<lew1...@gmail.com> 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.
Richard Fateman wrote: > David Nebenzahl wrote: >> On 10/10/2009 12:01 PM Rebecca Ore spake thus:
>>> In article <4ad0c73a$0$11293$82264...@news.adtechcomputers.com>, >>> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> 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..
scanners are by design evenly lit throughout the scan surface....
> 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.
In article <macogoense-F7B199.15012410102...@x-134-84-202-74.pres.umn.edu>, Rebecca Ore <macogoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <4ad0c73a$0$11293$82264...@news.adtechcomputers.com>, > David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> 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 t...@rek.tjls.com "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
On 10/12/2009 11:12 AM Thor Lancelot Simon spake thus:
> In article <macogoense-F7B199.15012410102...@x-134-84-202-74.pres.umn.edu>, > Rebecca Ore <macogoe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <4ad0c73a$0$11293$82264...@news.adtechcomputers.com>, >> David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> 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
In article <4ad374a3$0$11293$82264...@news.adtechcomputers.com>, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> 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 t...@rek.tjls.com "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
<lew1...@gmail.com> 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.
>> 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.
|
