film scanners
laran
to be inexpensive, run on linux and also do slides to a reasonable
quality. Ideas?????
thanks
Laran
James
"laran" <ArtP...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:nhdzm.22416$kC....@newsfe11.iad...
Canon 8800F, 5600F or 700F
James
Lawrence Akutagawa
"laran" <ArtP...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nhdzm.22416$kC....@newsfe11.iad...
> 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?????
>
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?
Peter
wrote:
> "laran" <ArtPis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Some have argued that the film scanners and computer printers are so
good that they can do as well as wet processes (at producing contact
prints). They also offer some unique abilities for spotting and
corrections.
On the other hand, the materials for scanning and printing seem to me
even more expensive than for high quality wet processes. The scanning
& printing actually seems to take longer. I suppose some just don't
like to get their hands wet.
For large projection prints, the situation changes a little. The
enlarger and the wet processes for very big prints require a lot of
space and can be somewhat expensive; whereas if you can scan and make
up a digital file, it is possible to send out to have the finished
print made.
darkroommike
Digital proof sheets ( a little more correct terminology) are quite
the thing with some labs now. The one advantage is that you can make
"enlarged" ganged proofs and individually correct each image for
exposure, contrast, and color (and yes you can "tone" black and white
proofs as well). Ideal would be a scanner that wil scan strips of
negatives but do not know which units will run under linux. I have a
Coolscan III using with windows but supposedly Vuescan and Sane will
operate it under Linux.
Llo...@the-wiredot.com
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.
regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email: port...@heylloyd.com
________________________________
--
Lawrence Akutagawa
<Llo...@the-wiredot.com> wrote in message
news:139sc51jt1385bvhl...@4ax.com...
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.
David Nebenzahl
> <Llo...@the-wiredot.com> wrote in message
> news:139sc51jt1385bvhl...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 07:06:36 -0700, "Lawrence
>> Akutagawa" <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "laran" <ArtP...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:nhdzm.22416$kC....@newsfe11.iad...
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
Methinks you're being a bit overly pendantic here. If the OP were to say
that they wanted to use a film scanner as part of their darkroom
*workflow*, that would be fine by me.
By the way, Lloyd: why do you write messages with such short lines?
Makes your posts unnecessarily long.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
laran
laran
(thumbnails in a sequential order) so I can choose which ones go to the
darkroom.....
laran
And forgive me for talking non-darkroom in a darkroom newsgroup:
hopefully Ilford, God of Chemistry won't try to fix me....
Lawrence Akutagawa
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4ace3ab2$0$11299$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
in or out of the darkroom. Not digital prints, mind you - contact prints.
You know, the kind of prints made with the negative flush against that
photosensitive paper. That, I do believe, is the definition of contact
prints, is it not? After all, OP did not say he wanted to use a film
scanner to create digital prints, did he? And OP did not say he wanted to
use a film scanner as part of his darkroom "workflow," did he? The use of a
film scanner as part of the darkroom "workflow" was - I thought - rather
well covered by Lloyd's explanation. But Lloyd's explanation did not
address at all the creation of these contact prints using a scanner.
Perhaps you can elucidate. I'm all ears.
David Nebenzahl
> OK...maybe you can explain how one uses a scanner to make contact prints -
> in or out of the darkroom. Not digital prints, mind you - contact prints.
Well, as someone else explained up yonder, it's a matter of terminology.
Would you settle for "contact sheet" instead? This is something that's
generally understood to mean "a sheet of thumbnail prints of a roll of
film". It's true that in the Old Days(tm), such sheets were always made
by putting film in contact with photo paper and exposing it.
Works for me, anyhow, and I'm usually a fairly crusty strict
constructionist, as others around here can attest.
Lawrence Akutagawa
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
"contact prints." Remember the old dictum - "Say what you mean and mean
what you say?"
Besides which, contact prints come in a multitude of different image sizes,
each defined by the size of the respective negative. Indeed, many of Edward
Weston's images were no greater than 4x5 contact prints. These are not
"thumbnail prints." Visit the exhibits of his original images and see for
yourself. Or read a description of his "darkroom" and see if you can find
any reference to an enlarger.
http://fototapeta.art.pl/2003/wste.php
http://travel.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/travel/29footsteps.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitespiderphoto/2904265036/
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/dictionary/contact%20print
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contact+print
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/contact%20print
http://en.mimi.hu/photography/contact_printing.html
So allow me to again ask, insofar as you have not answered to the point:
Lew
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.)
So you do entire rolls ->through<- the PrintFiles? Did you try other
brands without success?
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.)
Can't wait to get home & try this out!
-LS
On Oct 8, 2:05 pm, Lloy...@the-wiredot.com wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 07:06:36 -0700, "Lawrence
>
> Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >"laran" <ArtPis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> email: portr...@heylloyd.com
> ________________________________
> --
Richard Fateman
>>
> OK...maybe you can explain how one uses a scanner to make contact prints -
> in or out of the darkroom.
I haven't done it this way, but here's a suggestion.
Take a piece of photo-sensitive paper and make a sandwich with your
negative or sheet of negatives, and the glass platen of a flatbed
scanner. Set on "reflective", if you have a choice.
Run the scanner, which will shine light through the negative onto the paper.
Now remove and process the paper as usual.
If the paper is underexposed, do the same thing but scan twice before
removing the paper. or more.
