Cache of Old Glass Negatives

[Lensone]

I just found this forum, and this is my first post. I am a professional photographer. I am looking to scan a few thousand glass plate negatives in sizes ranging from 11x14 to 5x7, and I need advice on potential scanners to buy. The images are old, up to 125 or 135 years, so many of them will have really thick emulsions. Multiple passes may be necessary, and that is not an issue. Scanner size and reliability obviously are issues with such a heavy workload. Image quality is an absolute deal breaker, so the ability to scan dense images well is important.

Any advice?

[Jim Galli]

Where I work we have an Epson 1640 with the transparency lid. It will scan 11X17 but it really struggles with the over dense negs. So maybe I can only tell you which one may not be a player.

[Lensone]

Have you ever experimented with PHOTOGRAPHING (digitally) an old neg?

[Jim Galli]

My negs are just like your old negs. I shoot a lot of 8X10 with antique lenses and use pyro developers so my stuff tends to be pretty thick. Probably 1/2 the images at my sight are neg scans from that scanner that I've not had time to print yet.

No, I've not bothered to photograph old negs. Scanners are the key to a good product. A poor scanner would trump a photograph.

[Ash]

With the facilities, a contact print of each negative (as the exposure time and light strength is completely controlled by you) which is then in turn scanned may be a way to go, if you can't find the negative scanner you want.

You only need the most basic darkroom to develop contact prints.

[Lensone]

What paper would you suggest for contact prints?

[Justin Cormack]

I would use Printing Out Paper if the negs are that old and shot for a similar process. You dont need a darkroom at all, and if you arent interested in keeping the prints you dont even have to tone and fix them.

[Bruce Watson]

I just found this forum, and this is my first post. I am a professional photographer. I am looking to scan a few thousand glass plate negatives in sizes ranging from 11x14 to 5x7, and I need advice on potential scanners to buy. The images are old, up to 125 or 135 years, so many of them will have really thick emulsions. Multiple passes may be necessary, and that is not an issue. Scanner size and reliability obviously are issues with such a heavy workload. Image quality is an absolute deal breaker, so the ability to scan dense images well is important.

Any advice?

It depends on what you are going to do with the scans. Based on what little you've told us, I suspect that you need a professional flatbed scanner. Something like a Screen Cezane or a Kodak/Creo Eversmart. This will get you the bed size you need, plus the sharpness you need, plus the Dmax you need, plus the duty cycle and reliability you need. These scanners are available on the used market if you'll look for them. Do your research, here and on the yahoo group ScanHi-End, and doubtless other places. Make sure you get a scanner that works for what you want to do -- and decide what you want to do before you go looking for a scanner!

I don't think you'll be happy with a cheaper consumer flatbed like an Epson V750 or something like that. But you can always start there and see what you think -- might be good enough for what you want.

Again, much depends on what you plan on doing with the scans.

[Bruce Schultz]

I shoot images on wet-plate media, including glass. I only have an Epson 2450, and it does a fair job on medium-density negatives. But a thick negative throws off the scan and results in a mush of highlights when I can see plenty of sharp details.
With a negative that I just had to have converted to digital, I either make a contact print on POP paper (not sure if you can get it now) or a contact or enlargement on regular silver gelatin paper, then scan that image.
Perhaps you could also try making cyanotypes contact prints, maybe the easiest process of all, then scan that image and knock out the color (which will be all blue) in Photoshop.
Maybe you could rephotograph the image on an evenly lit lightbox. I need to try that.

[Cesar Barreto]

On a recent job I had to scan some hundreds old negatives and even my old Cezanne had trouble with high density areas. A side effect may show as strong flare on clear areas, wich could be worst with glass negatives, since they usually are so contrasty.
I also made photographs with a Nikon camera and it did a pretty good job on high densities, but flare was also so high and it would call for double exposure and later mixing on PS.
Once you cross those barriers, I think any digital solution may be better than contact prints, since you have the chance of enlarging pictures and showing details that even the ancient photographers could never imagine they had captured.

[Lensone]

All very interesting and helpful information.
Thanks very much to all of you. (keep it coming!)

These negs are a family legacy. I'm a fifth generation photographer. They also comprise a historical record of the town my great grandfather settled in on Vancouver Island. He bought the studio from an older photographer in about 1906, and there are some of his plates in the collection as well. So there are whaling, fishing, logging, railroads, aboriginal indian chiefs, coal mining, tall ships and all good stuff like that. I want the best quality digital representation of them that I can get so that the family has a means of marketing whatever is marketable, and then the important plates can go to a museum where they will be well cared for.

