Question 1: I have a Kodak 3600 film scanner that I am not happy with. The software provides several profiles whereby the user enters the film type and then does a prescan. The problem is that none of the profiles come close to a usable image for slides. They are always too dark. Negatives seem to work fine. I can however, create a custom profile and work from it but it always bugs me that I can't select one of the preset ones. Kodak has not solved this. They sent me a replacement scanner, new firmware, and I've changed operating systems. Nothing helped. My question is do you have any personal knowledge of this scanner or heard from others having a similar problem?

I had a chance to work with the Kodak RFS 3600 film scanner for some time when it first came out. The overall scan quality was generally good, although sharpness seemed to be a problem. Some of the film "terms" (as Kodak refers to them) proved to be very accurate, and others didn't seem to be accurate at all. I would tend to select a generic film term from the list, and then make manual adjustments to the scan settings based on the pre-scan. I considered most of the film terms provided accurate for color, but not for tone. They generally did a very good job of reproducing accurate color and relationships between colors, but the tone wasn't always right on.

One of the things that I think is important to remember in film scanning is that it is a process of capturing information from your original. I don't worry too much about scanning to produce an image that is ready to print. Rather, my emphasis is on capturing the maximum amount of information from the original. If the scan is coming out a little dark, that is actually better than an image that is a little light, or even a perfect exposure. A darker image includes more density, and generally will contain more information, provided it isn't too dark. Losing detail in highlights is a much bigger problem than losing detail in shadows, so I would always err on the side of scanning a little bit dark.

I recommend focusing on getting the most information from your scans, and then optimizing those images in Photoshop. If you aren't getting accurate colors, and the relationships between colors aren't accurate, then I would consider creating a custom profile for your scanner using software such as Monaco EZ Color (www.monacosystems.com).

Questions 2: 1) I have a newly acquired Nikon D100 digital (and I love it!). My main question is that the camera downloads the images at 72 dpi (pixel size is 3008 x 2000) - in order to get the best prints should I be adjusting the dpi to 300? What is the best resolution to set the image to in order to obtain a really clear print? Note: I use Qimage Pro (it does take a 5x7 and interpolates to 54mb from an approximate file size of 3mb - and an 8x10 goes to 124mb).

The very best print quality will be obtained with an image file that is set to 360 dpi output resolution. Above that the printer driver will simply throw away information. Below 360 dpi and down to about 300 dpi it is difficult to see a difference without using a loupe. I consider 300 dpi to be perfectly adequate, and even 240 dpi will work with some images. However, for the best results I would recommend 360 dpi. The 72 dpi resolution (Photoshop 7.0 will read the EXIF data and use 180 dpi resolution) can be adjusted by changing the output settings for the image.

The file size of about 3MB you mentioned indicates that you are capturing images in JPEG mode. Keep in mind that this file size is reduced by compression. The actual pixel dimensions file size would be about 18MB. A file with only a single layer at 8-bit per channel to produce a 5"x7" at 360 dpi would be about 13MB, and about 30MB for an 8"x10". The files you are getting are much larger, so I would question what resolution you are using, and if you are working with hi-bit files. For composite images with many layers and a higher resolution, you could get 124MB at 8"x10", but otherwise that is a huge file for that output size. Since you are capturing in JPEG mode the image is being captured at 8-bit, so there is no advantage to changing it to 16-bit later.

2) I have the D100 set to mode II - Adobe RGB. The manual says for "prints" it is best to use sRGB mode III, but when I do that the images don't turn out as well in print. The Adobe RGB seems to match my Epson 785 EPX printer for color the best. Short of purchasing the Monaco or Colorvision (both expensive!) is it best to use the Adobe RGB or the sRGB mode when I'm going to print an image? For web use, I always convert to the sRGB mode as it seems to give it more "POP" on my monitor.

Never trust anyone who tells you to use the sRGB color space for prints! It is designed for monitor display, and a good choice for images that will be displayed on the web or in a digital slideshow. It is not a good choice for photo inkjet print output. I always recommend using Adobe RGB (1998) as the color space for editing images. This color space most closely matches the color gamut of most photo inkjet printers, and will result in less clipping of colors than the sRGB space would.

Question 3: Now that I'm strictly digital using a Canon D30, have adequate computer hardware, image management software and established a naming and organization system for my images, what files would you recommend archiving? I'm a little leery about saving only the Canon RAW format files from fear of support for the format being dropped and don't want to waste too much space saving 16 bit TIFF files in linear, non-linear or both and possibly the JPG as well for quicker viewing from the CD.

