|
|
| Photographer |
John Rusinko {K:401}
|
| Project |
N/A
|
Camera Model |
Nikon FG
|
| Categories |
Landscape
Deep Blue
|
Film Format |
|
| Portfolio |
Hawii 2004
|
Lens |
50mm
|
| Uploaded |
12/28/2004 |
Film / Memory Type |
Fuji Velvia
|
| |
|
ISO / Film Speed |
100 |
| Views |
460 |
Shutter |
|
| Favorites |
0
|
Aperture |
f/ |
| Critiques |
7 |
Rating |
Pending
/ 1 Ratings
|
| Location |
City -
State - HAWAII
Country - United States
|
| About |
Using a new scanner and not sure if I have the settings right. Not looking for a critique of the photo, but of the quality of the scan. I scanned the slide at 3200dpi, then cropped and resized in photoshop to get under the 150k limit for posting, Let me know what you think, Thanks, John
Ok you can comment on the photo as well
|
|
Random Pictures By:
John
Rusinko
|
|
There are 7 Comments in 1 Pages
1
|
|
|
Warren Brown
{K:7472} 12/29/2004
|
First, the photo: the composition is great, the shoreline running up to the left draws the eye into the frame, I feel, and the detail of the rock in the foreground helps add a little something.
Next the scan; I've found that if you intend to post on-line, scanning at anything over 200dpi is probably a bit much. If you're putting examples of your work on-line for all to see, then by all means go higher. For printing, I start at 400dpi.
To me, there seems to be a little bit of something in the image itself, just above the palm trees, that shows up in the sky area. Is this from the scanner?
I don't mean to offend, I don't claim to be an expert.
|
|
|
|
|
John Rusinko
{K:401} 12/29/2004
|
Thanks Warren,
Yes I think there is something on the slide, maybe dust or a fingerprint, I'll have to look. When I scanned it it was 4:30 in the morning, and was getting reasdy for work. Also in the extream top right corner there is a little bit of the slide mount still visable, I should have cropper just a little more to block it out.
Thanks for the comment!
John
|
|
|
|
|
Kim Culbert
{K:36791} 1/7/2005
|
To me, this looks a lot sharper than previous posts so I think that whatever you did worked better.
Warren is right about scanning for the web that probably anything over 200 is really not needed, but I also remember how frustrating it was to scan the image for the web, post it, and then someone wanted a copy and I had to re-scan, re-touch to make it look EXACTLY like the way it was posted, and the save it again. I would save yourself the time and hassle and scan it at a high DPI to start with, do all your re-touching, save a hi-res copy of it, and then re-size for Usefilm. This way if you ever want to make digital prints you have a hi-res copy ready.
|
|
|
|
|
John Rusinko
{K:401} 1/8/2005
|
Kim,
The Sunset in the GrandCanyon was scanned on a cheap flatbed while the ocean scene was scanned on a flim scanner, Minolta Dual Scan IV. I noticed the same thing with the blown highlights in the water. I have a few more Waterfall shots that I will post in a day or 2. I think they were a little better.
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Bull
{K:2094} 1/9/2005
|
nice shot, makes me want to go there.
|
|
|
|
|
Bernie Dertinger
{K:15} 2/8/2005
|
excellent picture butin my opinion, the shadows lack depth, the blues are too saturated and the greens too dark. The source neg almost certainly has everything needed to allow a perfect scan. On my Nikon 5000 I would increase the digital Dee to provide more details in the shadows, probably play with adjusting lightness, chroma and hue and if needed adjust the colors in gamut gain. It's time consuming but multiple scans adjusting one variable at a time will get you there.
Bernie
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Lloyd
{K:9917} 3/16/2005
|
lovely capture well done yeah just a little dark but you can allways turn up the light in your photo shot after you have scaned it and it dont matter how big you scan it you can change all that in your photo shop to make it smaller so you can post it.
|
|
|
|
