Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / December 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Working with MF scans

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Mark Liddell - 25 Dec 2004 01:21 GMT
Maybe this should have been posted in a digital forum but I know a lot
of you guys scan your film. Just got some of my first scans back, for
one shots I exposed one frame for the forground and one for the sky
(there as an 8 stop range). The resulting file size with these two
images (scanned @4000dpi 16bit) plus layer mask was 1.2Gb!

How on earth do you guys deal with these huge file sizes!? So far I've
resized eveything smaller to work out the edits I'll need to doing PS,
and then do them on the full size image. Do you just resize for the
print size and then do your work in PS?

The quality from 6x7 is amazing compared with 35mm though! I'm finally
producing images of the kind of quality I'm after. Also loving the low
prices on MF gear due to digital :-)
Bill Hilton - 25 Dec 2004 01:54 GMT
>From: ml1002@soton.ac.uk  (Mark Liddell)

>The resulting file size with these two
>images (scanned @4000dpi 16bit) plus layer mask was 1.2Gb!
>
>How on earth do you guys deal with these huge file sizes!?

It's slow with a high res scan in 16 bit mode, what I'd do is just what you did
until you've merged the two files with the layer masks, save a copy of that and
then save an 8 bit copy, which will cut the file size in half.  16 bits is
great if you have to make a lot of radical adjustments but once you've done the
main tonal and color corrections it's a good idea to move to 8 bits for files
this large.

>So far I've
>resized eveything smaller to work out the edits I'll need to doing PS,
>and then do them on the full size image. Do you just resize for the
>print size and then do your work in PS?

Just bite the bullet and do what needs to be done even though it's slow.  If
you resize too small you're tossing away a lot of the advantages of medium
format.

You didn't say what kind of system you have ... my computers are a bit old now,
2.5 GHz P 4's, but I have 1.5 GB of RAM on one and 2 GB RAM on the other, set
the memory allocation much higher than the default 50% (I think 84% or so,
limiting my ability to open other large memory hog programs while PS is running
but speeding up PS), keep my (fast) hard drives defragged, set the history
state to a small number in Photoshop, 'purge all' in Photoshop often, and don't
open the File Browser when working on a big file ... my largest files are about
550 MB base (6x7 scans at 4,000 dpi in 16 bit mode) and with a couple of
adjustment layers it makes for large slow files, but with that much RAM it's
not TOO bad.

>The quality from 6x7 is amazing compared with 35mm though!

Yeah it's worth it, I'm printing some 16x22's tonight on my Epson 4000 and it's
nice to be able to do everything yourself.  Keep at it ...

Bill
David J. Littleboy - 25 Dec 2004 02:35 GMT
> Maybe this should have been posted in a digital forum but I know a lot
> of you guys scan your film. Just got some of my first scans back, for
> one shots I exposed one frame for the forground and one for the sky
> (there as an 8 stop range). The resulting file size with these two
> images (scanned @4000dpi 16bit) plus layer mask was 1.2Gb!

Yup. Enormous is the operative term.

> How on earth do you guys deal with these huge file sizes!? So far I've
> resized eveything smaller to work out the edits I'll need to doing PS,
> and then do them on the full size image. Do you just resize for the
> print size and then do your work in PS?

I take a middle road: I resize to 2400 dpi and work there. (This is my rant
that film really only supports up to 8x enlargements anyway, so 2400 dpi is
adequate. Not everyone agrees with this<g>.)

You need to keep your file size down to less than 1/2 of the physical memory
you have in your PC/Mac, since when you perform an operation, you need
memory space for both the original and the result. You need to set Photoshop
up to only save one item in its history. Of course, that means that you can
only back out the most recent operation.

> The quality from 6x7 is amazing compared with 35mm though! I'm finally
> producing images of the kind of quality I'm after. Also loving the low
> prices on MF gear due to digital :-)

Grumble: hurry up and tell that to people selling Mamiya 7s. Sigh.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
jjs - 25 Dec 2004 02:53 GMT
>[...]
> How on earth do you guys deal with these huge file sizes!? So far I've
> resized eveything smaller to work out the edits I'll need to doing PS,
> and then do them on the full size image. Do you just resize for the
> print size and then do your work in PS?

Photoshop Version 8 (CS) handles files of any size, any pixel dimension.
Look under the 'Large Document Format'.  Of course it helps to have 1.8gb
RAM, but it is not neccessary. I suffered through the edit of a 2.5gb file
with only 640mb RAM once. Slow, but it worked.
Ivan - 25 Dec 2004 04:21 GMT
> Maybe this should have been posted in a digital forum but I know a lot
> of you guys scan your film. Just got some of my first scans back, for
~~SNIP~~
> The quality from 6x7 is amazing compared with 35mm though! I'm finally
> producing images of the kind of quality I'm after. Also loving the low
> prices on MF gear due to digital :-)

Don't forget to show us some samples of your work.
Ivan
rafe bustin - 26 Dec 2004 22:18 GMT
>Maybe this should have been posted in a digital forum but I know a lot
>of you guys scan your film. Just got some of my first scans back, for
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>producing images of the kind of quality I'm after. Also loving the low
>prices on MF gear due to digital :-)

If your scanner driver gives you reasonable
control and you can reasonably perform most
of of your color corrections in the scanner
driver, then you can use 8-bit color with
impunity.

But to do this you must use those eight bits
wisely.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Idolize55 - 27 Dec 2004 07:58 GMT
Am I on crack or something?  LOL I scan my 6x7 film at about 300-350dpi for
prints that are about 8x10....and my file sizes are never over 40mb. The
quality is fantastic as far as digital prints go (I use an Epson photo stylus
2200). I couldn't imagine working with a file that was over a gigabyte. Or is
it just because everyone else is making poster-sized prints and I only print on
8.5x11 paper? :(
rafe bustin - 27 Dec 2004 12:56 GMT
>Am I on crack or something?  LOL I scan my 6x7 film at about 300-350dpi for
>prints that are about 8x10....and my file sizes are never over 40mb. The
>quality is fantastic as far as digital prints go (I use an Epson photo stylus
>2200). I couldn't imagine working with a file that was over a gigabyte. Or is
>it just because everyone else is making poster-sized prints and I only print on
>8.5x11 paper? :(

Most good film scanners are up around 4000 dpi
these days.  That new Epson (4870) produces 4800
dpi files.  Apply that to 6x7 cm or even 35 mm
and you'll end up with a lot more than 40mb,
and that's with 8-bit color.

I do question the need (in all cases) for 16 bit
color, but that's just me.

Yes, some of us make bigger prints than 8x10".

Scanning is rather time consuming and tedious,
so I'd just as soon get what I can off the film
in one go.  Memory and disk space are cheap.

rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Idolize55 - 28 Dec 2004 01:29 GMT
>Most good film scanners are up around 4000 dpi
>these days.  That new Epson (4870) produces 4800
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>rafe b.
>http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Oops, sorry....when I said I used an Epson 2200 I was referring to the printer,
not the scanner (but you probably knew that.) I use a Polaroid SprintScan 120,
which I believe is now called a Microtek something-or-other. Unfortunately, at
the moment, I'm not too sure what my scanner's highest scan resolution is.
Bill Hilton - 28 Dec 2004 02:28 GMT
>From: idolize55@aol.com  (Idolize55)

>I use a Polaroid SprintScan 120,
>which I believe is now called a Microtek something-or-other.
>Unfortunately, at the moment, I'm not too sure what my
>scanner's highest scan resolution is.  

4,000 dpi ...
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.