I would recommend saving the RAW capture files as a last-resort "original". However, I would most certainly not recommend saving them as your only archival copy. My recommendation would be to save the final file that has been optimized in a non-destructive way. Most photographers working in the digital darkroom edit their images with Adobe Photoshop. In that case, I would recommend saving the final Photoshop PSD file. After you have imported the RAW image, you can do basic adjustments, and then convert it to 8-bit per channel.

Use adjustment layers to optimize your image, so that you aren't changing any pixel values and you can always come back and modify your adjustments later. I recommend making a duplicate copy of your original image layer, and don't make any changes to the bottom-most "background" layer. This is your master copy with no changes made to it. If you need to use the clone stamp tool, create a new layer to "draw" the corrections on. Set the option for the clone stamp tool to "Use All Layers", but then make only the image layer and the blank edit layer visible so that no other layers will be composited into the corrections.

I generally don't recommend applying any sharpening to your "archival" image file. Instead, save the file with no sharpening applied to it. When you need to make a print, open the image, resize it, and apply sharpening. If you want to sharpen the "archival" copy of the image, be sure to retain a duplicate of the image layer that has no sharpening applied to it. By following these steps, you'll have a PSD file that contains all of your original image data and all adjustments for the image. This is an archival copy that includes a great deal of utility. The file won't be tiny, but it will be valuable if you want to modify the image in the future. For quick viewing of images, saving a small JPEG is a great idea. However, the latest release of Photoshop includes a composite thumbnail in the PSD, so that image management software can see and display that thumbnail quickly.

Question 4: I have several trips planned within the next year that will be for 3 days and longer. I am wondering what file transfer/storage methodology you recommend for such trips? I use a Canon D-60 and 2 each 512MB cards. For transferring files from the cards to my laptop, I use a card reader. I need either a digital wallet or other external drive to retrieve the files from my laptop (no CD-ROM burner,) and then transfer them to my desktop PC at home. Maxtor, the maker of my external HD does not recommend them for field use, but I will likely use it for that purpose anyway.

If you are able to bring your laptop with you on photo trips, it certainly provides a useful solution to the image storage problem. It can be a bit bulky and heavy for field work, but if you will be working from a vehicle then it should work out nicely. I wouldn't recommend the use of an external hard drive in the field, as they are not designed to withstand the elements or rigors of field use. If you are working from a vehicle or other location where the risks are minimal, it won't be a big problem.

A convenient solution for extended digital trips is a portable hard drive that can download images directly from your CompactFlash cards. There are a variety of these units available, up to a capacity of 40GB as of this writing. The MindStor unit from Minds@Work (www.mindsatwork.net) provides a simple solution for offloading your images, although it isn't the most user-friendly option. My recommendation would be either the NixVue Vista or the Delkin eFilm PicturePAD. The Delkin unit is actually produced by NixVue, so they are essentially the same device.

The NixVue and Delkin units provide a much more user-friendly interface, and the addition of an LCD screen that allows you to preview your JPEG images. If you are capturing in RAW mode this won't be of much help, but I would still recommend these units because they are much easier to use than the other options available. Keep in mind that all of these portable hard drive units are of relatively inexpensive construction, and the connectors for CompactFlash cards and other options are subject to easy damage. It is important to handle these units with great care to ensure their ongoing usefulness. However, they are no more fragile than an external hard drive the connects to your laptop, and they are much more portable.

Question 5: Could you comment on the pros and cons of using digital as compared with film? Is the resolution sufficient to do an 8x10 print of high quality?

Deciding whether to make the move to digital capture is an individual decision for each photographer. The most common concern is whether a digital camera can produce an image with quality that matches film, and how large a print can be produced. When it comes to the latest six megapixel digital SLR cameras, I feel that the quality of film can be matched up to about 16"x24". Beyond that film has a bit of an advantage, but excellent prints up to about 20"x30" or larger can be produced. The three megapixel digital SLR cameras match the quality of film up to about 8"x10", and they can still produce very good results up to about 16"x24".

So, from a quality standpoint, a six megapixel digital SLR camera can replace film for any photographer who only needs to print up to 16"x24". Even if output of up to 20"x30" is necessary, a six megapixel digital SLR can meet the needs of most photographers. However, image quality is not the only issue to be considered when deciding whether to make the move to digital capture. One of the major advantages of digital capture is the ability to instantly review your images at the time of capture. This provides an opportunity to evaluate whether you are getting the results you expected. The fact that you don't need to worry about wasting film or paying additional processing fees also provides an advantage. This freedom means photographers can feel free to experiment with different techniques and exposure settings, trying things they might not have tried if they felt they were wasting film.

