A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Advice sought on scanning b/w negatives



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #22  
Old February 28th 06, 11:59 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #24  
Old March 1st 06, 12:46 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 1st 06, 01:45 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 1st 06, 01:48 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 1st 06, 02:34 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #29  
Old March 1st 06, 12:23 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 1st 06, 01:13 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.large-format
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
scanning negatives - resolution freightcar Digital Photography 2 November 14th 05 09:10 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 09:05 AM
What densities at which zones? ~BitPump Large Format Photography Equipment 24 August 13th 04 04:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.