I'd also love any suggestions on image banks that work with historical imagery. Copyright info will be the next hurdle I'll need to tackle after this.

I'm pondering creating a masking system to mask around the image and if it was created vertically, perhaps with "L" shaped black masks that were adjustable, flash could be used from behind a blind to illuminate a superwhite paper. In that way exposure could be adjusted by adjusting the flash, not the camera, so the same aperture and focal length could be made for different exposures which could then be married up in photoshop. Of course a good quality copy table could be set up over a light box, and a shutter exposure would accomplish the same result, but would the light REALLY be that even over the largest neg size of 11x14?
I know I can get even light with copy lighting.

Scanning sounds like it would work for 'thinner' emulsions on the plates, and certainly I can give my Nikon Coolscan 8000 a workout on the medium format negs.
But there are two-three generations of photographer's images which are on either glass plate or are large format negs which have been shot full frame or divided up into smaller images all on one neg.

I won't be scanning everything, just the marketable images, and I have time to research the scanners and try to find a used one, that is a great suggestion.

[Lensone]

(I work with a Canon Ds 18 megapixel camera...I figure that would do the job if digital copying was workable.)

[Cesar Barreto]

Actually, I think it's a pitty to shrink a big plate on a small ccd sensor and I made it just for indexing purposes. Some negatives went through Nikon 9000ED scanner and the result was much, much better than anything else I tried. Unfortunately, there was a lot of big negatives wich suffered a bit on other scanners, but if I could afford a good digital back maybe I'd have followed this way.

[Bruce Watson]

I want the best quality digital representation of them that I can get...

Problem solving 101: You can't solve a problem unless you can define it. So what's the definition of what you want to accomplish? "Best quality" is marketing speak. What you need are quantifiable requirements.

Some questions that might help you get started in defining your requirements include (but are not limited to): Are you going to make prints? Is anyone going to make prints? If so, how big? That is, how much enlargement? Contact print (1x), 4x, 10x? How sharp should they be? Nose sharp? Sharp at a distance equal to the diagonal of the print (aka "normal viewing distance")? If you aren't going to make prints, how much information do you want to capture (and don't even think about saying "all of it")? What's your required density range? 1.5D? 2.0D? 3.0D? Make some measurements and find out.

Why guess when you can know?


...which could then be married up in photoshop.

No amount of post processing is going to give you quality if you don't make a quality capture. Garbage in, garbage out.

Investigate the tools designed for the task first. Find out if they'll do what you need (see defining the problem, above). If they won't, then try to find a way to meet your requirements in other ways. IOW, try the simplest solution first. Worry about the complicated solutions only when you've shown that the simple solutions won't work for your requirements.

[Bruce Watson]

(I work with a Canon Ds 18 megapixel camera...I figure that would do the job if digital copying was workable.)

You're willing to throw away most of the data? Interesting. That doesn't jibe well with "best quality digital capture." Sooner or later you'll have to decide what you really want. It'll be interesting to read what that might be.

[Lensone]

You're willing to throw away most of the data? Interesting. That doesn't jibe well with "best quality digital capture." Sooner or later you'll have to decide what you really want. It'll be interesting to read what that might be.

Not "willing" to throw away most of the data. If a dense neg cannot be scanned it cannot be scanned. I'm in information gathering mode right now. If you have a better idea for 11x14, 8x10, or 5x7 dense glass plates I am all "ears". That is why I am here.

I don't see why a pin-sharp series of exposures made of a difficult/dense plate by using a ccd sensor couldn't be built up into a full density range image. I suppose I could shoot them on my 4x5, or even onto an 8x10 plate from grandpa's Kodak, then have drum scans done of them.

I have heard of copies being made in contact onto a new negative also, done in camera, but I have never tried it.

From your earlier post, yes, I believe we would be making prints. Books are also a possiblity. Museum displays are possible. I am in preliminary discussion with a museum that has wanted them for years, but don't know yet if the family is willing to go that route yet or if I will be attempting to tackle this huge job privately.

They mentioned digital displays too, but I think they are interested in both.

I will look into the scanners you suggest. At this point I don't know how many of the plates are dense negs. Solutions for this problem are academic right now, until I am ready to commit to purchasing a scanner and get the results from scanning the plates which are not perfect density.