Some of the negative aspects of digital capture relate to this freedom to capture more images. With so many digital files captured in the field, managing the images can be a real problem. Even if you don't capture an excessive number of images, keeping them organized requires much more effort in the digital world. Sorting images is not nearly as easy on the computer as it is with a batch of slides on a light table. Another issue that many photographers need to consider when it comes to digital capture is the acceptance of those images by stock agencies and others who may be interested in licensing your images. Many agencies are not yet willing to accept images that were captured with a digital camera, regardless of the quality of the images. There are workflow issues, as well as concerns about how large the images can be reproduced. Part of this is an efficiency problem, which will be addressed over time. Part of it is simply a matter of education. Many of those who make use of images don't understand what file size is needed, and don't appreciate how large you can actually enlarge digital captures. Photographers can improve this situation by working to educate those who are interested in using their images so they will understand what can actually be done with digital captures. It is generally much more than they realize.

So, deciding on whether digital capture is the best route depends on a balance between how large you need to be able to produce your images, and how digital will affect your workflow and the acceptance of your images. For most photographers, digital capture is totally viable, though not without its disadvantages.

Question 6: I want my scanned images to look like my slides. Are there some easy steps in Photoshop that I can learn to create the digital files that look like my slides?

This is actually something I don't generally encourage. When I am teaching photographers how to optimize their images, such as in the courses I teach at the Lepp Institute of Digital Imaging, I focus on making the image match what the photographer wants it to look like, not simply trying to match the slide. You can spend so much effort trying to make the image match the slide that it doesn't look as good as if you simply ignored the original and focused on making the image look its best.

If you do decide that you want to match the slide perfectly, there are some things you can do to help you achieve that. This is where color management becomes particularly valuable. To obtain the best results requires you to implement several color management components. The first is to calibrate your monitor so that you are getting an accurate and consistent display of the image you are working on. This can be done with a variety of tools, such as the Monitor Spyder sensor and PhotoCal software package available from Color Vision.

The next step isn't mandatory, but is very helpful if you would like to match the original slide. That step is to calibrate your film scanner. Many film scanners don't support custom profiles, but you can still assign a custom profile to an image after you have opened it in your image editing software. This will help ensure that the scanned image matches the original as closely as possible, and in particular that the relationship between colors is maintained. Once you have the image in your image editing software, you'll want to edit it very carefully to obtain the best results. Again, at this point my focus would be on making the image look perfect on the monitor, rather than trying to match the original. If you want to match the original, use a lightbox that is calibrated to the industry standard 5000K color temperature, and view the image with a loupe. Compare the monitor display to the image, and fine-tune the tone and color to match.

Once the image on the (calibrated) monitor looks perfect, you can print the file using the appropriate printer profile. A custom profile for your printer can help ensure the most accurate output. By calibrating both the monitor and printer, what you see can truly be what you get. So, monitor calibration and the printer profile are important to getting a print to match what you see on the monitor. If you are trying to match the original slide, a scanner profile can help you get started with the most accurate match. Once the image is scanned, careful adjustment of brightness and contrast (through levels and possibly curves), color balance and hue/saturation (to adjust color saturation) will help get a match.

Question 7: I recently purchased an Epson 1280 printer, which I love. What advantages will the new Epson 2200 give me? I have heard that the color rendition on the 2200 is lacking. Is this true?

The Epson Stylus Photo 1280 printer is indeed an excellent printer, producing photo-realistic results. Using Epson's advanced dye-based inks, prints will last anywhere from 8 to 27 years, depending on the print media used. The Epson Stylus Photo 2200 uses Epson's new UltraChrome inks, which are pigment-based. That means they are less susceptible to fading, and prints will last longer. The UltraChrome inks are rated to last between 44 and 80 years, depending on media.

Pigment-based inks have traditionally - by their nature - not had as wide a color gamut as dye-based inks. That means the range of colors that can be produced on a pigment-based printer will be narrower, and the colors won't be as vibrant. The UltraChrome inks have made a major step toward matching the output of dye-based inks. Prints made on the Stylus Photo 2200 are still not as vibrant as those produced on the Stylus Photo 1280, but they are rather close. They are still slightly flat in comparison, and not quite as vibrant, but they are close.

