My Digitizing System

[Gordon Lucas]

Just for interest sake, this is how I digitize all of my negatives. I gave up on scanning because its really, at least to me, a pain. Id rather print. But as we all know, the computer screen, even a fine monitor, cannot compete with a wet print. Cell phone pictures look fine on a screen, so to speak, and our LF work suffers. Part of the martyrdom, I suppose.

So this system simplifies my life, and I can "scan" any size print, slide or negative with equal ease. An old TV lightbox meant to color balance tubes (can be improvised with a daylight bulb and a piece of frosted glass, a DSLR and macro lens, (which I'm sure almost all of you have - well hidden of course - I use a Pentax Ks1 and a vintage 90mm Tammie adaptall - sharp as blazes) and the negative holders from your scanner. That's it. Like a big slide copier from days past.

Prop 'em up, take the snap, and reverse in the case of a neg. Process normally in your photo program. These print well if you have to resort to digital printing, and you can even do contact sheets through the plastic if you wish. Not as good as a classic wet process contact sheet, but close enough for jazz . . . I even get a useable one from half-frame cameras, a peculiar passion of mine as well).

Cheers, Gord

PS Alignment is easy. Just match the bottom of the negative with the bottom of the viewfinder, keep them parallel, and that's it. A jeweller told me that the eye is amazingly accurate, and he does things visually. Works for me, too. If you need more precision than that, you're a large format photographer and hence inventive. Go for it.

http://www.pbase.com/moltogordo/image/168034987.jpg

[chassis]

Thanks Gordon. The scanning world seems ripe for the next innovation, and your method is innovative.

[Pere Casals]

I've also tried a similar setup. It may be useful in some conditions, but sure you know that you get only an small fraction of the potential image quality, about 1/10 of the information in terms of optical effective pixels.

Why do you find scanning that painful? Dust?

[Gordon Lucas]

I've also tried a similar setup. It may be useful in some conditions, but sure you know that you get only an small fraction of the potential image quality, about 1/10 of the information in terms of optical effective pixels.

Why do you find scanning that painful? Dust?

Actually, Pere, I have a 4x5 enlarger and I do a lot of printing. I devised this way of doing things for posting online. Even a high res monitor cannot exceed about 3mp or (3000dpi) of information, and the method I use is limited only by the resolution of the camera used to photograph the negative. I can use this image for 5x7 or even 11x14 digital prints. In essence, yes, a scanner can produce a higher quality image, but it's not useable on a computer screen where a cell phone or DSLR can look just as good as an image taken with an 8x10. The screen is the limitation, and the larger the format the photographer uses, the more he will suffer from the computer screen not coming up to the resolution of the film or scan used.

Yup, and I find all of that dust frustrating. I understand there are ways of beating it. but I think I'll pass and keep on doing my 16x20 enlargements instead. :D

For my own purposes, I still print in a darkroom, and if I need a 5x7 or larger negative printed, I outsource.

I mean, I'm sure that all of us get frustrated by the screen (or one of those horrid cellphones) not showing the capabilities of the equipment we use. It's really ludicrous to think that one can discern the difference between a miniature format or a large format on a cellphone. And in essence, even a high res monitor is just an overgrown cellphone screen.

[Pere Casals]

Yup, and I find all of that dust frustrating.

There is a nice solution, any cheap HEPA air purifier will do the job if having flow enough. I use a Honeywell HAP 16000E. We only need an small room that has not many horizontal surfaces accumulating dust, avoiding clothes of those that generate a lot of dust and starting the purifier 5 min in advance. This is great for loading the film holders, for drying negatives, for manipulating negatives in the enlarger, for scanning and it also has to be good for digitizing with the DSLR, as the negatives would not take dust during manipulation.


___


Full HD TV/Monitors have 2MPix RGB (1920x1080 x 3 colors), but 4k TV/monitors have 8Mpix, and this is closer to what human eye can see. Our eye is able to see 8Mpix if not moving the eye, and some 64Mpix if not moving the head but moving the eye.

As we know, the resolving power of the eye is not uniform in the covered field, much of the resolving is concentrated in the central area (fovea), so for still images anyway a 4k monitor has to be viewed at some distance.

182024

Anyway we always can post an image having more pixels than the screens, once enlarged in flickr it does not fit in the screen and we have to scroll the image, but at least we can show what the image is.

[jim10219]

I use wet scanning for large format negatives, so dust is less of an issue. But I do use a similar setup for scanning 35mm and 120 film. With stitching, I can actually resolve the grain (but most of the time just do it all in one shot). I made my light box out of a plastic project box I lined with aluminum foil, a piece of translucent plastic cut from the side of a used, rectangular chemical jug, and some LED light strips (alternating warm and cool lights for better color) powered by a DC power adapter from an old cordless house phone. I like to hold on to those power adapters because I frequently find uses for them in projects. I use regular negative carriers from my enlargers to hold the negatives and mount the tripod above the light box. I use a small bubble level to get everything on the same plane.

[Gordon Lucas]

I use wet scanning for large format negatives, so dust is less of an issue. But I do use a similar setup for scanning 35mm and 120 film. With stitching, I can actually resolve the grain (but most of the time just do it all in one shot). I made my light box out of a plastic project box I lined with aluminum foil, a piece of translucent plastic cut from the side of a used, rectangular chemical jug, and some LED light strips (alternating warm and cool lights for better color) powered by a DC power adapter from an old cordless house phone. I like to hold on to those power adapters because I frequently find uses for them in projects. I use regular negative carriers from my enlargers to hold the negatives and mount the tripod above the light box. I use a small bubble level to get everything on the same plane.

Yes . . . I've heard of wet scanning, too, and I do have a scanner. But as I said above, I use my lightbox system for online posting, not usually for printing. I still have a darkroom, and a number of easels up to 16x20. I'm now thinking of getting into LF color, C41, and printing that, too. I do find, however, that the computer files I get from my lightbox (I use a 20mp DSLR with a very sharp Tamron Adaptall lens) makes fine digital prints up to 8x10 at least. I've got a few that were okay at 11x14.

Thanks for your comment.