[filmscanners] Re: Scanning 8X10 negs

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

I read this quickly, so perhaps I missed this piece of valuable info...
What are you planning to do with the scans?

If you want to make some good sized enlarged prints, I would suggest you
consider getting a flatbed which has a full bed transparency adapter.
Some of the older Umax scanners, like the 1200S, and others in the time
period could be connected to an optional transparency adapter which was
8 x 10" or larger.  Even at 1200 ppi, that will probably result in
better resolution then a photo onto 35 mm film then scanned, or
certainly better than a 5 mP digital shot of it.

I've seen the scanners very inexpensively on ebay and used computer
locations, and the transparency adapter, although less common is
available on ebay fairly regularly for under $50 US.

Art

Brad Davis wrote:

> Hi, I have about 100 8X10 negatives (B&W) That I need to scan.  They are
> from a time when I had the camera and a wet darkroom (and an 8X10 enlarger).
>
> I have a flatbed scanner (Epson expression 800) and a Polaroid 35MM -4000
> dpi scanner.  I don't see a good way to use the 35 MM scanner, although it
> has occurred to me that I might photograph the negatives - perhaps on Ilford
> XP2 and scan those negatives (done with a  proper copy rig).  The other
> alternative I have considered is to obtain some POP paper (it is available)
> and make contacts which I scan using the Epson. (a third possibility - using
> a sony 707 -5 Mpixel, seems like it would lose too much quality).  I have
> had good success with using the Epson to scan the few contact prints (on
> regular silver chloride paper), that I still have.
>
> Yet another possibility would be to buy another flatbed scanner just to get
> something that would work with the the negatives directly, although I don't
> know which one would be the most appropriate (if any).
>
> Having read this, it appears that I am looking for guidance, rather than
> determining the best quality empirically.  If anyone has any thoughts,
> please let me know.  I love the quality in these negs and I would like to
> maintain as much of it as possible.
>
> Thoughts - XP2 has sufficient range and is soft enough (in terms of
> contrast) to work with these negs, but it doesn't have the resolution that
> some other films might have - but which, I could shoot on Tech Pan if it
> still exists. That would match my Contax lenses, but the contrast would then
> be a problem.  The Polaroid scanner will produce 12 bit pixel depth and I do
> have Photoshop CS.
>
> Perhaps there is a color film that would provide both the sharpness and long
> scale that I want?!
>
> Using POP, would the tone of the paper change appreciably from being scanned
> (would the scanner light tend to fog the paper if it is not fixed). I can
> learn that easily if I decid3e to go this way.
>
> Would working with the negatives directly be appreciably better than from
> contacts on POP.  That is, should I get a new flatbed, I find little use for
> the one I have now.
>
> How good would a copy (directly of the negative) using a 5 Mpixel camera be
> (as compared with the other options).
>
> HAH!! I am being lazy, I will do some empirical testing, but will post this
> (since it is written). Perhaps I'll gain some insight.
>
> Brad
>
>

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