Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

  1. #51
    jetcode
    Guest

    Re: West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
    <vent>
    I just think people ought to ask if someone has considered something before they jump to advise.
    </vent off>
    with all due respect telling someone that their scans are shit because they don't originate in your scanner isn't likely the best way to make new contacts

    just an observation

  2. #52
    jetcode
    Guest

    Re: West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

    Quote Originally Posted by bob carnie View Post
    Just sending out images blind to operators who will bang out your scans for cheap prices may make total sense, but I do not think this is the best method for good scans for exceptional prints.
    I guess the question then becomes is the scanner operator dictating my vision? To me the scan operators only goal is to produce quality data from an image not decide for me what the output context will be and then scan for that. An image will likely be printed to the web and potentially various print surfaces. I don't want to get a different scan for every print surface.

  3. #53
    bob carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario,
    Posts
    4,939

    Re: West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

    My experience tells me that when I am printing for Ink Jet the settings on my scanner *or better said* the image on my screen is different than the settings that I will use for a colour image that will be converted to black and white, printed on digital fibre paper in traditional chemicals, then bleach tone in chemical baths.
    I allow for some burn off at both ends of the scale that occurs in the fibre print steps.
    Therefore my screen will look flatter for the fibre or the numbers will be a greater spread between highlight with detail to shadow with detail than that of the same image that I want to print on Hannamuhle Rag with my epson.
    When I am printing a large digital cibachrome which is an extremely glossy material that will show intricate details I will defer to a larger file that we sometimes outsource to a different scanner.
    I am dictating the vision for the scanner operator, and those who are competent and willing to listen to my needs are the people I seek.
    At my shop I will not allow my assistants to press the scan button on our scanner until I have seen the image on the screen and I know which media we are printing on. This may seem anal, but its my shop and my name goes on every print that I sell , so I have a vested interest in the small details of our projects. We are a very small operation compared to some of our competitors.
    I do very little scan work for web or for small prints so my particuar requirements may not be relevant to others. But I have found this vision thing to be very critical when making scans.
    On a different side note but going back 15 years before PS and laser printers, we use to make internegs, for colour transparancies. 95% of all labs that made internegs from 35mm would project them onto 4x5 film stock , for ease of use and cleanliness factors*quick and easy*
    The best interneg lab I ever worked at did all 35mm internegs by contact. They were harder to do , harder to clean, but to a discerning eye much sharper and better clarity of tones.
    I am wondering it this small 5-10% difference is what I am talking about when making scans?
    I don't disagree about the sillyness of getting different scans for different purposes, In my world , I am only scanning for final exhibition print and I am saying that we do consider the final media before we hit the scan button.
    I am not caught up in the whole drama of who has the best gear, because each year I would be chasing a magic bullet , I believe its all in the operator and their skill in listening to the client and using equipment*tools* that they are comfortable with and have a deep understanding of the whole process.

    Quote Originally Posted by jetcode View Post
    I guess the question then becomes is the scanner operator dictating my vision? To me the scan operators only goal is to produce quality data from an image not decide for me what the output context will be and then scan for that. An image will likely be printed to the web and potentially various print surfaces. I don't want to get a different scan for every print surface.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

    Re: West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

    Quote Originally Posted by jetcode View Post
    with all due respect telling someone that their scans are shit because they don't originate in your scanner isn't likely the best way to make new contacts
    just an observation
    This is a gross mis-quoting of what I said. I think scans that are done for $8, or $20 are going to be very generic. The amount of money in the transaction doesn't allow for any care.

    I don't say everyone's else's scans are shit. I never did. However, I've been at this for a while and do have a sense of what other scanners are capable of. I've seen great scans by a lot of different drum scanners. There is a hierarchy of quality, from flatbeds to film scanners to drums, and within drums from 11 micron to 6 and 3 micron engines. Scanning on all of these can be improved with more knowledge, lots of care, glass carriers, wet mounting, better software, etc.