Some questions that might help you get started in defining your requirements include (but are not limited to): Are you going to make prints? Is anyone going to make prints? If so, how big? That is, how much enlargement? Contact print (1x), 4x, 10x? How sharp should they be? Nose sharp? Sharp at a distance equal to the diagonal of the print (aka "normal viewing distance")? If you aren't going to make prints, how much information do you want to capture (and don't even think about saying "all of it")? What's your required density range? 1.5D? 2.0D? 3.0D? Make some measurements and find out.

I can't answer your questions definitively right now....except to say that I am in a different country than the images. When I do get access to them and begin to work with them, the goal will be to achieve capture of the most amount of data possible, as sharp as possible, with the best possible density range, for all possible applications for the forseeable future without actually printing in an enlarger with the original plate.


I am here to learn.

[Ole Tjugen]

That's going to be a few Terabytes of digital images, too...

A 5x7" glass plate scanned at 4000 ppi would give 5x7x16000000 pixels, or 560 Mpix. To get as much information as possible from that scan it should be in colour (x3) and certainly in at least 16 bit depth (x2). That gives you 3.36 Gb per plate.

"A few thousand" of those, even if they were all "only" 5x7, means you're looking at 10 Tb of data.

4000ppi corresponds to a little less than 80lppm, which might seem sufficient to get all the information out. Sadly that isn't so - some 19th century lenses are among the very sharpest lenses ever made. At least one of mine seems to consistently resolve details far smaller than the theoretical limit of resolution. That's using document film, the only modern material with a possible resolution comparable to wet plate.

So ideally you should scan at at least 1.5 times the needed resolution, which means 6000 ppi. Or 1.26 Gpix, 7.56 Gb per 5x7" plate.

[Gene McCluney]

The problem with printing or scanning very old glass plate negatives is that they were exposed and processed to much greater densities than modern negatives are, and modern printing papers and scanners are designed for "modern" materials. Printing Out Paper is a possible choice, but is ONLY available from one vendor, and their entire current inventory is spoken for. The only manufacturer of POP is Kentmere..now a part of Ilford and they make it once a year. I am not offering a solution, just defining the problem. If you could get a good full tonal range print of the negative, you could scan the print and you could then make more prints via inkjet up to the size of the original print with fairly good quality from any scanner. It is always best to scan from the negative of course if your scanner can handle the contrast range of vintage negs. On some styles of flatbed scanners that accept film, you possibly would need to scan the larger negatives in sections and stitch together in photoshop. I once scanned a 16x20 print of one of my images I could not find the negative for. I had to scan it in four scans, then stitch together in photoshop and it worked beautifully.

In any case, no matter what route you take, digitizing a large body of historic work is a very long, time consuming endeavor that could take years of your spare time.

[Gene McCluney]

That's going to be a few Terabytes of digital images, too...

A 5x7" glass plate scanned at 4000 ppi would give 5x7x16000000 pixels, or 560 Mpix. To get as much information as possible from that scan it should be in colour (x3) and certainly in at least 16 bit depth (x2). That gives you 3.36 Gb per plate.

"A few thousand" of those, even if they were all "only" 5x7, means you're looking at 10 Tb of data.

4000ppi corresponds to a little less than 80lppm, which might seem sufficient to get all the information out. Sadly that isn't so - some 19th century lenses are among the very sharpest lenses ever made. At least one of mine seems to consistently resolve details far smaller than the theoretical limit of resolution. That's using document film, the only modern material with a possible resolution comparable to wet plate.

So ideally you should scan at at least 1.5 times the needed resolution, which means 6000 ppi. Or 1.26 Gpix, 7.56 Gb per 5x7" plate.


In theory, Ole you are certainly correct. However, in practice one can get realistic results that can enlarge to many times the size of the original 5x7 negative from scanning at 1200 dpi. These vintage negatives were originally shot to be viewed as contact prints. While a wet-plate negative (for instance) may be grain free, the optics used to photograph the scene would, in many cases not allow significant enlargements....of course some vintage negatives are breathtaking in their sharpness.
I seriously doubt that anyone could actually "use" all the information captured by scanning an 8x10 or 11x14 negative at 6000 ppi.

[Lensone]

That's going to be a few Terabytes of digital images, too...

A 5x7" glass plate scanned at 4000 ppi would give 5x7x16000000 pixels, or 560 Mpix. To get as much information as possible from that scan it should be in colour (x3) and certainly in at least 16 bit depth (x2). That gives you 3.36 Gb per plate.

"A few thousand" of those, even if they were all "only" 5x7, means you're looking at 10 Tb of data.

