EoinC Posted July 11, 2016 Share #21 Posted July 11, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Three more alternatives are: 1) Use a hosting service, such as Flickr, and copy and paste the BB Code in your posts to this forum. 2) Use the "File / Save for web and other devices" function in PS [Option + Shift + Command + S on a Mac] to downsize. This is good for general fast and simple re-sizing. 3) Create a multi-step Action in PS, such as Alex Nail's http://www.alexnail.com/blog/tutorials/resize-and-sharpen-for-web/ . These are helpful with very large files, such as stitched panoramas. If you're working in PS, and using Layers, such as Invert, choose the Layers / Flatten Layers option before saving your image for posting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 Hi EoinC, Take a look here Plustek 8100i - Am I expecting too much? . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mahakalaka Posted July 12, 2016 Author Share #22 Posted July 12, 2016 Thanks Gary, I appreceate your help! I'm actually doing just this, and I've read every artical on the web about the subject, but it's still not working for me. In the past this has worked, but that was on a different computer, so I'm missing something with my settings. Even if I set the quality to max, the photos look very pixelated and are much larger (as in wider and taller) than the pixel amount I entered. If I press the minus button when viewing the photograph in finder, it looks fine when small enough, at about the size I'm aiming for. So I think my problem is that my computer is for some reason expanding the photograph instead of showing it in it's proper, smaller size. Cheers, Max Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahakalaka Posted July 12, 2016 Author Share #23 Posted July 12, 2016 Thanks EoinC! I have a Flickr account and like it very much, just because it is so easy to use! But I don't want to upload these photos to my account though. If I upload them as private, there is no BBcode option. Again, I must have some weird setting on my computer, because I have followed all of these different paths ver carefully in both Lightroom and Photoshop, with the exact same results. Again, thank you everyone, but this is no big deal. The solution is, that I will simply have to shoot some more interesting stuff, that I would like to upload to Flickr and share with you from there later on. The photos I've scanned so far using my Plustek look nice quality and color wise, but are not particularly interesting as photographs. Many thanks, Max Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sia Posted July 12, 2016 Share #24 Posted July 12, 2016 My problem is the aera on the sky taken from this photo. How can I optimise the render of this area? Thanks Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/261847-plustek-8100i-am-i-expecting-too-much/?do=findComment&comment=3077574'>More sharing options...
EoinC Posted July 12, 2016 Share #25 Posted July 12, 2016 Is that a crop, or the full photo? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sia Posted July 14, 2016 Share #26 Posted July 14, 2016 It is a crop Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Poole Posted July 14, 2016 Share #27 Posted July 14, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm very new to developing and scanning my own film but here is a shot taken on tri-x on my Olympus 35-sp developed (my first ever attempt) in tetanol and scanned using my Plustek 8200i. Lone horse 35sp tri-x400 by Robert Michael Poole, on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Poole Posted July 14, 2016 Share #28 Posted July 14, 2016 If you look at a Salgado image taken from tri-x you can see similar rendering in the sky. e.g. http://odlp-staging1.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2014/01/Sebastiao_Salgado_WORKERS_Greater_Burhan_Oil_Field_Kuwait_1991_3.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted July 14, 2016 Share #29 Posted July 14, 2016 It is a crop The next question, Sia, is what do you see on the negative using a loupe? You may be at the natural limit of contrast and structure available in the original frame. You can probably get a bit more out of it through processing in LR / PS / SFex etc, but it's very easy (at least for me) to be on a hiding to nowhere with that. Can you please show the full image? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sia Posted July 15, 2016 Share #30 Posted July 15, 2016 I couldnt set the size of the jpeg file to the limit allowed here. Here is where you can see the original picture https://www.dropbox.com/s/4z1cdvg5ktd63iz/11-film.jpg?dl=0 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted July 15, 2016 Share #31 Posted July 15, 2016 Thanks EoinC! I have a Flickr account and like it very much, just because it is so easy to use! But I don't want to upload these photos to my account though. If I upload them as private, there is no BBcode option. Max As Flickr accounts are free could you not set up another account for those shots, make them public, then later just delete the account? Known as a burner account. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Poole Posted July 15, 2016 Share #32 Posted July 15, 2016 If you use accountname+1@whatever.com the emails will go to your original email account but sites will see it as a new account. Saves you setting up multiple email accounts. You can continue with +2 +3 etc Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahakalaka Posted July 16, 2016 Author Share #33 Posted July 16, 2016 Thanks, but all I wanted to do was just share a few fairly boring photos, just for the sake of me being happy that I've managed to get the Plustek working. I, and most definitely all of you, can live without me posting them here. I'll post something more interesting eventually. Thanks though, Max Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmans Posted July 16, 2016 Share #34 Posted July 16, 2016 I have a Plustek 8100 and love it....I do use the software Silverfast that came with it, but use it sparingly. Depending on what i want to get from the image, I improve upon the 35 negative in Silverfast but mostly my processing is with the photo software that is for my Mac. But if you scan at 3600 DPI, you should be fine. jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted July 17, 2016 Share #35 Posted July 17, 2016 I couldnt set the size of the jpeg file to the limit allowed here. Here is where you can see the original picture https://www.dropbox.com/s/4z1cdvg5ktd63iz/11-film.jpg?dl=0 Thanks, Sia.I like the shot. I'm guessing that there isn't a lot more sky detail to pick up in that area. How does the negative look under a loupe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sia Posted July 19, 2016 Share #36 Posted July 19, 2016 Thanks Eoinc What do you mean exactely? A magnifier or software loupe? The negative looks good I mean there are some details that can be brought up on the sky but it works bad when digitalized. I'm going to my darkroom today so I'll try to get it right and see the difference. The thing is that I will not be able to correct a scratch on the negative when printed on a silver gelatin paper.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted July 19, 2016 Share #37 Posted July 19, 2016 Thanks Eoinc What do you mean exactely? A magnifier or software loupe? The negative looks good I mean there are some details that can be brought up on the sky but it works bad when digitalized. I'm going to my darkroom today so I'll try to get it right and see the difference. The thing is that I will not be able to correct a scratch on the negative when printed on a silver gelatin paper.... Hi, Sia. I was meaning a physical magnifier, looking at the negative in the are where you're having trouble. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sia Posted July 21, 2016 Share #38 Posted July 21, 2016 Eoinc, the sky area and the face of the guy holding the phone are problematic for me. On the magnifier, I dont see anything wrong. Actually the film isn't that much contrasty. I have dicovered High Pass filter that can be of help rather than sharpening one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted August 14, 2016 Share #39 Posted August 14, 2016 I don't do bad with the old 7500 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted August 14, 2016 Share #40 Posted August 14, 2016 Colour with the 7500 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.