P3D slides and slide scanners

[Bob Shotsberger <bshots1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Several others and Michael wrote....

>Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 16:10:20 -0800
>From: michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)
>To: photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: P3D Re: slides require viewers

>>       Several thousand times as many as are shooting stereo prints of
>> all kinds combined!

>In 3D-land this may be true, but taking all film photography together, I
s>uspect chromes are in the vast minority.

IMO, People are not shooting slides because of the "hassle" of using viewers
and setting up projectors to see their pictures, - I've been shooting "flat"
slides since 1955 and for the last 20 ~ 30 years everyone has asked me why
am I still shooting slides "with all that hassle?" Another part of this is
the fact that most of them know you can get a print from a slide but do not
want to take the extra time to get the print made. As for me I haven't had
many slides made into prints over the years either - though there are many I
should have done.

>>       If people aren't shooting slides, why is slide film still
>> available in nearly supermarket?  

>Sadly, I've noticed some places that used to have one slide film (within
>the last couple years) now have none.  Even some tourist sites that I've gone
>to have had a selection of print films but NO slide film at all! ....   

Here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area only BIG camera stores still carry any
assortment of slide film, while the drug stores, grocery stores and the few
tourist traps I go to do not have any slide film at all or if they do it's
only one choice, not any range of speeds or exposures on a roll. 

>On a more positive front, it could be my imagination, but it seems
>like slide scanners are becoming much more popular than they used to
>and that more and more brands are coming out (and prices dropping).

>My knee-jerk reaction is that the slide-scanner activity is driven by
>digital cameras.  That is, being able to digitize film (negatives
>as well as chromes) is an alternative to having a digital camera to
>produce digital images.  As well as incrementally exploiting R&D already
>spent on flatbed scanners.

>Anybody else notice this and/or have an idea what the makers are thinking?

>Mike K.

- - - - 
First I need to let you know the limit and the scope of what I am writing
about in these paragraphs, and it is "Consumer Digital Photography", that is
digital cameras, scanners and printers which are around or under $750.00
range. And as I have not yet seen the output from any of the new "Megapixel"
digital cameras my comments are not about them. I am not writing about the
Nikon, Cannon or Minota SLR type digital cameras, nor the Leaf studio
digital cameras only those digital cameras, scanners and printers intended
for "home" use.
- - - -

I certainly don't know what the makers of slide/negative scanners are
thinking but from where I see it the main reason slide/negative scanners are
becoming popular is not because of digital cameras, but rather because
consumer digital cameras are the weak link in consumer digital photography.
The consumer digital cameras can and do produce good pictures for use on the
Web and for "slide shows" on a monitor/computer, and for small prints, those
under 4" x 5"s, but the printed output even with a good printer and good
photo quality paper is lacking when compared to a "cheap" conventional
camera and it's print. 

But few of us can afford the $5,000.00 and up - UP prices for our hobby that
the prodfessional cameras cost (and so far I have not seen any stereo ones
at any price range). But the digital cameras in the consumer price range do
not have good resolution in a printout that low priced conventional film
consumer cameras have in a "one hour" a  print. 

But with the HP Photo Smart and/or other maker's scanners a you can get a
digital output from film (slide/negative) that rivals the conventional
camera's prints. 

And current consumer ink jet printers can output photo quality prints when
you are using good inks on photo quality paper and it's at a reasonable
price (IMO).

So with a good consumer slide/negative scanner and good printer with photo
quality paper you can get a print from your slide or negative that equals a
conventional camera and film output. And you get to manipulate the final
print the way you want it. 

By early this year, 1998, that was the conclusion I reached and I put my
money into a Photo Smart Scanner and Printer. Then I sat down and taught
myself to use it with these results:

When I use my local 4 hour slide processor (drop off in morning on way to
work and pick up after work) I can have my prints from slides that evening,
which is usually the day after I took them and in my case it is allowing me
to go back to my 1955 slides and newer to get prints which I couldn't do
back in 1955, 4" x 6"s to 8" x 10"s.

Using the HP Photosmart I have scanned both ends of a realist slide, then
combined the two scans using Photoshop, cropped it as I wanted it and
finally printed it out as 3 1/2" x 7" stereocard all the time seeing on my
monitor what I was getting and printing it only when it was what I wanted.
It also works the same way when using 2x2 35m/m slides. 

>From "flat" slides and negatives I have printed 8" x 10"s that are
impossible to tell from a conventional film and paper prints. My friends,
some of whom are serious photo hobbyists and semi-professional photographers
have needed to look at the back be sure it wasn't printed on "Kodak" paper.

Like I wrote earlier in this note, since 1955 I have been enjoying "flat"
photography and since 1985, 3-D photography. During all that time I just
could not justify the expense of installing a darkroom with a color enlarger
and then take the time to process and print photos. I have done many hours
of darkroom work in a friends place and a hobbyshop and know what it takes
to make a good color print there. But now with only the additional expense
of the HP Slide/negative scanner and HP Photo Smart printer I have a
darkroom in a box(es) that can do more than a "real" darkroom can do, can do
it in much less time, never touch or mix chemicals and do not have worry
about light leaks.

A good article about using digital cameras, scanners and printers for home
photography was printed in the US News and World Report issue of May 4,
1998, page 71 and following.


Bob Shotsberger   



------------------------------

End of PHOTO-3D Digest 3111
***************************