[stevebrot]

Colour negs tend to be all over the place in terms of colour balance. Even scanning software with specific film profiles won't always work due to off-spec development and fading during storage. Unlike slides you cant use the original as a baseline for judging accuracy. You often just have to wing it.

This point is often lost on people who have never done old school color printing in the darkroom. Accuracy is not an easy thing to accomplish. Our scanners provide a much higher level of ease and automation toward that goal, but we are still dependent on properly calibrated monitors, quality algorithms, and good hardware to capture as much data as possible towards replication of the photographer's original intent with a minimum of artifact. Once the TIFF is written, it is what it is. Anything more is "fake" data.


Steve

[wombat2go]

As far as I know ( because I am using unbroken linux and GPL) the following formats, many originally proprietary,
are now GPL in public domain.
.jpg, .pdf, .dng, .png, .tif, .odt, .doc, ... .xls, .ods, ... .xml, .docx, .xlsx

Until about 2 years ago, most audio and video files were not available on pure linux except for a few of the open ones like ogg.
However that has changed, for example i can now watch movies made on my Pentax K-01 ( .mov?) on linux without downloading drivers/codecs
from the owners.

Also ImageMagik can handle proprietary formats eg the old Pentax .pef

[AtitG]

i agree that the negatives are best for archiving. scanners are getting better, though not necessarily cheaper. I recently scanned some images taken 27 yrs ago with an epson v600 and they still look fine. they do really keep well with minimal hassle.

[LesDMess]

My idea is to discard negs after the files are successfuly archived, but not many on this forum will agree with that!

Kodak experimented with some kiosks back when that would process the film enough to be scanned and provide you with their Kodak disc of images and your film was discarded. Since I never heard any more about it, I assume they have abandoned that idea.

Of course you may want to review the scans first before discarding your film. Case in point is the example below of a scan from a Noritsu and my Nikon Coolscan of the same frame of Kodak Gold 100 - although you wouldn't think so from the results. Both fully automatic scans with no pre or post adjustments of any kind except for combining the scans and adding text.



No doubt color/contrast is a personal matter so perhaps the Noritsu version maybe considered the better result of the two . . .

[wombat2go]

Kodak experimented

Hi Les, Back in mid 1990's I used the Kodak Photo CD service.
It was quite costly to have the photos scanned, and a player was required.
I still have the CDs and they can be read by linux. I have also converted the approx 250 of .pcd files to tif. using bash script.

about 1997 I spoke to the photo shop who did the processing and was told that there was very liitle uptake and it was to be discontinued ( at least in Australia)

Here is one of Mindle Beach Darwin (maybe posted before) with probably Ricoh KR_10 and SMC Pentax 1:2 50mm
https://app.box.com/s/1ebtylmzmswsl69kdm7pwabbazaj48od

[LesDMess]

That Mindle Beach Darwin photo may have been underexposed a few stops which would have made it a tough scan - depending on the film used. I also had a few Photo CDs from when I was first started scanning and I was happy with the color/contrast results. Having already scanned over 40K frames of films on my Coolscans, I can only wish they never discontinued it because unfortunately it still is the optimal product to use.

[stevebrot]

Kodak experimented with some kiosks back when that would process the film enough to be scanned and provide you with their Kodak disc of images and your film was discarded. Since I never heard any more about it, I assume they have abandoned that idea.

Kodak no longer does that, but film taken to Target and Walgreens results in the negatives being discarded.


Steve

[wombat2go]

Having already scanned over 40K frames of films on my Coolscans

Yikes.
I think you are elected as the oracle on scanning.

[LesDMess]

Kodak no longer does that, but film taken to Target and Walgreens results in the negatives being discarded.
Steve

I am fortunate to have local competent C41-E6 film processing!

---------- Post added 07-30-17 at 02:40 PM ----------

Yikes.
I think you are elected as the oracle on scanning.

I can't stop using film! In fact, I am trying to figure a way to take film shots using my drone . . .

[LSI_Horn]

This point is often lost on people who have never done old school color printing in the darkroom. Accuracy is not an easy thing to accomplish.

Steve

Absolutely. Not to forget the various ideas of what is to be considered accurate. Some prefer specific film profiles to get as close as possible to a "neutral" picture. Others use no specific film profile to keep the specific traits and qualities of their particular film. If you compared both versions of one picture, the two images would look completely different - though both are legitimate interpretations of the film material. In this regard, accuracy really depends on what you're looking for...

I can't stop using film! In fact, I am trying to figure a way to take film shots using my drone . . .

Great Idea ! Made my day :-)

[LesDMess]

Great Idea ! Made my day :-)

Unfortunately the Pentax MX maybe a little too heavy for my Phantom P4. It was able to hold it up initially but began to violently sway side to side.



Guess I need a bigger drone . . .

[photoptimist]

Unfortunately the Pentax MX maybe a little too heavy for my Phantom P4. It was able to hold it up initially but began to violently sway side to side.



Guess I need a bigger drone . . .

The violent swaying was almost certainly due to suspending the camera on string and the unstable interactions between the pendulum effect and the drone's control logic.

A three or four-string rig that holds the camera in place might enable stable flight.

[LesDMess]

The violent swaying was almost certainly due to suspending the camera on string and the unstable interactions between the pendulum effect and the drone's control logic.

A three or four-string rig that holds the camera in place might enable stable flight.

The drone weighs 1380g while the MX with lens will be well over 650g so balance is definitely critical!

[photoptimist]

The drone weighs 1380g while the MX with lens will be well over 650g so balance is definitely critical!

Indeed!

Perhaps two pieces of string could attach to the camera's left & right strap lugs to the drone's left and right landing struts forward of the center of gravity whilst two other pieces of string run from left and right struts in the rear and tie to a 1/4-20 bolt in the tripod socket under the camera. That four-point suspension mount would hold the camera under the center of gravity, keep camera from swinging, and tilt the camera down for a pleasing angle of view onto the horizon and ground.

Then you just need to cock the camera, set it on self-timer, hit the shutter button, and lift off straight up!

[LesDMess]

Just saw the same drone carry a full bottle of beer. I don't know how much that bottle weighs but that looks promising ->

You Tube

You Tube

---------- Post added 08-01-17 at 09:30 PM ----------

Then you just need to cock the camera, set it on self-timer, hit the shutter button, and lift off straight up!

That is my intended starting point!