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

film scanners



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 10th 09, 09:18 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
David Nebenzahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,353
Default 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  
Old October 10th 09, 10:27 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Richard Fateman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default 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  
Old October 10th 09, 10:29 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Andrew Price
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 118
Default 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  
Old October 11th 09, 02:21 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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  
Old October 11th 09, 02:35 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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  
Old October 11th 09, 08:01 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Lawrence Akutagawa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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  
Old October 12th 09, 07:12 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Thor Lancelot Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default 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  
Old October 12th 09, 07:28 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
David Nebenzahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,353
Default 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  
Old October 12th 09, 10:45 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
Thor Lancelot Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default 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  
Old October 14th 09, 10:21 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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

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
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 04:33 PM
Film scanners anyone? Ted Gibson Digital Photography 15 January 8th 08 04:31 AM
Film Scanners Gel Digital Photography 20 February 21st 05 01:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 AM.


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.