  5. #55
    jetcode
    Guest

    Re: West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

    Quote Originally Posted by bob carnie View Post
    My experience tells me that when I am printing for Ink Jet the settings on my scanner *or better said* the image on my screen is different than the settings that I will use for a colour image that will be converted to black and white, printed on digital fibre paper in traditional chemicals, then bleach tone in chemical baths.
    I allow for some burn off at both ends of the scale that occurs in the fibre print steps.
    Therefore my screen will look flatter for the fibre or the numbers will be a greater spread between highlight with detail to shadow with detail than that of the same image that I want to print on Hannamuhle Rag with my epson.
    When I am printing a large digital cibachrome which is an extremely glossy material that will show intricate details I will defer to a larger file that we sometimes outsource to a different scanner.
    I am dictating the vision for the scanner operator, and those who are competent and willing to listen to my needs are the people I seek.
    At my shop I will not allow my assistants to press the scan button on our scanner until I have seen the image on the screen and I know which media we are printing on. This may seem anal, but its my shop and my name goes on every print that I sell , so I have a vested interest in the small details of our projects. We are a very small operation compared to some of our competitors.
    I do very little scan work for web or for small prints so my particuar requirements may not be relevant to others. But I have found this vision thing to be very critical when making scans.
    On a different side note but going back 15 years before PS and laser printers, we use to make internegs, for colour transparancies. 95&#37; of all labs that made internegs from 35mm would project them onto 4x5 film stock , for ease of use and cleanliness factors*quick and easy*
    The best interneg lab I ever worked at did all 35mm internegs by contact. They were harder to do , harder to clean, but to a discerning eye much sharper and better clarity of tones.
    I am wondering it this small 5-10% difference is what I am talking about when making scans?
    I don't disagree about the sillyness of getting different scans for different purposes, In my world , I am only scanning for final exhibition print and I am saying that we do consider the final media before we hit the scan button.
    I am not caught up in the whole drama of who has the best gear, because each year I would be chasing a magic bullet , I believe its all in the operator and their skill in listening to the client and using equipment*tools* that they are comfortable with and have a deep understanding of the whole process.
    No one will fault you for providing the best quality possible, least your clients.

    Here is the process I use/intend to use (I have nowhere near the experience you do)

    1) Determine the desired output surfaces.

    2) Scan the film precisely as the eye sees the film, there may be some adjustments here but it would be to maximize highlight and shadow detail. If a high contrast image is difficult to scan I will scan for highlights and scan for shadows and merge the images using HDR techniques.

    3) Manipulate the image in CSx for each type of print, whether the web, paper surface, digital prepress, etc. In this respect some clients may want to profile the image to their output devices.

    By all means you are the one who will hear from the client if all is not well so I am not at all suggesting any deviation to your current process, I am merely suggesting the approach I plan on using and that may change as I gain more experience.

  6. #56
    jetcode
    Guest

    Re: West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
    This is a gross mis-quoting of what I said. I think scans that are done for $8, or $20 are going to be very generic. The amount of money in the transaction doesn't allow for any care.

    I don't say everyone's else's scans are shit. I never did. However, I've been at this for a while and do have a sense of what other scanners are capable of. I've seen great scans by a lot of different drum scanners. There is a hierarchy of quality, from flatbeds to film scanners to drums, and within drums from 11 micron to 6 and 3 micron engines. Scanning on all of these can be improved with more knowledge, lots of care, glass carriers, wet mounting, better software, etc.
    My apologies for rewording the context, the general feeling I got from the thread is the statement that your scans are superior and everything else will be inferior to some degree either by process or operation.

    "I don't have to look at a scan to know its crappy. "

    and

    "You can not compare junky scans, the likes of which you are ordering, with someone who takes care on how they operate a scanner."

    The truth is - if you don't have empirical data from a junky scan then you are shooting from the hip - you may be right, you may be wrong - that $20 scan in India may likely be a $135 scan here, who is to say, do you have empirical data from India to back your assessments? Maybe you don't need to.