Overexposed? uh, do something to reduce the sensitivity of the paper?
Anyway, you can use the scanner to simulate a contact-printing box.
Next question?
RJF
Rebecca Ore
Richard Fateman <fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
I hate to say this but if it works, this would be incredibly cool for
4x5 or 8x10 negatives. Of course, one would have to have the scanner in
a darkroom under safe lights suitable for the paper, but it beats having
to buy a separate bit of equipment if you already have an enlarger.
Could someone try this?
David Nebenzahl
> In article <haqcuv$i12$1...@aioe.org>,
> Richard Fateman <fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>> Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
>>
>>> OK...maybe you can explain how one uses a scanner to make contact prints -
>>> in or out of the darkroom.
>>
>> I haven't done it this way, but here's a suggestion.
>> Take a piece of photo-sensitive paper and make a sandwich with your
>> negative or sheet of negatives, and the glass platen of a flatbed
>> scanner. Set on "reflective", if you have a choice.
>> Run the scanner, which will shine light through the negative onto the paper.
>>
>> Now remove and process the paper as usual.
>>
>> If the paper is underexposed, do the same thing but scan twice before
>> removing the paper. or more.
>>
>> Overexposed? uh, do something to reduce the sensitivity of the paper?
>>
>> Anyway, you can use the scanner to simulate a contact-printing box.
>>
>> Next question?
>
> I hate to say this but if it works, this would be incredibly cool for
> 4x5 or 8x10 negatives. Of course, one would have to have the scanner in
> a darkroom under safe lights suitable for the paper, but it beats having
> to buy a separate bit of equipment if you already have an enlarger.
>
> Could someone try this?
While I appreciate the innate snarkiness of the suggestion (as a way of
settling this stupid semantic argument), this would only work if the
light output of the scanner is somewhere in the right range to expose
the paper. It might be, but if not, remember that one has no control
over the brightness (at least not without modifying the scanner's
electronics somehow). Unless, of course, the brightness is, say, exactly
half what it should be, in which case one can simply make two passes
over the paper.
If it did work, it would make a very evenly exposed print.
Lawrence Akutagawa
"Richard Fateman" <fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:haqcuv$i12$1...@aioe.org...
bulb. And that light bulb, I daresay, is a heck of a lot more inexpensive
than a scanner. But the scanner should work. In the overexposure case, the
simple solution is to place sheets of plain, non-watermarked paper directly
on the scanner glass. The number of sheets of paper needed can be
determined by trial and error.
Maciej Zielenkieiwcz
> On 10/10/2009 10:29 AM Rebecca Ore spake thus:
>
>> In article <haqcuv$i12$1...@aioe.org>,
>> Richard Fateman <fat...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence Akutagawa wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK...maybe you can explain how one uses a scanner to make contact prints -
>>>> in or out of the darkroom.
>>>
>>> I haven't done it this way, but here's a suggestion.
>>> Take a piece of photo-sensitive paper and make a sandwich with your
>>> negative or sheet of negatives, and the glass platen of a flatbed
>>> scanner. Set on "reflective", if you have a choice.
>>> Run the scanner, which will shine light through the negative onto the paper.
>>>
>>> Now remove and process the paper as usual.
>>>
>>> If the paper is underexposed, do the same thing but scan twice before
>>> removing the paper. or more.
>>>
>>> Overexposed? uh, do something to reduce the sensitivity of the paper?
>>>
>>> Anyway, you can use the scanner to simulate a contact-printing box.
>>>
>>> Next question?
>
> settling this stupid semantic argument), this would only work if the
> light output of the scanner is somewhere in the right range to expose
> the paper. It might be, but if not, remember that one has no control
> over the brightness (at least not without modifying the scanner's
> electronics somehow). Unless, of course, the brightness is, say, exactly
> half what it should be, in which case one can simply make two passes
> over the paper.
Im most scanners the speed of scanning varies a good bit with changing
of resolution, so there is quite some control. And if this fails one can
use a sheet of ND foil...
Rebecca Ore
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.
David Nebenzahl
I think it's high time someone tries this and reports back here.
Richard Fateman
> On 10/10/2009 12:01 PM Rebecca Ore spake thus:
>
>> In article <4ad0c73a$0$11293$8226...@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..
Andrew Price
<lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> 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/dictionary/contact%20print
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contact+print
>http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/contact%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.
Llo...@the-wiredot.com
Akutagawa" <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
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.
Llo...@the-wiredot.com
On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 07:28:24 -0700 (PDT), Lew
<lew...@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.
regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email: port...@heylloyd.com
________________________________
--
laran
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:27:49 -0700, "Lawrence Akutagawa"
> <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> 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/dictionary/contact%20print
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contact+print
>> http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/contact%20print
>> http://en.mimi.hu/photography/contact_printing.html
>
> You forgot one link:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedant>
>
laran
Lew
introduced by scanning through the PrintFile material?
>
> 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
> ________________________________
> --
Lawrence Akutagawa
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
Lew
Thor Lancelot Simon
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
David Nebenzahl
> In article <macogoense-F7B19...@x-134-84-202-74.pres.umn.edu>,
> Rebecca Ore <macog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <4ad0c73a$0$11293$8226...@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.
Thor Lancelot Simon
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.
Llo...@the-wiredot.com
<lew...@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.
regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email: port...@heylloyd.com
________________________________
--