Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Over the past few days I've been going over archives of the past five years of shooting and realized that - gee - I have been shooting about 2 200 MB drives of images a year - until this year when I've not even filled up a single 250 MB drive. ???? Then I pondered file sizes. I scan all my film at 4000 dpi (14 bit) on my Nikon LS4000. But recently I've been shooting mostly digital, and RAW format at that. Only the images I find useful are converted from RAW into PSD or TIFF files (which then are in the neighborhood of 75 MB each instead of the 16MB RAW image.) Now i know that I could do an initial scan at say 2000 dpi and then rescan the images again - but I have found that somehow I resist this - it's easy to load the roll-film adaptor on the LS4000 and then just walk away and let it run. So there are unexpected effects about shooting digital. Now, if there were just that rumored 22 MPixel Digital M - compatible .... I'd buy a few more M lenses! Adam On 8/7/05, Tina Manley <images@infoave.net> wrote: > At 09:00 AM 8/7/2005, you wrote: > >Further, "acceptable" for what? Displaying on the web, printing on > >inkjet printer, which printer and ink combination, copying to CD for > >family and friends, etc.? > > > >Ken > > I've had no problems scanning B&W film, Tri-X, TMax, and chromogenic > ones, with my Nikon LS-5000. In fact, two of my best selling photos > are black and whites scanned with the Nikon. One of them just sold > as a magazine cover for the second time and they've both sold as > gallery prints. Black and white just takes a little more work and a > lot more spotting than color since you can't use ICE with B&W negatives. > > Tina > > Tina Manley, ASMP > http://www.tinamanley.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >