Thought you were about to say, "A guy used to post here of dodgy parts of Los Angeles, and we haven't heard from him in ages".
We'd prefer not to see pics of that!
That's nice photo Jonathan, well seen and captured (clap)Apologies for my absence on the forum of late, work is hell. Finally got round to developing a pile of B&W frame that have accumulated over many, many months. This is from Mupe Bay. Thoughts welcome as always
Mupe Bay by Jonathan Woods Photography, on Flickr
(I see the resizing has made it appear soft. Click for sharp version )
That's nice photo Jonathan, well seen and captured (clap)
JG Redline, I miss his postingsThat as well So many street scenes he posted and I don't think it has been equaled by anyone else.
This is from Mupe Bay. Thoughts welcome as always
What host ?, I can't see anything, I could have blocked it I dunno, peeps post all sorts of naff gifs and rubbish I don't want to load on other forums.Contemplating... Another oldish one from Madeira back in 2007. I need to try another scan of this one actually, the blown bit on my mate Tom's shoulder is bugging me!
What host ?, I can't see anything, I could have blocked it I dunno, peeps post all sorts of naff gifs and rubbish I don't want to load on other forums.
A couple of old ones here I've been playing about with scanning, XP2 in Berlin back in November 2007!
Paul, i'm sure you have either posted that picture or a similar frame before (probably scanned on something else) but I'll be honest, I liked it last time, but the fresh scan really does it justice... Wonderful almost Luminous quality about the colours. Just Stunning.
I thought you were introducing a "couple of old ones" and yinny was commenting on them.
I can't see them so I thought I might have blocked the host you where using, either that or I've completely lost it
I just tried to use imgur to host woodsy's pic but it wouldn't work, had to use tiny pic instead....musta blocked the thing...lol
A blurry band rehearsal! RB67, Ektar (obviously) and Screen Cezanne scan.
What dpi did you scan the neg? What would be the file size? and when you view the file what does it say in pixels e.g. in using win file manager it would say for example jpg file, 1818 X 1228
It was scanned at 2000dpi which gave a 153.57MB TIFF file with pixel dimensions of 5570 x 4796 (26.7 megapixels).
Thanks......Interesting in comparing tiff to jpg as I scanned my RB neg for jpg @ 3200dpi and it was 8074 X 6666 pixels and the file size was 24mb.
It was scanned at 2000dpi which gave a 153.57MB TIFF file with pixel dimensions of 5570 x 4796 (26.7 megapixels).
This is what terrifies me about scanning to TIFF! Multiply that by a few thousand shots and you're talking serious storage, enough to require a new laptop I think.
Otherwise it's learning how to split Aperture libraries (or whatever I end up switching to after Aperture finally dies) and use NAS drives for some of them. Not cheap!
This is what terrifies me about scanning to TIFF! Multiply that by a few thousand shots and you're talking serious storage, enough to require a new laptop I think.
Otherwise it's learning how to split Aperture libraries (or whatever I end up switching to after Aperture finally dies) and use NAS drives for some of them. Not cheap!
This is what terrifies me about scanning to TIFF! Multiply that by a few thousand shots and you're talking serious storage, enough to require a new laptop I think.
Otherwise it's learning how to split Aperture libraries (or whatever I end up switching to after Aperture finally dies) and use NAS drives for some of them. Not cheap!
...Anyway I suppose we should stop side tracking as I've noticed in other threads posts mysteriously disappear if they are nothing to do with the thread title
It was scanned at 2000dpi which gave a 153.57MB TIFF file with pixel dimensions of 5570 x 4796 (26.7 megapixels).
This is what terrifies me about scanning to TIFF! Multiply that by a few thousand shots and you're talking serious storage, enough to require a new laptop I think.
Otherwise it's learning how to split Aperture libraries (or whatever I end up switching to after Aperture finally dies) and use NAS drives for some of them. Not cheap!
To be honest, if you find that worrying, you'd better not think of getting hold of one of the newer breed of Full Frame Digital SLR's... bearing in mind the Nikon D810 shoots at a native 36.3mp (7360x4912) and if you're working with RAW files they're pretty much on a par with compressed TIFF files... And, of course, that's with something that'll shoot 5 frames per second.
To be honest, if you find that worrying, you'd better not think of getting hold of one of the newer breed of Full Frame Digital SLR's... bearing in mind the Nikon D810 shoots at a native 36.3mp (7360x4912) and if you're working with RAW files they're pretty much on a par with compressed TIFF files... And, of course, that's with something that'll shoot 5 frames per second.
Indeed! 16 bit TIFF scans of 35mm are coming out at around 45MB, RAW files from my 7D and 5D2 are around 25-28MB. Not really a huge amount of difference, and even less difference between the TIFF scans and something like a D800.
To be honest, if you find that worrying, you'd better not think of getting hold of one of the newer breed of Full Frame Digital SLR's... bearing in mind the Nikon D810 shoots at a native 36.3mp (7360x4912) and if you're working with RAW files they're pretty much on a par with compressed TIFF files... And, of course, that's with something that'll shoot 5 frames per second.