[filmscanners] Re: Scanning 8X10 negs

["Brad Davis" <DocBradd@mac.com>]

On 1/18/04 5:13 AM, "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca> wrote:

> 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


Thanks Art.  I guess that I can't imagine working with 8X10 negatives except
to make enlargements, and want the highest quality possible.  I would
probably do better if I had a wet darkroom and an 8X10 enlarger available,
but alas, all I have left is the Tessar enlarging lens.  I need now to
determine how good my Expression 800 is - Les Berkley kindly pointed me to a
transparency head that is going for about $100 on ebay, but that is only
good if the Expression is good enough - I no longer have the manual although
I have been very satisfied with the little work I've done with it.

I had concluded that the 35 MM solution would be better than a 5 MP
solution, I had never considered a transparency head for the expression as I
didn't think my scanner took one - I was considering another flatbed just so
that I could get a transparency head.  The issue of course is the DMAX - if
it is too short, then the 35 MM solution starts to look better as I can
manipulate the DMAX by using a different film (or processing Tech Pan
myself).
>  I will look further (into the specs for the Expression) and if I get around
to doing a comparison with 35mm, report back.

Thanks again,

Brad
> 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

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