If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
film scanners
On 10/10/2009 12:01 PM Rebecca Ore spake thus:
In article m, David Nebenzahl wrote: If it did work, it would make a very evenly exposed print. And you could cut masks to hold light back. I think it's high time someone tries this and reports back here. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
film scanners
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/10/2009 12:01 PM Rebecca Ore spake thus: In article m, David Nebenzahl wrote: If it did work, it would make a very evenly exposed print. And you could cut masks to hold light back. I think it's high time someone tries this and reports back here. I guess no snark gets unrewarded a good substitute for a contact printing box is a contact printing frame -- essentially a nice piece of glass hinged on one edge, to keep the paper and negative in contact(!) while being exposed under an enlarger light. The only advantage a scanner might have is edge-to-edge uniformity which might be better than an enlarger. But I'm not sure there aren't some other things going on under the cover of the scanner, like warming up filaments.. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
film scanners
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:27:49 -0700, "Lawrence Akutagawa"
wrote: [---] And I daresay your description is of digital prints and of not contact prints, as defined on the net this very day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_print http://www.answers.com/topic/contact-print http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...ontact%20print http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contact+print http://www.webster-dictionary.org/de...ontact%20print http://en.mimi.hu/photography/contact_printing.html You forgot one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant So allow me to again ask, insofar as you have not answered to the point: Most definitely not. You've been tiresome enough as it is. Off to the kill-file with you. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
film scanners
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:17:28 -0700, "Lawrence
Akutagawa" wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 07:06:36 -0700, "Lawrence Akutagawa" wrote: "laran" wrote in message ... Am looking to buy a film scanner to make contact prints mainly. Needs to be inexpensive, run on linux and also do slides to a reasonable quality. Ideas????? Now why in the world would someone be using a film scanner in the darkroom? hmmm...contact prints are created by keeping the negatives in contact, as it were, with the photo sensitive paper. How does the film scanner come into play during this process? Care to explain? October 8, 2009, from Lloyd Erlick, I think it's fair to say I've replaced my contact sheets with scans of my negatives. I call them contact sheets or contacts, but they don't exist on paper. I was always lazy about making contacts of my processed films. Years would go by before I got a look at lots of the things I did. The dread of hours of darkroom labor to make the piles of contacts I had yet to do kept me from even starting. A big part of it was that the size of the contact prevented me from really seeing what was there, even if I did make the damn things. So when I finally got a scanner with a light in the lid, I could just slap my negs down on the glass still in their expensive PrintFile plastic sleeve. A whole roll of 35 mm or 120 format could be scanned at one go, and the resulting file was big enough that each frame could be enlarged on screen (sorry, wrong lingo, they could be ZOOMED!). This way I find it very easy to judge a portrait in terms of facial expression and desired cropping of the image. These are two very important factors for me, neither of which was ever properly satisfied by a paper contact print. So I find a scanner an essential darkroom efficiency improvement tool. I can go into my darkroom knowing exactly which frame I'm going to work on (expression and overall look are settled), and very close to knowing exactly how to crop it. Much less time wasted while darkroom is standing ready. For someone like me who attempts to do business by selling people pictures of themselves (really dopey thing to do, eh??), the scanner also lets me send them very good "proofs" cost free (well, as cost free as email...). This way, with a bit of luck, the scanner again gets me a reason to go to the darkroom. I produce very few dud prints now. The scanner improves my darkroom productivity. Interesting discussion, but no explanation of how the scanner is used in the process of creating contact sheets in the darkroom...the darkroom, I do believe, is the context of this newsgroup. Alternate processes such as that forwarded by Lloyd's response here can well be discussed in other more appropriate newsgroups, such as they are. So how exactly is the scanner used in the darkroom to create those paper contact sheets? Just curious. October 11, 2009, from Lloyd Erlick, Well, call it a darkroom adjunct. I never create paper contact sheets any more. My scanner usage would not interest anyone in a scanner newsgroup. It doesn't even interest me very much. I'm only interested in making my darkroom activity more pleasant, and the scanner does help in this regard. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: ________________________________ -- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
film scanners
October 11, 2009, from Lloyd Erlick,
