Jump to content

Chuck Nacke

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

750 Forum reputation = excellent


About Chuck Nacke

  • Rank
    The original one

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Boston, MA, USA
  • Interests
    Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad....


  • Alamy URL
  • Images
  • Joined Alamy
    21 Mar 2005

Recent Profile Visitors

6,300 profile views
  1. Michael, This has become an interesting discussion. I did have problems with the FS 4000's, I have two just in case one goes down, In the old days I did not use the USB connection, USB 2.0, I used a 16bit Adaptec PCMCIA adapter. I also never use FARE (Canon's version for Auto retouching). My experience has been that the CanoScan FS 4000 used the way I am using it, is sharper than the Nikon version and that is against the Nikon 9000. Another important note: I have found that the best 35mm emulsion to scan from is the old Kodak EPP, I would put Kodak's PKL and PKR right behind EPP. I have not done much B & W, but that is why I have been spending so much time with the scanner, I have a stack of really exclusive Tri-X that I would like to scan and get back out into the market. Using modern ViewScan also makes a huge difference over the old Canon software. I am still trying to master ViewScan. Concerning your image: 2A8872A, On my calibrated 24' Dell Ultra Sharp monitor, I don't care for how your highlights look, just my opinion. I think scans look better or as I would say more "Film Like" using a dedicated film scanner. For everyone else: Flatbed scanners do not cut it, in my opinion. Chuck
  2. Michael, Ha, I am a proud "Luddite" I find what works and do my best to keep it working. On the NIKON V.S. CANON scanners it is a long and funny story, NIKON screwed up when I ordered the LS 4000 and I needed a scanner and all I could get right away was the CanonScan FS 4000 and I've been using it ever since, going back to the days of mailing a CD to London. I have tied photographing 35mm chromes with DSLR's and have not been happy with the results. I assume that Image ID: DGRM9C was done by photographing a film original? I know it is a lot of work to do things the way I am doing them, but I am using what I have and getting results that I and the people licensing my images are happy with. FYI, I have done extensive testing between the NIKON scanners (up to 9000) and the CANON's and working the way I work I prefer the results from the CanoScan FS 4000. Also the current versions of LR and PS save me hours finishing TIFF's. One more note that I have been dealing with: I am finding that images uploaded to Alamy do not always display properly? I only work in aRGB color space.
  3. I would disagree with most of what has been written on this thread based on my own experience. I bought several set ups, Bowens, Stands, NIKKOR's and Schneider enlarging optics. Using NIKON D800's I was never able to come close to the results I get from my CanoScan FS4000, scanning 35mm chromes. Phil's image: M92EE4 would not be acceptable to me. Take a look at my image: - Image ID: 2ANRDF9 That was scanned from a FUJI RDP 35mm chrome using my FS4000. Since the software from Canon is no longer supported or updated I am now using Viewscan Professional and I think using a real 35mm film scanner to be far better than duping film with a DSLR. I also know photographers who have or are using the outrageously expensive Flextight scanners and while the final quality is better the money and time spent preparing the slides and output scans are too much. Feel the need to add that I only scan unmounted slides or negatives. I carefully clean the film with PEC-12, only scan one image at a time and I do not use any auto retouching. I output all scans as 16bit TIFF's in aRGB color then I do all correcting and spotting by hand. Currently using this system and putting the output scans into Lightroom (color correction) and Photoshop (dust spotting) before downsizing to 5000 by in 8bit in aRGB color JPEG's for upload. This process takes me between four to 20 hours per image, which includes all the background research for captions and keywords, but many of the scans I have done this way are licensed over and over. As an old and dear friend of mine use to say, "Speed, Quality, Cost, choose any two of the three." Out of the Seven licenses Alamy has made for me in Jan 20, four have been scans from film. Chuck
