I'll be (im)patiently waiting for those images, and of course I know also what you mean with "not enough time". Same goes for me many times when I am at some interesting place and I think that taking the camera with be will be enough for getting many shots. Especially when the reason for being there is not really for photo shooting. That's why I try to also have some visits here and there just for photography, but it is hard to arrange that with all the other things one has to do. (Sigh!)
About scanning, my mistake was not the small scanning size. Actually, back in those times I would rather scan the biggest size and resolution I could have with my gear. Also not necessarily the best but as I didn't have any experience and knowledge I though that "more" would be always better. My mistake was to naively believe that there was indeed that kind of "magical digital automatism" built-in into my scanner, that always did the best possible thing as the prospects never failed to trumpet so high. So they just told me "Nick this is a great scan" and if they say so it must be so. Just imagine, I really thought that a maximum of pixels is the exclusive guaranty for great scans. Completely naive... It has been a strange time in the same kind of "happiness" of the pre-constructed paradise of those who don't question the availability and also necessity of the vorbidden apple. ;-) Oh well.. nice that I had the opportunity to go though that too.
After that of course I started getting more and more involved into tweaks and settings and considerations about the scan. Parallel to that I also started ordering CDs rather than prints and my store dis (and still does) a pretty good job at very affordable prices. So, while quality was getting better I seem to have forgotten about all the other bad scans I already have done, and now I sit in front of a mount of such scans after such a long time, that I only remember just my general "procedure" back in those times. Only examining some of them closely could perhaps say what went wrong - and this is also one of the most important reasons for me to post them, namely to ask you guys what went wrong with them.
Long explanation but size was was not (probably not the only) the reason. I must have messed many other things too. I think I'll have to get that old scanner out of its box and try again just for taking a more exact look of what it really does.
Again, thank you very much indeed for all the help, Andre!
Hi Nick, I know when I first started scanning my prints, negatives and slides, I made the mistake of making them too small a file size, in the iterest of speed. (big mistake) In any case, now that I have a faster computer, I can start all over again. I did get a few images from the Boston area, but not as many as I would have liked. (not enough time) Mostly from the Cambridge area. My oldest son is doing some assistant teaching down there for another semester. I drove him down with his supplies. Andre
Sigh! On my Mac it is exactly the opposite, Andre. At 100% the zig-tag is just strating to be visible. At 150% it is very strongly visible. What is going in here? Perhaps... Did you activate the system-wide softening of upsized images? (I think there is such a system control in windows.)
Anyway, I must have had problems with scanning here, in addition to the problems of exposure. This is another one of a very old series. I received the prints (10x15cm) and scanned them with my old Agfa (Easy Scan or something). I scanned always with auto-settings on, and so it seems to me that the problematic exposure together with the problematic scan was the best way to get bad results.
I guess I'll have to rescan the whole series. Thanks a lot for the supporting input, Andre! Yours and Ian's help clarified many things in my mind.
Cheers!
Nick
P.S.: *Of course* you will take many nice shots in Boston. Don't dare come back without them! ;-)
Hi Nick, ON this one you can detect the zig-zag effect at 100%. When I look at it at 150% the zig-zag effect goes away. So, that could be a sizing problem. It is a little better than the other one I commented on, but, I think you might still have a scanning problem. Are you scanning the negative or the print? If the print, how big is the print? PS I'm going to Boston early tomorrow morning, so I will talk to you later. Maybe I'll get some nice shots in Boston:) Andre
I don't know, Ian. I have the impression that the top part still reflects extremely while the sculptured sides are more or less OK. That stome seems to be ideal for problems, I guess.
0 
