Ooops, never mind I see the film.Four hours of sleep has made me blind
Ooops, never mind I see the film.Four hours of sleep has made me blind
Hello Gordon,
Here you go. The crops below are at camera (6 MP) resolution matching the order of the images attached above in my original post. They include very good detail for a less than optimum approach. No sharpening in Photoshop was applied. They were sized to meet the requirements for this site. Quite amazing ... still.
Rick
Originally Posted by Gordon Moat
Hello Chris,
Thanks. The steam locomotive images were both shot on Ilford Delta 100 (120) and developed in Pyrocat MC.
Rick
Hello Doug,
The only reason I think to consider doing this is for display on the internet. If you consider how small images are on many websites, then I don't think this is a problem. I would not consider it as a substitute for a good scan for printing usage.
The other way to use this would be for creating 35mm dupes, such as for sending to a publication. I would not expect the 35mm dupes to be used for printing. Basically the method is a quick and simple solution with very limited application.
I had 35mm dupes made of medium format shots in the past. Obviously not as good as the original, but when scanned on a very good dedicated 35mm film scanner, the results had better dynamic range than from scanning the originals on a low end flatbed.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
Hello Rick,
Thanks for posting the crops. I agree that the results are surprising. Seems like an elegant quick solution for displaying images on the internet. How would you compare the results to how the negatives look under a loupe? Is there a great deal of detail missing, or actually somewhat close?
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
Yeah, I did that all the time until I got my scanner. I had some surprisingly good results that way, using a 350D + 17-40mm lens around 40mm. For web display this works great, but for nice prints I needed to use the scanner. Ignoring resolution, the deficiencies of the photo-copying method are that it is more time consuming to set up, it's harder to keep the negatives flat, it doesn't give quite the tonal subtlety a good scan can, and it's even harder to get colour transparencies right (this is already a hassle with a decent scanner).
One thing I've found is that suspending the negative above the light source on a piece of glass can help reduce any residual detail from imperfections on the light box surface (in my case, the pattern of pixels on the LCD monitor I was using as a light box). I also photograph them in a completely dark room to avoid reflections (you could use a polarizer as suggested, but getting rid of most reflections by working in the dark still seems sensible to me).
Here's a couple of shots I photographed this way (I've since scanned them and the scans are a bit nicer):
1
2
Gordon ... the actual images are very sharp, but these "scans" capture a great deal of information that would satisfy website requirements. Much more than I would have thought. My next step is to do this correctly with a tripod and removing the images from their sleeves.
(Sorry ... couldn't resist posting a few more ...)
Rick
If you decide to go this way and just leave the camera set up on the copy stand most of the time, I find it faster than using the scanner, and using a glass sandwich, I find the negs are flatter than with a glassless neg carrier in a scanner.
On the issue of dynamic range, I'd agree that I've gotten better results with a film scanner, but that might just be an issue of the brightness of the light table. You've got more real control over exposure with a camera than with most scanners, and I suppose you could combine two exposures to make a HDR image.
Don't forget that for scans intended only for the web, you don't need to spend anywhere near the price of a V700. You can usually get perfectly usable scans - and often excellent ones - from any flatbed that can scan transparent material at the size you need. If there's no dedicated holder for your film size, you just plunk it right on the glass. There are flatbeds for less than $200 that can do 8x10, and if all you need is 4x5 you can get away spending even less.
Yes, Newton's rings may be an issue with some films under some conditions.
Oren is right ... for web only scans you can find plenty of used scanners on eBay for 100 or less that do the job (look at Agfa T1200 prices for one). I have to argue with the results from the digicam shots though. They are indeed quite good but not as good as you will get from even the cheap used scanners we are talking about. I think sharp, crystal clear imags on the web are something to shoot for if you can gt them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks