On 1/18/04 5:13 AM, "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
