On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:50:31 -0700 Arthur Entlich (artistic-1@shaw.ca)
wrote:
> I suspect that what Rob is referring to is not what we typically refer
> to as fluorescent lighting, which is indeed usually a discontinuous and
> unbalanced lighting source, but a short wave UV light source.
Flourescence (of the object) did occur to me (and polarisation). However
since it's in the visible spectrum, and works with tranny, neg materials
shouldn't have any problems - far fewer, in fact, due to the wider subject
brightness range. The difficulty comes in reconstructing what was seen as a
visible image through the eyepiece, and trying to derive a scanning
workflow to achieve this seems to be the sole problem.
IOW you could have dispensed with your daylight tubes and just used rotten
domestic ones + colour neg, provided you were prepared to be driven
slightly mad in Photoshop ;-)
Regards
Tony Sleep
- Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info
& comparisons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