  4. Sad day for me and in my opinion a sad day for professional photographers around the world. The Photo District News (PDN) has announced that it will cease it's print publication. I started reading the NEW YORK PHOTO DISTRICT NEWS in 1980, latter it became PDN on glossy stock, when it was a half-tab on newsprint and I was renting a photo studio on the Seattle waterfront for $200.00 a month, a long time ago. Chuck
  5. Edo, Loved the final versions of the PKL (Kodakchrome 200) in the 1980's and 90's had a lab in San Francisco that I could have it processed and mounted in two hours, unless there was a major earthquake. I actually had two rolls in the machine during the 89 quake... As Per M's the 2's had a better bright frame viewfinder than the 3 and the Canadian produced Elmarit 28 f2.8 was overpriced junk. My $200 28 f2.8 AF NIKKOR beat it in a bench test.... Chuck
  6. Edo, No it is just a side bar snap I took while I was outside smoking a cig while working at a hospital in the area. Image ID: 2A8R80R It was just an image that I always loved. Shot with an old Leica M2 and a Canadian 28 f2.8 (hated that lens) on Kodachrome 200 (I was beta testing K-200 for Kodak) Chuck
  7. It takes a lot to shock and offend me, but this is it. BAD BAD! On the lighter side, in the 90's the first Sushi restaurant in Moscow had a banner over the entrance that said "Fresh Fish, Flown in Weekly." Do understand that I am not making light of a very very serious act or post of beyond bad taste and offense. It also takes a lot to make me use an exclamation mark. Chuck P.S. don't know what this has to do with "Visual Literacy?"
  8. Edo, Buck Up.. I have an image that I shot on assignment for a magazine in the Ukraine (Chernobyl related) in 1990. I was not used in the 12 page story, it has been with several of the major agencies over the years and never was licensed, but I scanned it again in December 19 and Alamy licensed it. That is why I save all chromes with the caption bags, all scanned 16bit TIFF's and all uploaded photos. The day will come for all exceptional images... Chuck
  9. Harsh, but in my opinion: You people really don't get it..... While I did not like the way Alamy cropped the image and I don't like images posted without the caption information, it is an important image in 2020 and I support Alamy promoting "Photojournalism." I did take a look at Guy Corbishley's work and was impressed. How many of you looked at the image full frame and looked at Corbishley's work? It is work like this that keeps me contributing to Alamy, it is threads like this that makes me question if Alamy is the right place for my work. Chuck Nacke
  10. Wim, Did not intend to be rude. I was just trying to point out a company, Manfrotto, that I had a bad experience with. I should also add that when I was using Canon DSLRs (film days), Canon's customer support was wonderful. Have not had to contact Peilican in years, but they are the best. One of my king Pelicans has flown over 1,000,000 miles on both the old Aeroflot (Soviet Union) and most of the new "baby folts."
  11. Wim, You evidently you did not read what I wrote? a problem with the forum... I said my Gitzo was guaranteed for a "lifetime and one reincarnation" and Manfrotto wanted to charge me $300.00 for repair, I had not died once at that time. I do have direct experience with Leica, Hasselblad still no RR, but Leica and Hassy have always been great, Nikon has been OK and yes I did buy the Gitzo new and I would never buy an Aluminium tripod.... I have four king Pelican equipment cases that were guaranteed for "life" and every time during the last 25 years that one has broken, they have sent me a new case without question. Can I make it any more clear? Chuck
  12. Over the years I've had two Gitzo's, one over priced set of legs is now a "monopod." It was guaranteed for a "lifetime and one reincarnation" and when one leg broke Manfrotto, who took over Gitzo's U.S. distribution wanted $300.00 to replace the leg.... I will never purchase a new Manfrotto product. The old Gitzo's can be had for a reasonable price, but without the Lifetime and one reincarnation guarantee... True Story.... Chuck
  13. Thanks RR, Sorry to have to ask, but how did you do that? Thanks, Chuck
  14. Not happy with licenses that I am seeing. Image ID: A6HD8G Fees below "sewer level." One of four so far this month for Web use. Ah Hexx, can not figure out how to paste the image? Chuck
  15. Edo, Just read your 'Moving On' blog and enjoyed it tremendously. Your really should start doing a Blog again, count me in to read it. Chuck
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.