4000ppi corresponds to a little less than 80lppm, which might seem sufficient to get all the information out. Sadly that isn't so - some 19th century lenses are among the very sharpest lenses ever made. At least one of mine seems to consistently resolve details far smaller than the theoretical limit of resolution. That's using document film, the only modern material with a possible resolution comparable to wet plate.

So ideally you should scan at at least 1.5 times the needed resolution, which means 6000 ppi. Or 1.26 Gpix, 7.56 Gb per 5x7" plate.


Whoa. I knew it would be an incredible amount of data. Still, when you put it that way, all I can say is...Holy Shit. I'm getting a better understanding of why Bruce said I was willing to throw away most of the data.

Are you by any chance suggesting shooting or perhaps contact printing them onto large format document film as an alternative? Then scanning by drum? (I'm still thinking about the question of what to do with the dense plates.)

And now I am also thinking of what kind of data storage I will need, not to mention what kind of computing power and hard-drive storage I'll need, disk writers, etc...

The 2800 gigs of storage I've got now seems down-right silly in the face of a job like this.

[Lensone]

In theory, Ole you are certainly correct. However, in practice one can get realistic results that can enlarge to many times the size of the original 5x7 negative from scanning at 1200 dpi. These vintage negatives were originally shot to be viewed as contact prints. While a wet-plate negative (for instance) may be grain free, the optics used to photograph the scene would, in many cases not allow significant enlargements....of course some vintage negatives are breathtaking in their sharpness.
I seriously doubt that anyone could actually "use" all the information captured by scanning an 8x10 or 11x14 negative at 6000 ppi.

What if, for instance, you wanted to make a wall mural display for a museum?

[Gene McCluney]

What if, for instance, you wanted to make a wall mural display for a museum?


Then you go back to the original glass plate and make a "higher" res scan. One should NEVER destroy historic negatives after digitizing, NEVER.

[Ash]

Then you go back to the original glass plate and make a "higher" res scan. One should NEVER destroy historic negatives after digitizing, NEVER.

The OP mentioned that historic/non-marketable negs would be going to a museum, which means locked in a draw. I think earthquake and flooding would be the closest they'd then get to damage.


I hold by my opinion that contact printing is your most feasible option, but no matter what way you do this, it's a LOT of work.

If you photographed the negative onto 5x4, 5x7, 10x8 you'll be getting a positive, essentially a slide (a negative of a negative is a positive) unless you use a reversal process... That may be an idea for the purpose of projection. With this in mind you still need a suitable light source as backing, which means a fair few fluorescent tubes and a very consistent diffuser.



You've got a lot of options here, but I think you first need thumbnails, and from there sort and methodically work your way through.

With this it means, you could definitely use a DSLR, light box, catalogue every negative within a few days, snapshot each one, print a copy, number and file it. From there pile into valuable, more valuable, salable - where valuable is least important, and salable are most.

Once you have all the images catalogued and prioritised, you can work a budget for either large-format copies on film, scanning, contact printing, etc.

Get some numbers, get some figures. You could be looking at three or four digits on cost and labour depending on method and quality.

[Donald Miller]

External hard drives are really inexpensive now. That may be the least of your obstacles.

Years ago I worked with a historical society in Colorado. They had converted their old images/negatives to negative film and used that as their archival storage. I am sure that the originals were stored somewhere.

If you have a densitometer I would think that measuring the density range would be a logical first step. From that you can decide what the best process would be...to scan, print to POP, or whatever would work best for what you have and what you want to do.

[Lensone]

Then you go back to the original glass plate and make a "higher" res scan. One should NEVER destroy historic negatives after digitizing, NEVER.

That would NOT be an option. My family has stored these images for over 100 years. Destroying them for any reason is not even a question.

[sanking]

I agree that determining the density range is the first thing you should do. Many old negatives that I have measured, especially pyro negatives, have a very high maximum density (log 4.5 and higher), Not even the best professional flatbed scanners can handle this much density, much less consumer level scanners. And Lenny's drum scanner won't work here since it is hard to wrap glass negatives around a drum.

If the maximum log density of the negatives is over about log 4.5 the best option would probably be a digital back. If you put enough light on the negatives you can punch through the density with sufficient exposure.

Sandy






[QUOTE=Donald Miller;380297

If you have a densitometer I would think that measuring the density range would be a logical first step. From that you can decide what the best process would be...to scan, print to POP, or whatever would work best for what you have and what you want to do.[/QUOTE]

[Lensone]

The OP mentioned that historic/non-marketable negs would be going to a museum, which means locked in a draw. I think earthquake and flooding would be the closest they'd then get to damage.

