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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Advice sought on scanning b/w negatives
rafe b wrote:
Tried this on a 4990 and results were awful. Bottom line: not enough light reflecting off the white background. And I wouldn't screw a higher watt bulb into a $400 scanner. The 4990 must not be designed for use as a reflecting scanner. How could a printed sheet for copy differ so much as a negative against a snow white reflective back-up. And I don't buy that "the light must pass twice through" argument. Absorbed twice I'd think more likely correct. After all what is a B&W print? It is a silvered emulsion against a white background. A quick shop last night leads me to believe that a white backer mat is likely standard; at least on the inexpensive AIO units. Some of them score well in PC Mag. reviews. Dan |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Advice sought on scanning b/w negatives
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Advice sought on scanning b/w negatives
wrote in message oups.com... And I wouldn't screw a higher watt bulb into a $400 scanner. The 4990 must not be designed for use as a reflecting scanner. You have no idea what you're talking about, but I really don't care. I bought it to scan LF (4x5) film, and that's really all I care about. I'm not going to waste my time "proving" you wrong, because you're obviously smarter than me or Epson's engineering staff. How could a printed sheet for copy differ so much as a negative against a snow white reflective back-up. Because the intensity of the reflected light is nowhere near strong enough to penetrate a normal (much less a dense) BW negative - not just once, but twice. What other conclusion can you draw from the results I posted? A quick shop last night leads me to believe that a white backer mat is likely standard; at least on the inexpensive AIO units. Umm, Dan, I've done what I can to give you some hints. If it were so easy and simple to scan film with a simple flatbed scanner, why would folks spend big bucks on film scanners? You're free to ignore my hints and do what you like, of course. If you think a cheap MFP will work better, have at it. Let us know how it works out. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Advice sought on scanning b/w negatives
wrote
And I wouldn't screw a higher watt bulb into a $400 scanner. I just cannot imagine what the hell you are talking about. You can't change the bulb in a scanner like that, and you cannot scan a negative on a flatbed scanner with any good results without a toplight. I'm afraid I have to put you into the bitbucket of crazies unless you can SHOW us what you are talking about! Incredible claims require incredible proof. Nutz stuff. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Advice sought on scanning b/w negatives
rafe b wrote:
If it were so easy and simple to scan film with a simple flatbed scanner, why would folks spend big bucks on film scanners? 4800 x 9600 resolution and 48 bit depth. That's enough right there to start the saliva flowing. Not to overlook the obvious: some need the quality and multitude of features. Dan |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Advice sought on scanning b/w negatives
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:15:45 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote: How can you not "buy" that? That's exactly what happens. It's obvious and needs no explanation. And what hadn't occured to me -- till I thought about it -- is that the illumination from the scanner is *attenuated* twice. As opposed to the light from a proper TPA, which passes through the film once. So... two reasons for the poor result. First, the two passes through the film, and second, a large loss in having to reflect off the white backing on scanner lid. FWIW: I repeated the experiment on a Lexmark X6170 MFP, and results were much the same. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Advice sought on scanning b/w negatives
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Advice sought on scanning b/w negatives
David Nebenzahl wrote:
spake thus: rafe b wrote: Bottom line: not enough light reflecting off the white background. The 4990 must not be designed for use as a reflecting scanner. How could a printed sheet for copy differ so much as a negative against a snow white reflective back-up. And I don't buy that "the light must pass twice through" argument. How can you not "buy" that? That's exactly what happens. It's obvious and needs no explanation. So far as prints go, they work exactly the same way. If you could somehow strip the emulsion off a print and view it by transmission, it would be a hell of a lot thinner and less contrasty than attached to the substrate. "So far as prints go, they work exactly the same way". That's what I thought. See my above previous post. I do make some allowance for fb + f and I'd think Max D. Perhaps the 4990 is not a reflection scanner. I don't recall a word of it's capability as one. I'd give it more of a study if I were interested at this time in such a high end product. Did you take a look at the scans rafe posted? As for "the light must pass ..." I think it just as correct to say "the light must not pass ..." Of course we expect near none to near all the light incident upon the subject be reflected. Dan |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Advice sought on scanning b/w negatives
rafe b wrote:
Tried this on a 4990 and results were awful. Here are two strips of BW 35 mm scanned as reflective material: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/bw/trix_flatb.jpg Here are the same two strips scanned as transparencies: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/bw/trix_transp.jpg These are both straight off the scanner with no manipulations in Photoshop other than scaling and conversion to JPG. Bottom line: not enough light reflecting off the white background. rafe b Are you sure they are "awful" ? That is a Max D 4 machine. Even at double density a good Max D 3 should do for many negatives. BTW, those white backers I looked at were every bit as white and bright as any baryta I've seen. Dan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
scanning negatives - resolution | freightcar | Digital Photography | 2 | November 14th 05 08:10 PM |
Pricing advice sought | glassofwhine | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | June 27th 05 02:25 AM |
Camera advice sought 5-7 mpx | Steve | Digital Photography | 0 | April 12th 05 10:56 PM |
Are scratches on negatives normal? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 16 | December 19th 04 08:05 AM |
What densities at which zones? | ~BitPump | Large Format Photography Equipment | 24 | August 13th 04 04:15 AM |