The 4x5 looks like a good value, but the 8x10 is incredibly expensive. My 8x10 light source cost less than $300, and it gave me two extra terrific light panels. All I needed for construction was a decent table saw and a drill.
The 4x5 looks like a good value, but the 8x10 is incredibly expensive. My 8x10 light source cost less than $300, and it gave me two extra terrific light panels. All I needed for construction was a decent table saw and a drill.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I use Negative Supply equipment and it is fantastic. The light panel is not available yet but what I do have from them is built like a tank and does it's job perfectly.
I bought a small LED movie light for 4x5 and smaller. Then got a 1/4" thick piece of white (milky) plexiglass to cover it. The plexi diffuses the individual bulbs sufficiently to give a totally even source, very bright, and it worked really great. I thought about, but not gotten around to, buying a larger movie light for larger film, then bought a scanner, instead. Along the way I got a large artists' light table, this one: https://www.amazon.com/Huion-L4S-Lig.../dp/B00J0UUHPO
The illumination level is sufficient, but the lights are all around the edge. It's not visible to the eye, but the camera easily sees the brighter edge. I think I remember the center being OK for 5x7, being sufficiently far from the edges, but if I were doing it again, I'd buy a large panel movie light and a sheet of plexi, $60-120 or so, because I can also use the light as a light, now that Zoom conferencing is a common thing in our house.
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
I'll take some pictures soon, but these next two weeks are the busiest of my year. Thus, it'll take a bit. It's just a carefully constructed box made out of 1x4" white, solid pvc, with an open bottom (for the Pixel P50), and inside ledge for diffusion, and a glass top. The whole light source slides between two wooden guides. I use the scanner to take 3 photos of 8x10 negatives, stitching the photos together in Lightroom to get a resulting raw file.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Horrors. And I thought my mid-quality $600 LED panel was just marginally acceptable. I'm planning on using it only for copystand web applications, not anything demanding serious color repro. But maybe you guys are talking about black and white applications instead.
I don't think anyone here is doing 'serious color repro'. Only people working for museums are archives really need that level of output. Using the Kaiser I am getting excellent scans. Are better scans possible? Sure. But I'm not buying a Heidelberg Tango just to make it happen. The theoretical ideal and practical can coexist here.
These high CRI TCLI video lights likely have much better response than light sources in consumer scanners. Furthermore, there are huge strides being made with LED development. Cheap new units can be better that older professional units of not that long ago.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
One question I have is that back in 'the day', were people obsessing over the color differences from output methods such as Dye Transfer vs RA4? I'm sure there were differences. Same with Cibachrome and whatever other color processes were out there that I'm not aware of. I'm 36 so it's always been RA4 and ciba went away in college before I ever had the chance to try it. My takeaway has been that there are just inherent differences in every process, and you use each one within the limits of your needs and practicality. Much like with bit rates and color spaces, you take what you can get. If my Panasonic S1R shot in lab color and made true 16 bit files then it would be all the better, but it doesn't. So while "Plato's Scanner" may be out there somewhere, and maybe it's just a Tango...I have to use what's in front of me. For me, just from a purely visual and aesthetic space, I am quite happy with the output I'm getting.
Yes, exactly! It's probably not the pure technician's point of view, but when I see a picture in any form it doesn't really look like the real thing in so many different ways that getting nitpicky about color values being slightly off just seems like so much [can't find family-friendly word to go here]. I'm sure some people could argue all day about it just for the joy of enlightening us to their own brilliance . . . I can't get into that, but I'm sure someone is going to do it soon.
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
Bookmarks