I hold by my opinion that contact printing is your most feasible option, but no matter what way you do this, it's a LOT of work.

If you photographed the negative onto 5x4, 5x7, 10x8 you'll be getting a positive, essentially a slide (a negative of a negative is a positive) unless you use a reversal process... That may be an idea for the purpose of projection. With this in mind you still need a suitable light source as backing, which means a fair few fluorescent tubes and a very consistent diffuser.

You've got a lot of options here, but I think you first need thumbnails, and from there sort and methodically work your way through.

With this it means, you could definitely use a DSLR, light box, catalogue every negative within a few days, snapshot each one, print a copy, number and file it. From there pile into valuable, more valuable, salable - where valuable is least important, and salable are most.

Once you have all the images catalogued and prioritised, you can work a budget for either large-format copies on film, scanning, contact printing, etc.

Get some numbers, get some figures. You could be looking at three or four digits on cost and labour depending on method and quality.

Your suggestion of creating a thumbnail gallery sounds like an excellent way to begin. An elegant solution to what seems like a mountain of images. Thank you.

With the idea of shooting a new neg on large format film, of course you would have a positive, but you could then drum-scan that image for digital printing. The extra step of doing it this way could be rationalized by using only for the difficult plates, where dense highlights are an issue. Adjustments to development would be a way to control the contrast of the new neg. It sounds like members here have had issues with flare from the shadow (thin) areas of the plates, and that is a strong deterrent. Of course it would all depend on the contrast range of the particular image. Dense images of medium contrast range could be copied with this method.

Contact printing is also an attractive idea, but I just have issues with making a print, then scanning it because I would expect to notice the paper texture from the print.

Contact printing onto a NEGATIVE seems like it could be a better option, even though you'd end up with a positive, you'd be copying directly onto a tightly grained neg, customizing the development, then scanning by drum.

My great aunts used to work for the family business making prints. They had special boxes that the neg went into over top the paper. They would take the box to the window and open the slide-top to expose the paper. Of course paper speeds were much slower in those days. By the time I started working in that old darkroom as a child in the sixties, we used graded FB paper and we weren't working with any glass plates, but the old enlarger was still used. It was on a boom arm, as I recall. I think it is still in the collection of 4 generations of stuff photographers have used.


I don't have a densitometer, but I could arrange to borrow one from the college perhaps, or if I decide to work on a grant from the museum I will make sure it is part of the proposal.

[Gene McCluney]

Contact printing is also an attractive idea, but I just have issues with making a print, then scanning it because I would expect to notice the paper texture from the print.





If you use "F" SURFACE Glossy RC Paper, or even "F" SURFACE Glossy Fiber paper, you won't see any print texture in your scans.

[Ash]

I've never seen texture from RC paper.


RC paper has less tonal range, but it is much, much cheaper. It is also much faster to work with (requires less exposure, less developing, less time washing, will not yellow with exposure to light after fixing).

[8x10 user]

I would try an Eversmart Supreme, it is probably the best scanner possible for glass plate negatives. With the max DR function on, the density range is quite high, sharpness and resolution will exceed your needs.

[Cesar Barreto]

There is a solid argument for digital capture, wich is the possibility of detecting and correting color stains usually found on those ancient plates. Such stains can print awfully on b&w paper, but virtually disappear once you select the right RGB channel or use some plain photoshop technique.

[Harold_4074]

For resolution, contact printing onto film---with suitable developer to help with the density range---will probably be better than any paper. It isn't the paper texture that you have to worry about, it is the scatter from the opaque white base. Films use antihalation dye to fix this problem; one of the IR films is (was?) made in versions with and without antihalation dye because the effect is large enough to be "artistic".

The perfect medium would be a POP-type (self-masking) emulsion on an antihalation base and probably doesn't exist. The next best thing is probably a slow film developed in a strongly compensating developer.

Once you have a transparency, everything else should be relatively easy.

[Ash]

So Harold you recommend finding graphic arts film (ortho type) as this is extremely fine grain, and with correct developer you can get continuous tone?

[jnantz]

maybe you should call the new england document conservation center
and ask them for suggestions?

http://nedcc.org/home.php

libraries, archives and museums contact them when they need to know
what to do ...

