<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Carleen and Mike &#187; 2006 &#187; October &#187; 22</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.huggin.net/blog/2006/10/22/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.huggin.net/blog</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2008 02:58:59 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Scanning Pics</title>
		<link>http://www.huggin.net/blog/2006/10/22/scanning-pics/</link>
		<comments>http://www.huggin.net/blog/2006/10/22/scanning-pics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:56:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mike Huxley</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[photography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.huggin.net/blog/2006/10/22/scanning-pics/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve been slowly working on scanning our Honeymoon pics from Norway. The project was going along quite well until I opened what I have scanned in Photoshop tonight to start doing some tweaking. Everything - every one of the 40+ pics I had scanned, straight from negatives, was blurry. Remember, I have a B.F.A. in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been slowly working on scanning our Honeymoon pics from Norway. The project was going along quite well until I opened what I have scanned in Photoshop tonight to start doing some tweaking. Everything - every one of the 40+ pics I had scanned, straight from negatives, was blurry. Remember, I have a B.F.A. in Photography, and was using a Nikon camera (arguably some of the finest lenses out there). So I&#8217;m guessing my scanner is what&#8217;s turning my beautiful pics into garbage. Which isn&#8217;t surprising since it&#8217;s a 3-in-1 scanner, copier, printer. </p>
<p>I&#8217;d love to get access to a really high quality film scanner so I could get my entire portfolio saved digitally. I&#8217;d hate to buy something like that, since after I had all my old photo&#8217;s scanned it would be pretty useless. Meanwhile, I&#8217;m a bit frustrated with my new digital camera, a Canon Digital Rebel XT - but it&#8217;s only a minor frustration. It takes really sharp pictures and there&#8217;s plenty of manual control, which I absolutely demand out of a camera. My one pet peeve is 2 things that are inter-related so I&#8217;ll only count them as one: under low light it has a very hard time focusing. But I&#8217;m not talking darkness, I mean subdued light; maybe overcast skies; and the sensor does not seem to be as sensitive to light as I would like. In a room where an ISO 400 should handle the job, it&#8217;s telling me I need to use ISO 800. </p>
<p>This could be my lens - in fact, both these problems could be the lens that comes with the camera. I&#8217;m going to have to eventually invest in a straight 50mm lens. I&#8217;ve been using zoom lenses for years now on both my film camera and now the digital, and I have never been terribly happy with the quality - they tend to be a bit on the fuzzy side. </p>
<p>Anywho - click on our Flickr Badge (below, right) to see the new (old) pics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.huggin.net/blog/2006/10/22/scanning-pics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
