan 09, 2015 at 10:50 AM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Arches NP


ben egbert wrote:
Thats a very interesting story Jim and I would have never known. Your slides hold up much better than mine do. I don't have a single slide worth scanning other than family stuff.


Don't count on it. The slides themselves have held up well, but the quality of my photography was poor. Most of the slides are 50% blue sky. There are virtually no golden hours shots. Most are midday with harsh shadows.

I am scanning my entire collection without attempting any preview or culling. I only have about 1000 slides. Most were taken a few rolls/year during summer vacations. I got the scanner a couple of days ago and have already finished about 600 slides, scanning 4 at a time with the template. The prints are an entirely different issues. My wife shot almost all of the family photos. There are many thousands of them in archival storage boxes. We will need to be very selective.



Jan 09, 2015 at 11:36 AM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Arches NP


beavens wrote:
Jim,

I'd pull back on bringing up the shadows on the rock face - I think the SOOS shot had more drama with how the shadows were.

The foreground is definitely improved, though.

Cheers,

Jeff


I am old fashioned in my tastes. I have seen so many old film images that I like the higher contrast and have little interest in pulling details from the shadows. I agree that the shadows add some drama. The details are usually of little interest.



Jan 09, 2015 at 11:41 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Arches NP


Camperjim wrote:
Don't count on it. The slides themselves have held up well, but the quality of my photography was poor. Most of the slides are 50% blue sky. There are virtually no golden hours shots. Most are midday with harsh shadows.

I am scanning my entire collection without attempting any preview or culling. I only have about 1000 slides. Most were taken a few rolls/year during summer vacations. I got the scanner a couple of days ago and have already finished about 600 slides, scanning 4 at a time with the template. The prints are an entirely different issues. My wife
...Show more

Aside from the fact that most of my slides are out of focus, I never embraced the dark shadows. They look much better projected, but were a waste of time to print.



Jan 09, 2015 at 12:29 PM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Arches NP


Camperjim wrote:
I am scanning my entire collection without attempting any preview or culling. I only have about 1000 slides. Most were taken a few rolls/year during summer vacations. I got the scanner a couple of days ago and have already finished about 600 slides, scanning 4 at a time with the template. The prints are an entirely different issues. My wife shot almost all of the family photos. There are many thousands of them in archival storage boxes. We will need to be very selective.


Are you prepping the slides before scanning with canned air or a microfiber cloth?

When I scanned slides from my dad's collection I would have issues with dusts or other particles showing up from the scan.

He's got a ton more trays that he's gonna go through so I figured I'd pick your brain as to how you've got your workflow set up.

Jeff


Edited on Jan 09, 2015 at 02:43 PM · View previous versions



Jan 09, 2015 at 01:34 PM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Arches NP


The scanner plate needs to be spotless. I periodically use a disposable eyeglass cleaner wipe. I got a 6-pack of canned dust off from Costco for about $12. I give both sides of each slide a heavy blast from distance of an inch or so. You will still see some occasional dirt and fibers. A couple of times I have gotten a sizeable dark speck. Watch your results that is usually a speck on the scanner plate. BTW, I have used about 1.5 cans of air so far for close to 700 slides.


Jan 09, 2015 at 01:59 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Arches NP


Very interesting Jim.

+1 @ the uncanny timing for each of us. I'm of the opinion that a dedicated slide scanner might perform better than the flatbed for slides. I forget what the resolutions were for the Nikon or Minolta scanners, but I'm also wondering how the diff @ illumination method impacts the outcome of the scan, noting your comment @ seeing the grain already 800.

As I mention in the other thread, my volume of "best scan" worthy slides is probably in the 20-50 range depending on my culling mood at any given time. I probably don't have but about 10 or so protector sheets (12 per) of old chromes.



Jan 09, 2015 at 02:16 PM
beavens
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Arches NP


Camperjim wrote:
The scanner plate needs to be spotless. I periodically use a disposable eyeglass cleaner wipe. I got a 6-pack of canned dust off from Costco for about $12. I give both sides of each slide a heavy blast from distance of an inch or so. You will still see some occasional dirt and fibers. A couple of times I have gotten a sizeable dark speck. Watch your results that is usually a speck on the scanner plate. BTW, I have used about 1.5 cans of air so far for close to 700 slides.


Cheers, Jim.



Jan 09, 2015 at 02:43 PM
Camperjim
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Arches NP


RustyBug wrote:
Very interesting Jim.

+1 @ the uncanny timing for each of us. I'm of the opinion that a dedicated slide scanner might perform better than the flatbed for slides. I forget what the resolutions were for the Nikon or Minolta scanners, but I'm also wondering how the diff @ illumination method impacts the outcome of the scan, noting your comment @ seeing the grain already 800.

As I mention in the other thread, my volume of "best scan" worthy slides is probably in the 20-50 range depending on my culling mood at any given time. I probably don't have but about
...Show more

The V600 is setup to scan slides with transmitted instead of reflected light. You would not want to buy a dedicated scanner for just a few slides. I was pricing Scan Café but they have a minimum of 500 slides for about $150.



Jan 09, 2015 at 03:03 PM
AuntiPode
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Arches NP


Actually, as a scan from a flatbed scanner of a Kodachrome slide, the posted image is actually quite good.


Jan 09, 2015 at 04:00 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Arches NP


+1 @ Karen ^


Jan 09, 2015 at 04:24 PM





FM Forums | Photo Critique | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.