[Harold_4074]

Ash,

I don't have that much familiarity with modern litho films (have they changed much since the 1960s?) but I suspect that something like FP4 would work reasonably well. Potential advantages of lith film are relatively low cost, availability in large sizes, and low speed; whether or not they can be stretched to accommodate the density ranges of old glass plates I don't know.

It should certainly be possible to use one or more continuous-tone masks to compress the effective density range (this is essentially what happens with printing-out processes like POP, cyanotype, and argyrotype) and lith film should be usable for this technique.

The perfect film would probably have been Kodak's Fine Grain Release Positive, which was originally designed for making "release" copies of motion-picture "master" prints. It was essentially a paper-type emulsion (Kodabromide or similar) on transparent base. Even without an antihalation backing, it made positives with astonishing detail, and could even be used in-camera (at a film speed of about ASA 3!).

I hope that someone with a good working knowledge of lith film techniques will chime in and tell us what the prospects are for printing plates with a DR of 4.5!

[Lensone]

I would try an Eversmart Supreme, it is probably the best scanner possible for glass plate negatives. With the max DR function on, the density range is quite high, sharpness and resolution will exceed your needs.

Thank you. I will look into it.

[Lensone]

Thank you. I will look into it.

Eversmart=45,000. Wow.

[Lensone]

maybe you should call the new england document conservation center
and ask them for suggestions?

http://nedcc.org/home.php

libraries, archives and museums contact them when they need to know
what to do ...

Yes please!

[C. D. Keth]

Why not make copies of the negatives onto copy-lith film? Then you have a record of very, very fine quality that can be drum-scanned.

[Lenny Eiger]

Eversmart=45,000. Wow.

This is the second such conversation we have had in the past few days, where folks have large projects with hundreds or thousands of things to scan. Another poster made a point about the storage, you'll need to learn how to deal with RAID arrays... and backup, lots of backup...

These type of projects are sizable, and the cost of the scanner is immaterial against the time required to properly catalog, scan and make prints of such things. Often it requires the hiring of an assistant with primary responsibility to the project.

If you are going to go for a top flatbed, I would take a look at the Aztek Plateau. It is pretty amazing, with great lenses (3 of them), superb resolution and exceptional speed. Further, Aztek is still manufacturing and supporting scanners.

Lenny

[8x10 user]

Lenny, Have you compared scans from Eversmart Supreme and Aztek plateau? Besides my own personal experiences with the supreme there are a good number of reasons why I believe the Supreme would be better scanner in terms of maximum image quality. In terms of speed the Aztek will definitely smoke the Eversmart which when used on the highest settings is quite a bit slower then a drum scanner.

[8x10 user]

I am very much interested in seeing the results from a glass plate negative scanned on the Eversmart Supreme. I have already offered to do some test scans of some the glass plate negatives for lensone, I would think that once they are scanned that he or she would be willing to share the results with the group.

One question that I have is; can the negatives be oil or fluid mounted in kami or similar optic mounting fluid? If the negatives are varnished this might create some problems as it may dissolve. I have found that fluid mounting improves image quality by a great deal so it would be great if there were a nondestructive way to use it on these negatives.

If you find that a direct digital scans satisfies you needs in dynamic range then it might be most the most economical archival option. If the dynamic range of the scanner is not high enough for that medium then I don’t think a single optical duplicate made onto a single sheet black and white film would work (subject brightness range of the scanner should be higher then that black and white film). Of course with film you could shoot 2 or more sheets at different exposures then combine them digitally after scanning so you won’t loose any detail in the highlights or shadows. I have heard of photographers using this method to obtain high dynamic range captures. The costs would be higher then direct scans. If you do use an optical method you may want to consider using an enlarger with an eight-element macro lens over a contact negative, as I would think that there would be some degradation in image quality when contact printing and it may not be “archival quality”, although, I am not sure 100% about this last statement.

As for the Eversmart VS Aztek debate I decided to start a new thread for the topic.

All the best, Ed




This is the second such conversation we have had in the past few days, where folks have large projects with hundreds or thousands of things to scan. Another poster made a point about the storage, you'll need to learn how to deal with RAID arrays... and backup, lots of backup...

These type of projects are sizable, and the cost of the scanner is immaterial against the time required to properly catalog, scan and make prints of such things. Often it requires the hiring of an assistant with primary responsibility to the project.

If you are going to go for a top flatbed, I would take a look at the Aztek Plateau. It is pretty amazing, with great lenses (3 of them), superb resolution and exceptional speed. Further, Aztek is still manufacturing and supporting scanners.

Lenny