Choosing to upgrade to the 2200 involves a slight compromise on the vibrancy of color in your output. The benefit is an increase in longevity for your prints. The UltraChrome inks used in the 2200 offer a good balance between color vibrancy and print life. If you are producing prints that will be sold or otherwise on long-term display, I would strongly recommend using pigment-based inks. The UltraChrome provide the longevity of pigment-based inks with a color gamut that comes close to matching dye-based inks. Note that the longevity ratings for both types of inks mentioned here are based on specific display conditions. It assumes a print displayed behind glass, at a temperature of 75F with a relative humidity of 65%. Lighting is assumed to be 450 lux for 12 hours per day.

Question 8: What is the expected life of a digital SLR camera? Will I be using it 15 years from now, assuming good care?

I've gotten to know a lot of photographers, and all of them are interested in having the latest and greatest tools. In the digital world, that means upgrading their equipment very frequently! When a film camera is updated, the improvements are generally relatively minor compared to previous models of film cameras. Once you have a film camera that meets your needs, there usually isn't a vital need to replace it until something goes wrong with it.

With digital cameras, we're still climbing a steep curve of development, particularly with sensor technology. Resolution and overall image quality is continuing to improve. The latest 6 megapixel digital SLR cameras essentially match the quality of film up to about 16"x24" print sizes. Future cameras will provide even larger output to match film. At some point for each photographer there will be a digital SLR camera that meets all of their needs for image quality and output size. For many photographers we're already at that point. Once you've found a digital SLR that will meet your needs, it becomes an issue of how long that particular camera will last.

Digital SLR cameras for the most part have the same fit and finish as their related film cameras. They are generally manufactured to high standards of good materials. However, digital SLR cameras have more parts compared to a film camera to provide the digital features. More parts means more chances for something to fail. Therefore, I would expect the life of a digital camera to be shorter than a film camera.

If you can resist the urge to upgrade your digital SLR camera, and you take very good care of it, I think it can have a chance at lasting fifteen years. However, based on the somewhat delicate nature of the digital components in the camera, I think fifteen years is being a bit too optimistic. I would expect that for most photographers the maximum life of a digital SLR camera would be somewhere around ten years. For many it will be less. And of course, there will always be photographers who replace their digital SLR each time an upgraded model is available.

Question 9: I have read that shooting the eclipse of the sun ruined a digital camera. Is this myth or can direct sun damage the sensors?

As far as I'm concerned this is myth. I have photographed directly into the sun with no problems at all. I also know of photographers who have photographed fireworks - which are even brighter when viewed at short range - and they have indicated no problems. I have also talked to technical managers at both Canon and Nikon, and they have both indicated that photographing bright light sources, including the sun, is not harmful to the sensor in the camera. So, I would continue to exercise caution with your eyes when photographing the sun or other bright light source, but I wouldn't worry too much about your digital camera.

Question 10: When choosing a camera, what should I look for in the auto focus system for shooting habitat shots? Do 35mm film cameras focus faster than digital cameras of today?

The basic aspects to consider with an auto focus system are performance and flexibility. The performance comes from both focus speed and low-light performance. The flexibility comes from the number of focus points available. Auto focus performance can be an important aspect of a camera for many photographers. If you photograph fast-moving subjects such as sports, birds, or certain wildlife, you want the camera to be able to focus on a subject quickly. Digital cameras focus slower than film cameras, although the latest digital SLR cameras have improved and reduced the advantage of a film camera in that regard. Low-light performance has followed similar trends, with the latest digital SLR cameras often matching film cameras in this area, but with older digitals performing poorly.

The number of focus points in the camera can be a factor in the value of an auto focus system. In this regard, film and digital cameras are on even footing. Digital and film cameras are available with single focus points up to 45 focus points, with most having three or five. For photography that doesn't require super-quick auto focus performance, a digital camera is generally more than adequate. For fast-moving subjects such as sports or bird photography, many digital cameras may not perform fast enough to please all photographers.

Editor's Comment: Let us know what you think! Please email the Editor to let us know your thoughts. Tim Grey works with George Lepp at Lepp and Associates. Tim is the Editor of The Digital Image, determining content and writing articles on many topics related to digital imaging. He co-authors articles for Outdoor Photographer and PC Photo magazines with George. He assists with developing curricula and workbooks for the courses at the Lepp Institute of Digital Imaging, among other writings. Tim is the lead instructor for the "Initial Digital" and "Intermediate Digital" courses at the Lepp Institute of Digital Imaging. Tim also writes the DDQ: Digital Darkroom Questions, an almost-daily e-mail answering questions related to the digital darkroom.