[filmscanners] Re: Difficult scan problem

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

Well, for people who don't enjoy being made slightly mad in Photoshop, I
can suggest the following.  Full spectrum fluorescent bulbs are rated
with some index which I can't recall just now, but, if I remember this
correctly, a rating of 100 is accurate daylight spectrum.  The bulbs I
have used are between 92 and 98 on this scale. They usually cost more as
you get closer to 100. Regular industrial tubes are in the 60's and 70's
on this scale.  Even the special "natural lighting" ones usually are at
most in the low 80's.

I believe GE has a series designed for use in art departments, fabric
and clothing design offices and factories, where accurate daylight is
important, that run in the high 90's on the color scale.

Art


TonySleep@halftone.co.uk wrote:

> 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


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body