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 07:28:24 -0700 (PDT), Lew wrote: Totally COOL! I bought a flatbed scanner to do just this: scan entire rolls of 35/120 at a pass. Unfortunately, I interpolated in the idea that, in order to keep the negs from moving around when I lowered the top, I needed a sheet of glass. This produced what I believe are Newton lines & it became impossible to judge fine detail in the resulting digital files. I dropped the idea and went back to the dr again. (Now I have a backlog of about 40 unproofed rolls, and the ugly task of spending at least 1 boring day in the darkroom just to catch up before I can print anything.) Yes, I know just what you mean. I found this one of the worst aspects of the darkroom. My own shortcomings being highlighted and thrust in my face. At least the scanner does its thing while I am sitting down ... So you do entire rolls -through- the PrintFiles? Did you try other brands without success? Over the years my neg file has come to contain other brands of neg sleeve. The scanner works fine with all of them. Obviously the result can't be as good as one with no sleeve on the neg, and of course the plastic sleeve is capable of causing Newton rings. Both of these are minor problems, and anyway they are contacts, not finished products. What res do you use? How long does each scan take? How do you compensate for different exposure densities & dynamic ranges from frame to frame? (Of course, this problem exists for the traditional, darkroom method as well.) The files I end up with are usually in the six to twelve megabyte range for a whole roll. I usually set the scanner to 400 or 600 ppi. (Maybe that should be dpi? I don't care. It's just my DARKROOM SCANNER, and I don't care.) My enlarger is clean and aligned, and I do care. Can't wait to get home & try this out! -LS It's easy and work-reducing. That's my whole darkroom philosophy. Cheap, too. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: ________________________________ -- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
film scanners
"laran" wrote in message ... Andrew Price wrote: On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:27:49 -0700, "Lawrence Akutagawa" wrote: [---] And I daresay your description is of digital prints and of not contact prints, as defined on the net this very day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_print http://www.answers.com/topic/contact-print http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...ontact%20print http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contact+print http://www.webster-dictionary.org/de...ontact%20print http://en.mimi.hu/photography/contact_printing.html You forgot one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant LMFAO . ah yes - those of the Humpty Dumpty ilk. You know the ones - " "contact print" means what I want it to mean, not what the dictionary says it means." `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
film scanners
In article ,
Rebecca Ore wrote: In article m, David Nebenzahl wrote: If it did work, it would make a very evenly exposed print. And you could cut masks to hold light back. At which point you'd have a complicated, failure-prone replacement for a sheet of glass, a piece of rubylith, and a lightbulb. Good job! -- Thor Lancelot Simon "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
film scanners
On 10/12/2009 11:12 AM Thor Lancelot Simon spake thus:
In article , Rebecca Ore wrote: In article m, David Nebenzahl wrote: If it did work, it would make a very evenly exposed print. And you could cut masks to hold light back. At which point you'd have a complicated, failure-prone replacement for a sheet of glass, a piece of rubylith, and a lightbulb. Good job! Absotively. For contact printing, nothing beats a decent contact frame (like my homemade one) or just a piece of glass, and a single small light bulb suspended over it. Rubylith? Just use your enlarger timer; no need for masking. KISS. -- Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
film scanners
In article m,
David Nebenzahl wrote: For contact printing, nothing beats a decent contact frame (like my homemade one) or just a piece of glass, and a single small light bulb suspended over it. Rubylith? Just use your enlarger timer; no need for masking. The rubylith is for nice neat edges -- paper sizes not always lining up perfectly to the film size, of course. It also helps with newton rings sometimes -- you put it between the glass and the film, not on top of the glass. -- Thor Lancelot Simon "Even experienced UNIX users occasionally enter rm *.* at the UNIX prompt only to realize too late that they have removed the wrong segment of the directory structure." - Microsoft WSS whitepaper |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
film scanners
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:17:41 -0700 (PDT), Lew
wrote: ... so getting back to my question, do you feel that any impediment is introduced by scanning through the PrintFile material? October 14, 2009, from Lloyd Erlick, Yes, there is a definite reduction in quality of the scan. It would never do for real digital work, such as printing large, high quality prints on an inkjet. For my purposes, the degradation in image quality due to the neg sleeves is minimal and no problem to live with. Even if Newton's rings appear due to the plastic sleeve, I don't really care. The all-important factor for me is the ability to judge the facial expression of my subject, and the body language to a lesser extent. Next is the ability to change the size of the image on-screen, and the ability to play with cropping and general composition before I go to the darkroom. Newton's rings are no impediment to any of this, and they don't even appear very often. Basically, the scanner is way more competent than I need, but I'm happy to have it. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: ________________________________ -- October 11, 2009, from Lloyd Erlick, Well, call it a darkroom adjunct. I never create paper contact sheets any more. My scanner usage would not interest anyone in a scanner newsgroup. It doesn't even interest me very much. I'm only interested in making my darkroom activity more pleasant, and the scanner does help in this regard. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website:www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: ________________________________ -- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
film scanners | James[_3_] | In The Darkroom | 0 | October 8th 09 08:37 AM |
Film Scanners | Stephen[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | July 10th 09 07:56 PM |
scanners for film | wendyl | Digital Photography | 2 | February 13th 08 03:33 PM |
Film scanners anyone? | Ted Gibson | Digital Photography | 15 | January 8th 08 03:31 AM |
Film Scanners | Gel | Digital Photography | 20 | February 21st 05 12:25 AM |