    People think their Imacon and Tango scans are excellent, some people choose to get less expensive scans offshore. The reason is simple. I have a 100 scans to make but I don't want to spend $13,500 to get them made, and yes volume brings some discount.

    There will always be wars about scanner/operator capabilities but ultimately it comes down to personal choice, availability, and affordability.

  7. #57
    bob carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario,
    Posts
    4,939

    Re: West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

    Jetcode
    I see absolutely nothing wrong with your approach

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,094

    Re: West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

    Quote Originally Posted by jetcode View Post
    My apologies for rewording the context, the general feeling I got from the thread is the statement that your scans are superior and everything else will be inferior to some degree either by process or operation.
    I don't feel that way. I think my scans are great, but there are a lot of others who do great scans.
    Quote Originally Posted by jetcode View Post
    The truth is - if you don't have empirical data from a junky scan then you are shooting from the hip - you may be right, you may be wrong -Maybe you don't need to.
    Most of the folks that get scans for low $$ get a fraction of the data that myself and other top scanner operators deliver. I think that's a shame unless you will never use it for anything else other than a very small photo - certainly perfect for most commercial uses. Almost every time I have done a "short" scan and deliver only 100 megs or so they come back later and want a larger print - and they don't really want to pay for the scan a second time. There is also the issue of archiving... for future printers that may have more capabilities that we have now. I think the folks selling scans that are 30 and 60 megs are doing their customers a disservice, unless they never want to go past the limits of those sizes.

    Quote Originally Posted by jetcode View Post
    People think their Imacon and Tango scans are excellent, some people choose to get less expensive scans offshore. The reason is simple. I have a 100 scans to make but I don't want to spend $13,500 to get them made, and yes volume brings some discount.
    I don't think Imacon and Tango should be in the same sentence. Regardless, I do have some sympathy for your plight. This amount is not trivial. Personally, when I was faced with bringing my portfolio into the digital spectrum I had a similar amount it was going to cost me and I made the decision to buy my own drum scanner. That's how I got started in this circus. It isn't the right decision for everyone, however, for a whole variety of reasons.

    Still, it comes down to what you want to do with the scans. It may be that paying $8-$30 for the scans may get you a workable 13x19 print, just an an example, and that when you want to make a larger one you can budget for a larger scan. You can also go for a great scan and make a great deal with a top operator based on volume thats somewhere in the middle. (Volume may get you a bigger discount than you imagine, depending on the service and whether their scanner is running all day or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by jetcode View Post
    There will always be wars about scanner/operator capabilities but ultimately it comes down to personal choice, availability, and affordability.
    I can't disagree with this except on one point - and it's my opinion, so you can take it however you want - or dismiss it. We all do what we can to get as much info into the camera, and on to the film. Getting only a portion of what you want on the scan is getting only a portion on the neg. Because the computer needs the data to make the right print, the scan must be considered part of the capture step. How many of us have an expensive camera - or buy the more expensive film and/or developer?

  9. #59
    jetcode
    Guest

    Re: West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

    thanks lenny - joe

  10. #60

    Re: West Coast Imaging or Calypso?

    Quoting Bob;
    "My experience tells me......... have a deep understanding of the whole process."
    I love the way your post condenses : )

    Thanks for explaining how the scan decisions translate to the final print. Greatly appreciated.

    Now if I can just figure out how to get 20 years of experience in 2 years.

Similar Threads

  1. Places to purchase an 8x10 on the west coast
    By Christopher Breitenstein in forum Resources
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 25-Jul-2007, 18:59
  2. Special Pricing on Tango Scans from Calypso Imaging
    By Capocheny in forum Resources
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 15-Feb-2007, 20:25
  3. FYI: Calypso Imaging Sale
    By roteague in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 13-Jan-2007, 14:42
  4. Good Online LF Dealer on West Coast? ONLINE
    By Frank Petronio in forum Resources
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2-Sep-2006, 13:31
  5. Calypso Imaging
    By David Luttmann in forum Resources
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 17-Jul-2006, 15:14

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •